What is wrong with kissing the Qu'ran?

[peary]

Obviously. many people think JP2 committed an objective sin by kissing the Qu’ran. This is what I would like clarified:

1. Which commandment does this sin fall under and why?
2. What do faithful Catholics think of a Catholic who is married to a Muslim? Deep down, do they find that disgusting or scandalous?
   Is it some sort of validation of Islam to be loving and affectionate with someone who promotes that ideology?

Please just be honest, I don’t want to argue, I just want to understand where other Catholics coming from.

I for one objected to the Pope kissing the Koran (that is still debatable. I heard it was a bible from the Assyrian Orthodox Church that was kissed). It sent the wrong message to Muslims, especially to the elements of radical Islam. The symbolic act of honor actually said to them that the pope recognizes the Koran as the only holy and authentic book of God and that Mohammed is His Prophet. That is how it was explained to me. Many Muslims throughout the world were angry that the pope did not convert to Islam as that was the affect of his kissing the book. The Koran itself denies that Christ died, or that He died on the Cross. Why would the pope kiss a book which denies this truth of our Faith? It made no sense to me. If the story is true, the pope should have known better and should have been able to foresee the effect this was going to have.

 

[palmas85]

Everyone here already knows that the Koran denies that Jesus is God, and denies the doctrine of the Trinity.

Abraham didn’t know about Jesus. Are you saying that Abraham worshipped a different God than you and I do? No, he just didn’t know all of the qualities and attributes of God. Same with the Muslims.

But the Muslims do know. They know it all and outright deny it. It is even denied in the Koran explicitly. So don’t try to compare them with Abraham.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

You have got to be kidding? are you and JKirk for real?

Ridiculous. You are using a text promulgated and corrected by John Paul II to prove his actions.

Pure and utter deception.

Summa Theologica
SS Q12 A1

It belongs to faith not only that the heart should believe, but also that external words and deeds should bear witness to the inward faith, for confession is an act of faith. On this way too, certain external words or deeds pertain to unbelief, in so far as they are signs of unbelief, even as a sign of health is said itself to be healthy. Now although the authority quoted may be understood as referring to every kind of apostate, yet it applies most truly to an apostate from the faith. For since faith is the first foundation of things to be hoped for, and since, without faith it is “impossible to please God”; when once faith is removed, man retains nothing that may be useful for the obtaining of eternal salvation, for which reason it is written (Proverbs 6:12): “A man that is an apostate, an unprofitable man”: because faith is the life of the soul, according to Romans 1:17: “The just man liveth by faith.” Therefore, just as when the life of the body is taken away, man’s every member and part loses its due disposition, so when the life of justice, which is by faith, is done away, disorder appears in all his members. First, in his mouth, whereby chiefly his mind stands revealed; secondly, in his eyes; thirdly, in the instrument of movement; fourthly, in his will, which tends to evil. The result is that “he sows discord,” endeavoring to sever others from the faith even as he severed himself.

The text I quoted spoke to the motives for actions, ANY actions, as regards how they should be perceived by those who witness them (ie, the most charitable interpretion should be assumed and I should think that would be even more true if an explanation were given, such as “the Pope simply made a gesture of courtesy.”) It was not “promulgated and corrected by John Paul II to prove his actions.”

So are you saying that John Paul II manifested unbelief, a lack of belief, an outright denial of the Holy Trinity and the Deity of Jesus Christ by his action of kissing the Koran, EVEN IF he only INTENDED it to be a gesture of courtesy? Was he an apostate from the faith then?

 

[AlexV]

Pius XI spoke of the “darkness of Islam”.

John Paul II kissed the Koran.

“Gesture of courtesy”?

Kissing books has liturgical resonance in the Roman Rite. Kissing books is a sign of respect for the contents of the book. Kissing a representative of the religion is one thing…kissing their holy book, which contains blasphemies, is quite another.

This was one of John Paul’s lowest moments.

 

[Sure]

Pius XI spoke of the “darkness of Islam”.

John Paul II kissed the Koran.

“Gesture of courtesy”?

Kissing books has liturgical resonance in the Roman Rite. Kissing books is a sign of respect for the contents of the book. Kissing a representative of the religion is one thing…kissing their holy book, which contains blasphemies, is quite another.

This was one of John Paul’s lowest moments.

It was not a liturgical action. Therefore, it may easily have been a way of saying, “thank you.” The point is we don’t know. I suppose we can assume the worst. I prefer to give the Holy Father the benefit of doubt here and take it as him accepting a gift in a diplomatic meeting and showing a sign of gratitude.

 

[Like]

It was not a liturgical action. Therefore, it may easily have been a way of saying, “thank you.” The point is we don’t know. I suppose we can assume the worst. I prefer to give the Holy Father the benefit of doubt here and take it as him accepting a gift in a diplomatic meeting and showing a sign of gratitude.

I agree, why must people assume the worst?!?! I do not understand!

