mortify ii Posted May 5, 2014 Author Share Posted May 5, 2014 Patriarch said he kissed it out of "respect". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 Patriarch said he kissed it out of "respect". Yes. Respect. Not veneration. Not awe. Not worship. A kiss out of respect means nothing. I could kiss my atheist friend's latest book by Dawkins as a sign of respect and my sanctifying grace would remain intact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Ryan Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 Strange that some are offended by facts of history, obviously they recognize certain actions were inappropriate to say he least. There is a difference between being offended by history and being offended by the reification of history. The Roman Church has historically tolerated and/or sanctioned the practice of slavery, for example. The Church has justified murder in the name of faith. The spirit of Vatican II has been to rebalance the relationship between Love and History. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AugustineA Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 oi vey.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mortify ii Posted May 5, 2014 Author Share Posted May 5, 2014 Yes. Respect. Not veneration. Not awe. Not worship. A kiss out of respect means nothing. I could kiss my atheist friend's latest book by Dawkins as a sign of respect and my sanctifying grace would remain intact. The Qur'an explicitly rejects the divine sonship of our Lord, it makes a mockery of his agony on the cross by saying the crucifixion never occurred. Furthermore, it commands Muslims to fight Jews and Christians until we all submit to Islamic dominion, and so for millenia Christians were on the defensive end of a ceaseless Islamic jihad. It is not worthy of our respect. No popes acted like this in the past, and I find such actions very grave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 The Qur'an explicitly rejects the divine sonship of our Lord, it makes a mockery of his agony on the cross by saying the crucifixion never occurred. Furthermore, it commands Muslims to fight Jews and Christians until we all submit to Islamic dominion, and so for millenia Christians were on the defensive end of a ceaseless Islamic jihad. It is not worthy of our respect. No popes acted like this in the past, and I find such actions very grave. He didn't do it out of respect for the book, he did it out of respect for Muslims. This isn't really that difficult to comprehend. Unless you are a person of divine authority like Pope John Paul II, I take the highlighted words with no authority and complete bias. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidei Defensor Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 The Qur'an explicitly rejects the divine sonship of our Lord, it makes a mockery of his agony on the cross by saying the crucifixion never occurred. Furthermore, it commands Muslims to fight Jews and Christians until we all submit to Islamic dominion, and so for millenia Christians were on the defensive end of a ceaseless Islamic jihad. It is not worthy of our respect. No popes acted like this in the past, and I find such actions very grave. I think you need to read a little history about the personal lives of some past popes. Have you ever heard of the Borgia family? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mortify ii Posted May 5, 2014 Author Share Posted May 5, 2014 There is a difference between being offended by history and being offended by the reification of history. The Roman Church has historically tolerated and/or sanctioned the practice of slavery, for example. The Church has justified murder in the name of faith. The spirit of Vatican II has been to rebalance the relationship between Love and History. I have no clue what you mean by your last statement. Regarding the rest of your post we have to use precision in our language. Murder is a mortal sin, when did the Church justify it? Slavery is an ancient institution that according to Aristotle is based on natural law. Slaves were typically acquired through warfare when captured men were spared rather than killed or through debt paid off through service. If Aristotle was right, slavery continues up into our own time albeit in a different form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 I think you need to read a little history about the personal lives of some past popes. Have you ever heard of the Borgia family? I don't think comparing such a great and holy man to the Borgia family is a good idea. However, we can compare him to Saint Francis, who befriended a sworn enemy of the Crusaders and said we shouldn't kill Muslims because it takes away the opportunity to convert them. Was that heretical and terrible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mortify ii Posted May 5, 2014 Author Share Posted May 5, 2014 I think you need to read a little history about the personal lives of some past popes. Have you ever heard of the Borgia family? What heresies do you charge the Borgias with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mortify ii Posted May 5, 2014 Author Share Posted May 5, 2014 I don't think comparing such a great and holy man to the Borgia family is a good idea. However, we can compare him to Saint Francis, who befriended a sworn enemy of the Crusaders and said we shouldn't kill Muslims because it takes away the opportunity to convert them. Was that heretical and terrible? If our faith doesn't oblige us to kill Muslims so how can it be heretical? A basic understanding of terms is necessary. To me St Francis did a beautiful thing, do you have a source for that statement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 If our faith doesn't oblige us to kill Muslims so how can it be heretical? A basic understanding of terms is necessary. To me St Francis did a beautiful thing, do you have a source for that statement? Our faith also does not state kissing a book out of respect for a people is heretical. So where's the issue? I don't have a link to it, but it's in biographies of Saint Francis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mortify ii Posted May 5, 2014 Author Share Posted May 5, 2014 Our faith also does not state kissing a book out of respect for a people is heretical. So where's the issue? I'm not a canon lawyer, I don't think there is anything that specific, however actively participating in a non-Catholic ceremony is forbidden. There were canons that explicitly forbade entering a heretical or schismatic place of worship, and they carried the punishment of excommunication. I think respecting non-Catholic holy books is a proximate to these rulings of the Church. For the Vicar of Christ to bow down to and kiss the Qu'ran is just... sigh. nvm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 I'm not a canon lawyer, I don't think there is anything that specific, however actively participating in a non-Catholic ceremony is forbidden. There were canons that explicitly forbade entering a heretical or schismatic place of worship, and they carried the punishment of excommunication. I think respecting non-Catholic holy books is a proximate to these rulings of the Church. For the Vicar of Christ to bow down to and kiss the Qu'ran is just... sigh. nvm. Oh, I'm sorry, did you say Canon Law? Because Canon Law changes. It's not the same seventy years ago than it was a hundred years before that. Canon Law is subject to change. We live in a different time and culture. Back then, not entering a non-Catholic place of worship was considered by all people respecting your faith and the other person's faith. Nowadays it's seen as being a jerk, so we change the rules. The Church is not about sticking to one set of Canon Laws and sticking to them forever, it's about saving people and evangelizing. That was our mission statement by Christ. If a Canon Law stops us from doing that, we need to change it, because they are subject to change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mortify ii Posted May 5, 2014 Author Share Posted May 5, 2014 Oh, I'm sorry, did you say Canon Law? Because Canon Law changes. It's not the same seventy years ago than it was a hundred years before that. Canon Law is subject to change. We live in a different time and culture. Back then, not entering a non-Catholic place of worship was considered by all people respecting your faith and the other person's faith. Nowadays it's seen as being a jerk, so we change the rules. The Church is not about sticking to one set of Canon Laws and sticking to them forever, it's about saving people and evangelizing. That was our mission statement by Christ. If a Canon Law stops us from doing that, we need to change it, because they are subject to change. You're right in the sense that Canon Law can change, but has it changed? Are you saying that it is ok for a Catholic to actively participate in non-Catholic services and in particular kissing the Qur'an out of respect? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now