It is dangerous to begin a discussion based on the false perception of a single picture (i.e., John Paul "kissing" the Koran):
So, let's try the following interpretation of this picture where John Paul II allegedly "kisses" the Koran:
John Paul II, as Head of State, just received a Moslem delegate in the Vatican. The Moslem doesn't know of any "greater" gift to bring than a copy of the Koran. So he gives it to the Pope, who takes it in sign of good diplomatic relations. But the Pope has a cold that day... and as he holds the Satanic Verses, his noses starts leaking... [Moderated: I don't think this is appropriate].
The point is: a picture can convey many perceptions.
I have seen Protestant and Islamic website where Holy Icon are shown as a proof... that Christians worship idols!
Here is what John Paul II really thought about the Koran, Mohammed and Islam. And, unlike a potentially deceiving picture, it is on record for all to read:
(1) "Whoever knows the Old and the New Testaments, and then reads the Koran, clearly sees the process by which [the Koran] reduces Divine Revelation"
(2) "It is impossible not to see [in the Koran] the movement away from what God said about Himself, first in the Old Testament ... and then finally in the New Testament..."
(3) "In Islam all the richness of God's self-revelation ... has definitely been set aside."
(4) "Islam is not a religion of redemption"
(5) "[N]ot only the theology but also the anthropology of Islam is very distant from Christianity"
From: "Crossing the Threshold of Hope" by John Paul II, Alfred A. Knopf Edition, 1994
You appear to be a new member, and have posted material which I have moderated. I am Father Peter Farrington, the moderator on this site. I would appreciate it if you did not post material which is offensive. It is possible to be critical of Islam without being offensive. You, and most here, have the benefit of being able to post material anonymously, but there are many millions of Orthodox brothers and sisters who must live in sometimes difficult circumstances and who cannot be anonymous in their Christian Faith. We have a responsibility not to be abusive and offensive in any case, but especially if this will cause greater problems for Christians who cannot be safely hidden behind a pseudonym.
Your point is clear and I will respect your authority as moderator. However, I do not believe that my post was in the least offensive, since I was writing satire (which is, in itself, an acceptable literary style).
My point, therefore, was:
A picture can deceive, and there is absolutely no evidence from what we have seen that John Paul II actually kissed the Koran.
For all we know (since You and I weren't there as witnesses of this event), John Paul could have been praying over the Koran in light of his beliefs about it (as I quoted from his "Crossing the Threshold of Hope")...
In fact, he might have been praying in the name of Jesus Christ Crucified and Resurrected for the salvation of the guest who brought him this copy of the Koran. Isn't that possible?
Therefore, your interpretation of the picture you posted on this forum is, really, a "cheap shot" at one of the greatest and most theologically and morally grounded Christian leaders in the 20th century. Don't you think?
You appear to be a new member, and have posted material which I have moderated. I am Father Peter Farrington, the moderator on this site. I would appreciate it if you did not post material which is offensive. It is possible to be critical of Islam without being offensive. You, and most here, have the benefit of being able to post material anonymously, but there are many millions of Orthodox brothers and sisters who must live in sometimes difficult circumstances and who cannot be anonymous in their Christian Faith. We have a responsibility not to be abusive and offensive in any case, but especially if this will cause greater problems for Christians who cannot be safely hidden behind a pseudonym.
My reference to John Paul II kissing the koran is not relative to the picture posted (in another thread), but rather the two specific times in: Constantinople and in Jerusalem.
Moreover, his comments were relative to being in front of the press.
In regard to the events I saw them personally in the popular media (CNN & EWTN). EWTN, I might add, is a Catholic cable broadcast in the United States.
It does not make a difference if he is a Head of State. He is the representative of the Latin Church and a proper witness to His Christ, and Our Christ.
Did John Paul II reciprocate the gesture by extending a copy of the Holy Bible to all of these "nice" Muslim representatives that come to him?
By the Way, I love St. Mark too. Remember, friend, that St. Mark's Gospel testifies to two things:
(1) To the supremacy of St. Peter (since Mark just reports what he sees and hear from St. Peter);
(2) The Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.
But to answer your questions and points:
(A) You are right, the Pope kissed the Koran. When I argued against it, I was trying to make a point on the easy use and abuse of picture as evidence for anything.
(B) So, by kissing the Koran, John Paul might have done it as a way of "evangelizing" the Moslem by example.
(C) Surely, if he had tossed the gift he just received to the floor, the person who brought it would have never in his lifetime considered the possibility of any truth in Christianity.
(D) Furthermore, John Paul II was a very pastoral person, who has seen believers of all faiths persecuted and murdered by the atheistic communist regimes in Eastern Europe... so he always gave the benefit of the doubt to the person who visited him... without AT ALL agreeing with the person's theology (as my above quotes from John Paul's writings demonstrate).
(E) Finally, it is common for the Pope to present his guests copies of the Bible, or other works of solid Christian theology.
In fact, when Benedict received Obama not long ago, the Pope gave Obama as gift the Vatican's latest statement on bioethics... which is a theological and anthropological affirmation of the reasons that the Church opposes IVF, cloning, abortion, etc. Benedict gave this gift knowing that Obama is extremely liberal on these issues... so he chose that this would be the best witness to this very liberal man (who is, by all means and purposes, an enemy of all Christians)
My reference to John Paul II kissing the koran is not relative to the picture posted (in another thread), but rather the two specific times in: Constantinople and in Jerusalem.
Moreover, his comments were relative to being in front of the press.
In regard to the events I saw them personally in the popular media (CNN & EWTN). EWTN, I might add, is a Catholic cable broadcast in the United States.
It does not make a difference if he is a Head of State. He is the representative of the Latin Church and a proper witness to His Christ, and Our Christ.
