What is wrong with kissing the Qu'ran?

  • Thread starter Thread starter OneAugustKnight
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Walking_Home said:
Did I say you mentioned Taize–I believe palmas85 did. Your charge of what stands–that those who do not have the same view as you – Sure --etc. and use the term popolator participate in slander and calumny. Well that says a lot about how defend your position–call someone a slanderer, etc.

I did not skip that part of palmas85’s post. It was your response to him --that was lacking in pointing to what you now say you were addressing.
Click to expand...
Let’s make it easy. Do you think that it’s right to call Sure or anyone else participating in this thread a popolator?
 
I have not accused anyone of slander or calumny.
Click to expand...
That would be me! If someone else is going to accuse anyone in this thread so far of being a popolator, I’ll throw it out again. You can’t win an argument by calling people popolators. It’s a waste of time.
 
ThereCanBeOnly1 said:
According to Vatican II, separated brethren participate in the community of salvation. This was also true waaaay before Vatican II as the Church has accepted valid baptisms and marriages from protestant churches for a very long time. So, the SSPX (if they are separated) participate in the community of salvation as do the protestant churches. DO you deny they have some valid sacraments? (Their (SSPX) sacraments are valid of course)
BUT, Vatican II does not say that the members of these separated brethren are “saved” or that this “participation” is sufficient. (You have got to be kidding, right? A person with your intelligence surely does not actually believe this nonsensical jargon? Does it say they are not ‘saved’ or that this ‘participation is not sufficient’? ) On the contrary, Vatican II says, 'For it is only through Christ’s Catholic Church, which is “the all-embracing means of salvation,” that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation." I guess maybe you missed that part**.(Nah I did not miss it, Since V2 also says this: The Universal Church subsists in the Catholic Church. )
Now I know you missed this part **
Click to expand...
Thanks for answering at least part of what I asked you.

We both agree that the SSPX has some valid Sacraments. What about protestant churches? Do you recognize the validity of their baptisms and marriages? Please answer…thanks!

Also, can you please provide a quotation for your Universal Church quotation. I’d like to look at the context.
 
Sure said:
It is rather telling that when I asked you a direct question about an important document by Pope John Paul II, you didn’t answer me you just decided to call me a silly name like “popolator” (which isn’t even a word). Is this your idea of a meaningful debate?

So I wonder since you didn’t answer…have you read Veritatis Splendor? Or are you criticizing something that you haven’t bothered to examine?
Click to expand...
The term popolator wasn’t invented by me. At one point on this forum there was a group of people who defended everything that the late Holy Father said and did and would accept absolutely no criticism of anything that he did or said. they called themselves popolators. They were quite proud of it as a matter of fact. If you are not one I apologize.

As far as if I have done an in depth study of a paper written by the Pope, no I have not. But I have seen first hands the fruits of his actions, which in all honesty have had a lot more impact than anything that he wrote.
 
palmas85 said:
At one point on this forum there was a group of people who defended everything that the late Holy Father said and did and would accept absolutely no criticism of anything that he did or said.
Click to expand...
Whoa! That’s not exactly what happened. First of all, we did not support everything the Holy Father said and did and you’re going to have a lot of trouble backing up that charge.

Secondly, we were told endlessly that we were papolators (sorry but we didn’t start that one) so, in an effort to add some levity, the Knights of the Papoloters/Popalotors was started. Then, of course, people whined and cried about that one because they couldn’t stand the fact that we would make fun of the slur repeatedly thrown at us. “How could anyone take that name when it means that you worship the Pope!” (of course they had no problem telling us we were papoloters but they got a little miffed when we made fun of the accusation) In otherwords, some aren’t happy either way.🤷 We stated quite emphatically that we were just adopting the name to make light of the situation.

Again, to levee the charge that someone on this thread is a popolator/papolotor is slanderous and calumnous. That said, you can just go back to calling me the Grand Inquisitrix, Lady Knight of Papoloters.😉
 
bear06 said:
Whoa! That’s not exactly what happened. First of all, we did not support everything the Holy Father said and did and you’re going to have a lot of trouble backing up that charge.

