What is wrong with kissing the Qu'ran?

[palmas85]

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’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.

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.

It is not my opinion that he supported both the Neocats and Taize movements. Those are documented facts. May be hard to swallow, but if you examine both of those movements you will see that they are Catholic in name only. Sorry to say that, but it is true. His support and encouragement for them is also well documented and quite extensive. Pointing out the truth of a given situation is not detraction, rash judgement or anything else. It is pointing out the truth. And pointing out the truth is never wrong, even if it may hurt a little.

 

[mlchance]

Pointing out the truth of a given situation is not detraction, rash judgement or anything else. It is pointing out the truth. And pointing out the truth is never wrong, even if it may hurt a little.

You’re equivocating. You stated: “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.”

That statement isn’t the “truth”. It is your opinion. Nothing more, nothing less. And, yes, sometimes pointing out the truth is wrong. That’s why detraction, which is form of pointing out the truth, is sinful.

Of course, since your opinion stated above in my first paragraph isn’t the “truth”, detraction isn’t really the proper category. Rash judgment, OTOH…

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Walking_Home]

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.

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.

---

I did not say You did. My initial response was to bear06 --who did throw those accusations at palmas85—then you responded to me. Now as to your “strawman”—when someone flings about accusations of slander and calumny–at another who disagrees on JPII–that more or less nullifies that JPII is not beyond reproach.

I would suggest you get it together–before you accuse me of saying JPII sinned. If it happened in this thread --it was not by me.

As to denying the authority of the Pope–Traditionalists usually say some decisions made by JPII and prior Popes have not been the most prudent—but what is actually quite clear and stands out with a red flag—it is the liberals and modernists–who basicly outright deny that the Pope’s authority to direct the Mass and the Church. Just take a look at denial some are giving to the Pope’s MP.

 

[Sure]

---

As to denying the authority of the Pope–Traditionalists usually say some decisions made by JPII and prior Popes have not been the most prudent—but what is actually quite clear and stands out with a red flag—it is the liberals and modernists–who basicly outright deny that the Pope’s authority to direct the Mass and the Church. Just take a look at denial some are giving to the Pope’s MP.

It is not just the liberals and modernists. It is also the traditionalists who excuse and apologize for the SSPX. They are all dissidents of the same order. The bishops who are attempting to obstruct SP are in the wrong, as are the priests and bishops who choose to ignore canon law regarding their suspended (or excommunicated) status.

 

[Walking_Home]

It is not just the liberals and modernists. It is also the traditionalists who excuse and apologize for the SSPX. They are all dissidents of the same order. The bishops who are attempting to obstruct SP are in the wrong, as are the priests and bishops who choose to ignore canon law regarding their suspended (or excommunicated) status.

---

My goodness—some are never satisfied—it seems many a thread is turned into some sort of SSPX bashing.

 

[Sure]

---

My goodness—some are never satisfied—it seems many a thread is turned into some sort of SSPX bashing.

No, I do not mean to bash anyone. It seems that your point was that “traditionalists” call the Pope imprudent whereas the “modernists” disobey and deny the Pope’s authority. I merely wanted to add to your post to make it clear that liberals and modernists are not the only ones who deny the Pope’s authority.

 

[Walking_Home]

No, I do not mean to bash anyone. It seems that your point was that “traditionalists” call the Pope imprudent whereas the “modernists” disobey and deny the Pope’s authority. I merely wanted to add to your post to make it clear that liberals and modernists are not the only ones who deny the Pope’s authority.

Quote=Sure
It is not just the liberals and modernists. It is also the traditionalists who excuse and apologize for the SSPX. They are all dissidents of the same order.

---

The above is your prior statement. It is just a method to incorporate your prejudicial bias of the SSPX --and within this —your bias towards those who tend not to bash them.

 

[palmas85]

You’re equivocating. You stated: “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.”

That statement isn’t the “truth”. It is your opinion. Nothing more, nothing less. And, yes, sometimes pointing out the truth is wrong. That’s why detraction, which is form of pointing out the truth, is sinful.

Of course, since your opinion stated above in my first paragraph isn’t the “truth”, detraction isn’t really the proper category. Rash judgment, OTOH…

– Mark L. Chance.

Point taken on my opinion of John Paul II. It may be rash judgement, but I really don’t think so. It was carefully thought out over the years of his Pontificate. However, I am entitled to my opinion which is not defamatory in any sense. It merely points out that he was not an above average Pope, which I don’t see how is being either rash, detractful, defammatory or hurtful. In my opinion. In any event, I pointed out two glaring examples of his poor judgement which you chose to ignore. The Neo Catechumanals and the Taize Community.

My statements about his backing of the Neo cats and Taize are not however sinful in that he himself issued written declarations of his support for them. Pointing out something that he did, in the full exercise of his papal authority, which is well known really cannot be considered sinful at all. It is already common knowledge so where is the sin in speaking about them?

 

[Walking_Home]

Point taken on my opinion of John Paul II. It may be rash judgement, but I really don’t think so. It was carefully thought out over the years of his Pontificate. However, I am entitled to my opinion which is not defamatory in any sense. It merely points out that he was not an above average Pope, which I don’t see how is being either rash, detractful, defammatory or hurtful. In my opinion. In any event, I pointed out two glaring examples of his poor judgement which you chose to ignore. The Neo Catechumanals and the Taize Community.

My statements about his backing of the Neo cats and Taize are not however sinful in that he himself issued written declarations of his support for them. Pointing out something that he did, in the full exercise of his papal authority, which is well known really cannot be considered sinful at all. It is already common knowledge so where is the sin in revealing them?

---

It seems the Neocatechumenals are still using the late Pope to their advantage. Pictures of JPII with the founders (Arguello, Hernandez) of Neocatechumenal way and statements of endorsement by JPII are most often used to validate the movement.

