Pope kisses the KORAN?

[YinYangMom]

Chris C.:

The case of the Crusades has been rendered too simply by your question. Jerusalem was a Christian Land invaded by Muslims. The Crusades were a legitimate military response to this political and spiritual reality. I recommend Jonathan Riley Smith’s WHAT WERE THE CRUSADES, which is very short and readable. Regarding the treatment of Indians in Latin America and what is now the High Southwest, I’m afraid you have set up a straw man. You will be hard pressed to produce a directive from the Holy See ordering the murder of Indians unwilling to convert. We need to be able to distinguish between the excesses of Catholics exercising their free will and Curch teaching’s and “directives”. On the question of treatment of natives in the Americas, I think we will find by the way that Catholics (French in Canada and Spaniards in Central and South America) treated the Indians with greater charity than did the Protestants who settled and led the growth of our own nation.
Where official directives are concerned, the Koran is explicit in relation to Christians, as others on this thread have stated. The difficulty with the Holy Father kissing this diabolical book is that the book denies the divinity of Jesus Christ. Furthermore, we should not worry too much about observing strange eastern or middle eastern rituals. We are Westerners, and the Holy Father’s actions speak to the West because he is a Westerner, too.
Why must Catholics be so mealymouthed about Islam when great Popes from Nicholas II to Pio Quinto have rallied military might against this tremendous anti-Christian force?

Chris C.

Quite and interesting perspective. Thanks for sharing. I can concede on the Crusades issue if what you say is correct about it being a military response (I honestly don’t know the specifics so I appreciate the book reference).

As for the native indian situation and the distinction between Protestant/Catholic treatment…it was still in the name of God…and I think we agree it was the result of a misdirection rather than a direct order from the Holy See.

As for this Western/Eastern split…sorry, I always thought the Pope was the father of the Church which calls all mankind to Christ. I don’t recall Jesus making a distinction based on what part of the globe man happens to reside…and I thought the Pope, once declared Pope, is no longer ‘just a man’ so to speak. Isn’t that one of the reasons they take on a new name? He no longer represents a certain diocese or geographic territory, regardless of his personal home roots…he is the Vicar of Christ.

And ‘mealy-mouthed’? I think you missed my point in that I am the least deserving person to second-guess a decision of the Pope. I don’t think it’s mealy-mouthed at all to support him in his efforts to unite the world.

 

[otm]

People who want everything in black and white usually have little grasp of the facts or the implications of the facts other than their own conclusions.

My recollection is that in the OT, there is a direction to take the babies of the enemy and bash their heads against a rock. Really makes for a pro-life position, and just war theory, don’t you think?

:This issue has been going round and round in the very conservative circles of Catholicism. Some of those folks need to get a clue; nuance is still in the dictionary!

Just because he is Pope doesn’t make every act of his a religious act. He has kissed the ground in just about every country he has been to, if not all. Is that a religous statement? Or just a statement of respect?

C’mon, folks, Catholic theology didn’t stop with the Baltimore Catechism!

 

[Richard_Lamb]

He was acting out of respect of arab culture, where one kisses a gift out or respect to the bearer of the gift…he would have kissed it had it been a ox of tools…(does the pope need tools?, what if the pope mobile breacks down? )

 

[JohnDeP]

I think the intention of the kiss must be judged and not the act of the kiss itself. As has been mentioned before, the Pope kisses the ground, we kiss his ring, our spouses, etc. But all of these have significance where we understand the intention behind them.

Any public act by the Pope will be witnessed and he should take care of how it could be misinterpreted. Though he’s not perfect in everything he does, I think some of his public acts have been “sloppy” and thus the “intention” gets confused. It’s not just a misinterpreted nuance; its poor planning, acting without thinking, etc. (remember, there are sins of omission as well as commission)!

So, the intention of the Pope may be entirely justified, but the act itself sends a public message that is not proper.

I say we just forgive the Pope for this little faux pas, and use the event as a conversation piece for apologetics!

-JohnDeP

 

[iguana27]

Ipso,

I am sorry to hear that you and the author you quote have such disdain for such a loving and holy man.

The Catechism disagress with you :

841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day."330

[842](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/842.htm’) The Church’s bond with non-Christian religions is in the first place the common origin and end of the human race:

All nations form but one community. This is so because all stem from the one stock which God created to people the entire earth, and also because all share a common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all against the day when the elect are gathered together in the holy city. . .331

[843](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/843.htm’) The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life."332

May I ask what your religion is? I would like to know the perspective from which you speak.

Peace,Iguana

 

[Karl_Keating]

iguana27:

Ipso,

I am sorry to hear that you and the author you quote have such disdain for such a loving and holy man.

…

May I ask what your religion is? I would like to know the perspective from which you speak.

Peace,Iguana

The four posts from Ipso Facto, heavy-handedly and repeatedly insinuating that John Paul II is a heretic, have been deleted, and Ipso Facto has been banned from the forums.

 

[A.Pelliccio]

Makes me sick to see the Holy Father kiss that satanic work. He should be actively converting the barbarian not excusing them.

