May I ask another potentially controversial question

[YinYangMom]

Nice post, Boomer!

 

[gomer_tree]

For the record, I personally don’t think making the claim that we worship the same God (referring to the Father) would have ever been considered heretical. Now, I suppose that because of the Trinitarian nature of the God we worship versus the perceived monotheistic nature of the God of the Jews and Muslims, unless the clarification were made it could have been considered heretical. In any event, resonable people understand what is implied here.

Personally, I think the overreaction woould have been to the kissing of the Koran.

I personally doubt the person would have been burned alive. Worst case: excommunication.

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

No Pope, no council, no church father, etc. would have ever said that the muslim worship the same god as christians. Or would have dreamed of kissing the koran.

So, Pope Saint Gregory VII was a Modernist heretic? Good to know.

The Inquisitons were held in certain areas of Western Europe, where the kissing of a Koran would have had different cultural implications than the kissing of a gift in the Middle East.

 

[Salmon]

WanderingCathol:

They would have been found guilty of heresy and executed. That is what would have happen to them.

:yawn:
Feminists got agendas.
:yawn:
All God’s chillun’s got agendas.


Peace in Christ…Salmon

 

[Matthew]

DominvsVobiscvm:

So, Pope Saint Gregory VII was a Modernist heretic? Good to know.

The Inquisitons were held in certain areas of Western Europe, where the kissing of a Koran would have had different cultural implications than the kissing of a gift in the Middle East.

Let me lay this cute argument to rest. You should really pay attention to history when attempting to defend error. Talk about misrepresenting facts and taking events out of context.

The Council seems to justify its statement that “the Moslems adore with us the one true God, etc.” by the quote contained in a note of personal gratitude sent by St. Gregory VII, Pope from 1073 to 1085, to Anazir, Emir of Mauritania. The Emir had been well disposed to oblige certain of the Pope’s requests and had also been generous concerning some Christian whom he had taken prisoner. In this letter, the Pope stated that this act of “goodness” was “inspired by God,” who commanded us to love our neighbor, and specifically asks “from us and you…that we believe in and confess the same God, although by different modes (licet diverso modo), that we praise and venerate each day the Creator of the ages and master of this world” (PL, 148, 451 A). How can such a statement be explained? The answer: by that era’s ignorance regarding the religion founded by Mohammed.

At the time of St. Gregory VII, the Koran had not yet been translated into Latin. This is why basic aspects of its “credo” were not understood. It was known that the Moslems, those fierce enemies of Christianity, who suddenly emerged from the Arabian desert in 633 with a conquering violence, would sometimes demonstrate a certain respect for Jesus, but only as a prophet, and for the Virgin Mary; that they believed in one God, in the inspired nature of Sacred Scripture, in the Judgment and in a future life. Consequently, they could have been taken for an heretical Christian sect (“the Mohammedan sect”), an equivocation that was held for a long time since, at the beginning of the 14th century, Dante placed Mohammed in hell among heretics and schismatics (Hell, XVIII, V. 31 ff.).

It is in this context that the praise privately addressed to the Emir by Gregory VII ought to be seen: praise for someone held to be a heretic who, on this occasion, had behaved charitably, as if the true God, in whom he thought he believed, had touched his heart. Thus, in effect, one can speak of a heretic who believes in the same God as ours, but in a different way. Nevertheless, St. Gregory VII’s praise of the Emir did not prevent him from defending, in a perfectly coherent way, the idea of an expedition launched from all of the Christian countries against the Moslems, in order to help Eastern Christianity when it was threatened with extinction. This idea was carried out shortly after his death with the first crusade, preached by Urban II.

