Another Koran-kissing moment

[Church_Militant]

It’s easy for some to feel all fuzzy good about this, but think of this…

If a Christian in an Arab country is told to turn to Mecca and pray and he refuses, what does he say when he is told the Pope did it?

Why would anyone refuse to begin with. No one can control where your heart goes in prayer, that’s crazy, and if a Catholic turns to the East (as most Masses used to be done) and prays to Our Lord, the worst that might happen is martyrdom, and where’s the downside of that?

I think too many people here are criticizing His Holiness’ actions without thinking clearly. Just because we Americans have been led by our government, into conflict with some radical Islamic fundamentalists, while some American religious fundamentalists wish to portray all Moslems as “satanic”, or “anti-Christ” in a misguided effort to mix religion and politics (A grave mistake IMO as history shows us. It also smacks of tayloring one’s gospel to political rhetoric in order to manipulate the hearts of their congregations.) I don’t buy into it.

Pope Benedict XVI has displayed incredible courage and charity towards a people who have been difficult to deal with and who have been demonized by many. He has reached out to then in charity and (regardless of the misrepresentations of some anti-Catholics) has shown then Christ in his attitude and behavior.

I believe we could all do to take a lesson from him.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[Church_Militant]

How about if they told your family, wife, children, parents to do it? In your home, in the night or whenever they picked. And you and your family were alone and they were armed?

How would you feel then? Nice and ecumenical?

This is nothing more than hypothetical rhetoric Oldfogey.
Has it happened to anyone here? NO.
Is it likely to? NO again.

 

[valient_Lucy]

How about if they told your family, wife, children, parents to do it? In your home, in the night or whenever they picked. And you and your family were alone and they were armed?

How would you feel then? Nice and ecumenical?

What am I doing? Am I praying in the direction to Mecca, or am I declaring that “There is no God but Allah and Muhammed is His Prophet?”

 

[Church_Militant]

What am I doing? Am I praying in the direction to Mecca, or am I declaring that “There is no God but Allah and Muhammed is His Prophet?”

Yeah, I agree. If someone regardless of religion enjoins me to pray, and I pray as befits my own faith then where is the wrong?
Pax tecum,

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Aren’t we getting a little over-excited and speculative here?

Are we Catholics so caught up with the world’s judgments, reports, media articles etc. that we are just tossed about in our faith?

Benedict did not pray “to” the Muslim Allah. Benedict prayed in a direction which was sacred to Christians some hundreds of years before, and to Jews some *thousands * of years before Mohammed came along. Benedict’s prayers were to the One True God; Muslims themselves believe in the “God of Abraham” and if indeed they are good, righteous and true people, they may be saved through the Catholic Church, as has been the case since the Resurrection for all.

So one, ten, a thousand or ten million Muslims ‘might’ consider this a weak gesture?

So what? what does it matter what they ‘think’ of that or any other action? It is not the ‘perception’ of an action as being good or bad, weak or strong, that matters-- it is whether the action is truly good or evil. For Benedict, acting as the Vicar of Christ, his own prayerful intentions dictated this action. On matters of faith and morals, I remind you, we Catholics firmly believe that the Pope is protected from error.

Since most arguing against the Holy Father in these threads are arguing from a ‘faith and morals’ base and finding the Pope ‘lacking’–your choice is clear.

Either the Pope has erred, in which case the gates of hell have not withstood the church, and all Christianity is a lie. …

Or he has not erred, in which case all the breathless media reportings, and all the tired old speculations, and all the shrill invective, don’t mean a thing.

So either you trust in the Holy Father and Catholicism/Christianity, in the guidance of the Holy Spirit, in the words of the Eternal Word and the Triune God. . .

or you don’t.

If you do, then you need do only what you normally do–pray unceasingly, do good, love God and love your neighbor, follow the teachings of the Church.

If you don’t, my prayers will be with you. I don’t know what you will do. . .whether you will abjure Christianity altogether, or fall into some ‘protestant’ group which ‘fits’ your goals ‘better’, or something else. But to leave the church over just another media frenzy/misrepresentation/twisting? For that is all this is. . .sound and fury, signifying nothing.

 

[oldfogey]

This is nothing more than hypothetical rhetoric Oldfogey.
Has it happened to anyone here? NO.
Is it likely to? NO again.

First, I am insulted in being called anti catholic in your post previous to the one quoted. How dare you?

Second, if you actually read my posts, I wasn’t talking about comfy USA, I was talking about places where this can (and does) happen.

Also, how do you theorize about what I believe about our government (and all the other fodder you wrote) from what I posted?

 

[Church_Militant]

First, I am insulted in being called anti catholic in your post previous to the one quoted. How dare you?

Second, if you actually read my posts, I wasn’t talking about comfy USA, I was talking about places where this can (and does) happen.