 

[Ghosty]

While this is not the main topic of the thread, I’d like to point out that the destruction of Constantinople, the Christian bastion of the Eastern world, by Europeans during the Fourth Crusade did NOT represent a “reclaiming” of Jerusalem by Christians (the Fourth Crusade never even reached the Holy Land, IIRC).

The Catechism clearly states that Muslims are at least assumed to share in the faith of Abraham. This is the direct teaching of the Church on the subject of Islam. There are bad eggs in Islam, and some VERY disturbing trends in the faith itself, but it is fundamentally a religion derived from Abrahamic tradition, and this is taught by the Catholic Church itself, and this deserves respect and thought by all Catholics who consider themselves orthodox. Muslims share in a special place in God’s plan, and I can’t stress enough that this is the emphasis of the Church itself on the matter.

Speaking such hateful rhetoric against Islam itself is, IMO, an indication of one’s distance from the Church and the One Faith, not one’s closeness to it.

 

[Dandelion_Wine]

JohnDeP:

Any public act by the Pope will be witnessed and he should take care of how it could be misinterpreted. … So, the intention of the Pope may be entirely justified, but the act itself sends a public message that is not proper.

I don’t know if I agree with you here. I don’t think that our (or the world’s) ignorance of one’s culture should dictate what the Pope does or doesn’t do. Maybe if we stopped living in our own little world things like this wouldn’t ‘offend’ us.

 

[Mandi]

Ghosty:

While this is not the main topic of the thread, I’d like to point out that the destruction of Constantinople, the Christian bastion of the Eastern world, by Europeans during the Fourth Crusade did NOT represent a “reclaiming” of Jerusalem by Christians (the Fourth Crusade never even reached the Holy Land, IIRC).

The Catechism clearly states that Muslims are at least assumed to share in the faith of Abraham. This is the direct teaching of the Church on the subject of Islam. There are bad eggs in Islam, and some VERY disturbing trends in the faith itself, but it is fundamentally a religion derived from Abrahamic tradition, and this is taught by the Catholic Church itself, and this deserves respect and thought by all Catholics who consider themselves orthodox. Muslims share in a special place in God’s plan, and I can’t stress enough that this is the emphasis of the Church itself on the matter.

Speaking such hateful rhetoric against Islam itself is, IMO, an indication of one’s distance from the Church and the One Faith, not one’s closeness to it.

I fear you would find many, many Saints who would disagree with you.

 

[Ghosty]

Saints are fallible, and they would recognize this. I am not speaking simply personal opinion, but the direct teachings of the Church itself. Only “saints” who are not Catholic could disagree with me on that.

 

[Mandi]

Ghosty:

Saints are fallible, and they would recognize this. I am not speaking simply personal opinion, but the direct teachings of the Church itself. Only “saints” who are not Catholic could disagree with me on that.

“Saints” who are not Catholic - that’s a new one!

 

[gomer_tree]

Richard Lamb:

He was acting out of respect of arab culture, where one kisses a gift out or respect to the bearer of the gift…he would have kissed it had it been a ox of tools…(does the pope need tools?, what if the pope mobile breacks down? )

[tangent]I saw my Priest the other day in shorts and a T-shirt. Just to be funny, I asked him if the Pope ever walked arouond wearing shorts and a T-shirt. But it got me thinking… I never see him wear anything but his Papal garments. That has to be real hot in Italy! Then I started wondering if he ever goes shopping, just to take a little break. Can you imagine walking down the grocery aisle seeing the Pope pushing a cart?

These are the things I poner at night when I should be sleeping…[/tangent]

 

[Richard_Lamb]

[tangent]
I saw my Priest the other day in shorts and a T-shirt. Just to be funny, I asked him if the Pope ever walked arouond wearing shorts and a T-shirt. But it got me thinking… I never see him wear anything but his Papal garments. That has to be real hot in Italy! Then I started wondering if he ever goes shopping, just to take a little break. Can you imagine walking down the grocery aisle seeing the Pope pushing a cart?

These are the things I poner at night when I should be sleeping…[/tangent]

People do not realize just how much one gives up when put in a place of prominence like his…

 

[Ghosty]

The question is this: Do you follow the fallible opinion of an individual saint with no teaching authority, or the direct words of the Magisterium? A saint is merely someone who has died and gone to Heaven, and, by definition, that person would be Catholic in the broadest sense because the Church is the earthly manifestation of God’s kingdom. Not all saints have necessarily been a part of the Catholic Church in the earthly realm, however, whether they weren’t baptised with water, or perhaps never even knew the Church. It is the teaching of the Church, for example, that people who die outside of the Church, but who are possessed of “invincible ignorance” are not denied Heaven out of hand; these people are just as much saints in the strict sense as people with the title of Saint.

All that being said, the reason I put the word saint in quotation marks was to emphasize that such a view does not represent Catholic teaching, and also that the word saint is often too liberally applied. If any officially recognized Saint differs with the view of the of the Magesterium on the subject of Islam, that is their prerogative, but the fact that they’re saints does not make their opinions infallible. Only God, and through the grace of God the Church itself, can infallibly teach. When deciding where to place my faith, I will choose the Magisterium over an individual Saint’s opinion. The Magisterium hasn’t spoken definatively in an infallible manner regarding Islam, to my knowledge, but the Catechism is still very clear on the subject, and that alone should carry weight in the hearts of faithful Catholics, IMO.

