John Bugay and Beggars All Website - How to Deal with His Anti-Catholicism

Has anyone visited here?

beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/

He brings up a point about Mary not deserving such a high place of honor (not sure where it is on the site) because of Matthew 12:46-50. Anyone know how to refute this?

Thanks.

If that paragraph discredits Mary, what does that say about Jesus’ disrespect toward Mary and the Commandment to “Honor your father and your mother”?

I dont think hes disrespectin a commandment as much as making it a point that we are all equal in Christ Jesus.

How wonderfully simplistic…It reminds me of NT Wright’s detailed, panstaking exegesis on fath and works, then saying “but I don’t believe in purgatory, because of the thief on the cross.” It’s like, come on, dude.

Matthew 12:46-50: While he was still speaking to the crowds, his mother and his brothers appeared outside, wishing to speak with him.(Someone told him, “Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, asking to speak with you.”) But he said in reply to the one who told him, “Who is my mother? Who are my brothers?” And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my heavenly Father is my brother, and sister, and mother.”

Who has done the will of God more completely than the handmaiden of the Lord? It is not hard to understand why Jesus is shown repeatedly distancing himself from his family in the Gospels. He is essentially trying to reframe their understanding of our earthly ties to a more transcendent understanding of the Divine Family, and the nature of himself, who is sent to all nations. A similar distancing can be seen in the mystery of Jesus as a boy in the Temple. He must gently let his mother know who she is and who he is in relation to God.

If the verse had ended with this: “Here are my mother and my brothers,” then perhaps one could sense more of a tone of hostility. However, it continues with the qualifying clause “For whoever does the will of my heavenly Father is my brother, and sister, and mother.” So since the qualifying clause clarifies the meaning of the statement, the question is not “did the statement exclude Mary,” but “did the qualifying clause exclude Mary.” It can be safely stated, based off of the Magnificat, that Mary has preeminently fulfilled the will of God, and so actually fulfills the qualifying clause in a beautiful way.

I would argue that Jesus is trying to reframe how the crowd views family, but also reframe how Mary should view her importance in Jesus’ life. It is not so much “Mary, you are not important.” It is rather “Mary, this is *why *you are important. This is also why *they *are important.” In it’s own way, this view actually gives great credence to the Catholic understanding of Mary as a spiritual mother, especially when taken in conjuction with John 19, Rev 12, and Gen 3:15.

Another passage with a similar message:

Luke 11:27-28: While he was speaking, a woman from the crowd called out and said to him, “Blessed is the womb that carried you and the breasts at which you nursed.” He replied, “Rather, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.”

Did Mary hear the word of God and observe it? Yes. Does this statement exclude Mary? No. In fact, by this definition, it calls her blessed. What it reframes, is *why *Mary is blessed.

A helpful passage for further clarifying this common them is the following:

Matthew 11:11: Amen, I say to you, among those born of women there has been none greater than John the Baptist; yet the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

This common theme of the superlative excellence of the New Covenant is also going to affect how we understand human ties and standards of greatness. Mary is great because of the superlative Grace bestowed on her in the New Covenant, not merely because she is Jesus’ earthly mother.

I would bring up the BVM being crowned in Heaven in Revelation Chapter 12. Additionally Jesus is a King in the line of David. A Davidic king raised not one of their wives as queen but his mother.

Hi folks. Since someone was kind enough to let me know that my name is mentioned here, I thought I'd drop by and say hi.

The original question here was really something that had come up in another thread, which begins here:

beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/01/why-roman-doctrines-cant-be-compared.html

And here's a fuller look at why I think the way I do about Mary:

beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/01/why-roman-doctrines-cant-be-compared.html?showComment=1296260320647#c5104587040885049555

Keep in mind again that the topic of Mary was really just something that came up much further down the thread.

Stop by and visit, and please feel free to ask any questions you might have. I promise we don't bite.

:)

Hi, John! Glad you could drop by.

I'm sure you'll find that we don't bite, either! :)

Welcome to the forums John!

From your link:

some Protestant doctrines are closer to Catholic doctrines than they are among themselves. This cannot be

No it is so. Some are closer to Catholic understanding than other Protestant understanding. One example, the Lutheran understanding of communion is far closer to the Catholic understanding than the Baptist understanding. Same with the Lutheran belief on Baptism. Anglicans too, for the most part. I say for the most part because you can’t really pin their beliefs down. As a popular Anglo-Catholic on these forums likes to say Anglicans are a, “motley crew” :wink:

In the model showing the Churches of the Reformation, salvation is by Christ alone.