Secondly, we were told endlessly that we were papolators (sorry but we didn’t start that one) so, in an effort to add some levity, the Knights of the Papoloters/Popalotors was started. Then, of course, people whined and cried about that one because they couldn’t stand the fact that we would make fun of the slur repeatedly thrown at us. “How could anyone take that name when it means that you worship the Pope!” (of course they had no problem telling us we were papoloters but they got a little miffed when we made fun of the accusation) In otherwords, some aren’t happy either way.🤷 We stated quite emphatically that we were just adopting the name to make light of the situation.

Again, to levee the charge that someone on this thread is a popolator/papolotor is slanderous and calumnous. That said, you can just go back to calling me the Grand Inquisitrix, Lady Knight of Papoloters.😉
Click to expand...
PK, I’ll bite since I was there. What didn’t you guys support, quite vociferously I might add, that the late Holy Father did? I don’t remember much if anything. But hey I could be wrong.
 
palmas85 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Wow, we need a brain enema after reading that LOL
 
palmas85 said:
PK, I’ll bite since I was there. What didn’t you guys support, quite vociferously I might add, that the late Holy Father did? I don’t remember much if anything. But hey I could be wrong.
Click to expand...
Well, for one, the Koran argument has been going on forever. It’s the same old story. We can’t see why it keeps getting posted and then somebody goes into the same old “you know the pope can make mistake” line which is tiresome since we know. BTW, I can hardly be seen as supporting that vociferously since I wish he hadn’t done it.🤷
 
Walking_Home said:
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.
Click to expand...
Please, someone call a doctor, I’ve injured myself falling out of my seat laughing!

Let’s just change this around and see which pot is call what kettle black:

“but what is actually quite clear and stands out with a red flag—it is the radical traditionalists–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 Novus Ordo Mass.”

If you look up irony in the dictionary…
 
JKirkLVNV said:
Please, someone call a doctor, I’ve injured myself falling out of my seat laughing!

Let’s just change this around and see which pot is call what kettle black:

“but what is actually quite clear and stands out with a red flag—it is the radical traditionalists–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 Novus Ordo Mass.”

If you look up irony in the dictionary…
Click to expand...
Was the injury to your head.
 
The argument about this issue has been raging for years. Before the great crash there were numerous threads on this subject and while I can in no way post what they all said, I can present a pretty clear picture of what the supporters of the Holy fathers actions said. In a nutshell;

The Holy Father didn’t actually kiss anything. Actually if you look at the photo it is clearly superimposed. The Popes picture is actually from a Mass at take your choice on this, St Peters, any Papal mass anywhere in an audience at the papal residence etc etc. or it is actually a photo of the Holy Father kissing a book of the Gospels

BUT

If the picture is genuine, then the Pope isn’t actually kissing anything. Under microscopic examination you can clearly see that his lips are hovering just above the book. No contact was made or intended.
**
BUT**

If he did kiss the book it wasn’t a Koran. By arrangement with the Muslims a Christian Bible was substituted but everyone thought it was a Koran OR, one in his entourage, at his direction surrepticiously replaced the Koran in question with either a Coptic, Assyrian, Slovenic, Russian, Greek etc Bible OR if it was a Koran it was not a complete Koran, look at how thin it is, obviously an abridged version that has none of the references to Christ in it

BUT

If he did kiss a real honest to goodness Koran, he didn’t know it was a Koran because his entourage was supposed to change it and didn’t

But

If he did kiss the Koran and knew it to be a Koran, he kissed it only with a Kiss of Peace not of respect or love

BUT

If he did kiss the Koran out of respect, then it was only to really show respect to the creator manifested through the combined faiths of Abraham

and so on and so on and so on.

As I said, I can’t remember them all but there was always an excuse made to show that John Paul II was entirely correct in what he did no matter how far afield they had to go to get him there.
 
palmas85 said:
The argument about this issue has been raging for years. Before the great crash there were numerous threads on this subject and while I can in no way post what they all said, I can present a pretty clear picture of what the supporters of the Holy fathers actions said. In a nutshell;

The Holy Father didn’t actually kiss anything. Actually if you look at the photo it is clearly superimposed. The Popes picture is actually from a Mass at take your choice on this, St Peters, any Papal mass anywhere in an audience at the papal residence etc etc. or it is actually a photo of the Holy Father kissing a book of the Gospels

BUT

If the picture is genuine, then the Pope isn’t actually kissing anything. Under microscopic examination you can clearly see that his lips are hovering just above the book. No contact was made or intended.

