The Pope’s Words : Pope owes Muslims a “deep and persuasive apology”

[Eireann]

I think we try not to stoop to name calling because, after all, we are the good guys. I keep expecting to hear words of charity and love when I log onto this forum. I’m often disappointed by the anger(at each other, not at the topic in question) that I see. I’m referring to the last couple posts, not the topic in question here. Usually what I see are words written in angry retort, and page after page of rebuttals. Does anyone pray before posting, I try to remember to, although I’ve shot off quick replys too.

True, that old “Divide and Conquer” sure puts the cat among the pigeons.

 

[Servulus]

The questions here is… do we follow what the Roman Catholic Church had taught about non-Catholic religions as being false religions for the first 20 centuries … or do we follow what Nostae Aetate and other Vatican II documents have said giving these other religions level status with the Catholic religion.

This is a false dichotomy. Neither Nostra Aetate nor any of the other documents of the Council suggest that the fullness of truth is found anywhere but in the Church.

Why the Pope uttered this quote is astounding since he supports the latter more evolved version of truth.

No one has been more consistently outspoken in opposition to relativism than the Holy Father.

He really needs to pick one or the other… the Traditional view or the modernized view… the two are NOT compatible.

They certainly are incompatible, and the faithfulness of His Holiness on this issue is a matter of public record.

 

[geezerbob]

The questions here is… do we follow what the Roman Catholic Church had taught about non-Catholic religions as being false religions for the first 20 centuries … or do we follow what Nostae Aetate and other Vatican II documents have said giving these other religions level status with the Catholic religion. Why the Pope uttered this quote is astounding since he supports the latter more evolved version of truth. He really needs to pick one or the other… the Traditional view or the modernized view… the two are NOT compatible.

This is off topic. Please don’t hijack the thread.

 

[Carrie_Andrews]

Eireann, thats so true! How many really excellent threads have gone completely off the subject by posters disagreeing on some point that comes up? I may even be guilty of it here . It’s a great idea for someone to post a “get back on the subject” post, instead of going along with the distraction tactic. It’s simular to when someone asks you a question and instead of replying to your answer, they ask you a different question, and so on, and so on…

 

[stellina]

BTW the Pope didnt apologize, the media tried to apologize for him.

Absolutely right. I listened to his Wednesday audience and what he offered was an explanation and an invitation to discussion, NOT an apology. Neither has he apologized in any of his previous statements on the matter. He has nothing to apologize for.

Increasingly over the past few days, I am seeing what an amazingly clever man the Holy Father is. He said what he said for a particular reason, even if he was quoting someone else, and the reaction throughout the Muslim world is proving him right. Now his counter-reaction is proving him right again, since nothing he can say or do short of dropping dead will satisfy them. He has responded to their irrational fury with respect for their feelings, as unjustified they are, while at the same time not retracting his words in any way or backing away from the truth. Is he trying to “kill with kindness”?

 

[Prometheus1974]

No I don’t think the Pope needs to apologize. But I had two interesting (to me anyway!) thoughts:

The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: “There is no compulsion in religion”. According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur’an, concerning holy war.

The dilemma that the Emperor faced with the Turkish armies besieging his city seems very much to be the same dilemma that much of the rest of the world faces now wrt responding to the many personalities of Islam. Unlike Christianity, in which there is clear statement of the principle that using violence to spread religion is evil, Islam gives no difinitive statement, or rather gives unclear, contradictory statements.

The only way to resolve the question is to see historical and contemporary Islam in action. I think it can be said without doubt that, whereas Christianity spread throughout the world through missionary endeavor and in the face of general military ineptitiude (the conversion of much of Europe happend after it had been inundated by waves of pagan barbarian invasions), the spread of Islam was only possible because of the military genius of many of its leaders and a willingness to coerce conversion by nonviolent (dhimmi status, the jizya tax) or violent (the slaughter of perhaps 60 million Hindu civilians during the Muslim occupation of the Indian subcontinent) means.

While liberal western Muslims are to be applauded for their peaceful and reconcilliatory tone, especially those who have sought to raise money for the churches that were burned and looted, the violent reaction by Imams and Islamic government officials within the Islamic regions of the world is perhaps the closest thing to an official Islamic response. What is clear is that a discussion on the relationship between God and reason did not receive a reasoned reply. The actions of the Islamic world (which could have expressed dismay WITHOUT resorting to violence) underscore exactly what the emperor had to say.

The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable.