Also, how do you theorize about what I believe about our government (and all the other fodder you wrote) from what I posted?

I didn’t say that. I did point out that there are many anti-Catholics who say the things that I mentioned. I did not name you as one as I happen to know that you are Catholic and love our most holy faith.

I think that my own posts have pointed out that I am not without sympathy for the Church Suffering, but I do believe that that occurs less than some would have us believe. Do you have documentation for all these incidents? If so fine. My point remains, that it is not all Moslems who are at fault.

His Holiness’ visit was well received by and large and he made a very good point.

I see no problems with either the Papal visit and prayer nor with my posts, so please don’t read things into it that are not there. Had I intended to label you in some way. You should know by now that I wouldn’t have minced words about it, OF.
Pax tecum,

 

[tequilamac]

How about if they told your family, wife, children, parents to do it? In your home, in the night or whenever they picked. And you and your family were alone and they were armed?

How would you feel then? Nice and ecumenical?

My goodness such venom. Nevertheless to answer your question, I would think the circumstances you just described would require immediate prayer and my family’s part in whatever direction they were facing, don’t you? Or perhaps you think Catholics should not pray at all when confronted by an enemy just in case God gets mad or confused as to thwo theya re praying to? I am sorry but i think you need to think abut what you are saying. I would expect my whole family to pray immediately under those circumstances, whether the people with guns were gang bangers, or Muslims, or whatever.

 

[CherokeeBrave]

This whole post lacks even a fragmentary understanding of the Catholic faith. Did you notice what the Canon Law said? "It is forbidden to actively participate in the worship of non-Catholics.” (communicatio in sacris)
And also Canon 2316:
“One who cooperates communicatio in sacris contrary to the provision of Canon 1258 is suspected of heresy.”

Since this happened in neither occasion, you just wasted a lot of time, and hot air, in writing this post. Try again. Adoration/Worship is difference from honoring something and showing respect. I used to have posters of Michael Jordan on my wall. I watched every game he played in. I even bought his clothing line and shoes. He was my hero. I did not, however, WORSHIP him. If you can’t make this distinction (which I think you are perfectly capable of if you want to) then I can’t help you. Check your motives though. My suspicion is that this is a deceptive tactic you are using to frighten Catholics of the last two HOLY men who have led their Church.

Since I know some folks have difficulty with the meaning of simple words, I will go the route and say the pope participated in … no wait, he was there so it is not absentia or osmosis.

Catholics should be frightened by the misuse of their own tenets. He was there and therefore participated. I go to a ballgame and am a participant in the game even tho I may not carry a ball. But you won’t understand this, since I said nothing about the pope whorshipping someone, I said he participated in pagan worship, and so says the bishop who wrote the treatise.

For myself, I don’t care where the pope goes or what he does. He can join a traveling zoo, and I’ll say congratulations. What is outstanding in this matter is simply the double standard, which is excused by the catholic controvertist, because it fits the need of the moment. Never mind the thousands, perhaps more, catholics burning in hell or doing purgatory for disobeying the order of communicatio in sacris.
Enjoy!

 

[Veritas41]

The Pope was in a Muslim nation and he was already walking a thin line with his continued affirmations that religion and violence don’t mix. As both a religious leader and a national leader he has certain obligations and showing general respect toward a nation’s cultural expressions is part of that.

My personal belief is that he has walked a very good line between sticking his guns while not being antagonistic. It’s a hard walk and I don’t envy him.

AMEN!! That’s why he needs all our prayers

 

[valient_Lucy]

How about if they told your family, wife, children, parents to do it? In your home, in the night or whenever they picked. And you and your family were alone and they were armed?

How would you feel then? Nice and ecumenical?

Since I haven’t seen your answer to my question, I can’t be sure if my family, husband, children and parents are being forced to pray in the direction of Mecca or being asked to state “There is no God but Allah and Muhammed is his prophet.”
However…
If my family, friends, and I were being asked to pray in the direction were being asked to pray in the direction of Mecca, I would do it, and I think they should as well. Praying in the direction of Mecca is not a sin, as there is no rule as to which direction we should pray. I have probably prayed in the direction of Mecca, as well as the direction of the Hudson Bay, and the direction of Mexico City. I have prayed in every direction. In fact, some American Catholics want priests to pray in the direction of Mecca, since Mecca is to the East of the US, and some Catholics want priests to say Mass facing the East. Every person in the world has a duty to protect their own life, and since my family, friends, and me would not be asked to sin, I see nothing wrong with praying in a certain direction.

Now, as to the second point, it would be wrong for us to make the Muslim statement of faith. In that case, I should refuse, even if it cost me my life, since to make such a statement of faith would be apostacy, and it would be better to die, and my family and friends should do the same. (Since martyrdom is a gift, I can’t be sure that I would do that, I can only pray that I would.)