Did John Paul II reciprocate the gesture by extending a copy of the Holy Bible to all of these "nice" Muslim representatives that come to him?
I can appreciate the remark relative to evangelizing, but my thoughts are relative to the gravity, ramifications, and precedence.
I will put it to you relative to those of us who are struggling to survive under heavy persecution in Egypt. If the same gesture is made to Pope Shenouda in Egypt, it can have devastating if not masacring effects.
From even the Roman Catholic perspective it identifies (by appearance--granted) that the Koran is in equivalence to the Holy Bible.
These are my thoughts in a simplified manner.
I repeat, I thank you for your tone.
I chose "ilovesaintmark" as my screen name, because it forces everyone to say it. St. Mark, at times, has been forgotten. I am indebted to the prayers that he has offered to God on my behalf and my family.
His [St. Mark] prayers be with us, and Glory--always--to God.
I fully understand the situation of Copts in Egypt. I have witnessed it with my own eyes while living and traveling in the Middle East (including Egypt).
This, in turn, has made me believe that the urgency of Christian unity today is all the more important at a time when Christianity is under attack from two sides: Islam and anti-life liberalism.
On that note (i.e., Christian unity), it must be acknowledged by all that Pope Benedict XVI is working the hardest among us to achieve this end: He is pressing very hard to have an official meeting with the Patriarch of Moscow (the "Third Rome"), something which for political reasons would have been impossible under John Paul II.
And the reason for the Pope's push is simple: Europe, the "adopted" daughter of Christ and the Apostles, is losing her faith much faster than originally thought... and her faith is quickly supplanted by (again) Islam on the one hand, and ultra-aggressive pro-sodomite liberalism on the other hand.
So... even if we disagree on the historic evolution of the dogma of Petrine primacy (and all its subtleties), we can accept what the blogger abdulmassih (who wrote about this on another thread) seems to point at: we can at least agree to review the historical evidence for the See of St. Peter as first among equals (for none of us would deny that) and apply it to our current global situation with a new meaning toward Christian unity as a common front against the two enemies.
As a final clarification: John Paul II never saw a Moslem person as an “enemy” (hence he kissed the Koran which he received from a potential friend), but he fully understood the ramifications of the Islamic faith as a potential danger and threat. John Paul was one of the greatest and most active Christian leaders in the 20th century, and in spite of his weaknesses (maybe he believed too much in the good will of others?), he always discerned between the person and the lie that a person is following. In the end, he always desired the salvation of souls, and he was ready to take criticism for it.
And of course, his greatest desire of all was Christian unity as a witness of Truth to all mankind.
And this leads us back to the issue of St. Peter’s primacy and its applications for today...
I believe that my place as a Coptic Orthodox Christian and Deacon is to pray for this matter. One may banter the issue all over the place, but the resolution does rest in the hierarchs. It is the sake of the people that they follow their shepherds within the realm of what is Orthodox and in keeping with the teachings of the Apostolic Fathers.
In my posting, and in reply to Abdelmassih, in the self-same thread that you allude, there are essential questions (rhetorical and stated) that identify the Eastern perspective. The handful of citations that he made never answered them, and I add that there are the same references from Eastern sources that are translated differently. Yet the overall perspective is such for the Eastern view is that the Church is guided by Its Bridegroom--the True Christ--and He alone.
I am not a theolgian, nor do I pretend to be. What I believe and know about my Orthodox Faith and Heritage is practical and pragmatic to my self and being. What I know I hold devoutly, and I live to the best that I can.
For the Coptic there is no "First Rome", "Second Rome", or "Third Rome", there is the Heavenly Jerusalem to look forward to.
I even alluded to historical issues of abuse in the Latin Church, and even refrained from mentioning some realities and wounds that are still open, and they were a direct result of Caesero-Papism. Why would Petrine Primacy in the 21st century be different from any of the other centuries? In one of my Classical History courses in college, the professor identified, that there has been a progression for man in the Western World, first freeing himself from the constraints of the monarchy, thereafter Papal rule (i.e., the Protestant Reformation), and thereafter from morals and civil rule. I would say that sums of the progression in Western Culture and with which you cite in your previous post.
I believe that the Petrine Primacy issue is a major issue, it is not a minor issue, and I do not feel there will be any resolution in the matter, nor would I be for such a movement. I do not feel that there is any evidence for it, and in the contrary there is much evidence against it.
The fault is in making a case with one verse from the Bible. The overall thought that is generated needs to be in the context of the continuity within the fabric of the Bible in Its entirety.
I would also say that the current state of affairs of the Latin Church, and its adoption of many liberal thought processes, leaves doubt and question as to its ability to shepherd its own flock. I know that throughout the Northeast and Midwest of the United States there are considerable rebellions and indignation about any monetary support of the different Archdioceses. These factors are also present and being fanned in Ireland, Poland, and Germany.
In regard to stronger and better thoughts on the Coptic Orthodox perspective on Petrine Primacy, I would refer you to an article by the Bishop of thrice blessed memory, Anba Gregorious that was written in Coptologia. I can refer you to their website. I referenced it previously in another thread. If you do a search you will find it. Also, Iqbal, a poster and moderator on this website has had very strong commentary from the Coptic Orthodox perspective.
From my simple regard I just do not see the Petrine Primacy as being logical.
Hi guys! May be you've seen this information, nevertheless, I would like to share it with you. I found it very amusing!
How the Vatican created Islam
How the Vatican created Islam. The astonishing story from an ex-Jesuit priest, Alberto Rivera, which was told to him by Cardinal Bea while he was at the Vatican.