The first Latin translation of the Koran did not take place until 1143, fifty-eight years after the death of St. Gregory VII, by the Englishman Robert de Chester for the Abbot of Cluny, Peter the Venerable, who added a strong refutation of the Islamic creed. Actually, this translation was a summary of the Koran, and remained the only translation for many centuries, until the critical and complete version was done by Fr. Marracci in 1698. In the first half of the 15th century, the Cardinal of Cusa set the stage for this first translation by writing his famous Cribatio Alcorani, a critical study of the Koran. This preceded by a few years the Bull issued in October 1458 by Pius II (Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini) for the purpose of launching a crusade (which was never carried out) against the Turks who surged into the Balkans after having seized Constantinople. In this Bull, the Pope referred to the Moslems as disciples of the “false prophet Mohammed,” a definition that he reasserted on September 12, 1459, in a remarkable speech in the Mantua Cathedral, where the Diet charged with approving the crusade was convoked. In this speech, he referred again to Mohammed as an impostor; he also said that if the Sultan Mehmed were not stopped, after subjugating all of the Western princes, he would then "destroy the Gospel of Christ and impose the law of his false prophet on the entire world."3 Therefore, this speech rectified the former perception and constituted the Pontifical teaching’s clear and strong condemnation of Islam and its prophet. Once and for all, it eliminated the equivocation which had defined Islam as a Christian “heresy.”

 

[Melchior]

From a Protestant perspective I can tell you that the rest of the Christian world And I know many Catholics too were scandalized by the Pope kissing the Koran. Why can’t some of you catholic folks just admit that what he did was at best bad judgement and at worst abominable? I mean it was not an ex Cathedra pronouncement was it? It seems to me that many Catholics think the Pope is infallible in all his actions. As I understand it, he goes to confession every day. Why do you have such trouble with the idea that he is a flawed sinner? It is Catholic teaching isn’t it? What he did may be explainable but it was inexcusable. Does that invalidate his Papacy? I am sure it does not. But the way his actions are defended you would think that he would have to give up the papacy if it is acknowledged that what he did was wrong.

He venerated a basphemous pagan book! Deal with it, but please stop excusing and justifying it. I say this with all due respect, it is simply embarrasing to watch this being justified. Just because it was wrong does not mean the SSPXers and those like them are correct. For surely there was plenty of scandalous behavior done by a few of the popes they do accept. Choose your battles folks. This is not a nail in the coffin against the legitmacy of this Pope. But intellectual honesty demands better.

In Peace,

Mel

 

[WanderingCathol]

Melchior:

From a Protestant perspective I can tell you that the rest of the Christian world And I know many Catholics too were scandalized by the Pope kissing the Koran. Why can’t some of you catholic folks just admit that what he did was at best bad judgement and at worst abominable? I mean it was not an ex Cathedra pronouncement was it? It seems to me that many Catholics think the Pope is infallible in all his actions. As I understand it, he goes to confession every day. Why do you have such trouble with the idea that he is a flawed sinner? It is Catholic teaching isn’t it? What he did may be explainable but it was inexcusable. Does that invalidate his Papacy? I am sure it does not. But the way his actions are defended you would think that he would have to give up the papacy if it is acknowledged that what he did was wrong.

He venerated a basphemous pagan book! Deal with it, but please stop excusing and justifying it. I say this with all due respect, it is simply embarrasing to watch this being justified. Just because it was wrong does not mean the SSPXers and those like them are correct. For surely there was plenty of scandalous behavior done by a few of the popes they do accept. Choose your battles folks. This is not a nail in the coffin against the legitmacy of this Pope. But intellectual honesty demands better.

In Peace,

Mel

Mel,

The kissing of the Koran is being explained away. I cannot imgaine a pope doing what he did. My mouth dropped to the floor when I saw that.

If this person did this in the middle ages or any other time besides ours, this person would have been branded a heretic, excommunivcated and executed for his blasphemy.

How many jews and muslim were executed for blasphemy during the inquisition. Today, we worship the same God.

 

[Boomer_Sooner]

It appears to me that the only people who have a problem with this or find it “scandalizing” are (a) non-Catholics who already dislike the Pope anyway and are looking for ammo against the ‘Antichrist’, (b) “catholics” who follow comedians like “Pope” Michael and claim there has been no legitimate pope after Vatican II, or (c) people, who by no fault of their own, honestly don’t know much about the circumstances surrounding the event. If Cardinal Ratzinger or anyone else in the Vatican didn’t see a problem with this regarding the faith… I don’t see why we as lay people should either.