As for being “nice and ecumenical,” it has nothing to do with that. It is about balancing our God-given duty to preserve our lives, and to avoid sin. In the first instance, since we are not being asked to sin, we should preserve our lives and do what they said. In the second instance, we are being asked to sin, so we should refuse, and accept martyrdom.

As for praying for God’s mercy on us, or on our persecutors, it is completly in line with Jesus’ teachings. Jesus taught us to pray for those who persecute us. I can’t think of a better way to die a martyr’s death than by begging God to show mercy on our persecutors.

 

[tequilamac]

Since I know some folks have difficulty with the meaning of simple words, I will go the route and say the pope participated in … no wait, he was there so it is not absentia or osmosis.

Catholics should be frightened by the misuse of their own tenets. He was there and therefore participated. I go to a ballgame and am a participant in the game even tho I may not carry a ball. But you won’t understand this, since I said nothing about the pope whorshipping someone, I said he participated in pagan worship, and so says the bishop who wrote the treatise.

For myself, I don’t care where the pope goes or what he does. He can join a traveling zoo, and I’ll say congratulations. What is outstanding in this matter is simply the double standard, which is excused by the catholic controvertist, because it fits the need of the moment. Never mind the thousands, perhaps more, catholics burning in hell or doing purgatory for disobeying the order of communicatio in sacris.
Enjoy!

It simply could be more than that. Obviously from the way you use the term, you do not understand what “communicatio in sacris” actually means. In any case, I am absolutely sure the Pope does and I can just look at the pictures and tell you he most certainly violated no Catholic tenet. There was no communicatio. Get the drift? No tabernacle, no Host, no priest doing the Consecration. In other words, the Pope did not participate in Holy Communion outside of the Catholic Church. No communicatio. If he had gone to a Presbyterian or a baptist church and held up the grape juice and crackers and said "This is the Body of Christ and this is the Blood of Christ, Amen, then he would violate communicatio in sacris. Praying toward the east as millions of Catholics have done and did this morning, is not violating communicatio in sacris. Catholics getting married in a Lutheran Church violates sommunicatio in sacris. Before you come on here acting as if you have even the vaguest idea what Catholics do which you boviously do not, or what our terms mean, which you boviously do not, and using that to insult the Pope, perhaps you should check a dictionary first.

 

[tequilamac]

It simply could be more than that. Obviously from the way you use the term, you do not understand what “communicatio in sacris” actually means. In any case, I am absolutely sure thePope soes and I can just look at the pictures and tell you he most certainly violated no Catholic tenet. There was no communicatio. Get the drift? No tabernacle, no Host, no priest doing the Consecration. In other words, the Pope did not participate in Holy Communion outside of the Catholic Church. No communicatio. If he had gone to a Presbyterian or a baptist church and held up the grape juice and crackers and said "This is the Body of Christ and this is the Blood of Christ, Amen, then he would violate communicatio in sacris. Praying toward the east as millions of Catholics have done and did this morning, is not violating communicatio in sacris. Catholics getting married in a Lutheran Church violates sommunicatio in sacris. Before you come on here acting as if you have even the vaguest idea what Catholics do which you boviously do not, or what our terms mean, which you boviously do not, and using that to insult the Pope, perhaps you should check a dictionary first.

 

[Carrie_Andrews]

And yet we have so many people here jumping to judgement about the intent of our Pope’s actions without having been explained by him. They are presuming to know on the basis of a few reports from the secular and Muslim media. We are in no position now, and maybe never if it is not explained further, to understand what was in his heart and mind at that moment.

I think it’s safe to assume on the other hand, by what we know so far of Pope Benedict XIV’s teachings of our faith in Christ to date, and his personality and mannerisms, that there is more to this than what the sensationalists would have us to believe. So if we are going to make judgements concerning conduct, we need to be sure we have all the information before doing so. We can never presume to make a judgement as to the heart of a person before God.

That’s all I’m sayin’, ya know?

This is just what I was thinking, I have faith in his(and JP2’s) motives, because I’ve seen by thier actions they are great men of faith and knowledge.

 

[Catherine_S]

.

Inspired by Ezekiel 43:1-2, which speaks of the glory of the Lord coming from the east, Christians **believed the Second Coming would be from the east whence comes the sun rising to dispel the darkness. After all, the world was in darkness till Christ, the light of the world, expelled the night. Consequently, Christians prayed toward the east on Sunday mornings, with crosses being painted on the eastern wall of house-churches.[One such cross was found in a house in the city of Herculaneum, which was buried in A.D. 79 by the eruption of Mount Vesuvius. **Tertullian, **writing around 197 in his Apology, talks about Christians “praying in the direction of the rising sun.”]. When churches were built to accommodate Christian worship, these were also oriented toward the east. Christians were even buried facing the east in expectation of the final Trump.
catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9312fea1.asp
.