This information came from Alberto Rivera, former Jesuit priest after his conversion to Protestant Christianity. It is excerpted from "The Prophet," published by Chick Publications, PO Box 662, Chino CA 91708. Since its publication, after several unsuccessful attempts on his life, he died suddenly from food poisoning. His testimony should not be silenced. Dr. Rivera speaks to us still …
"What I'm going to tell you is what I learned in secret briefings in the Vatican when I was a Jesuit priest, under oath and induction. A Jesuit cardinal named Augustine Bea showed us how desperately the Roman Catholics wanted Jerusalem at the end of the third century. Because of its religious history and its strategic location, the Holy City was considered a priceless treasure. A scheme had to be developed to make Jerusalem a Roman Catholic city.
"The great untapped source of manpower that could do this job was the children of Ishmael. The poor Arabs fell victim to one of the most clever plans ever devised by the powers of darkness. Early Christians went everywhere with the gospel setting up small churches, but they met heavy opposition. Both the Jews and the Roman government persecuted the believers in Christ to stop their spread. But the Jews rebelled against Rome, and in 70 AD, Roman armies under General Titus smashed Jerusalem and destroyed the great Jewish temple which was the heart of Jewish worship...in fulfillment of Christ's prophecy in Matthew 24:2.
"On this holy placed today where the temple once stood, the Dome of the Rock Mosque stands as Islam's second most holy place. Sweeping changes were in the wind. Corruption, apathy, greed, cruelty, perversion and rebellion were eating at the Roman Empire, and it was ready to collapse. The persecution against Christians was useless as they continued to lay down their lives for the gospel of Christ.
"The only way Satan could stop this thrust was to create a counterfeit "Christian" religion to destroy the work of God. The solution was in Rome. Their religion had come from ancient Babylon and all it needed was a face-lift. This didn't happen overnight, but began in the writings of the 'early church fathers'.
"It was through their writings that a new religion would take shape. The statue of Jupiter in Rome was eventually called St. Peter, and the statue of Venus was changed to the Virgin Mary. The site chosen for its headquarters was on one of the seven hills called 'Vaticanus', the place of the diving serpent where the Satanic temple of Janus stood. "The great counterfeit religion was Roman Catholicism, called 'Mystery, Babylon the Great, the Mother of Harlots and Abominations of the Earth'- Revelation 17:5. She was raised up to block the gospel, slaughter the believers in Christ, establish religions, create wars and make the nations drunk with the wine of her fornication as we will see.
"Three major religions have one thing in common - each has a holy place where they look for guidance. Roman Catholicism looks to the Vatican as the Holy City. The Jews look to the wailing wall in Jerusalem, and the Muslims look to Mecca as their Holy City. Each group believes that they receive certain types of blessings for the rest of their lives for visiting their holy place. In the beginning, Arab visitors would bring gifts to the 'House of God', and the keepers of the Kaaba were gracious to all who came. Some brought their idols and, not wanting to offend these people, their idols were placed inside the sanctuary. It is said that the Jews looked upon the Kaaba as an outlying tabernacle of the Lord with veneration until it became polluted with idols.
Everything produced by Chick Publications is loathsome and evil.
The comments made about the Roman Catholic Church are also applied by these people to our Orthodox Church. They consider our Church the whore of Babylon and say vile things about the saints and especially the Holy Virgin Mary.
These people are the very worst of Protestants and give Protestants a bad name. Indeed most Protestants I know would consider them deluded.
[quote author=peterfarrington link=topic=9490.msg117544#msg117544 date=1281103941] Everything produced by Chick Publications is loathsome and evil.
The comments made about the Roman Catholic Church are also applied by these people to our Orthodox Church. They consider our Church the whore of Babylon and say vile things about the saints and especially the Holy Virgin Mary.
These people are the very worst of Protestants and give Protestants a bad name. Indeed most Protestants I know would consider them deluded.
Father Peter
I completely agree with you. Yet, the Church has been doing a lot of strange things in the past, and it's still following a very strange and arrogant way. Think how the Vatican is aggressively fighting against the Orthodox nations of Eastern Europe (Ukraine and Russia). Think about the so-called "Interfaith dialogue" with Muslims ???
Please read the following:
Catholic Church provides tent-mosque for Ramadan prayers
Muslims in the northern Italian town of Gallarate have been offered a white tent in the local church car park in which to observe Ramadan. The holy fasting month begins early on Wednesday and lasts until 10 September.
Gallarate's 7,000 Muslims have been fighting for a mosque since 2005, after the local council closed down several prayer halls on hygiene and security grounds.
"I am happy the church helped out again, but regrettably, we have been denied a proper mosque for years," said local Muslim leader Hamid Khartaoui.
It is the third year in a row that the church has provided a location for Muslims to mark Ramadan, claiming it hopes the gesture will foster dialogue between religions and cultures.
"Local Muslims asked us if we could provide them with a place to hold prayers and it seemed right to me that those who want to pray should have a place to do so," said the priest at Gallarate's Nazarene Church, Franco Carnevali.
I agree it is odd that a local Catholic congregation should facilitate a mosque, but I am not sure how the Vatican is aggressively fighting against Russia?
The Vatican has been fostering a rift between the Ukranian and Russian Orthodox Churches for several decades now. They are trying to push for the re-establishment of Ukranian Catholic presence to decrease the Orthodox base in the Ukraine and ultimately leading a wedge towards Moscow.
In regard to the tent, there is no show of any reciprocity in Saudi Arabia. The Italians are generally naive and the Latin Church as such.
Unfortunately, unless the Latin Church finds an in-road for some sort of self-promoting aspect and conquest in a Christian Community, they do not extend any help.
In the United States, we are currently dealing with to major on-slaughts in the New York area: the building of a Grand Mosque at the sight of the 9/11 attacks and the transference of Roman Catholic Convent to becoming a mosque on Staten Island. The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York is having difficulty with its finances relative to the sexual scandals and pay-offs that are happening and are in dire need of cash.
