Why do Modern Popes Embrace Idolatry?

[EasterJoy]

no, i dont think i know the faith more than the holy father does. what i see is that many Catholics decide that is better to live in denial than see the reality that is what is going on with the clergy.

i am in no way criticizing the CC, i am just pointing out what some clergy are doing to the CC. and many people just says: oh well, all is well.

and i am in no way against the pope, for popes too can make mistakes in their decisions. St Peter did. i am not judging him either. so there is no neither for you to be so upset.

Let us put ourselves back into the days of the Medicis, of selling indulgences, or whatever.

Obviously, there are times and places when the heirarchy can stand some criticism. We are guaranteed that the Church will not teach error. We are not guaranteed that the heirarchy will never make any mistakes. Sometimes, it is right for non-clergy to speak up respectfully and raise the question of whether the heirarchy are committing abuses.

Nevertheless, we also have to admit that establishing the boundaries of ecumenical exchanges is within the authority of the heirarchy. The clergy have some discretion that laypeople do not: “What you declare loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven…” This is particularly true of the Holy Father.

The Apostles clearly engaged with public dialogue with people of other faiths. They did so in a respectful manner. Now, possibly this was because they were literally getting stoned by the crowds, hauled in front of the courts of other religious authorities, or thrown in jail by the government often enough as it was. There is courage, and then there is discretion. Still, there is no sin in showing respect for people who are not yet believers. Some of the sins of the Church leadership in the past have erred on the side of refusing to have anything to do with pagans to the point that innocent blood was shed because of their rhetoric. There is enough of that in today’s world as it is. For which of the abuses of the past were the worst: the selling of indulgences, or the pogroms? Is burning heretics the thing that stamped out heresy?

I am not saying that anyone here wants to burn anyone at the stake, but that we consider how much blood has been shed in this century, is being shed even now as we write here, because of hatred dressed up in the sheep’s clothing of righteousness. It is to the point that religion itself is a scandal to the atheists! The Holy Father and those among the other religious authorities who are committed to defend the dignity of each person agree: THIS HAS TO STOP!!

These are times in which religious rhetoric can lead to hundreds and even thousands of deaths in a single stroke of terror. To err on the side of dialogue, to err on the side of respect for those who don’t have correct beliefs, to err on the side of bending over backwards to show respect is called for in these times.

The Pope is very clear about what the truth is. He is very clear that all faiths are not equal, that choosing to follow the truth does matter. The totality of his life and words show clearly that if he kisses a Koran, it is an expression of his love for all, even those in error, and not because he is willing to be silent in tolerating the error itself.

Anybody who doesn’t get that just isn’t listening. That is their problem, not the Pope’s, because he isn’t so subtle as all that.

 

[pnewton]

no, i dont think i know the faith more than the holy father does. what i see is that many Catholics decide that is better to live in denial than see the reality that is what is going on with the clergy.

TIP OF THE DAY:

When posting on the internet, remember that people that disagree with you are not necessarily in denial, ignorant or less informed than you on a subject.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Let us put ourselves back into the days of the Medicis, of selling indulgences, or whatever.

Obviously, there are times and places when the heirarchy can stand some criticism. We are guaranteed that the Church will not teach error. We are not guaranteed that the heirarchy will never make any mistakes. Sometimes, it is right for non-clergy to speak up respectfully and raise the question of whether the heirarchy are committing abuses.

Nevertheless, we also have to admit that establishing the boundaries of ecumenical exchanges is within the authority of the heirarchy. The clergy have some discretion that laypeople do not: “What you declare loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven…” This is particularly true of the Holy Father.

The Apostles clearly engaged with public dialogue with people of other faiths. They did so in a respectful manner. Now, possibly this was because they were literally getting stoned by the crowds, hauled in front of the courts of other religious authorities, or thrown in jail by the government often enough as it was. There is courage, and then there is discretion. Still, there is no sin in showing respect for people who are not yet believers. Some of the sins of the Church leadership in the past have erred on the side of refusing to have anything to do with pagans to the point that innocent blood was shed because of their rhetoric. There is enough of that in today’s world as it is. For which of the abuses of the past were the worst: the selling of indulgences, or the pogroms? Is burning heretics the thing that stamped out heresy?