You have painted with such a broad brush to show that the Protestant churches have this in common that you could include the Catholic Church as a “Reformation Church” :eek:

Catholics too believe in salvation by Christ alone; " And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved" Acts 4:12

Any differences that existed among these churches were to be found not in the core doctrines, but in some of the peripheral ones.

This is subjective becaue you are deciding what is and isn’t “peripheral” and what is “core”. The Bible speaks of no such thing. Go read the discourse between Martin Luther and Zwingli regarding communion and then try telling me these differences were just “peripheral”. You’re stretching to confirm your original premise which, as I showed you, is flawed.

For the Protestant, there is one object of faith (fides quae): Christ alone. The Protestant acknowledges that there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus… Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

Again, so do Catholics.

You cannot pick and choose among Roman Catholic doctrines on things. You have to swallow the thing whole.

Hmm interesting. So a Protestant can “choose” to reject the divinity of Christ and still be considered in your “circle” of Protestantism? No? Can’t have it both ways John.

God bless you John

Some are closer to Catholic understanding than other Protestant understanding.

I am not talking about “understanding” though; I am talking about doctrines. And Roman doctrines must be accepted or rejected “whole cloth.”

Catholics too believe in salvation by Christ alone; " And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved" Acts 4:12

This is not true; a Roman Catholic may not reject the Marian dogmas, as I have done, and still be saved. It is not “Christ alone” in this sense. You have to swallow the whole thing.

This is subjective becaue you are deciding what is and isn’t “peripheral” and what is “core”. The Bible speaks of no such thing. Go read the discourse between Martin Luther and Zwingli regarding communion and then try telling me these differences were just “peripheral”. You’re stretching to confirm your original premise which, as I showed you, is flawed.

Luther and Zwingli are not the “rule of faith.” It’s true they became heated over this issue. But in the scheme of things, it is not a deal-breaker in the same way as, for example, my rejecting the Marian dogmas is a dealbreaker on my own salvation. Of course, rejecting the Marian dogmas means rejecting the authority that put them in place.

Rome has done an about-face and has now admitted all to salvation, “in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims,” those who, “moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.”

All of these may be saved. But only those who “refuse to remain” in the Roman Catholic Church “could not be saved”.

In my person, I have rejected all of this. We’ll see where it gets me, as I cling to “Christ alone.”

So a Protestant can “choose” to reject the divinity of Christ and still be considered in your “circle” of Protestantism? No? Can’t have it both ways John.

That’s not what I’m saying at all. Certainly there are those who have strayed and walked away from those core doctrines. But those core doctrines exist; they are clearly identifieable in Scripture, and what I’m saying is that, there is a great deal of cohesiveness among those Protestants who do hold to those core doctrines.

Another question for those of you who think I am “anti-Catholic”: Have you read the things I’ve written, or are you believing gossip and innuendo about me? Am I really “anti-Catholic,” or am I “pro-Truth”?

This is an important question, and Roman Catholics should be familiar with such nuance of language, insofar as they are involved in being painted as “anti-abortion” or even “anti-women’s-rights,” when you all know how to discern what it is that you are saying.

[quote="John_Bugay, post:9, topic:227627"]
I am not talking about "understanding" though; I am talking about doctrines. And Roman doctrines must be accepted or rejected "whole cloth."

[/quote]

They are Catholic....... Lutherans and Lutheran because they accept Lutheran beliefs. Catholics accept Catholic beliefs.

This is not true; a Roman Catholic may not reject the Marian dogmas, as I have done, and still be saved. It is not "Christ alone" in this sense. You have to swallow the whole thing.

Nope, it is Christ alone. It doesn't change just because you don't want it to be so:

620 Our salvation flows from God's initiative of love for us, because "he loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins" (I Jn 4:10). "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself" (2 Cor 5:19).

621 Jesus freely offered himself for our salvation. Beforehand, during the Last Supper, he both symbolized this offering and made it really present: "This is my body which is given for you" (Lk 22:19).

622 The redemption won by Christ consists in this, that he came "to give his life as a ransom for many" (Mt 20:28), that is, he "loved [his own] to the end" (Jn 13:1), so that they might be "ransomed from the futile ways inherited from [their] fathers" (I Pt 1:18).

Luther and Zwingli are not the "rule of faith."