I know that there are Byzantine Rite Catholic Churches in Eastern Europe, but it seems to me that Russia acts as if people belong to them forever. They seem to have the attitude that 'these people were Orthodox in 1627 so they still belong to us!'. It would be better if they showed that Orthodoxy was so beautiful and life enhancing that Catholics wanted it for themselves. It seems to me that the Russian seem to think that an entire body of Christians can be handed over to a different Church by way of a bargain.
I tend to take the view that if Orthodoxy is true then we must guard our own faithful against being led outside Orthodoxy, but we should not take a violent attitude towards other groups in society at large unless they are cultlike, and some Protestant groups are cultlike. We should be able to show that Orthodoxy is best, and if we can't then we should reflect on why we can't.
I would not allow my own congregation to habitually visit Protestant Churches and participate in services, indeed this is a matter that requires discipline. It is against the teachings of the Church. But I would also want to ask why some people wanted to to visit Protestant Churches, and I would reflect on my own ministry. Sometimes such folk are being deceived, sometimes folk are looking for the right thing in the wrong place, sometimes folk are just not being given what they need.
In terms of giving a tent for Islamic worship, I think that sends the wrong signal altogether. It is saying to the congregation that we want to go beyond helping immigrants to validating and supporting their religion. I do not think it would have been right to oppose the Muslims purchasing a piece of land and building a discrete mosque. But doing it for them is not appropriate. Would the congregation have provided a tent for the local group of Satanists? And if not, why not?
Speaking bluntly and without too much decorum, I believe the issues as the Russians face the Latins are such that they know each other, they carry a similarity in spirit and imperialism. Your statement [I paraphrase] 'blocks for bargaining' is quite real. I do not believe that is the spirit that is necessary. However, it is no different than the spheres of influence that reigned in the Cold War between East and West. Unfortunately, I do not see a difference.
The Mosque at the "Ground Zero" precincts is understood as a victory statement and monument. All of a sudden $134 million appeared for this project. Supposedly, it is the only piece of land in all of Manhattan (New York City).
Indonesian churches donate Koran for prisoners in Australia
The Indonesian Communion of Churches (PGI) and the Indonesian Bishops Council (KWI) donated on Friday 500 Korans for Indonesian citizens imprisoned in Australia, Antara reported.
Shame on the leaders of America that they allow the building of a Muslim mosque at ground zero in New York City.
Too many Americans are sleepwalking when it comes to understanding Islamic policies during the last 1,400 years of what I see as its brutal history. No one talks about St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, which was crushed by the collapsing Twin Towers.
Why is the mosque put on the fast track to construction when St. Nicholas' reconstruction is being hindered by New York City bureaucracy?
[quote author=ilovesaintmark link=topic=9490.msg117129#msg117129 date=1280257380] I believe some notable saints were asked to do that simple task to avoid martyrdom, and they said "no".
Do we remember: St. George, St. Mina, St. Mercurius, St. Julianna, St. Demiana, St. Marina? They were foolish [sarcasm] they decided to die rather than offer incense or bow.
[quote author=Melchoir link=topic=9490.msg118135#msg118135 date=1281801821] Hi guys!
Indonesian churches donate Koran for prisoners in Australia
The Indonesian Communion of Churches (PGI) and the Indonesian Bishops Council (KWI) donated on Friday 500 Korans for Indonesian citizens imprisoned in Australia, Antara reported.
Shame on the leaders of America that they allow the building of a Muslim mosque at ground zero in New York City.
Too many Americans are sleepwalking when it comes to understanding Islamic policies during the last 1,400 years of what I see as its brutal history. No one talks about St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, which was crushed by the collapsing Twin Towers.
Why is the mosque put on the fast track to construction when St. Nicholas' reconstruction is being hindered by New York City bureaucracy?
Anyway, why aren't the Greeks lobbying for Cordoba House to be given to them? They could do with a cultural centre and Church also.
The most acts of violence that will come from a Greek Orthodox Church and Centre is perhaps someone breaking a plate in celebration of a wedding. Surely that's the least evil option?
I mean, do you have any idea how many CIA agents there are attending mosques now? Its so blatently obvious.
Why is the Orthodox Christian World, the Greek Orthodox Church in particular, silent about the St. Nicholas Orthodox Church at Ground Zero, NY? Our silent is deafening, sad, indeed!
I was just reading the following articles concerning the Catholic church. The first one is on Lebanon:
Gregory III Lahham, the patriarch of the Church of Antioch, saying "attacks against Levantine Christians reflected a “Zionist conspiracy against Islam".
The second one is on Catholic schools in the US: More and more Muslims are joining Catholic educational institutions....one of the Muslim students said that his Islamic faith has grown and matured in the past four years while studying in buildings named after Catholic leaders, in classrooms adorned with crucifixes, and with classmates often named after saints.
"The face of my prophet and my God has changed," he said. "It is even more beautiful now."
I am not anti-Catholic or else... I myself went to a Catholic school, but the whole story is sickening me... what's going on?
I personally think that the Roman Catholic Church is wrong at its foundation regarding its relations with Muslims. You don't need to look any further than the Catechism of the Catholic Church, where it says in paragraph 841:
841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."
The vast majority of Roman Catholics that I've met seem to take this as stating that Christians and Muslims worship the same God, and hence that Christians ought to be accommodating to Muslims, who after all are trying their best to worship God but are naturally handicapped by the distorted view of God given to them in the Qur'an. I personally vociferously dissent from this view (as I did when I myself was still RC), and question why such mealy-mouthed pablum is even in the Roman Catholic Catechism in the first place (shouldn't the catechism deal with Roman Catholic Christianity, not Islam or any other religion?), but there ya go...it's a recipe "good relations" with Muslims, drawn up by those who perhaps aren't aware of the Islamic tradition regarding this subject, as exemplified by medieval poetry like this (warning: Incredibly tired and boring Islamic content; This video was actually originally sent to me by a Muslim who asked that I watch it "with reasonableness"...as though its objections aren't the same old Islamic nonsense we've been hearing from Muslims for 1400 years! ::))
The vatican did the same thing to Poland. They basically told them they could remain Orthodox but that they should come under the umbrella of the vatican and they would take care of them financially. Eventually the RCC over run the Orthodox church there.
