EXPOSING RODEMONIAN DECEPTIONS
Mr. Gerry Soliman, owner of the blog Solutions Finder Apologetics (now) with three (3) followers (my congratulations!), has been in a habit of finding contradictions between Catholic apologists. Although he is eventually proven wrong, he would just shrug his soldier and move on to the next “contradiction.” With a thick face of a pachyderm, Mr. Soliman never had the civility or decency to admit his mistake. Perhaps he thinks that he is infallible after all.
In his article A Short Note on Mediatorship, available at http://solutions-finder.blogspot.com/2010/08/short-note-on-mediatorship.html, I am thankful that Mr. Gerry Soliman has categorically admitted:
“We all know that Roman Catholics consider as Mary as Mediatrix and that in no way this title is in conflict with the one mediatorship of Christ in 1st Timothy 2:5.”
This is great news to me. Mr. Soliman candidly admitted (at last) that he knows that Mary’s title of Mediatrix in no way conflicts with the one mediatorship of Christ in 1 Timothy 2:5. If that is so, there is really no reason for him to bark against Mary’s title. After all, it does not conflict with Christ’s one mediatorship. At least, Mr. Soliman and I are in full agreement on this part.
(from Gerald John P. Soliman's Facebook account)
Mr. Gerry Soliman called me “a Marian dogma defender.” I thank him for honoring me thus. However, I wish to point out something. In my article that Mr. Soliman quoted, I was explaining Mary’s title of “Mediatrix” – and as all Catholics know, Mediatrix is not a dogma of the Catholic Church! So here it is clear that Mr. Gerry Soliman’s knowledge of Catholic teaching on Mary is almost totally bereft and his research is once again proven to be nil. This, again, goes into the credibility and competence of Mr. Soliman as a critic of Catholic Mariology.
Like a true cockfighter, Mr. Soliman engaged in his favorite past time by pitting me (again) with Rev. Fr. Abraham P. Arganiosa, CRS. He claimed, falsely, that my use of “primary” mediator in reference to Christ conflicts with Fr. Arganiosa’s use of “only mediator.” In glee, Mr. Soliman asked, “So what's it gonna be, primary mediator or only mediator?”
It’s gonna be that Mr. Gerry Soliman will be exposed once more for his shallowness and utter lack of reading comprehension. It’s gonna be that Mr. Soliman’s intellectual dishonesty, deception and misrepresentation will be revealed anew - for the nth time.
This is what Mr. Soliman quoted from me:
“I already explained in my blog that the Greek word for “one” used in 2 Timothy 2:5 is heis and not monos. Monos signifies “only” in the sense of exclusive uniqueness. On the other hand, heis is “one” in the sense of “sameness” of function. My reading of Paul’s second letter to Timothy is that the writer of the epistle is clearly aware of the distinction between monos and heis. Paul uses monos in every other instance of “one” in his epistle in order to signify uniqueness but uses instead heis only in this passage.
I believe that the Catholic exegesis of 2 Timothy 2:5 is the correct one. Jesus Christ is the “one” mediator between God and man in the sense of being the primary mediator and all other mediators participate in His one mediation.”
The foregoing, according to Mr. Soliman, conflicts with Fr. Arganiosa’s statement that
And to repeat Soliman’s taunt: “So what's it gonna be, primary mediator or only mediator?”
Mr. Soliman is not alone in this accusation. He is joined by his clone, the late Franklin Li of the now busted Papal Busters blog: “The view of Mary as the mediator. According to Atty. Marwil Llasos, Mary is a secondary co-mediator [I wonder if I ever used the expression “secondary co-mediator” in my article – ed.]. However according to Abraham Arganiosa, Jesus is the only mediator.” Readers may attempt to dig Franklin Li’s remains here:
Lest the readers be mislead by the cunning Rodemonian deception, I invite them to read my and Fr. Arganiosa’s articles in toto.
Let me now invite your attention to just a few things.
First, Fr. Arganiosa’s article is about the Papacy, specifically with St. Peter being the First Pope. In the quote yanked by Mr. Soliman from Fr. Arganiosa’s article, Fr. Arganiosa is responding to the accusation of blasphemy for the Pope to use the title “Pontifex Maximus” because according to the accuser “Pontifex Maximus” is “a name of blasphemy for a man to take, and Peter never saw himself as such. Jesus Christ is the only Bridge Maker between earth and heaven. John 1:51.” Rev. Fr. Abraham P. Arganiosa, CRS emphatically replied:
“JESUS IS THE ONLY MEDIATOR BETWEEN GOD AND MAN. THAT IS WHY WE DO NOT TEACH THAT THE POPE IS A MEDIATOR BETWEEN GOD AND MAN. WE CALL THE POPE VICAR OF CHRIST WHICH MEANS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF CHRIST AS PETER WAS AFTER THE ASCENSION OF THE LORD JESUS. WE NEVER CALL THE POPE A 'BRIDGE'. PLEASE STOP SINGING 'BRIDGE OVER TROUBLED WATER' IN YOUR MIND SO THAT YOUR DELUSIONS WILL CEASE.”