Of course it's not to you because your "rule of faith" is subjective and whatever you want it to be. Show me where in the Bible this "rule of faith" can be found or I will have to reject it as a "tradition of men". Since Luther and Zwingli don't fit nicely into your example, they don't count. My point was "core" and "peripheral" beliefs was something completely made up by you. Lutherans would say that belief in the Real Presence of Christ in their communion is a "core" belief. Your subjective labeling doesn't change that. What about pre-destination? The different end times beliefs? The importance of these issues change depending on the Prtoestant you are talking to. My Fundamentalist father-in-law will not break bread with those who fall on the otherside of these issues and neither will any of those at his church.

It's true they became heated over this issue. But in the scheme of things, it is not a deal-breaker in the same way as

Have you read the discourse? Luther called Zwingli the pawn of the devil for rejecting this belief. Tell me again how this wasn't a deal breaker to Lutheran? Luther didn't consider Zwingli and his follower Christian over this. I would say that it being a "heated issue" is an understatement.

In my person, I have rejected all of this. We'll see where it gets me, as I cling to "Christ alone."

From a Catholic perspective this is consistent with the Bible:

"He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me." Lk 10:16

That's not what I'm saying at all.

Sure it is. You're saying Catholics are not free to choose and or reject their, I'll use your word, "core" doctrines. Fine I will grant you that, but then either are Protestants who have decided what the "core" doctrines are (depending on the Protestant because there is no agreement on what the "core" doctrines are). Unless of course your position is that the divinity of Christ is not a "core" doctrine..... You're not suggesting that are you?

Certainly there are those who have strayed and walked away from those core doctrines.

But those core doctrines exist; they are clearly identifieable in Scripture

Book, chapter, verse for these the "core" doctrines? I am aware of commands to be of "one mind" and "one faith" but I have never come across; "here are the things you can disagree on but you must believe these".

and what I'm saying is that, there is a great deal of cohesiveness among those Protestants who do hold to those core doctrines.

I disagree. There is no such thing as an agreed upon list of the "core" beliefs in Protestantism. Even the Reformation ideas of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide are cause for division. For instance, the Lutheran understanding of Sola Scriptura is far different than the modern American Protestant ideal:

modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var1=ArtRead&var2=19&var3=main

Your premise is faulty and is futher undermind by these subjective "core" beliefs that you have decided on. The "core" beliefs are different depending on the Protestant you talk to so you could say the "core" beliefs are just another area where Protestants do not agree with eachother.

God bless you John!

I would not say that you are anti-Catholic. You are definitely anti-what you think the Church is but your understanding of that is different than the Catholic Church. There is much ignorance which is wrong and leads to wrongs.

Have you read the things I’ve written, or are you believing gossip and innuendo about me? Am I really “anti-Catholic,” or am I “pro-Truth”?

I’ve read some of your writings. If you were “pro-truth” you would take the time to learn the actual Catholic positions (for example you think Catholics don’t believe we are saved through Christ :eek:"). Seeing though as you are here now, I see that perhaps you are going about this?

This is an important question, and Roman Catholics should be familiar with such nuance of language, insofar as they are involved in being painted as “anti-abortion” or even “anti-women’s-rights,”

Anti-women’s rights? I have never met a Catholic who is anti-women’s rights. Giving a women the “right” to kill their child and being against that isn’t being anti-women’s rights.

God bless you John

Some more for you to ponder John:

CHAPTER VIII.
In what manner it is to be understood, that the impious is justified by faith, and gratuitously.

And whereas the Apostle saith, that man is justified by faith and freely, those words are to be understood in that sense which the perpetual consent of the Catholic Church hath held and expressed; to wit, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation, and the root of all Justification; without which it is impossible to please God, and to come unto the fellowship of His sons: but we are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which precede justification-whether faith or works-merit the grace itself of justification. For, if it be a grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace.

Council of Trent Session 6

God bless you

RC, interesting that you can so confidently say that I don’t understand “the Church,” given that I wa Roman Catholic for most of my life. What was it they were teaching me?

I saw your citation from Trent. What that gives with one hand, it takes away with another.

Let’s do a little thought experiment. Let’s say I wish to continue to remain Roman Catholic, on the ground of faith alone in Christ alone. I reject the Marian dogmas, on the ground that they are neither biblical nor historical. And to do so, further, I reject the papal authority which is supposedly necessary to articulate such dogmas.

Where does that leave me? Remember, I have faith alone in Christ alone.

Not sure what this has to do with anything. I was agnostic borderline atheist before converting, does this make me the know all and end all of those beliefs? Based of your writings you were poorly catechized.

Let’s do a little thought experiment.