It is a learned response, Melchior. We could ask the same thing about why HH Pope Shenouda III apologized for Bishop Bishoy's remarks about the Qur'an, but it doesn't require any sort of deep investigation...
H.H. Pope Shenouda never apologized for Bishop Bishoy's remarks. He said that he feels sorry if the feelings of the muslims were hurt. It is easier to see if you understand Arabic. I can get you the actual video if you would like.
Comments
It is dangerous to begin a discussion based on the false perception of a single picture (i.e., John Paul "kissing" the Koran):
So, let's try the following interpretation of this picture where John Paul II allegedly "kisses" the Koran:
John Paul II, as Head of State, just received a Moslem delegate in the Vatican. The Moslem doesn't know of any "greater" gift to bring than a copy of the Koran. So he gives it to the Pope, who takes it in sign of good diplomatic relations. But the Pope has a cold that day... and as he holds the Satanic Verses, his noses starts leaking... [Moderated: I don't think this is appropriate].
The point is: a picture can convey many perceptions.
I have seen Protestant and Islamic website where Holy Icon are shown as a proof... that Christians worship idols!
Such is the power of a single picture to deceive!
(1) "Whoever knows the Old and the New Testaments, and then reads the Koran, clearly sees the process by which [the Koran] reduces Divine Revelation"
(2) "It is impossible not to see [in the Koran] the movement away from what God said about Himself, first in the Old Testament ... and then finally in the New Testament..."
(3) "In Islam all the richness of God's self-revelation ... has definitely been set aside."
(4) "Islam is not a religion of redemption"
(5) "[N]ot only the theology but also the anthropology of Islam is very distant from Christianity"
From: "Crossing the Threshold of Hope" by John Paul II, Alfred A. Knopf Edition, 1994
You appear to be a new member, and have posted material which I have moderated. I am Father Peter Farrington, the moderator on this site. I would appreciate it if you did not post material which is offensive. It is possible to be critical of Islam without being offensive. You, and most here, have the benefit of being able to post material anonymously, but there are many millions of Orthodox brothers and sisters who must live in sometimes difficult circumstances and who cannot be anonymous in their Christian Faith. We have a responsibility not to be abusive and offensive in any case, but especially if this will cause greater problems for Christians who cannot be safely hidden behind a pseudonym.
Father Peter
Your point is clear and I will respect your authority as moderator. However, I do not believe that my post was in the least offensive, since I was writing satire (which is, in itself, an acceptable literary style).
My point, therefore, was:
A picture can deceive, and there is absolutely no evidence from what we have seen that John Paul II actually kissed the Koran.
For all we know (since You and I weren't there as witnesses of this event), John Paul could have been praying over the Koran in light of his beliefs about it (as I quoted from his "Crossing the Threshold of Hope")...
In fact, he might have been praying in the name of Jesus Christ Crucified and Resurrected for the salvation of the guest who brought him this copy of the Koran. Isn't that possible?
Therefore, your interpretation of the picture you posted on this forum is, really, a "cheap shot" at one of the greatest and most theologically and morally grounded Christian leaders in the 20th century. Don't you think?
Thank You,
Bonaventure
[quote author=peterfarrington link=topic=9490.msg117267#msg117267 date=1280509883]
Dear Bonaventure
You appear to be a new member, and have posted material which I have moderated. I am Father Peter Farrington, the moderator on this site. I would appreciate it if you did not post material which is offensive. It is possible to be critical of Islam without being offensive. You, and most here, have the benefit of being able to post material anonymously, but there are many millions of Orthodox brothers and sisters who must live in sometimes difficult circumstances and who cannot be anonymous in their Christian Faith. We have a responsibility not to be abusive and offensive in any case, but especially if this will cause greater problems for Christians who cannot be safely hidden behind a pseudonym.
Father Peter
My reference to John Paul II kissing the koran is not relative to the picture posted (in another thread), but rather the two specific times in: Constantinople and in Jerusalem.
Moreover, his comments were relative to being in front of the press.
In regard to the events I saw them personally in the popular media (CNN & EWTN). EWTN, I might add, is a Catholic cable broadcast in the United States.
It does not make a difference if he is a Head of State. He is the representative of the Latin Church and a proper witness to His Christ, and Our Christ.
Did John Paul II reciprocate the gesture by extending a copy of the Holy Bible to all of these "nice" Muslim representatives that come to him?
By the Way, I love St. Mark too. Remember, friend, that St. Mark's Gospel testifies to two things:
(1) To the supremacy of St. Peter (since Mark just reports what he sees and hear from St. Peter);
(2) The Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.
But to answer your questions and points:
(A) You are right, the Pope kissed the Koran. When I argued against it, I was trying to make a point on the easy use and abuse of picture as evidence for anything.
(B) So, by kissing the Koran, John Paul might have done it as a way of "evangelizing" the Moslem by example.
(C) Surely, if he had tossed the gift he just received to the floor, the person who brought it would have never in his lifetime considered the possibility of any truth in Christianity.
(D) Furthermore, John Paul II was a very pastoral person, who has seen believers of all faiths persecuted and murdered by the atheistic communist regimes in Eastern Europe... so he always gave the benefit of the doubt to the person who visited him... without AT ALL agreeing with the person's theology (as my above quotes from John Paul's writings demonstrate).