 

[old_altar_boy]

The text I quoted spoke to the motives for actions, ANY actions, as regards how they should be perceived by those who witness them (ie, the most charitable interpretion should be assumed and I should think that would be even more true if an explanation were given, such as “the Pope simply made a gesture of courtesy.”) It was not “promulgated and corrected by John Paul II to prove his actions.”

So are you saying that John Paul II manifested unbelief, a lack of belief, an outright denial of the Holy Trinity and the Deity of Jesus Christ by his action of kissing the Koran, EVEN IF he only INTENDED it to be a gesture of courtesy? Was he an apostate from the faith then?

I don’t know if he was an apostate, but, his actions seemed to lean more towards a collegial attitude towards both Islam and Judaism by the way, than did any other Popes. Lets not forget, John Paul II apparentlywanted Judaism, Christianity and Islam to unite in some kind of wierd trilogy of Abraic based faiths in which each had valid viewpoints which needed to be respected even if they did not all contain the fullness of truth. All could then equally seek salvation. It seems to reject basic Christian and Catholic doctrine, but lets not quibble.

That could have been a noble cause in principle but it was a disaster in reality. Kissing the Koran was a huge mistake on the Popes part and one he never should have committed. Was he an apostate for doing it?, I wouldn’t go that far.

BUT he was certainly ill advised, showed horrendous judgement and did irreparable damage to the faith in the eyes of both the Muslims and the Jews as well as most Christians, Catholic and otherwise.

 

[Sure]

I don’t know if he was an apostate, but, his actions seemed to lean more towards a collegial attitude towards both Islam and Judaism by the way, than did any other Popes. Lets not forget, John Paul II apparentlywanted Judaism, Christianity and Islam to unite in some kind of wierd trilogy of Abraic based faiths in which each had valid viewpoints which needed to be respected even if they did not all contain the fullness of truth. All could then equally seek salvation. It seems to reject basic Christian and Catholic doctrine, but lets not quibble.

That could have been a noble cause in principle but it was a disaster in reality. Kissing the Koran was a huge mistake on the Popes part and one he never should have committed. Was he an apostate for doing it?, I wouldn’t go that far.

BUT he was certainly ill advised, showed horrendous judgement and did irreparable damage to the faith in the eyes of both the Muslims and the Jews as well as most Christians, Catholic and otherwise.

The bolded part of your post makes me ask, have you ever read anything written by John Paul II? He was a stauch supporter of traditional Catholic theology along the lines of St. Thomas Aquinas.

 

[palmas85]

The bolded part of your post makes me ask, have you ever read anything written by John Paul II? He was a stauch supporter of traditional Catholic theology along the lines of St. Thomas Aquinas.

I can’t speak for the poster, but the late Holy Fathers actions as well as the Catechism he endorsed certainly seem to reflect that viewpoint.

 

[Sure]

I can’t speak for the poster, but the late Holy Fathers actions as well as the Catechism he endorsed certainly seem to reflect that viewpoint.

Are you going to judge a Pope by a prayer service and a book he kissed, or will you judge him by the thousands of pages of top-notch philosophy and moral theology that he wrote.

In all seriousness, have you ever done an in depth study of Veritatis Splendor? It is THE definitive anti-modernist work of the last 200 years or more. It is John Paul II using the power of Aquinas to slay modernist theology.

 

[palmas85]

Are you going to judge a Pope by a prayer service and a book he kissed, or will you judge him by the thousands of pages of top-notch philosophy and moral theology that he wrote.

In all seriousness, have you ever done an in depth study of Veritatis Splendor? It is THE definitive anti-modernist work of the last 200 years or more. It is John Paul II using the power of Aquinas to slay modernist theology.

Modernist theology has not been slain. In fact it is alive and well despite what you and the other John Paul II popolators would say. You see, I happen to remember what John Paul II did. He did some great things. He also did some horrible things. He hurt the faith tremendously and helped it out a little. He seemed willing to accept anything at all as long as it claimed to be Catholic. His ringing endorsement of the neocatechumanal movement comes to mind for instance. And lets not forget his acceptance of the Taize
community.

 

[bear06]

Modernist theology has not been slain. In fact it is alive and well despite what you and the other John Paul II popolators would say. You see, I happen to remember what John Paul II did. He did some great things. He also did some horrible things. He hurt the faith tremendously and helped it out a little. He seemed willing to accept anything at all as long as it claimed to be Catholic. His ringing endorsement of the neocatechumanal movement comes to mind for instance. And lets not forget his acceptance of the Taize
community.

Anyone for resurrecting the Knights of the Popolators? If people are going to be participating in calumny and slander, we might as well have some fun with it.

 

[Indyann]

Anyone for resurrecting the Knights of the Popolators? If people are going to be participating in calumny and slander, we might as well have some fun with it.

I’d much rather be a Popolator than a Popohater!