I wonder why the emperor would have needed to “explain in detail, etc. etc.” to his learned Persian colleague unless the position that spreading religion by violence was being defended? I mean, it wouldn’t have been much of a discussion if the Persian gentleman was saying “yup that seems right to me” all the way along.

All in all, I think this really has very little to do with the actual subject of the Pope’s lecture, hence no need for any apology (but I might need to )

 

[Rana]

I believe that the Pope should not apologize cause it will put him in a weak position. I know that many would disagree with me on that, but being a Christian in the middle east is not easy and I certainly don’t want my spiritual leader to put me in a weak position through apologizing to the Muslims who already are boasting that they are now the majority and could easily crush us in the region.
However, i do believe that the Pope should not have said what he has said in the first place. He should have thought of the millions of Christians in the east especially in Lebanon, Syria, and Egypt, where a simple word could enrage the Muslims and lead them into burning our churches and killing our nuns, not to mention the daily sarcastic comments from colleagues at work and even neighbours.
Thank God in Lebanon there was no physical damage to our institutions , but that is only because the security forces and the army went into the streets to stop any advances .

God Bless

Rana.

 

[murtad]

My view is no, he does not, he said nothing to apologize for. To apologize for this would be to send the signal that nothing is correct if someone violently objects to it. That is NOT what Christ’s message was.

His Holiness does not have to apologise because he is speaking the truth that Islam in its orthodox form is very violent. The Byzantine Emperor is also correct in what he said about Muhammad since the Islamic armies violently conquered the lands of the Byzantine Empire, yes, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch, and finally Constantinople.

 

[murtad]

Oh, please do. I keep hearing about these advances but I can find no evidence of them. What I have found in my research is that Arab culture prior to the 7th century, prior to Mohammed, was responsible for a number of scientific and cultural advances. Once Islam becomes dominate in a culture, especially if shria (Islamic Law) is implemented, all advances in science and culture stop.

That is true. Islam stole that scientific and cultural advancement of the Aramaic-speaking Sasanian Persian Empire when they conquered Baghdad (known back then as Seleucia-Ctesiphon or Babylon). Baghdad was a center for Aramaic Christianity, and headquarters of the Chaldean Catholic Church. The so-called “Arab” Christians are really Arameans and they invented the so-called “Arab” numerals and “Algebra” as well as the many other things, the English-speaking world uses.

The Muslims just Arabised everything and then declared Islam invented this and that, eventhough Islam NEVER invented anything except violent conquest of the Sasanian Persian Empire by Caliph Umar and theft of intellectual property. The Golden Ages of Islam was, is and will always be a myth, otherwise how are Muslims so backward today, especially when the implement Syariah (ie Islamic law)?

In fact, this early Arab technical superiority is what gave Islam military superiority over Europe until the middle ages. After that European advances in science slowly began to give it the upper hand in its struggle against Islam.

This is correct. Islamists stole the ancient Christian advancement (ie theft of intellectual property) when they conquered Baghdad, the center for Aramaic Christianity and capital of the Persian Empire. For a brief period, Islam greatly succeeded. However, in due they eventually stagnated as they could not invent anything new–NO INNOVATION. Muslims never invent, they only plagarise.

If you can document evidence contrary to this, please do. I’m serious, no sarcasm intended. God bless!

Have you noticed the major center for science, technology and culture of the ancient world was Seleucia-Ctesiphon (aka Baghdad), which not just the capital of the Sasanian Persian Empire but center for Aramaic Christianity. They excelled in fields like mathematics, chemistry, physics, and biology as well as astronomy. These people were Christians from the Chaldean Catholic Church, the only Church outside the Roman Empire.

Modern day “Arab” Christians are really Arameans who speak Arabic today because their culture was destroyed by Islam. Let us not forget the cultural genocide towards our Christian brothers and sisters. That is one of the “greatest” contributions of Islam towards humanity! Yes, Muhammad and his 4 Caliphs were WAR CRIMINALS.

 

[murtad]

Mike,
I would be very interested in your response. Of what “scientific and cultural advances” do you speak? Remember, prior to Mohammed does not count.

Tell us why prior to Muhammad does not count? AFAIK, the Islamic conquest of Babylon, which was the capital of the Persian Empire and New York of the 7th century is what gave Muslims an upper hand as they stole all intellectual property from Aramaic-speaking Kafirs and claimed it their own.