(E) Finally, it is common for the Pope to present his guests copies of the Bible, or other works of solid Christian theology.
In fact, when Benedict received Obama not long ago, the Pope gave Obama as gift the Vatican's latest statement on bioethics... which is a theological and anthropological affirmation of the reasons that the Church opposes IVF, cloning, abortion, etc. Benedict gave this gift knowing that Obama is extremely liberal on these issues... so he chose that this would be the best witness to this very liberal man (who is, by all means and purposes, an enemy of all Christians)
[quote author=ilovesaintmark link=topic=9490.msg117272#msg117272 date=1280512588]
Bonaventure,
My reference to John Paul II kissing the koran is not relative to the picture posted (in another thread), but rather the two specific times in: Constantinople and in Jerusalem.
Moreover, his comments were relative to being in front of the press.
In regard to the events I saw them personally in the popular media (CNN & EWTN). EWTN, I might add, is a Catholic cable broadcast in the United States.
It does not make a difference if he is a Head of State. He is the representative of the Latin Church and a proper witness to His Christ, and Our Christ.
Did John Paul II reciprocate the gesture by extending a copy of the Holy Bible to all of these "nice" Muslim representatives that come to him?
I can appreciate the remark relative to evangelizing, but my thoughts are relative to the gravity, ramifications, and precedence.
I will put it to you relative to those of us who are struggling to survive under heavy persecution in Egypt. If the same gesture is made to Pope Shenouda in Egypt, it can have devastating if not masacring effects.
From even the Roman Catholic perspective it identifies (by appearance--granted) that the Koran is in equivalence to the Holy Bible.
These are my thoughts in a simplified manner.
I repeat, I thank you for your tone.
I chose "ilovesaintmark" as my screen name, because it forces everyone to say it. St. Mark, at times, has been forgotten. I am indebted to the prayers that he has offered to God on my behalf and my family.
His [St. Mark] prayers be with us, and Glory--always--to God.
I fully understand the situation of Copts in Egypt. I have witnessed it with my own eyes while living and traveling in the Middle East (including Egypt).
This, in turn, has made me believe that the urgency of Christian unity today is all the more important at a time when Christianity is under attack from two sides: Islam and anti-life liberalism.
On that note (i.e., Christian unity), it must be acknowledged by all that Pope Benedict XVI is working the hardest among us to achieve this end: He is pressing very hard to have an official meeting with the Patriarch of Moscow (the "Third Rome"), something which for political reasons would have been impossible under John Paul II.
And the reason for the Pope's push is simple: Europe, the "adopted" daughter of Christ and the Apostles, is losing her faith much faster than originally thought... and her faith is quickly supplanted by (again) Islam on the one hand, and ultra-aggressive pro-sodomite liberalism on the other hand.
So... even if we disagree on the historic evolution of the dogma of Petrine primacy (and all its subtleties), we can accept what the blogger abdulmassih (who wrote about this on another thread) seems to point at: we can at least agree to review the historical evidence for the See of St. Peter as first among equals (for none of us would deny that) and apply it to our current global situation with a new meaning toward Christian unity as a common front against the two enemies.
As a final clarification: John Paul II never saw a Moslem person as an “enemy” (hence he kissed the Koran which he received from a potential friend), but he fully understood the ramifications of the Islamic faith as a potential danger and threat. John Paul was one of the greatest and most active Christian leaders in the 20th century, and in spite of his weaknesses (maybe he believed too much in the good will of others?), he always discerned between the person and the lie that a person is following. In the end, he always desired the salvation of souls, and he was ready to take criticism for it.
And of course, his greatest desire of all was Christian unity as a witness of Truth to all mankind.
And this leads us back to the issue of St. Peter’s primacy and its applications for today...
I believe that my place as a Coptic Orthodox Christian and Deacon is to pray for this matter. One may banter the issue all over the place, but the resolution does rest in the hierarchs. It is the sake of the people that they follow their shepherds within the realm of what is Orthodox and in keeping with the teachings of the Apostolic Fathers.
In my posting, and in reply to Abdelmassih, in the self-same thread that you allude, there are essential questions (rhetorical and stated) that identify the Eastern perspective. The handful of citations that he made never answered them, and I add that there are the same references from Eastern sources that are translated differently. Yet the overall perspective is such for the Eastern view is that the Church is guided by Its Bridegroom--the True Christ--and He alone.
I am not a theolgian, nor do I pretend to be. What I believe and know about my Orthodox Faith and Heritage is practical and pragmatic to my self and being. What I know I hold devoutly, and I live to the best that I can.
For the Coptic there is no "First Rome", "Second Rome", or "Third Rome", there is the Heavenly Jerusalem to look forward to.
I even alluded to historical issues of abuse in the Latin Church, and even refrained from mentioning some realities and wounds that are still open, and they were a direct result of Caesero-Papism. Why would Petrine Primacy in the 21st century be different from any of the other centuries? In one of my Classical History courses in college, the professor identified, that there has been a progression for man in the Western World, first freeing himself from the constraints of the monarchy, thereafter Papal rule (i.e., the Protestant Reformation), and thereafter from morals and civil rule. I would say that sums of the progression in Western Culture and with which you cite in your previous post.
I believe that the Petrine Primacy issue is a major issue, it is not a minor issue, and I do not feel there will be any resolution in the matter, nor would I be for such a movement. I do not feel that there is any evidence for it, and in the contrary there is much evidence against it.
The fault is in making a case with one verse from the Bible. The overall thought that is generated needs to be in the context of the continuity within the fabric of the Bible in Its entirety.
I would also say that the current state of affairs of the Latin Church, and its adoption of many liberal thought processes, leaves doubt and question as to its ability to shepherd its own flock. I know that throughout the Northeast and Midwest of the United States there are considerable rebellions and indignation about any monetary support of the different Archdioceses. These factors are also present and being fanned in Ireland, Poland, and Germany.