I am not saying that anyone here wants to burn anyone at the stake, but that we consider how much blood has been shed in this century, is being shed even now as we write here, because of hatred dressed up in the sheep’s clothing of righteousness. It is to the point that religion itself is a scandal to the atheists! The Holy Father and those among the other religious authorities who are committed to defend the dignity of each person agree: THIS HAS TO STOP!!

These are times in which religious rhetoric can lead to hundreds and even thousands of deaths in a single stroke of terror. To err on the side of dialogue, to err on the side of respect for those who don’t have correct beliefs, to err on the side of bending over backwards to show respect is called for in these times.

The Pope is very clear about what the truth is. He is very clear that all faiths are not equal, that choosing to follow the truth does matter. The totality of his life and words show clearly that if he kisses a Koran, it is an expression of his love for all, even those in error, and not because he is willing to be silent in tolerating the error itself.

Anybody who doesn’t get that just isn’t listening. That is their problem, not the Pope’s, because he isn’t so subtle as all that.

i think there is a big problem here with communication. i am not advocating any evil against no one.
but we can stick with the Truth no matter what. i like what a priest of the fathers of Mercy said: we became cowards.

we dont have to go around criticizing or telling any one how wrong they are. what we must not do is to give them the ilusion that we accept them as they are. we can also continue our journey as our Lord has commanded His Church to do. preaching the True Gospel. continue to preach that Jesus is the way to Salvation and not give unbelievers the hope that they can be saved just by being good. it becomes very confusion to us, since it is written no man can come to the Father but through Jesus. this has not changed. what i see now and days is that many in the Church are more concerned in being popular with the world than to suffer the consequences for telling the Truth. so they hide behind not so clear and ambiguous statements.

there is no need to advocate hate or criticism of any one’s beliefs, just speak the
True Gospel. there is all. if they accept, Praise God. if not, do what Jesus said to do: dust the sand of your sandals and leave. Jesus is the Judge of them.

Peace.

 

[Lev23]

there is no need to advocate hate or criticism of any one’s beliefs, just speak the
True Gospel. there is all. if they accept, Praise God. if not, do what Jesus said to do: dust the sand of your sandals and leave. Jesus is the Judge of them.

Peace.

Amen!

 

[Lisa44]

A quick word about The Picture. First, it is unknown whether John Paul II even knew the gift of this ancient book was The Koran. Pictures are not worth a thousand words if we do not hear what was said and what people were thinking. Second, the Holy Father is a priest. The gesture he did was so automatice he may not have even thought about it or asked what the gift was.

In the worst case, he knew it was the Koran and kissed it to honor it as a gift, then the most that could be criticized is the prudence of such an action, not that he was worshipping it. To use an analogy, many people jumped on President Obama for bowing to some world leader at a summit. However, I do not think anyone (except a few nutballs) would go so far as to say the president was worshipping or submitting to this other world leader. It was just a gesture, maybe stupid, maybe not, but just a gesture.

First of all, do you speak for Pope John Paul II? Are we to ignore a picture of him kissing the Koran and instead, take your word because you speak for him?
That is illogical as well.
If you can show a precedent where the Pope kissed all the gifts he was given then your theory might hold water.
But please lets try and stick to facts and not conjecture as to why. No one knows why he did it. We just know he did it. And that FACT is disturbing to many.

As for King Abdullah, it is not customary for American Presidents to bow to him. Obama’s actions were very much suspect in that moment as well. He is the president of the U.S., not a Muslim subject of a king. And who are you calling “nutballs”? You have put yourself in the position of the spokesperson for a deceased Pope! Is not that a tad crazy?

 

[pnewton]

First of all, do you speak for Pope John Paul II? Are we to ignore a picture of him kissing the Koran and instead, take your word because you speak for him?..You have put yourself in the position of the spokesperson for a deceased Pope! Is not that a tad crazy?

This must be the uncharitable post I have ever seen from you. You misrepresent (lie) about what I said and then ask if I am crazy. I ask everyone to read my quote. Not once did I claim for, or try to speak for the Pope. What I offered was conjecture.

“it is unknown whether John Paul II even knew the gift of this ancient book was The Koran”

“he may not have even thought about it”

Are these based in facts? Of course not and I do not claim that they are, other than the fact that priests do kiss as a sign of respect. Never did I claim this was anything but conjecture.