Islamic civilisation was able to grow due to these stolen IP but eventually they stagnated as they could not invent new IP and Islam entered into dark ages.

 

[murtad]

You do realise it wasn’t so long ago at all that women didn’t have the vote here (or in the USA)? We’re not so far ahead as we like to arrogantly think.

Women had lots of rights in the Christian Empires, such as Latin and Greek. They were not forced to marry but could become nuns. In Islamic societies, women MUST marry and be subject to their husbands, as Qur’an says wife is like a field for her husband to plow.

In Malaysia, marital rape is legal and husband can rape his wife, while in Taliban-ruled Afganistan women have absolutely NO rights-- any right they had under Communist rule was taken away and they were forced to cover up in black tents called burqah.

 

[murtad]

This is a false dichotomy. Neither Nostra Aetate nor any of the other documents of the Council suggest that the fullness of truth is found anywhere but in the Church.
No one has been more consistently outspoken in opposition to relativism than the Holy Father.
They certainly are incompatible, and the faithfulness of His Holiness on this issue is a matter of public record.

I disagree that they are incompatible. Both Traditional Catholicism and post-Vatican II Catholicism are one and the same teachings.

The only difference is the former uses explicit language (ie calling unbelievers’ way of life as false) while the latter uses implicit language (ie calling unbelievers’ way of life as having some truth but not having fullness of truth).

The Holy Ecumenical Council known as Vatican II spoke in tongues of angels and we have to interpret them correctly into tongues of men. The Bible tells us speaking in tongues is a gift given to selected people, especially His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI.

Speaking in tongues is also called diplomatic talk because a diplomat like His Holiness speaks wisely in a few words. This satisfies both Christians and unbelievers alike. This prevents the unbelievers from getting angry as they will not see us insulting their way of life.

 

[Holly3278]

No, he does not need to offer any apology. He did not say anything wrong. Those that are angry at him for what he said seem to have taken what he said totally out of context. I would have to say that it is those who reacted so badly that need to apologise to the Pope instead of the other way around.

 

[MikeWM]

Women had lots of rights in the Christian Empires, such as Latin and Greek. They were not forced to marry but could become nuns.

Oh, well that’s a much better set of options

In Islamic societies, women MUST marry and be subject to their husbands, as Qur’an says wife is like a field for her husband to plow.

I’m sure we know what St Paul said about subjection to your husband too. It was a Sunday reading only a few weeks ago.

In Malaysia, marital rape is legal and husband can rape his wife,

…which was only made illegal in the UK in my lifetime. And I’m not very old.

Yes, women are treated better in our societies than in societies that practice Islamic law. I just don’t think we should be too smug, when we took so long to get to that state ourselves.

Mike

 

[TradyDaddy]

I disagree that they are incompatible. Both Traditional Catholicism and post-Vatican II Catholicism are one and the same teachings.

Sure, except that Traditional Catholicism held that only the Catholic Church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and the ONLY means of salvation… and the Post-conciliar church finds that other religions can supply their members with the necesary means of salvation. Just a minor difference…

The only difference is the former uses explicit language (ie calling unbelievers’ way of life as false) while the latter uses implicit language (ie calling unbelievers’ way of life as having some truth but not having fullness of truth)…

*I’d say… the former used plain understandable language that just about anyone could read and comprehend… and the latter used ambiguous language that can be read one way by conservatives and then turned 180 degrees by modernists… ie the terms you mention “false” and “having some truth” are by no means compatible. It’s either one or the other. *

This prevents the unbelievers from getting angry as they will not see us insulting their way of life.

Yeah…um… I hate to tell you this but…erm… ah … I’d say the Muslims are pretty angry right about now. But then, again, that isn’t anything new. And calling a spade a spade is just telling the truth. I’d love to see you modernists tell St. Paul to dialogue with pagans and heretics of his time…lol…right!

 

[ChristianWAB]

I’m certainly no fan of the pope, but even I have to admit that it’d be unfair of me to try and make sense out of one statement without reading his entire speech first.

I have found the text and will be reading it before I start to ponder whether or not he was wrong to say what he said, but I fear that the majority of Muslims wouldn’t grant the pope this same allowance before launching into an attack against the pope, Christianity or whatever.

 

[Walt_Oliver]

WARNING

This thread is about the pope’s apology to Muslims, not about pre and post Vatican II church teaching. Continued attempts to hijack the thread by making off-topic posts may result in disciplinary action. Thank you for keeping the discussion on the topic of the original post.

Walt