BUT

If he did kiss the book it wasn’t a Koran. By arrangement with the Muslims a Christian Bible was substituted but everyone thought it was a Koran OR, one in his entourage, at his direction surrepticiously replaced the Koran in question with either a Coptic, Assyrian, Slovenic, Russian, Greek etc Bible OR if it was a Koran it was not a complete Koran, look at how thin it is, obviously an abridged version that has none of the references to Christ in it

BUT

If he did kiss a real honest to goodness Koran, he didn’t know it was a Koran because his entourage was supposed to change it and didn’t

But

If he did kiss the Koran and knew it to be a Koran, he kissed it only with a Kiss of Peace not of respect or love

BUT

If he did kiss the Koran out of respect, then it was only to really show respect to the creator manifested through the combined faiths of Abraham

and so on and so on and so on.

As I said, I can’t remember them all but there was always an excuse made to show that John Paul II was entirely correct in what he did no matter how far afield they had to go to get him there.
Click to expand...
Palmas: I see that picture and I cringe! I think the Holy Father made a prudential mistake, but I don’t think it was the apocalyptic big deal that others have made it out to be. You’ve got people on these threads who scream “Apostacy!” whenever it’s brought up (and they’re usually the ones bringing it up). It’s a question of motive and intent and on those questions, we’re called to be charitable in our assessments.
 
Walking_Home said:
Maybe —you should still see a doc. The fall may have loosened something.
Click to expand...
You can worry about me when I stop responding to your “contributions.”

For now, I’m going to bed. But I’m in a better mood than when I sat down at the computer, so I thank you for that.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home
Maybe —you should still see a doc. The fall may have loosened something.

You can worry about me when I stop responding to your “contributions.”

For now, I’m going to bed. But I’m in a better mood than when I sat down at the computer, so I thank you for that.
Click to expand...
JKirk—you may need a visit to the emergency room.
 
palmas85 said:
The term popolator wasn’t invented by me. At one point on this forum there was a group of people who defended everything that the late Holy Father said and did and would accept absolutely no criticism of anything that he did or said. they called themselves popolators. They were quite proud of it as a matter of fact. If you are not one I apologize.

As far as if I have done an in depth study of a paper written by the Pope, no I have not. But I have seen first hands the fruits of his actions, which in all honesty have had a lot more impact than anything that he wrote.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the response and apology.

I strongly encourage you to read Veritatis Splendor. I think you will be surprised at what you find. John Paul II was a strong Thomist and defender of Catholic Moral Teaching and it comes through loud and clear. It is a direct and confrontational refutation of modern relativism. It may slightly change your opinion of what he was really about. After all, 300 years from now, no one will remember the issues with dissident bishops and bad liturgies, but his writings will still be taught and examined and will strengthen the Church.
 
Sure said:
Thanks for the response and apology.

I strongly encourage you to read Veritatis Splendor. I think you will be surprised at what you find. John Paul II was a strong Thomist and defender of Catholic Moral Teaching and it comes through loud and clear. It is a direct and confrontational refutation of modern relativism. It may slightly change your opinion of what he was really about. After all, 300 years from now, no one will remember the issues with dissident bishops and bad liturgies, but his writings will still be taught and examined and will strengthen the Church.
Click to expand...
As I said, I saw the fruits of his actions. What he did and more importantly what he did not do. I have never doubted his personal piety and I truly feel that he believed that he was doing the right thing. Unfortunately, he made some very bad errors in judgement throughout the years of his Pontificate.

He wasn’t the worst Pope we’ve had, no mistresses and illegitimate children roaming about and he wasn’t the best either. No standing up, suffering for and dying for the faith. His desire to unite** ALL** of the worlds faith under one giant umbrella, with all faiths having value seemed a huge stretch then and a bigger stretch now. By stating that other faiths, non-Christian faiths have value, he in effect de-valued Christianity and Catholicism in particular. His bending over backwards as it were to accomodate the sensibilities of other faiths was something I don’t believe any previous Pope would have done.

I have never thought he intentionally tried to hurt the faith. No he, he truly felt he was doing the right thing. His intentions were good.

And we all know what they say about good intentions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top