---

That is the point. I look for possibilities other than the pope is an idoloter and my sanity is question. Yet, other look with conjecture and assume the worst. Which is best reflective of Christian charity? Do you know know that by what measure you judge others you too will be judged?

As far as the “nutball” comments, surely no one here think President Obama considers King Abdullah divine.

I never take pleasure in seeing the stereotypes reinforced of traditionalists.

 

[Indyann]

This must be the uncharitable post I have ever seen from you. You misrepresent (lie) about what I said and then ask if I am crazy. I ask everyone to read my quote. Not once did I claim for, or try to speak for the Pope. What I offered was conjecture.

“it is unknown whether John Paul II even knew the gift of this ancient book was The Koran”

“he may not have even thought about it”

Are these based in facts? Of course not and I do not claim that they are, other than the fact that priests do kiss as a sign of respect. Never did I claim this was anything but conjecture.

---

That is the point. I look for possibilities other than the pope is an idoloter and my sanity is question. Yet, other look with conjecture and assume the worst. Which is best reflective of Christian charity? Do you know know that by what measure you judge others you too will be judged?

As far as the “nutball” comments, surely no one here think President Obama considers King Abdullah divine.

I never take pleasure in seeing the stereotypes reinforced of traditionalists.

Another conjecture from a senior citizen.

I know from experience that there are “senior moments”. Has anyone considered that perhaps Pope John Paul II, was taken by surprise and just automatically reacted?

If you have never considered that, wait until you have traveled that path, you may change your mind.

 

[WarriorofJesus]

It is the mission of the Pope to convert as many souls as they can but they are also not allowed to force anyone into conversion. It is better and more convinient for them to be friends with other people that are not within our catholic faith. For as we know, some people tend to hate the catholic religion y ocasionally persecute the faithful followers of our church in other countrys where such adoration is prohibited. If the other people that are not cathlicos do not want to join our religion, than its better to get along with them without having discusiones or arguments on which religion is true or “better”. In the past, people had terrible wars simply becuase of religious diferences and couldn’t quite get along even though their beliefs were diferent.

Having the popes getting along with them maintains the little peace and unity that is left in the world. The best we can do is just simply pray for their conversion and expect for them to one day step a foot in our churches.

 

[shoewindow3000]

I feel that I have opened a can of worms by starting this thread!!!

 

[imkingdad]

If that is the logic, then why not have a “dialogue” with the church of satan? It is the** SAME THING**, except that in Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism Taoism, etc. the demonic influence is not as apparent! The only faiths to really have a dialogue with are Judaism, Orthodox churches, and Protestants.

Ultimately, it seems more politics than anything. At best, you would get an agreement to disagree, smile for the cameras, and go home. Maybe some people would become Catholic, but the whole thing always seemed so silly and ridiculous.

I guess according to your twisted logic no one including yourself should ever go to or preach to any sinners ( real or perceived) because by sitting down with them, Like Christ & the apostles did they are somehow compromising the Faith. I guess you’d fit directly into that group by coming here & fratrinizing with us vile, ignorant Foolish Catholics. I bet there’s an Idol climbing up you leg at this very moment.

You newbie Christians are always so funny, hypocritical, & uninformed as to make it unfair for most of us to even engage you in conversation. Your blindness & unwillingness to engage in anything that even begins to resemble thoughtful dialogue much less research the various components of our respective Faith structures makes a truly enlightened conversation impossible.

Since its Obvious that you know it all & really think that those that openly & readily admit they don’t are somehow inferior & un worthy of even casual assocation I guess we will be seeing a quick departure from here on your part.

Bye bye

 

[shoewindow3000]

(I am the OP)

Thankfully God judges me, and not the people on this forum!!! God knows the heart, and doesn’t judge by human standards!

I feel that I have been horribly misunderstood!

You may quick to judge me, but I don’t hate anybody on earth. If I did, I would acknowledge their useless idols. The fact that I* don’t* proves it!

• All* people in this world are called by God!

If I was sitting at a large banquet table with all sorts of food, and I saw people outside eating crumbs, I would invite them in, even if they hate me for it!

 

[straggleyway]

Hi all,

I thought I’d add a contribution from a non-believer. I was raised catholic, but as I grew up I found I could not accept its ideas and left. I still find many of your ideas distasteful, but I still hold confidence in debate.

