Textbook Anti-Catholic Sophistry Tactics
[originally posted on 12-7-22 on Facebook; slight changes added on 12-26-22]
Lucas Banzoli is a very active Brazilian anti-Catholic polemicist, who holds to basically a Seventh-Day Adventist theology, whereby there is no such thing as a soul that consciously exists outside of a body, and no hell (soul sleep and annihilationism). This leads him to a Christology which is deficient and heterodox in terms of Christ’s human nature after His death. He has a Master’s degree in theology, a degree and postgraduate work in history, a license in letters, and is a history teacher, author of 25 books, as well as blogmaster (but now inactive) for six blogs. He’s active on YouTube.
This is my 55th refutation of Banzoli’s writings. For almost half a year (5-25-22 to 11-12-22) he didn’t write one single word in reply. Why? He says it’s because my articles are “without exception poor, superficial and weak . . . only a severely cognitively impaired person would be inclined to take” them “seriously.” Despite this childish rationalizing, he remarkably concluded at length that my refutations are so “entertaining” that he will “make a point of rebutting” them “one by one.” I disposed of his ubiquitous slanderous insults in Facebook posts dated 11-13-22, 11-15-22, 11-23-22, and 12-22-22. I will be ignoring them henceforth, and I thank him for so many blessings (Matthew 5:11-12).
Google Translate is utilized to render Lucas’ Portugese into English. Occasionally I slightly modify clearly inadequate translations, so that his words will read more smoothly and meaningfully in English. His words will be in blue. Words from my article that he was “critiquing” will be in green.
*****
“Lyin’ Lucas” Banzoli wrote an article is entitled, “Was Mary immaculate, sinless and the greatest creature that ever lived? (Reply to Dave Armstrong)” [12-7-22]. It’s so ridiculous that it deserves no full response. But I take this opportunity to (one last time) expose some of his endless and boorish sophistical methods: the usual, typical, never-varying anti-Catholic methodology in dealing with Catholicism.
Even if it takes a hundred years, I will make a point of responding to my newest fan’s articles one by one. . . . for Dave and many other papists, just say this and you are automatically accused of “hating” Mary . . . it is the Protestant who “hates” Mary, not the papist who idolizes her in a way that the Bible never refers to her. That’s why, if Dave ever responds to this article, it will be with more victimization and emotional attacks, not exegesis, of which he has none.
*
I specifically denied that I believe Banzoli “hates” Mary near the beginning of my article. He completely ignores that. I wrote:
*
I didn’t (and don’t) claim that Protestants “hate” Mary. Nor do I think that most Catholics believe this (though there certainly are some). I contend that they simply don’t understand the importance and crucial nature of Mariology in the overall framework of Christianity. They haven’t been properly taught. Their theological formation was deficient and insufficient. They have become spiritually impoverished or stunted. This wasn’t true — I’m delighted to report — of the original Protestants. It crept in later, as a result of the corrosion of early manifestations of cynical, skeptical theological liberalism.
*
Accordingly, I chose the word “denigration” to describe Lucas’ stated opinions. He regards the Blessed Virgin Mary as far “lower” in significance and holiness than she actually is. Although he does (happily) concede several points about her blessedness (even singular blessedness), due to her being the mother of Jesus, he doesn’t present her as the Bible does (sinless).
*
If in fact Catholics believed that Mary was a “goddess” then surely the term would appear in official [magisterial] Catholic documents somewhere. But of course it does not. If Lucas or any Protestant denies that, let them produce the documented evidence. “Put up or shut up!” Best wishes in that endeavor!
*
I never spoke of “official magisterial documents” that declare Mary a goddess. I talked about her being treated like a goddess by most Catholics, which is quite different. . . . We don’t need a paragraph in the catechism that expressly says “Mary is a goddess and we worship her”; we need only see how it is dealt with in practice, which in no way differs at all from any heathen worshiping his gods and goddesses. . . .
*
In short, the Roman Church does not really write with all the letters in an “official magisterial document” that “Mary is a goddess and needs to be worshipped”, but she exalts those who refer to her, beatifies the most idolatrous beings that ever existed , recommends the reading of these idolatrous books, recognizes terrifyingly idolatrous Marian “apparitions” and does absolutely nothing to curb the immense wave of idolatry among lay Catholics who do not miss the first opportunity to prostrate themselves before a piece of wood and stone. Of course, with all this, an “official magisterial document” is not even necessary – as if drawing was needed to make things more obvious.
*
This is pathetic. The first rule in all apologetics is to document what a theological opponent believes, from their own words or (especially) official documents. But Banzoli is beyond all that. He has magical powers to see into the hearts of “most” Catholics who treat Mary like a “goddess”: so he says in his omniscience and infinite wisdom. By this criterion of “evidence” anyone can “prove” anything.
*
But then he decides that he will document alleged Mariolatry, from no other than (you guessed it!): St. Alphonsus de Liguori; his book, The Glories of Mary. He cites twenty passages from it. This is perhaps the anti-Catholics’ favorite Catholic book. They love it. The only problem is: they only cite the parts about Mary. They virtually never cite what the same book says over and over about the primacy of Jesus as God, not Mary as a supposed goddess. I dealt with this at length over twenty years ago now:
*
*
If that’s not enough, I have similar papers about
St. Louis de Montfort (2009) — whom Banzoli mentions and says is
“even more scandalous” and
“more idolatrous than Liguori” — , and
St. Maximilian Kolbe (2010).
*
Mary was simply exceptionally holy: so much so that she was holier than any other human being created: and this as a result of God performing a special miracle of removing original sin from her at conception.
*
Dave only claims this, without proving the point anywhere in the article . . .
*
I did by citing no less than six of my articles:
*
*
Banzoli then pulls out many of the usual examples of “grace” regarding others, that I dealt with way back in 2004 . . . none of them is remotely like what we have in Luke 1:28. He pulls out “all have sinned . . .” Yep;
I dealt with that in 1996. He mentions Revelation 12. I’ve written
five or six articles just about that, in addition to book material.
*
It is curious that we have not seen a single one of these “eminently biblical reasons” throughout Dave’s article – perhaps he is keeping an ace up his sleeve and waiting for the opportune moment to show us this bombastic text, which until today no one has ever seen. In the entire article, the only biblical text cited is the one calling Mary “blessed,” which Dave tortures to the point of turning it into a declaration of sinlessness and superiority over all of God’s creatures. This is the level of Catholic apologetics when it ventures to try to appear “biblical.”
*
I guess Banzoli has never heard of a “link”: or if he has, he doesn’t know how to click on it and go to another page online. He needs to learn that soon. I don’t repeat myself unnecessarily if I’ve already written about something. I simply link to it.
*
Perhaps that is why many Catholics literally see her as a kind of deity – just like the words of Alphonsus de Liguori . . . They pay lip service to “veneration,” but in practice, everything they do is indistinguishable from true worship . . . Only a completely alienated or ill-intentioned person would not be able to understand how Mary has a place of primacy in Catholicism that goes far beyond Christ – whether we call it “worship” or not.
*
No proof; just the idiotic “many” or “most” Catholics supposedly believe Mary is a goddess. This is beneath contempt. It’s simply pure bigotry towards and prejudice against Catholics.
*
***
Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!
***
Photo credit: The Ghent Altarpiece: Virgin Mary (detail; bet. 1426-1429), by Jan van Eyck (c. 1390-1441) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]
***
Summary: Anti-Catholic Brazilian polemicist Lucas Banzoli pulls out all the stops in inventing a warped, twisted, caricatured “Mary”. I dismantle his myths one-by-one.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In