 

[Chris_C]

Yingyangmom and all–

I’m sorry; Im sure I was misunderstood on two points: The westward expansion of the United States was not done in the name of God. Even Jamestown was an economic undertaking more than anything. The settlement of Canada and what we now call Latin America were inextricably tied to Catholic evangelization. Natives of these countries fared better than those in our own, though there is surely evidence of ill use. Your specific reference to California is a puzzle to me since Father Serra was a great and kindly man who helped untold number of Indians, and not only the critical spiritual help, but untold practical help as well, raising their farming skills out of the stoneage.

Second, my remark about the Pope being sensitive to Western customs was in no way a reference to the schism. To be sure, many Eastern Orthodox, who know all too well the reality of the Islamic threat, were more alarmed by this act of the Holy Father’s than many in the West.

To the other post regarding the Fourth Crusade–nor argument from me in defense of the soldiers who sacked Christian Shrines in Constantinople. Talk to an Orthodox on this point–they still bear a huge grudge.

Finally, I wonder if we would be less enthusiastic about this curious act of the Holy Father’s if it had been performed by a more left-wing bishop like Weakland, Mahoney, McGrath, or McCarrick, etc… I am very fond of the Holy Father. My third son is named for him. He has inspired many solid young men to join the priesthood. But I am ever amazed by conservative Catholics who will give the Pope a pass on something that would make frontpage news in the Wanderer if it were another bishop. Conversely I find it funny that many RC Republicans who praise the Holy Father up one side and down the other are strangely silent when he criticizes the excesses of the market or the war zeal of the United States Government.

I encourage Cathoilcs to thank God for this Pope, but I also encourage them to thank God for the papacy, which sees us to the end whether because of or inspite of the man who holds the office.

Chris C.

 

[UnworthySoul]

YinYangMom:

So where did the Catholic church get the directive to kill Muslims in the Crusades…and what about the directive it received to torture and punish the native american indians and mexicans for not converting when the Missionaries were establishing the missions in California?

Misguided interpretations which lead to gruesome acts in the name of God have happened in our own Church’s history…perhaps it is the same with Islam? I don’t know, but it could be possible, couldn’t it?

I think you have a few things backwards, at least as regards the early Crusades. I study this in my free time, it’s my hobby and a bit of a passion for me. What you have suggested is inherently false. There were many factors involved in the early Crusades, not the least of which was the fact that Christian pilgrims were being robbed, raped, murdered, and sold into slavery by Muslim bandits. This was one of the reasons for the rise of the military Orders such as the Templars. The Hospitallers started as a medical Order, but necessity caused a military wing to be formed.

 

[rfk]

YinYangMom:

So where did the Catholic church get the directive to kill Muslims in the Crusades…

At that time, Palestine was a predominantly Christian country. They were defending fellow Christians who were being subjugated by Moslems

YinYangMom:

and what about the directive it received to torture and punish the native american indians and mexicans for not converting when the Missionaries were establishing the missions in California?

Show me a single, credible, historical reference to Missionaries torturing and punishing native americans.

 

[ms_cilantro]

Ying Yan and Ken,

According to Mark Gabriel (Muslim convert to Christianity) there is a concept in Islam where new revelation over- rules previous revelation. So the early writings which exhort tolerance have been replaced with instructions to kill those who won’t convert or if they are “believers of the book- Christians” pay an annual tax, if they can’t or won’t pay the tax they should be killed. This has happened in Egypt where M. Gabriel was from. He maintains what we are seeing is authentic Islam. (He changed his name)
Read his books: Islam and Terrorism, and Islam and the Jews.
In the second book he points out why there will never be peace betwn the Palestineans and Israel. It is an impossiblility because of Islam. Not because of Muslims but because of Islam. He maintains the only way there will be peace is through Christ. Only Christ can change hearts and save the situation.

A note on M. Gabriel he is off on his understanding of Catholicism. If you read his work write him about your faith. Still I think we he can make the whole terrorist situation understandable. I never realized how many times “moderate” Egyption govts. were attacked by Egyptions who wanted the state to be under Islamic law. What is happening now is just an extention of what “moderate” Arab countries have been dealing with for decades.

He also explains the difference betwn the crusades and terrorism. The crusades where carried out by “Christians” but not found as a biblical command. Terrorism as we are seeing it is being carried out by “Muslims” as commanded in the quran.
Ms. Cilantro

 

[Mandi]

rfk:

Show me a single, credible, historical reference to Missionaries torturing and punishing native americans.

Sorry can’t show you that, but I can show you several examples of Saints and Martyrs being tortured and killed for teaching Christianity. St. John deBeuf had his heart riped out of his chest and eaten by the Iroquios. His shrine is in Midland, Ontario he is one of the 8 Great Canadian Martyrs. Their writings strongly differ from anything you’ll find in any current History Book - Me I’ll take the Saints version of what happened!

“All you holy Martyrs, pray fof us”