For Donna And Mark - Novelties

[Good Friday]

At the old phorum, there was an ongoing discussion in which Donna and Mark discussed with a couple of others some of the things they considered "novelties" in the Church. I didn't know how to answer then, nor do I really know how, but I found some links that I thought would answer some of the things quite well, so I thought I would post them here.

A Defense of the Ecumenical Gathering At Assisi

A Reponse to Criticisms of the Second Ecumenical Gathering At Assisi

Dialogue: Should the Pope Kiss the Koran?

I hope this answers some of the questions/problems you had. If you don't find what you're looking for at the above links, you may find it here: Traditionalist & Schismatic Catholics Index Page

[mark4IHM]

Friday,

Thanks for looking into the matter.

I am familiar with the articles you cited. I guess some sort of explanation is required for these events, but if they are consistent with prior Church teaching and Tradition why has no other pope in the history of the Church done these things?

I can't speak for Donna, but for myself, I would give Assisi and the Koran Kiss more specific terms than 'novelties.' IMHO, Assisi was (and is) a scandal in that it fosters indifferentism, the idea that one can be saved through a non-Catholic religion. Events like Assisi were condemned by Pius XI in Mortalium Animos. Apologists for Assisi attempt to distinguish it from Mortalium Animos. I would encourage those interested to read the encyclical and make up their own minds.

As for kissing the Koran, at one time I called that a sacrilege, but blasphemy may be a more appropriate description for a pope venerating a book that denies the divinity of Christ. I use both words advisedly, for they do have technical meanings and I am not a theologian. As I understand those words, however, they seem to apply to the act in question. Please note that I am not extending these terms in a personal manner to the Holy Father; I am merely describing his actions.

BTW, Pope Paul VI called the New Mass a "novelty" and an "innovation", and on more than one occasion John Paul II has described the teachings of Vatican II as "novel" or "new". As I understand it, novelties and new teachings may legitimately be scrutinized as to whether they fit with the constant teaching of the Church, and the burden of proof lies with those propounding said novelties.

[dUSt]

As for kissing the Koran, at one time I called that a sacrilege, but blasphemy may be a more appropriate description for a pope venerating a book that denies the divinity of Christ. I use both words advisedly, for they do have technical meanings and I am not a theologian. As I understand those words, however, they seem to apply to the act in question. Please note that I am not extending these terms in a personal manner to the Holy Father; I am merely describing his actions.

I'm sorry Mark, you can't separate a man from his actions. If you think the actions of the Holy Father are "blasphemous" then you think the Holy Father is "blasphemous". Your attempts to walk on eggshells won't work here. I find these comments extremely offensive.

...and on more than one occasion John Paul II has described the teachings of Vatican II as "novel"...

I'd be interested in the sources for this info.

God bless.

[Winchester]

Huh?

When did JPII kiss a koran? I have to say I'd like to know why, since that book calls our Church a liar, among other things.

[dUSt]

Huh?

When did JPII kiss a koran? I have to say I'd like to know why, since that book calls our Church a liar, among other things.

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ394.HTM

[hyperdulia again]

What should he have done? It was out of respect for the giver (it did look bad however and I wish he hadn't done it). When someone gives you a gift you respond kindly and respectfully. If a Muslim (who in his mind is trying to save your immortal soul) gave you a copy of the Qu'ran what would you do punch him in the face and call him a heretic?

[Chrysologus]

Go, John Paul, go!

[Brother Adam]

What should he have done? It was out of respect for the giver (it did look bad however and I wish he hadn't done it).  When someone gives you a gift you respond kindly and respectfully.  If a Muslim (who in his mind is trying to save your immortal soul) gave you a copy of the Qu'ran what would you do punch him in the face and call him a heretic?

You give him a Bible and ask him if he would be interested in attending church with you.

[jasJis]

Did the Pope Kiss the Koran?

Dear Catholic Exchange:

I was searching for a particular story of the Pope kissing the Koran.