In regard to stronger and better thoughts on the Coptic Orthodox perspective on Petrine Primacy, I would refer you to an article by the Bishop of thrice blessed memory, Anba Gregorious that was written in Coptologia. I can refer you to their website. I referenced it previously in another thread. If you do a search you will find it. Also, Iqbal, a poster and moderator on this website has had very strong commentary from the Coptic Orthodox perspective.
From my simple regard I just do not see the Petrine Primacy as being logical.
How the Vatican created Islam
How the Vatican created Islam. The astonishing story from an ex-Jesuit priest, Alberto Rivera, which was told to him by Cardinal Bea while he was at the Vatican.
This information came from Alberto Rivera, former Jesuit priest after his conversion to Protestant Christianity. It is excerpted from "The Prophet," published by Chick Publications, PO Box 662, Chino CA 91708. Since its publication, after several unsuccessful attempts on his life, he died suddenly from food poisoning. His testimony should not be silenced. Dr. Rivera speaks to us still …
"What I'm going to tell you is what I learned in secret briefings in the Vatican when I was a Jesuit priest, under oath and induction. A Jesuit cardinal named Augustine Bea showed us how desperately the Roman Catholics wanted Jerusalem at the end of the third century. Because of its religious history and its strategic location, the Holy City was considered a priceless treasure. A scheme had to be developed to make Jerusalem a Roman Catholic city.
"The great untapped source of manpower that could do this job was the children of Ishmael. The poor Arabs fell victim to one of the most clever plans ever devised by the powers of darkness. Early Christians went everywhere with the gospel setting up small churches, but they met heavy opposition. Both the Jews and the Roman government persecuted the believers in Christ to stop their spread. But the Jews rebelled against Rome, and in 70 AD, Roman armies under General Titus smashed Jerusalem and destroyed the great Jewish temple which was the heart of Jewish worship...in fulfillment of Christ's prophecy in Matthew 24:2.
"On this holy placed today where the temple once stood, the Dome of the Rock Mosque stands as Islam's second most holy place. Sweeping changes were in the wind. Corruption, apathy, greed, cruelty, perversion and rebellion were eating at the Roman Empire, and it was ready to collapse. The persecution against Christians was useless as they continued to lay down their lives for the gospel of Christ.
"The only way Satan could stop this thrust was to create a counterfeit "Christian" religion to destroy the work of God. The solution was in Rome. Their religion had come from ancient Babylon and all it needed was a face-lift. This didn't happen overnight, but began in the writings of the 'early church fathers'.
"It was through their writings that a new religion would take shape. The statue of Jupiter in Rome was eventually called St. Peter, and the statue of Venus was changed to the Virgin Mary. The site chosen for its headquarters was on one of the seven hills called 'Vaticanus', the place of the diving serpent where the Satanic temple of Janus stood.
"The great counterfeit religion was Roman Catholicism, called 'Mystery, Babylon the Great, the Mother of Harlots and Abominations of the Earth'- Revelation 17:5. She was raised up to block the gospel, slaughter the believers in Christ, establish religions, create wars and make the nations drunk with the wine of her fornication as we will see.
"Three major religions have one thing in common - each has a holy place where they look for guidance. Roman Catholicism looks to the Vatican as the Holy City. The Jews look to the wailing wall in Jerusalem, and the Muslims look to Mecca as their Holy City. Each group believes that they receive certain types of blessings for the rest of their lives for visiting their holy place. In the beginning, Arab visitors would bring gifts to the 'House of God', and the keepers of the Kaaba were gracious to all who came. Some brought their idols and, not wanting to offend these people, their idols were placed inside the sanctuary. It is said that the Jews looked upon the Kaaba as an outlying tabernacle of the Lord with veneration until it became polluted with idols.
http://www.redicecreations.com/specialreports/2006/04apr/catholicislam.html
The comments made about the Roman Catholic Church are also applied by these people to our Orthodox Church. They consider our Church the whore of Babylon and say vile things about the saints and especially the Holy Virgin Mary.
These people are the very worst of Protestants and give Protestants a bad name. Indeed most Protestants I know would consider them deluded.
Father Peter
Everything produced by Chick Publications is loathsome and evil.
The comments made about the Roman Catholic Church are also applied by these people to our Orthodox Church. They consider our Church the whore of Babylon and say vile things about the saints and especially the Holy Virgin Mary.
These people are the very worst of Protestants and give Protestants a bad name. Indeed most Protestants I know would consider them deluded.
Father Peter
I completely agree with you. Yet, the Church has been doing a lot of strange things in the past, and it's still following a very strange and arrogant way. Think how the Vatican is aggressively fighting against the Orthodox nations of Eastern Europe (Ukraine and Russia). Think about the so-called "Interfaith dialogue" with Muslims ???
Please read the following:
Catholic Church provides tent-mosque for Ramadan prayers
Muslims in the northern Italian town of Gallarate have been offered a white tent in the local church car park in which to observe Ramadan. The holy fasting month begins early on Wednesday and lasts until 10 September.
Gallarate's 7,000 Muslims have been fighting for a mosque since 2005, after the local council closed down several prayer halls on hygiene and security grounds.
"I am happy the church helped out again, but regrettably, we have been denied a proper mosque for years," said local Muslim leader Hamid Khartaoui.
It is the third year in a row that the church has provided a location for Muslims to mark Ramadan, claiming it hopes the gesture will foster dialogue between religions and cultures.
