Thursday, October 28, 2010

"Enemy's Enemy": Catholic Basher John Bugay so Clueless as to Utilize Sedevacantists in Order to Contend that Catholicism is "Pantheist"


[words of John Bugay will be in blue; of "Viisaus" in red]

The notoriously dense and anti-Catholic Boors All blog is a continual storehouse of ignorance and folly with regard to its "understanding" (ha ha!) of Catholicism. Anything goes over there. It just gets more and more ridiculous (complete with ubiquitous juvenile references to "Ratzinger"). Does someone want to see a textbook example of the anti-Catholic mentality? Here is it is from Bugay:

On top of that, the papacy as a concept is fundamentally at odds with Christ, putting itself in the place of Christ on earth. This in itself is a wickedness. And further, it says that Christ himself perpetrated this. This is on top of Rome's having anathematized the Gospel at Trent. Roman Catholicism has officially cut itself off from true Christianity. This is not to say that there are no Roman Catholics who are Christians. But officially, the religion has gone off the rails. If you are not convinced that there is a fundamental difference between Roman Catholicism and every other orthodox Christianity, the I'd recommend that you go spend some time visiting with the folks from Called to Communion. I'm sure you will perceive the difference. (10-26-10)

I noted recently how Bugay jumps on every liberal historian bandwagon in the service of bashing Catholicism, in my paper, Liberal Catholic Historians: Anti-Catholic John Bugay Loves Them for His Polemical Purposes.

Now Bugay has gone to the other extreme, in his latest post, entitled, The Pantheism of Roman Catholicism. He is drawing from some fool combox contributor who goes by "Viisaus" (safely anonymous, with no profile information available, as usual). In one of his combox rants, he cites a page from the wacko ultra-traditionalist website, Tradition in Action (run by Atila Sinke GuimarĂ£es, who is a sedevacantist: i.e., a person who believes there is no valid pope at the present time), in confirmation of his views. Bugay then sops that up and features it in his new post. He doesn't care -- couldn't care less -- where any information comes from, as long as it bashes the Catholic Church. So he writes in the new post:

C.S. Lewis noted some time ago that in the end, only Christianity stood against pantheism. Well, our friend Viisaus posted a whole bunch of items yesterday in the comments that illustrated the influence that pantheism has in the Roman church:
In another post, "Viisaus" cites another sedevacantist, Thomas A. Droleskey, from the radtrad theologically brain-dead site, Christ or Chaos. That's fine! Anything goes! Why should anyone care about citing a sane, rational person in support of one's views?!

Bugay in his post approvingly quotes Viisaus:
. . . one of the things I have noticed in my reading of Ratzinger is that he is functionally a pantheist. This is the unity that he desires. That is, we all get "fused" into God -- I believe that is the term he used in Called to Communion. . . . the RCC would eventually respond to the modernist challenge: by pantheistic pandering. Taylor noticed how the Newmanian doctrine of development had an inherently "evolutionist" flavor, and could even foresee the rise of pantheist Jesuits like Teilhard de Chardin: . . . One really does not even need to dig very deep to see the brazen pantheistic-evolutionist attitudes of the modern Vatican.

Bugay compliments his profound "source":

I'd like to say, Viisaus, thanks for what you add here.

All in a day's work over at Boors All! "My enemy's enemy is my friend"! It doesn't matter how ridiculous a source is: it'll be used (and praised by sophists like Bugay) if it is for "The Supreme Cause" (lying about and opposing the Catholic Church). The pope is a pantheist; the Catholic Church teaches pantheism. Right. Who could doubt it, with Bugay and sedevacantist nuts (brought to us by an anonymous blowhard) telling us it is so!?



Adomnan said...

Pantheism? How off the wall. Panentheism, maybe, as in Paul's "in Him we live and move and have our being." (Acts 17:28)

As I said before, Bugay would quote bin Laden with approval if the al-Qaeda chief dissed the Catholic Church.

He's becoming increasingly frantic, snatching at any available stigma to beat a Catholic dogma. Can citations of Jack Chick and Alberto Rivera be far off?

Once you embrace Young Earth Creationism, as Bugay apparently has, you've fluttered into the moonbat cave where all birdbrained notions flourish.