There seems to be a feeling that the Pope should go out of his way to tell other religions they are ‘wrong’ and that catholism is right. So, the first point is how do we decided this?

Whenever I debate with believers, I’m always told that they have “faith” and I will never be able to disprove that. I agree. I think thats right. Human beings have produced thousands of gods to believe in. Therefore if the Pope comes and instructs other to believe in your god, your opponents will come back to you with - but we have FAITH.

This is the elephant in the room for religion. Each religion wants to be declared “true” - however each also holds to the notion of faith. I hold that “faith” is probably the worst single idea that humans have come up with - the Golden Rule, being the best!

In todays world, relying on faith is still strong although is being tested. Your Pope has become a diplomat of the highest order. He cannot preach to other religions, simply because he would be attacking “faith” itself. And it a climate, where evidence is becoming how humans decide what is true - he cannot afford to do this.

Hope that help and take care

 

[shoewindow3000]

Hi all,

I thought I’d add a contribution from a non-believer. I was raised catholic, but as I grew up I found I could not accept its ideas and left. I still find many of your ideas distasteful, but I still hold confidence in debate.

There seems to be a feeling that the Pope should go out of his way to tell other religions they are ‘wrong’ and that catholism is right. So, the first point is how do we decided this?

Whenever I debate with believers, I’m always told that they have “faith” and I will never be able to disprove that. I agree. I think thats right. Human beings have produced thousands of gods to believe in. Therefore if the Pope comes and instructs other to believe in your god, your opponents will come back to you with - but we have FAITH.

This is the elephant in the room for religion. Each religion wants to be declared “true” - however each also holds to the notion of faith. I hold that “faith” is probably the worst single idea that humans have come up with - the Golden Rule, being the best!

In todays world, relying on faith is still strong although is being tested. Your Pope has become a diplomat of the highest order. He cannot preach to other religions, simply because he would be attacking “faith” itself. And it a climate, where evidence is becoming how humans decide what is true - he cannot afford to do this.

Hope that help and take care

When I was an atheist, I also made the mistake of seeing Judaism/Christianity as “one of many.”

 

[straggleyway]

Hey shoewindow3000

I dont regard seeing your faith as one of many as a mistake at all. I’d be interested in your perspective. How can you regard your “faith” as superior to say, a Hindu, who believes in Ganesh?

Lets suppose that in this reality, Ganesh is actually the true god. Your faith is therefore idol worship by definition. How can you claim faith in one supernatural being as true, whereas another is false? If you use the argument of witness ie your god speaks to you - then surely a Hindu will say the same - Ganesh speaks to him! In fact, this can occur in every circumstance, where humans believe a supernatural being is communicating with them. They have faith.

I believe that religion can (and is) be explain by a theory of cognition. There is a lot of work in antropology and psychology that is looking into the various belief systems and why they work that way. I find believers are often surprised that I object to religious belief on moral grounds. They assume non-believers are heathens - corrupt! Well, I learned your ideas and after reflection could not agree with them. Thats why I’m no longer a catholic.

 

[Lev23]

It is not embracing idolatry. That has been said repeatedly and saying it more often won’t make it more true.

If it is the Assissi incident, I then this pagan worship occured during a meeting of world religious leaders. Being at Assissi, the Catholic Church was host. In this role, church facilities were made available so that the guests could hold their own religious services. Therefore, pagan religions had idols in a Church. Was this a wise move? I don’t think so, but it was not embracing idolatry on the part of the Pope or anyone else.

Let me say my ex-girlfriend comes to some legitimate business. She had to go to the restroom, so I let her use my facilities and she leaves. Now the press gets a hold of this story and reports that ex-girlfriend uses bathroom at my residence. The Wanderer gets hold of the press story and reports that my ex-girlfriend was in my house with her pants down.

So if you want to disagree with whether such ecumenical meetings should ever happen, or whether parish halls or rented facilities would be better choices to allow guests to worship, then fine. It is a good argument.

Sorry, Im not sure what to make of your anaolgy. And this event was not some “ecumenical meeting”, but a unison worship service of almost every religion under the sun.

If you want to accuse the Pope of idolatry, then you slander and judge to an extent that God alone is judge.

I have not accused any person of idolatary. And you are right, God is the only judge. He is also a jealous God. Worship of Him should never be mixed or added to another idolatrous worship service. Yes, he has compassion for all in the world who repent of their ways and seek Him.