This question was also posted on the Catholic Scripture Study and was answered this way:

The longer you are Catholic, the more you will notice that the Church is subject to flatly contradictory accusations. In 2000, the big complaint against the Church was that it refused to acknowledge all religions are equal (in the document Dominus Iesus). Now the complaint is that it (allegedly) teaches all religions are equal. This was not, however, the Pope’s intention in kissing the Koran any more than it was in assembling world religious leaders to make common cause for peace. In the case of the Koran, the gesture was to show respect for Muslims and Iraqis suffering under U.S. embargo. The Catholics who are actually closest to the situation did not regard this as a bad thing and certainly did not conclude that the Pope was making all religions equal. You can read all about this in an interview with His Beatitude Raphael I Bidawid, Patriarch of Babylon of the Chaldeans, in Fides. Here is the relevant question and answer from the interview:

At what point are preparations for a Papal visit to Iraq?
It is known that Pope John Paul II has often voiced a desire to make a pilgrimage in the footsteps of Abraham, the common father of Jews, Christians and Muslims. For the Pope, Abraham is a figure which helps the unity of believers to overcome political divisions. On May 14th I was received by the Pope, together with a delegation composed of the Shiite imam of Khadum mosque and the Sunni President of the council of administration of the Iraqi Islamic Bank. There was also a representative of the Iraqi ministry of religion. I renewed our invitation to the Pope because his visit would be for us a grace from heaven. It would confirm the faith of Christians and prove the Pope’s love for the whole of humanity in a country which is mainly Muslim. At the end of the audience the Pope bowed to the Muslim holy book the Koran presented to him by the delegation and he kissed it as a sign of respect. The photo of that gesture has been shown repeatedly on Iraqi television and it demonstrates that the Pope is not only aware of the suffering of the Iraqi people, he has also great respect for Islam. A papal visit would be welcomed by both the people and by the authorities. After the audience I immediately sent a recommendation to the Iraqi government to make the official step of inviting the Pope to Iraq.

 

[Boomer_Sooner]

Bottom line: the Pope was making a gesture of respect to Islam and the the people of Iraq. Pope haters, whether fundamentalist Protestants or fundamentalist Catholics, see in this gesture all sorts of wild phantasms of their own imagining and, like armchair quarterbacks, are eager to give free punditry on the alleged sinister meaning of this gesture. However, the Catholic patriarch whose flock actually lives in the country under Islamic rule and who is perhaps a bit closer to knowledge of the situation of the Church in the Islamic world than we Americans thought a) that this in no way signaled the abandonment of the gospel by John Paul and b) that Muslims understood it as the gesture of respect it was. Essentially, John Paul’s gesture underscored the teaching of Nostra Aetate which reads in part:

The Church, therefore, exhorts her sons, that through dialogue and collaboration with the followers of other religions, carried out with prudence and love and in witness to the Christian faith and life, they recognize, preserve and promote the good things, spiritual and moral, as well as the socio-cultural values found among these men. 3. The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting. Since in the course of centuries not a few quarrels and hostilities have arisen between Christians and Moslems, this sacred synod urges all to forget the past and to work sincerely for mutual understanding and to preserve as well as to promote together for the benefit of all mankind social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and freedom.

 

[WanderingCathol]

Boomer Sooner:
I don’t adore the God of the muslim nor will it ever happen
2. muslims are infidels and will always be unless they bend knee to jesus
3. muslim don’t worship the christian God
4. ecumenism is evil

 

[gomer_tree]

How do you guys define pagan? I don’t consider Muslims to be pagans.

 

[WanderingCathol]

gomer tree:

How do you guys define pagan? I don’t consider Muslims to be pagans.

anyone that does not worship christ is a pagan and an infidel.

 

[gomer_tree]

Out of curiosity, I looked it up on dictionary.com:

1. 
   *]One who is not a Christian, Muslim, or Jew, especially a worshiper of a polytheistic religion.
   *]One who has no religion.
   *]A non-Christian.
   *]A hedonist.
   
   I suppose I can grant you your difinition based on #3. However, the primiary definition seems to generally exclude Jews and Muslims.
   
   So let me ask: do you consider Jews to be pagans?

 

[WanderingCathol]

gomer tree:

Out of curiosity, I looked it up on dictionary.com:

1. 
   *]One who is not a Christian, Muslim, or Jew, especially a worshiper of a polytheistic religion.
   *]One who has no religion.
   *]A non-Christian.
   *]A hedonist.
   