I believe it occurred in the Spring of 2001. I still haven't found the article. But many anti-Catholics have told me about it.

Do you know where I could find this story?

Rick

Dear Rick:

You can find it in an interview with His Beatitude Raphael I Bidawid, Patriarch of Babylon of the Chaldeans, in Fides.

It's online at here.

Here is the relevant question and answer from the interview:

At what point are preparations for a Papal visit to Iraq?

It is known that Pope John Paul II has often voiced a desire to make a pilgrimage in the footsteps of Abraham, the common father of Jews, Christians and Muslims. For the Pope, Abraham is a figure which helps the unity of believers to overcome political divisions. On May 14th I was received by the Pope, together with a delegation composed of the Shiite imam of Khadum mosque and the Sunni President of the council of administration of the Iraqi Islamic Bank. There was also a representative of the Iraqi ministry of religion. I renewed our invitation to the Pope because his visit would be for us a grace from heaven. It would confirm the faith of Christians and prove the Pope's love for the whole of humanity in a country which is mainly Muslim. At the end of the audience the Pope bowed to the Muslim holy book the Koran presented to him by the delegation and he kissed it as a sign of respect. The photo of that gesture has been shown repeatedly on Iraqi television and it demonstrates that the Pope is not only aware of the suffering of the Iraqi people, he has also great respect for Islam. A papal visit would be welcomed by both the people and by the authorities. After the audience I immediately sent a recommendation to the Iraqi government to make the official step of inviting the Pope to Iraq.

Bottom line: the Pope was making a gesture of respect to Islam and the the people of Iraq. Pope haters, whether fundamentalist Protestants or fundamentalist Catholics, see in this gesture all sorts of wild phantasms of their own imagining and, like armchair quarterbacks, are eager to give free punditry on the alleged sinister meaning of this gesture.

However, the Catholic patriarch whose flock actually lives in the country under Islamic rule and who is perhaps a bit closer to knowledge of the situation of the Church in the Islamic world than American couch potatoes at computer keyboards thought a) that this in no way signaled the abandonment of the gospel by John Paul and B) that Muslims understood it as the gesture of respect it was.

Essentially, John Paul's gesture underscored the teaching of Nostra Aetate which reads in part:

The Church, therefore, exhorts her sons, that through dialogue and collaboration with the followers of other religions, carried out with prudence and love and in witness to the Christian faith and life, they recognize, preserve and promote the good things, spiritual and moral, as well as the socio-cultural values found among these men.

3. The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.

Since in the course of centuries not a few quarrels and hostilities have arisen between Christians and Moslems, this sacred synod urges all to forget the past and to work sincerely for mutual understanding and to preserve as well as to promote together for the benefit of all mankind social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and freedom.

Hope this helps!

Mark Shea

Senior Content Editor

Catholic Exchange

[jasJis]

Some people want to see a glass half full, others half empty. Is the Pope showing reverence to what is false in Islam, or what Truth it shares with the One Faith?

[Good Friday]

May the light of Christ be with you, Mark.

I am familiar with the articles you cited. I guess some sort of explanation is required for these events, but if they are consistent with prior Church teaching and Tradition why has no other pope in the history of the Church done these things?

I think this is somewhat irrelevant. Prior to Pope Boniface VIII, no Pope had ever said explicitly that it is necessary for every human creature to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff in order to be saved. And there are other things that Popes have done that Popes prior to them had not done. It seems to me that the difference is that you like those things the Popes did, but you don't like some of the things the modern Popes have done.

The fact that no other Pope has done something that this Pope has done doesn't mean the actions are inconsistent with Church teaching and Tradition. As we know, the Holy Spirit is still leading the Church into all Truth.