But as far as His chosen ones assisting another religion in any other way than sharing the truth about God, well 2 Kings 22 and 23 come to mind.

Now of course I am not advocating going around smashing idols and such like King Josiah had to do, because this place today is not our promised land. But from the scriptures it is clear God’s chosen ones never should entertain the worship of idols from other religions.

 

[Lev23]

This is a prime example of the type of “evidence” that is used to support the idea that “Modern Popes Embrace Idolatry.” I have tried to research this event, but the only “evidence” I’ve seen is a fuzzy picture that seems to be a buddha-like image on an altar. Nothing in the picture indicates the location of the altar. I have seen this picture with the claim that it is St. Peter’s Basilica, and here it is being labeled as “the Basilica of St. Francis in Assisi.” Without supporting documentation, which I have never been able to find, we don’t know WHERE this altar was, whether it was even ever used for a Catholic Mass or was simply an altar erected in some unknown location by Buddhists for their own ceremonies.

This fact, nothing at all can be deduced from this “evidence”, but this is typical of the support for the idea that “Modern Popes Embrace Idolatry.” A picture is used, and a story is constructed around it. Or a phrase is pulled out of context, and a heap of assumptions placed around it. This type of argumentation is not logical, not charitable, and is very disrespectful.

This is not a search for the Loch Ness Monster type of event, there were many people there watching on. These things were meant for people to see. Even some protestants who attended were a little miffed on why an idol would be allowed on a catholic alter.

Do you really think it is wrong or disrespectful to questioning your leaders when it comes to them possibly entertaining idolatry?

 

[straggleyway]

Lev23,

I think this is an interesting area - particularly as protestants regard the catholic worship of mary as idolatry. What do you think here? The key questions are

• what is defined as an idol? ( or is it "any god that I *dont * believe in…!!! )
• who has the authority to define it?
• why is it morally wrong?

Many protestants think that worship of mary is morally wrong - yet I presume you do this? So, who claims the authority?!

 

[Lev23]

Hey shoewindow3000

I dont regard seeing your faith as one of many as a mistake at all. I’d be interested in your perspective. How can you regard your “faith” as superior to say, a Hindu, who believes in Ganesh?

Lets suppose that in this reality, Ganesh is actually the true god. Your faith is therefore idol worship by definition. How can you claim faith in one supernatural being as true, whereas another is false? If you use the argument of witness ie your god speaks to you - then surely a Hindu will say the same - Ganesh speaks to him! In fact, this can occur in every circumstance, where humans believe a supernatural being is communicating with them. They have faith.

I believe that religion can (and is) be explain by a theory of cognition. There is a lot of work in antropology and psychology that is looking into the various belief systems and why they work that way. I find believers are often surprised that I object to religious belief on moral grounds. They assume non-believers are heathens - corrupt! Well, I learned your ideas and after reflection could not agree with them. Thats why I’m no longer a catholic.

Forget it, the God of Israel is real, He is the only true God, He is the creator of this whole universe.

We who believe in Him and have faith in Him also have evidence of Him. He has made Himself known through His creation and His Word. His Word has prophecies that have been fufilled to the last detail, and there are more to be fulfilled.

 

[Lev23]

Lev23,

I think this is an interesting area - particularly as protestants regard the catholic worship of mary as idolatry. What do you think here? The key questions are

• what is defined as an idol? ( or is it "any god that I *dont * believe in…!!! )
• who has the authority to define it?
• why is it morally wrong?

Many protestants think that worship of mary is morally wrong - yet I presume you do this? So, who claims the authority?!

Catholics teach they venerate Mary, so rephrase your point please.

 

[straggleyway]

Hi Lev,

No problem - protestants believe that your veneration of mary is immoral. Simple. You can re-word it any way you like - but they regard it as idol worship.

So my questions is who decides what is an idol? I’m sure you wouldnt regard Mary as an idol?

Before you said…
Forget it, the God of Israel is real, He is the only true God, He is the creator of this whole universe.

We who believe in Him and have faith in Him also have evidence of Him…etc etc

Well, if I was a Hindu - I would say EXACTLY THE SAME about Ganesh.

Ganesh is the only true God because I have faith.

Do you see the problem? Your faith wrestles with my Hindu - who decides who is right?!

all the best