 

[dalcent]

Such desperation by some to find fault with the Successor of Peter: such rebellion, such grasping at straws.

I prayed in the Blue Mosque, Istanbul only a few short weeks ago. I took my shoes off too. Why not make a big deal that BenedictXVI probably took the papal shoes off and respected “unholy” ground. I really find this all a bit puerile: none of this challenges my faith or confidence in the Pontiff.

A stones throw away, I’d also stood at the front of the Hagia Sophia and prayed for the return of this great church to Christendom. The pope was specifically banned from praying in there, but being a nobody I could pray there quietly to my heart’s content. A lot of people stood there at the front, in awed reverence, and I knew they were praying too. The security guards watched silently. The moments were quite special. Then the peace was shattered by some Muslim nut shreiking his head off and attracting the burly guards…

 

[UKcatholicGuy]

A detailed or offical “definition”? Are you kidding me? Nobody here is claiming that the word “ecumenism” has been officially defined by the Church. You are writing a defense as if someone has made this claim. Sorry buddy, you’re debating your own strawman. The reality is that the SCRIPTURE teaches us to “speak the truth in love” (Eph 4:15), and to “be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love” (Eph 4:2). So, whether the Church has officially defined ecumenism is beside the point. The Scripture has infallibly defined how the truth is to be preached. You would do well to read it. And as far as ecumenism vs. evangelism, you are splitting hairs. Ecumenism is a movement that seeks to achieve unity among all religions through cooperation and the fostering of greater mutual understanding. Thus, there is nothing inherent in ecumenism that contradicts being a good evangelist. Attempting to pit them against each other is creating a false dichotomy. The two work hand in hand when done properly. Again, THE SCRIPTURE TEACHES, to “speak the truth in love!” Ecumenism merely attempts to emphasize the similarities in order to build a common bridge rather than polarizing, as you would have us do. Nowhere does ecumenism teach that we must abandon the truth.

Doesn’t it bother you that ecumenism has no official definition? How can we know whether or not it’s good if we don’t even know what it is? The definition that you provide is extremely unsettling. The idea of achieving unity of all religions doesn’t sound wrong to you? I would hope as a follower of Jesus Christ the idea of uniting a false religion with the One True religion would make you shudder. Why do you assume that evangelization somehow excludes preaching the Truth in love? I never suggested that we should preach the Truth in anything but love. The Church has been doing this since day one, long before “ecumenism” entered the scene.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

"myfavoritmartin:

Originally Posted by myfavoritmartin View Post
You apparently dont read 1john 2john or 3john and you clearly have no idea how the term anti christ is revealed in the bible.

here is an example…
1 Jn.2:22-23 “Who is a liar but** he who denies that Jesus is the Christ He is anti Christ** who denies the father and the Son, Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either, he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.”

So tell me do muslims qualify???

Martin, who appointed you as judge of who qualifies?

Why am I judging? I am showing you what the bible says, about people whom outright deny Jesus is God in flesh, and who they are considered.

I seem to remember a verse that states, "I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself. My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes.* HE will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men’s hearts.* At that time each will receive his praise from God" (1 Cor 4:3-5).
6Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written.” Then you will not take pride in one man over against another.
Ya missed out the important next verse…
Redbandito;1707861:
In other words, Paul doesn’t even judge HIMSELF, much less others. That is God’s right ALONE. You seem intent on doing that with others though. So another verse to remember is, “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you” (Mt 7:1-2). Based on the fact that you seem so ready to condemn everyone to Hell that does not share your understanding of salvation, I would be a little anxious about how God will measure His judgment on you.

Are you saying someone whom out and out denies Christ as our Lord and Saviour shouldn’t be told they are wrong? I can tell you I will stand firm on the Word of God
“Christ is the way and no one comes to the Father but through the Son”

 

[CANman]

Are you saying someone whom out and out denies Christ as our Lord and Saviour shouldn’t be told they are wrong? I can tell you I will stand firm on the Word of God
“Christ is the way and no one comes to the Father but through the Son”

Are they denying that Jesus is Lord because they have been properly taught who He is, or are they denying Him because they have no real idea of the True Jesus, or do thy even know who Jesus is? That is why we don’t condemn them. We know not what is in their heart. It’s possible (probable) the Jesus they have learnt of is not the Jesus we speak of. Therefore, instead of condemning them, we must open doors to properly catechise them. That is what our beloved pope is attempting to do.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

. Therefore, instead of condemning them, we must open doors to properly catechise them. That is what our beloved pope is attempting to do.

IMan, I wish I would’ve been here to see how you guys reacted to B16 when he made the violence connection to Muhammed.
He was most certainly condemning them at that point.