I can't speak for Donna, but for myself, I would give Assisi and the Koran Kiss more specific terms than 'novelties.' IMHO, Assisi was (and is) a scandal in that it fosters indifferentism, the idea that one can be saved through a non-Catholic religion. Events like Assisi were condemned by Pius XI in Mortalium Animos. Apologists for Assisi attempt to distinguish it from Mortalium Animos. I would encourage those interested to read the encyclical and make up their own minds.

The assertion that Assisi and the Koran Kiss could have caused scandal is really no different than the assertion that the dogma of Mary as Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate might cause scandal, or that the Pope praying with Non-Catholic Christians might cause scandal. Indeed, all of these things might scandalize some, but if they are scandalized because of their own ignorance, there's nothing that can be done.

And when I say ignorance, I mean ignorance. If there's anyone out there who believes that the Pope, by his actions, intended to foster indifferentism or the idea that one can be saved through a non-Catholic religion, it's because of ignorance that they believe these things. One only needs to read the enyclicals and the addresses of the Holy Father, or the document Dominus Iesus to see that he, in no way, intends to foster indifferentism or the idea that one can be saved through a non-Catholic religion. In this case, it is the fault of the individual who is scandalized, not the Pope. If a person doesn't bother to find out the truth about the Pope and assumes the worst about him, that's that person's problem -- not the Pope's.

I will read Mortalium Animos, but I will not make up my own mind. I will trust that the Pope knows better how to interpret not only Mortalium Animos, but the whole of Scripture and Tradition, than I do. This is, at its root, an issue of trust. Do you trust the Pope, the Successor of Peter, the Vicar of Christ, or do you not? Personally, I trust him to make the correct decisions, and I do not feel qualified by the reading of one encyclical to judge the Pope's actions. There is much more to the Deposit of Faith than one encyclical, and I'm quite certain that the Holy Father knows of Mortalium Animos and knows, far better than I do, whether or not he violated the teachings therein.

As for kissing the Koran, at one time I called that a sacrilege, but blasphemy may be a more appropriate description for a pope venerating a book that denies the divinity of Christ. I use both words advisedly, for they do have technical meanings and I am not a theologian. As I understand those words, however, they seem to apply to the act in question. Please note that I am not extending these terms in a personal manner to the Holy Father; I am merely describing his actions.

As has already been noted, you can't declare a person's actions blasphemous and sacrilegious and not, at the same time, declare that person blasphemous and sacrilegious.

Again, this is a matter of trust. Do you trust the intentions of the Holy Father in kissing the Koran, or do you not? I believe that his intention was to respect and venerate Truth wherever it can be found -- and while there are many lies in the Koran (as there are in all religions besides the Catholic Faith), there is one profound Truth, that there is only one God and that he is Lord of all. Trusting the Holy Father, I believe that it was respect for this Truth that led him to kiss the Koran, but who can say? We don't know what was on his mind or in his heart.

BTW, Pope Paul VI called the New Mass a "novelty" and an "innovation", and on more than one occasion John Paul II has described the teachings of Vatican II as "novel" or "new". As I understand it, novelties and new teachings may legitimately be scrutinized as to whether they fit with the constant teaching of the Church, and the burden of proof lies with those propounding said novelties.

Could you please cite a source for these statements? I have an address from Pope Paul VI that seems to state something quite different. While he does make use of the word "innovation" in the document, he makes clear that this is an innovation in discipline, and not in doctrine. We all know that innovations in discipline can be made.

Nevertheless, here is what he says, and I don't think it could be made much clearer than this:

"The Mass of the new rite is and remains the same Mass we have always had. If anything, its sameness has been brought out more clearly in some respects." - Address of Pope Paul VI to a General Audience, #11. (11/19/1969)

Edited July 16, 2003 by Good Friday

[Winchester]

Alright, makes much more sense now. I wouldn't necessarily have done it, but I wasn't there in the moment.