How about you answer my objections to your premise? Where were these “core” doctrines you were talking about outlined in the Bible? How come Luther would not let the “devil” Zwingli speak in his Church because of his understanding on communion? Why didn’t Luther consider Zwingli’s followers Christian for not accepting, what you think, are “peripheral” beliefs? How come you glance over the major differences within Protestantism by creating these subjective “core” and “peripheral” beliefs only to focus on your differences with Catholicism? From your writing I can see you want Protestantism (mainly Reformation thought) to be this united rallying call against Catholicism but it isn’t so. There are major differences within Protestantism over major (core) doctrines which go back to the Reformation.

Let’s say I wish to continue to remain Roman Catholic, on the ground of faith alone in Christ alone. I reject the Marian dogmas, on the ground that they are neither biblical nor historical. And to do so, further, I reject the papal authority which is supposedly necessary to articulate such dogmas.

I won’t play your “what if” game. What you posted above is about as sensical as me saying I want to remain a Christian but reject Christ’s divinity, His redemptive sacrafice and His ministry. Christians accept Christian beliefs. Catholics (who are Christian) accept Catholic beliefs. This isn’t that hard. Lutherans accept Lutheran beliefs. Baptist, Baptist beliefs. Methodist, Methodist beliefs. Your premise is that, because Catholics accept Catholic beliefs, that means that there arn’t Protestnat beliefs that are closer to Catholicism than other Protestants. The one has nothing to do with the other. There are many Lutheran beliefs that are far closer to Catholicism than to Baptist. Do you have anything else to defend your premise? Arminians vs Calvinist? Symbolic vs Real presence in communion? Sola Scriptura? Baptism? Etc. Can you really suggest that there is unity here?

This “rule of faith” is subjective, made up and unbiblical. A “tradition of men” if you will.You have further used it to support your premise. You premise is faulty and your support of it is faulty too.

Can you defend your premise, or is it just as I thought?

God bless you John

Welcome to the Forums, John Bugay!

I hope that you will be treated with all charity while you’re here! And may you not leave before you’re Catholic. :slight_smile:

In Christ,
Pete

Here John please take the time to read through some of these articles from a Protestant church about Pentecostalism (particularly the article about the Pentecostal "spirit" being "satanic" :eek:). Then explain to me again how these Protestants believe these are "peripheral" isues.

openairexpositor.blogspot.com/

As always John, may God bless you. I do hope that you decide to stay around. One this forum would be dull without knowledgable Protestant brothers and sisters plus I really do think your understanding of Catholicism would benefit greatly.

I can’t judge John’s heart. But his words from his blog, as I understand them, are definitely anti-catholic ( or at least anti- his perception of catholicism )

quote from his blog, and the link

"Of course, there are some of us, many of us, who are rejecting Rome because of its ungodly doctrines "

beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/01/world-magazine-reports-mass-exodus-from.html

The quoted line is the last line of the post body before the comments section.

If this line can be taken in any other way other than anti-catholic, I would like to hear such an explanation.
A Prayer for John, and all of us:

Oh my Jesus forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell, and lead all souls to heaven, especially those most in need of thy mercy.

Dear John: As you will recall, there is a distinction in the word “reject.” Let us imagine that the beliefs about the Blessed Virgin and papal authority trouble you, but you take Christ’s exhoration to unity so seriously that you must remain in unity with the Catholic Church. As a Catholic, if your conscience bothered you about it, you might see your confessor, and be told to pray for wisdom on the matters.

If you said to yourself, “These dogmas seem illogical to me, and I cannot accept them. But, I submit to the authority of the Church, and await possible enlightenment later.” You would be in good standing.

On the other hand, if you taught a contrary message openly, or if you openly denied the Church’s authority to teach, that would be different.

There is an old practical difference between the way Catholics and some Protestants perceive schism. Maybe it goes back to popular understanding of Martin Luther’s (I always want to call him Father Martin!) use of the term faith, or “confidence” in a uniquely subjective way. I am not insisting that Luther always meant it that way, but that he was perceived to mean it that way (for example, his famous statements about how he could discern which books of the Bible were canonical). For Catholics, the focus is more on the obedience aspect, and the objective acceptance of authority. For some Protestants, the focus remains, as with Luther, on the subjective faith or confidence in the doctrine.

Cheers!

Hello, I’m new to Catholic.com but have been reading for many years. I’ve been corresponding with John on Beggars All for a few weeks now. While he has been cordial to me on a personal level, he is venomously anti-Catholic.

John has hardened his heart to Catholic teaching as he and I have been discussing Scripture and the Catholic understanding of it on his site since December. I do believe that with God’s help, we can slowly reveal the truth to John and gradually break through the hardness.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.