I never opposed or contradicted that statement of Fr. Arganiosa. In fact, I also wrote an article supporting and supplementing Fr. Arganiosa’s article which may be found here:
What Mr. Soliman is hiding from his readers is the fact that I said:
“Obviously, Peter did not accept the title "Pontifex Maximus" because it was then used by the Roman Emperors at that time. It was only accepted by the Bishops of Rome after Constantine parted with it, thereby acknowledging the authority of the Bishop of Rome as Vicar of Christ, the Mediator between God and Man (1 Tim. 2:5). The acceptance of this title by the Pope was symbolic of the victory and triumph of Christianity over the pagan Roman Empire.”
Note that Fr. Arganiosa’s statement that “Jesus is the only Mediator between God and Man” is a direct reference from 1 Timothy 2:5, which is also the same Bible verse I quoted. It is plain deception for Mr. Soliman for not having pointed that out. Clearly, Mr. Soliman’s purpose is not to arrive at the truth, rather to deceive and mislead many by his gross misrepresentation.
Let’s now get this issue over and done with.
I did use the expression “primary mediator” in a sense that all other “mediators” participate in the “one” mediation of the God-Man Jesus Christ. Now, the question is: Did I deny that Christ is the “one” or only Mediator between God and Man according to 1 Timothy 2:5? I challenge Mr. Soliman to come out with a single shred of proof that I am denying Our Lord Jesus Christ as the “one” Mediator between God and Man (1 Tim. 2:5). Did I ever say or believe that Jesus is not the one Mediator between God and Man? I wish Mr. Gerry Soliman could present proof on that.
If I ever denied that Jesus is the “one” Mediator between God and man – and if I ever said or believed that Jesus is not what 1 Timothy 2:5 claims He is, then that’s the time that I would be guilty of contradicting not only Fr. Abraham Arganiosa and Catholic teaching, but also God’s inspired Word in 1 Timothy 2:5.
I am sure (or at least expect) that Mr. Soliman has read my entire article. I challenge him now to show to me the statement that I denied that Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is the one and only Mediator between God and Man. If he couldn’t, then he is guilty of false accusation, misrepresentation and deception for which he must apologize and repent from.
In my article, I expressed that:
“The Catholic Church, along with 1 Timothy 2:5, teaches and proclaims that Jesus is the “one mediator between God and man.” The issue is: what is meant by “one” in 1 Timothy 2:5? We need to know what God’s inspired word means by “one” in the passage.”
It is very clear, perhaps not to Gerry Soliman (because of his faulty reading comprehension as usual), that the Catholic Church to which I belong teaches and proclaims that Jesus Christ is the “one Mediator between God and man” based on 1 Timothy 2:5. I have not contradicted Fr. Arganiosa, the Catholic Church or the Bible because we are one in teaching and proclaiming that Jesus is “one Mediator between God and man.”
What about my use of “primary mediator”? It is also clear in the above-quoted that statement that I was concerned about what the Bible means by “one” in 1 Timothy 2:5. That’s why I said, citing exegetes, that “I believe that the Catholic exegesis of 2 Timothy 2:5 is the correct one. Jesus Christ is the “one” mediator between God and man in the sense of being the primary mediator and all other mediators participate in His one mediation.”
I don’t understand why Mr. Soliman doesn’t get it. I fear that his anti-Catholic bias has gotten into the way of correct thinking and reading comprehension.
To stress anew, I made a follow up statement, thus:
"We already explained that the Greek word used for “one” in the passage does not mean exclusivity but admits of participation. Exegete Manuel Miguens argues that 1 Timothy 2:5 does not talk of exclusivity of mediation. According to him, the passage is better translated: “There is one and the same God [for all], there is also one and the same mediator for all” [Manuel Miguens, Mary “The Servant of the Lord”: An Ecumenical Proposal (Boston: Daughters of St. Paul, 1978) p. 168-170]. Thus, the passage is not intended to rule out other mediators."
Remember: “context, context and still more context,” Mr. Soliman. How could you ever forget that?
On the other hand, for Mr. Gerry Soliman to successfully prove based on his allegation that Fr. Abraham Arganiosa contradicted my use of “primary mediator,” he must present a statement from Fr. Arganiosa that he is opposed to my explanation of “one” mediator in 1 Timothy 2:5 in the concept of “primary mediator.” If he can’t, then his allegation that Fr. Arganiosa and I contradicted each other once again falls flat on his face. It is another thud.