[Donna]

"Pope hater"? If that is applied to Mark's post here, I hope people can at least discern by having read his posts that he chooses his words; he explains himself if asked. These are not the impulsive thrashings of someone reacting and hateful, (IMHO, as one who tries to read writers carefully).

dUSt, I am far far far from being a theologian, but I'm pretty sure the distinction Mark spoke of exists.

It is easy to say "I wouldn't kiss the Koran". I don't know what I would have done. But I was scandalized by the Vicar of Christ doing it, even if it was a cultural nicety. Or, even if there was big pressure tobe as a statesman. Is that hateful? If I could, I'd tell the Holy Father what I thought, because I love and revere the Papacy, and because a daughter can run to her dad about complaints. And she can be mad, whether or not mistaken. She can be worried for him. And for me, it is the exact opposite of hate for John Paul II.

We quote the Popes of old being corrected by their inferiors, because the Pope has no superior but God. We offer it as a proof that Holy Church is of divine origin. We concede that St. Paul was being charitable and upright in "withstanding Cephas". A sincere question: is it only the popes of old who needed correcting once in a while? Did the Cardinals say, "Holy Father, this could be taken the wrong way; the people equate the priest with kissing the gospel alone." I wonder.

"Pray, pray much for the Holy Father." (Blessed Jacinta).

*******

I've one source -easily obtained by all- re: what dUSt asked. It's in the document "Ecclesia Dei Afflicta" written in 1988, right after the Episcopal Consecrations of Marcel Lefebvre. It's barely 4 pages long (page 3 and my highlight):

"Indeed, the extent and depth of teaching of the Second Vatican Council call for a renewed committment to deeper study in order to reveal clearly the Council's continuity with Tradition, especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are new, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the Church."

[dUSt]

Donna,

Who said anything about a pope hater? What Mark said was offensive to me. Blasphemous is not a light word. One definition is "grossly irreverent toward what is held to be sacred". Accusing a pope of being blasphemous should not be taken lightly. I feel that Mark is out of place, and dissapointed that you feel it necessary to defend him in this matter.

God bless.

[cmotherofpirl]

Friday,

Thanks for looking into the matter.

I am familiar with the articles you cited. I guess some sort of explanation is required for these events, but if they are consistent with prior Church teaching and Tradition why has no other pope in the history of the Church done these things?

I can't speak for Donna, but for myself, I would give Assisi and the Koran Kiss more specific terms than 'novelties.' IMHO, Assisi was (and is) a scandal in that it fosters indifferentism, the idea that one can be saved through a non-Catholic religion. Events like Assisi were condemned by Pius XI in Mortalium Animos. Apologists for Assisi attempt to distinguish it from Mortalium Animos. I would encourage those interested to read the encyclical and make up their own minds.

As for kissing the Koran, at one time I called that a sacrilege, but blasphemy may be a more appropriate description for a pope venerating a book that denies the divinity of Christ. I use both words advisedly, for they do have technical meanings and I am not a theologian. As I understand those words, however, they seem to apply to the act in question. Please note that I am not extending these terms in a personal manner to the Holy Father; I am merely describing his actions.

BTW, Pope Paul VI called the New Mass a "novelty" and an "innovation", and on more than one occasion John Paul II has described the teachings of Vatican II as "novel" or "new". As I understand it, novelties and new teachings may legitimately be scrutinized as to whether they fit with the constant teaching of the Church, and the burden of proof lies with those propounding said novelties.

The only people I know who make this claim are schzmatic Catholics who refuse to accept the teachings of the Church in its entirety i.e. those who refuse to acccept Vatican II as a dogmatic and pastoral Council.

You are entitled to have a personal opinion.

You are not a theologian.

You are not competent to judge the actions of the Holy Father.

So for you to use the words scandal, sacrilege, or blasphemy in the same sentence with the Holy Father comes under this

2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.278 He becomes guilty:

- of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;

- of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another's faults and failings to persons who did not know them;279

- of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.280

Since the Holy Father is not available for you to interrogate, or correct to your personal standards, maybe this discussion should cease now.