Bugay's animus against the Church is so strong that one wonders if there isn't some personal trauma motivating him that he prefers to keep secret (which is his right, of course).

In any case, he's no longer making arguments. He's simply emoting.

Dave Armstrong said...

I think with this post, Boors All has lost absolutely any shred of credibility whatsoever. It already had precious little, but it's so bad now it is virtually flat earth territory over there: quoting ridiculous sources for an equally outlandish and ridiculous conclusion.

Maroun said...

Hi Dave.
I found these quotes by Martin Luther.“There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads; this one will not admit Baptism; that one rejects the Sacrament of the altar; another places another world between the present one and the day of judgment; some teach that Jesus Christ is not God. There is not an individual, however clownish he may be, who does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Ghost, and who does not put forth as prophecies his ravings and dreams.”

Martin Luther

“I never approved of a schism, nor will I approve of it for all eternity. . . . That the Roman Church is more honored by God than all others is not to be doubted. St, Peter and St. Paul, forty-six Popes, some hundreds of thousands of martyrs, have laid down their lives in its communion, having overcome Hell and the world; so that the eyes of God rest on the Roman church with special favor. Though nowadays everything is in a wretched state, it is no ground for separating from the Church. On the contrary, the worse things are going, the more should we hold close to her, for it is not by separating from the Church that we can make her better. We must not separate from God on account of any work of the devil, nor cease to have fellowship with the children of God who are still abiding in the pale of Rome on account of the multitude of the ungodly. There is no sin, no amount of evil, which should be permitted to dissolve the bond of charity or break the bond of unity of the body. For love can do all things, and nothing is difficult to those who are united.”

Martin Luther to Pope Leo X, January 6, 1519
more than a year after the Ninety-Five Theses
quoted in The Facts about Luther, 356

About the first one,he has caused it himself with his sola scriptura.So what was he complaining about?
And the second,lol.He contradicted himself...But that`s not a surprise from Martin Luther...

Dave Armstrong said...

Luther is a paradoxical mix between tradition and dissent. But at least he maintained a lot of tradition, whereas Calvin ditched most of it.

Cory Tucholski said...

I'm no friend of Roman Catholicism, but if you're going to argue against something, at least do it from orthodox sources. Radtrad or sedevacantists don't represent the mainstream beliefs of Roman Catholicism. This is roughly akin to atheists holding Fred Phelps up as a paragon of Reformed Christianity. I'm sure your friends at Beggar's All would hate it if someone argued against their faith using quotes from Phelps, yet they seem perfectly content to do it to you. That's a pretty big double standard, if you ask me!

Dave Armstrong said...

Exactly, Cory. Thanks for your fairmindedness.

In fact, quite regularly over there, it is stated that hostile sources to Martin Luther, such as the notorious Cochlaeus or Denifle or O'Hare (The Facts About Luther) ought not be used, and that those who utilize them are immediately suspect in the very fact that they are used.

Yet flip it around to a critique of Catholicism, and all of that immediately goes out the window. It's the ubiquitous double standard again.

Someone over there is now arguing in the thread that it is ad hominem to make these observations. They don't get it. They're completely out to sea.

Paul Hoffer said...

It is amazing that these folks can claim that Catholicism is disguised pantheism without citing a single magisterial source for such a claim, rather choosing to pin their assertion on Pope Benedict's admiration of some of the things that Fr. Teilhard de Chardin wrote. What is missing from the BA article is the fact that the Pope has acknowledged that the monitum against de Chardin's writings has never been lifted.

Using Mr. Bugay's faulty logic then, since the Holy Father has favorably cited to some of the things that Fr. Luther has written in his writings, does such favorable quotation makes Pope Benedict XVI a Lutheran too?

To take his logic one step further, if Pope Benedict XVI is a Lutheran because he quotes Luther on occasion and if one combines that with the fact that the "Protestant" Episcopal Church of the USA honors de Chardin with a feast day (April 10) on their liturgical calendar, one could only conclude that the title of his article should have been "The Pantheism of Protestantism."

Thanks Dave for pointing this out!

God bless all!

Dave Armstrong said...

LOL Good one Paul!

Andrew said...

It doesn't bother any of you that your "Holy Father" approvingly cited a man whom your Church sees as a heretic?

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

Good Morning Pope Starshine, Part 2.