   I suppose I can grant you your difinition based on #3. However, the primiary definition seems to generally exclude Jews and Muslims.
   
   So let me ask: do you consider Jews to be pagans?

1. 
   Do they worship jesus?

 

[Boomer_Sooner]

Where’s Rosalind Moss when you need her?? Rosalind, get in here!

 

[gomer_tree]

WanderingCathol:

Do they worship jesus?

I’ll take that as a “yes.”

Interesting worldview.

 

[WanderingCathol]

gomer tree:

I’ll take that as a “yes.”

Interesting worldview.

Really!

Wake up now.

 

[WanderingCathol]

Boomer Sooner:

Where’s Rosalind Moss when you need her?? Rosalind, get in here!

She is a catholic not a jew.

 

[Boomer_Sooner]

Well, I know that Rosalind is a Catholic – I just figured she could have some good insight into this topic…

As for the Jews being “pagan”, John Paul II has explicitly taught that Jews are:

*“the people of God of the Old Covenant, never revoked by God,” (Address to the Jewish Community in Mainz, West Germany,” November 17,1980) * and, *“partners in a covenant of eternal love which was never revoked.” (Address to Jewish Leaders in Miami,” September 11, 1987) *

"Christianity has an utterly unique relationship with Judaism because “our two religious communities are connected and closely related at the very level of their respective religious identities.” (John Paul II, “Address to Representatives of Jewish Organizations,” March 12, 1979.)

In a formal statement made first at the seventeenth meeting of the International Catholic-Jewish Liaison Committee in May 2001, and repeated later in the year in Jerusalem, Cardinal Kasper – the President of the Pontifical Commission for the Religious Relations with the Jews – talks about why initiatives, such as baptism and catechesis, are not appropriately directed at Jews:

The term mission, in its proper sense, refers to conversion from false gods and idols to the true and one God, who revealed himself in the salvation history with His elected people. Thus mission, in this strict sense, cannot be used with regard to Jews, who believe in the true and one God. Therefore, and this is characteristic, there exists dialogue but there does not exist any Catholic missionary organization for Jews.

Judaism is a religion that springs from divine revelation. As Cardinal Kasper noted,

“God’s grace, which is the grace of Jesus Christ according to our faith, is available to all. Therefore, the Church believes that Judaism, i.e. the faithful response of the Jewish people to God’s irrevocable covenant, is salvific for them, because God is faithful to his promises.”

Finally, in the words of Catholic apologist Peter Kreeft:

The long history of Christian anti-Semitism, in thought and deed, is perhaps the worst scandal in all the Church’s history. It is the Oedipus complex, for Judaism is Christianity’s father. All Christians are spiritually Jews, said Vatican II, echoing St. Paul. Christianity subtracts nothing from Judaism, but only fulfills it.

 

[WanderingCathol]

Boomer Sooner:

Well, I know that Rosalind is a Catholic – I just figured she could have some good insight into this topic…

As for the Jews being “pagan”, John Paul II has explicitly taught that Jews are:

*“the people of God of the Old Covenant, never revoked by God,” (Address to the Jewish Community in Mainz, West Germany,” November 17,1980) * and, *“partners in a covenant of eternal love which was never revoked.” (Address to Jewish Leaders in Miami,” September 11, 1987) *

"Christianity has an utterly unique relationship with Judaism because “our two religious communities are connected and closely related at the very level of their respective religious identities.” (John Paul II, “Address to Representatives of Jewish Organizations,” March 12, 1979.)

In a formal statement made first at the seventeenth meeting of the International Catholic-Jewish Liaison Committee in May 2001, and repeated later in the year in Jerusalem, Cardinal Kasper – the President of the Pontifical Commission for the Religious Relations with the Jews – talks about why initiatives, such as baptism and catechesis, are not appropriately directed at Jews:

Judaism is a religion that springs from divine revelation. As Cardinal Kasper noted,

Finally, in the words of Peter Kreeft:

I don’t follow Pope John Paul II nor anyone appointed by him. well, certain teachings of his.