 

[Walking_Home]

Quote:
Originally Posted by palmas85
Modernist theology has not been slain. In fact it is alive and well despite what you and the other John Paul II popolators would say. You see, I happen to remember what John Paul II did. He did some great things. He also did some horrible things. He hurt the faith tremendously and helped it out a little. He seemed willing to accept anything at all as long as it claimed to be Catholic. His ringing endorsement of the neocatechumanal movement comes to mind for instance. And lets not forget his acceptance of the Taize
community.

Anyone for resurrecting the Knights of the Popolators? If people are going to be participating in calumny and slander, we might as well have some fun with it.

---

Just wait until the Neocatechumenals invade your parish.

 

[bear06]

---

Just wait until the Neocatechumenals invade your parish.

And this has to do with? BTW, I don’t expect this to happen in my parish anytime soon.

 

[Walking_Home]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home
Just wait until the Neocatechumenals invade your parish.

And this has to do with? BTW, I don’t expect this to happen in my parish anytime soon.

Quote=bear06
Anyone for resurrecting the Knights of the Popolators? If people are going to be participating in calumny and slander, we might as well have some fun with it.

---

It is in reference to your response to palmas85. You throw in slander and calumny-- for palmas85 bringing up JPII’s endorsement of the Neocatechumenals and Taize. So I said–just wait until the Neocatechumenals invade your parish.

You say not anytime soon—but the way you throw slander and calumny out there–leaves one to wonder–if Neocatechumenal thought has not already been integrated somehow within your parish. You see–pride, slander, calumny, idols, pharisee, etc. —are sticks they beat those caught in the Neocatechumenal web into submission. In turn–people tend to use those same sticks to try to beat those they disagree with.

 

[mlchance]

You throw in slander and calumny…

…but the way you throw slander and calumny out there–leaves one to wonder.

Oh, the irony. This thread is largely nothing but slander and calumny directed against the late Pontiff. The more I read of this forum, the more it becomes obvious that “Traditional Catholicism” is all too often just another form of Protestantism.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[palmas85]

Anyone for resurrecting the Knights of the Popolators? If people are going to be participating in calumny and slander, we might as well have some fun with it.

What calumny and slander? I spoke the truth. He DID endorse and praise both of those groups, neither of which in any way shape or form preaches Catholic doctrine except in a completely adulterated sense.

And I said he did good also, which he did. He re-installed a sense of devotion to the Blessed Mother which had largely been rejected, downplayed and abandoned in the new springtime and he gave us the Indult. Both praiseworthy events:thumbsup:

On a side note his devotion to the Blessed Mother caused a lot of grief to the more progressive among us who saw it as a throwback to the bad old days before Vatican II.

Overall his record was very spotty. He wasn’t the demon that many claim nor was he the superman who saved the Church. Despite his massive popularity in a personal sense he was just average to below average in his role as Pope.

Thats not slander. Thats the truth.

 

[Walking_Home]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home
You throw in slander and calumny…

…but the way you throw slander and calumny out there–leaves one to wonder.

Oh, the irony. This thread is largely nothing but slander and calumny directed against the late Pontiff. The more I read of this forum, the more it becomes obvious that “Traditional Catholicism” is all too often just another form of Protestantism.

– Mark L. Chance.

---

I will say–I have not read this whole thread–but throwing in calumny and slander at someone (palmas85) who disagrees with JPII’s actions is creating a Pope (JPII) who is beyond reproach. This would also be reflected by your comparison of Traditional Catholicism to Protestantism.

 

[mlchance]

Thats not slander. Thats the truth.

No, it’s not the truth. It’s merely your opinion. That point aside, if it were the truth, it wouldn’t be slander, but it could be some shade of detraction or perhaps even rash judgment, which are still sins.

**CCC 2507 **Respect for the reputation and honor of persons forbids all detraction and calumny in word or attitude.

I will say–I have not read this whole thread–but throwing in calumny and slander at someone (palmas85) who disagrees with JPII’s actions is creating a Pope (JPII) who is beyond reproach.

I’ve not said anything about palmas85, and you’re assertion about creating a reproachless pope is just silly. No one in this thread has said John Paul II is above reproach (unless you count folks who toss that assertion out as a strawman).

If you think John Paul II ought not have kissed that Koran, fine. That’s your opinion; you’re entitled to it. But to say that John Paul II sinned in doing so is another matter entirely. It isn’t your or my place to examine the conscience of another person. That undeniable point aside, John Paul II went to Confession regularly. If kissing the Koran were a sin, which I doubt, it’s certainly been forgiven by God.

I think it’s about time everyone else got over themselves and forgave likewise.

This would also be reflected by your comparison of Traditional Catholicism to Protestantism.

Protestants deny the authority of the Pope. Right? Too many so-called “Traditional Catholics” do the same thing. Just read through the threads here and in the Liturgy subforum. It will quickly become obvious to all but the willfully blind that obedience is a virtue forgotten by waaaay too many Catholics.

– Mark L. Chance.