 

[Sure]

---

The above is your prior statement. It is just a method to incorporate your prejudicial bias of the SSPX --and within this —your bias towards those who tend not to bash them.

If by “prejudicial bias” you mean my belief that those who bash only modernists and make excuses for the SSPX, then okay but I don’t call it “prejudicial bias”, I call it being “intellectually honest.” I apply the same criteria for obedience and respect for law across the board to modernists and traditionalists alike.

 

[Sure]

Point taken on my opinion of John Paul II. It may be rash judgement, but I really don’t think so. It was carefully thought out over the years of his Pontificate. However, I am entitled to my opinion which is not defamatory in any sense. It merely points out that he was not an above average Pope, which I don’t see how is being either rash, detractful, defammatory or hurtful. In my opinion. In any event, I pointed out two glaring examples of his poor judgement which you chose to ignore. The Neo Catechumanals and the Taize Community.

My statements about his backing of the Neo cats and Taize are not however sinful in that he himself issued written declarations of his support for them. Pointing out something that he did, in the full exercise of his papal authority, which is well known really cannot be considered sinful at all. It is already common knowledge so where is the sin in speaking about them?

It is good to note that Pope John Paul II seemed to be making an effort towards the end of his Pontificate to fix the Neo-Catechumenal’s liturgical problems

 

[TNT]

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.

Say what?
John 8:56 Abraham your father rejoiced that he might see my day: he saw it, and was glad.

 

[Walking_Home]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home
The above is your prior statement. It is just a method to incorporate your prejudicial bias of the SSPX --and within this —your bias towards those who tend not to bash them.

If by “prejudicial bias” you mean my belief that those who bash only modernists and make excuses for the SSPX, then okay but I don’t call it “prejudicial bias”, I call it being “intellectually honest.” I apply the same criteria for obedience and respect for law across the board to modernists and traditionalists alike.

---

Perfume it any way you want–prejudice by any name is still–prejudice. Now it seems — thanks to you— this thread is tending to turn to what I said below.

Quote=Walking_Home
My goodness—some are never satisfied—it seems many a thread is turned into some sort of SSPX bashing.

 

[Sure]

---

Perfume it any way you want–prejudice by any name is still–prejudice. Now it seems — thanks to you— this thread is tending to turn to what I said below.

Quote=Walking_Home
My goodness—some are never satisfied—it seems many a thread is turned into some sort of SSPX bashing.

Is it not fair to say that those who condemn the modernists and apologize for the SSPX are applying a double standard? I mean really, why not criticize both? Sorry, I just don’t see criticizing both equally as a “prejudicial bias.” I would call it even-handed.

 

[Walking_Home]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home
Perfume it any way you want–prejudice by any name is still–prejudice. Now it seems — thanks to you— this thread is tending to turn to what I said below.

Quote=Walking_Home
My goodness—some are never satisfied—it seems many a thread is turned into some sort of SSPX bashing.

Is it not fair to say that those who condemn the modernists and apologize for the SSPX are applying a double standard? I mean really, why not criticize both? Sorry, I just don’t see criticizing both equally as a “prejudicial bias.” I would call it even-handed.

---

People who do not bash the SSPX --do so based on statements made by those who are close to the Pope and have access to information that you nor I have. Those who indulge in bashing it seems—have kept the Pope (past and present) frozen in time—to where by their own prejudice–bind him in not being able to develope a benevolent view of the SSPX, which is then reflected by statements made by those close to the Pope.

 

[bear06]

---

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.

Actually WH, you missed this part which I was addressing:

despite what you and the other John Paul II popolators would say

 

[bear06]

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.

Dude, you called Sure a popolator. Maybe you didn’t intend to so you might want to read the post again.

Again, you said this:

despite what you *and the other *John Paul II popolators would say

 

[bear06]

---

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.

And if you’ll read again, I didn’t say slander and calumny for that reason. Read the whole thread.

 

[Sure]

---

People who do not bash the SSPX --do so based on statements made by those who are close to the Pope and have access to information that you nor I have. Those who indulge in bashing it seems—have kept the Pope (past and present) frozen in time—to where by their own prejudice–bind him in not being able to develope a benevolent view of the SSPX, which is then reflected by statements made by those close to the Pope.

Sorry, I guess I just don’t have the super secret knowledge of those close to the Pope who know what he REALLY thinks. I just go by what the official documents say. If eventually, the official documents are changed, I’ll change my position. However, if the official documents are NOT changed, then I won’t change. See, my position is pretty simple: Follow what the Church teaches, not what rumors you hear. I don’t make excuses for one group or another and I find it, well, totally illogical that you call that “prejudice.”

If some modernist Cardinal pulled the same type of actions (illicit ordinations) that the SSPX did, I’d be all over them like white on rice. I’m an equal opportunity critic…are you?

 

[bear06]

---

People who do not bash the SSPX --do so based on statements made by those who are close to the Pope and have access to information that you nor I have. Those who indulge in bashing it seems—have kept the Pope (past and present) frozen in time—to where by their own prejudice–bind him in not being able to develope a benevolent view of the SSPX, which is then reflected by statements made by those close to the Pope.

Excuse me! My issue with the SSPX has little or nothing to do with statements made by those close to the Pope (unless, of course, they were Magisterial pronouncements - and if you have a problem with that well, sorry). If you look around the SSPX websites, there statements are quite enough to cause me to worry about them.

Like I’ve said before, one doesn’t necessary support the liberals and “bash” the SSPX. I “bash” both. Of course, the word “bash” is yours. Apparently we can’t even think about finding problems with the SSPX without bashing them. Funny though, I doubt you’d find me a “basher” if I had problems with a group like the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence (which I do). Then I’d just be a faithful Catholic.