"Local Muslims asked us if we could provide them with a place to hold prayers and it seemed right to me that those who want to pray should have a place to do so," said the priest at Gallarate's Nazarene Church, Franco Carnevali.
http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Religion/?id=3.1.806563642
Father Peter
The Vatican has been fostering a rift between the Ukranian and Russian Orthodox Churches for several decades now. They are trying to push for the re-establishment of Ukranian Catholic presence to decrease the Orthodox base in the Ukraine and ultimately leading a wedge towards Moscow.
In regard to the tent, there is no show of any reciprocity in Saudi Arabia. The Italians are generally naive and the Latin Church as such.
Unfortunately, unless the Latin Church finds an in-road for some sort of self-promoting aspect and conquest in a Christian Community, they do not extend any help.
In the United States, we are currently dealing with to major on-slaughts in the New York area: the building of a Grand Mosque at the sight of the 9/11 attacks and the transference of Roman Catholic Convent to becoming a mosque on Staten Island. The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York is having difficulty with its finances relative to the sexual scandals and pay-offs that are happening and are in dire need of cash.
It is very sad...very sad indeed.
I tend to take the view that if Orthodoxy is true then we must guard our own faithful against being led outside Orthodoxy, but we should not take a violent attitude towards other groups in society at large unless they are cultlike, and some Protestant groups are cultlike. We should be able to show that Orthodoxy is best, and if we can't then we should reflect on why we can't.
I would not allow my own congregation to habitually visit Protestant Churches and participate in services, indeed this is a matter that requires discipline. It is against the teachings of the Church. But I would also want to ask why some people wanted to to visit Protestant Churches, and I would reflect on my own ministry. Sometimes such folk are being deceived, sometimes folk are looking for the right thing in the wrong place, sometimes folk are just not being given what they need.
In terms of giving a tent for Islamic worship, I think that sends the wrong signal altogether. It is saying to the congregation that we want to go beyond helping immigrants to validating and supporting their religion. I do not think it would have been right to oppose the Muslims purchasing a piece of land and building a discrete mosque. But doing it for them is not appropriate. Would the congregation have provided a tent for the local group of Satanists? And if not, why not?
Father Peter
Speaking bluntly and without too much decorum, I believe the issues as the Russians face the Latins are such that they know each other, they carry a similarity in spirit and imperialism. Your statement [I paraphrase] 'blocks for bargaining' is quite real. I do not believe that is the spirit that is necessary. However, it is no different than the spheres of influence that reigned in the Cold War between East and West. Unfortunately, I do not see a difference.
The Mosque at the "Ground Zero" precincts is understood as a victory statement and monument. All of a sudden $134 million appeared for this project. Supposedly, it is the only piece of land in all of Manhattan (New York City).
Indonesian churches donate Koran for prisoners in Australia
The Indonesian Communion of Churches (PGI) and the Indonesian Bishops Council (KWI) donated on Friday 500 Korans for Indonesian citizens imprisoned in Australia, Antara reported.
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/08/13/indonesian-churches-donate-koran-prisoners-australia.html
Even Obama...
Obama throws support behind controversial Islamic center
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/08/13/obama.islamic.center.support/index.html#fbid=XyCfutU3nnv&wom=false
Shame on the leaders of America that they allow the building of a Muslim mosque at ground zero in New York City.
Too many Americans are sleepwalking when it comes to understanding Islamic policies during the last 1,400 years of what I see as its brutal history. No one talks about St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, which was crushed by the collapsing Twin Towers.
Why is the mosque put on the fast track to construction when St. Nicholas' reconstruction is being hindered by New York City bureaucracy?
http://www.worldwidegreeks.com/profiles/blogs/greek-orthodox-church-or
I believe some notable saints were asked to do that simple task to avoid martyrdom, and they said "no".
Do we remember: St. George, St. Mina, St. Mercurius, St. Julianna, St. Demiana, St. Marina? They were foolish [sarcasm] they decided to die rather than offer incense or bow.
best comment in the entire thread
Hi guys!
Indonesian churches donate Koran for prisoners in Australia
The Indonesian Communion of Churches (PGI) and the Indonesian Bishops Council (KWI) donated on Friday 500 Korans for Indonesian citizens imprisoned in Australia, Antara reported.
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/08/13/indonesian-churches-donate-koran-prisoners-australia.html
Even Obama...
Obama throws support behind controversial Islamic center
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/08/13/obama.islamic.center.support/index.html#fbid=XyCfutU3nnv&wom=false
Shame on the leaders of America that they allow the building of a Muslim mosque at ground zero in New York City.
Too many Americans are sleepwalking when it comes to understanding Islamic policies during the last 1,400 years of what I see as its brutal history. No one talks about St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, which was crushed by the collapsing Twin Towers.
Why is the mosque put on the fast track to construction when St. Nicholas' reconstruction is being hindered by New York City bureaucracy?
http://www.worldwidegreeks.com/profiles/blogs/greek-orthodox-church-or
These links just increased my blood pressure.
People cannot be THIS dumb??! Can they? I didnt think it was possible?
You haven't even come close to seeing how dumb people can be.
The most acts of violence that will come from a Greek Orthodox Church and Centre is perhaps someone breaking a plate in celebration of a wedding. Surely that's the least evil option?
I mean, do you have any idea how many CIA agents there are attending mosques now? Its so blatently obvious.
I don't think the Greeks know how to sing "kumbaya".
Father Peter
I was just reading the following articles concerning the Catholic church. The first one is on Lebanon:
Gregory III Lahham, the patriarch of the Church of Antioch, saying "attacks against Levantine Christians reflected a “Zionist conspiracy against Islam".
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=1&article_id=122232#axzz17KeYYrWe
The second one is on Catholic schools in the US: More and more Muslims are joining Catholic educational institutions....one of the Muslim students said that his Islamic faith has grown and matured in the past four years while studying in buildings named after Catholic leaders, in classrooms adorned with crucifixes, and with classmates often named after saints.
"The face of my prophet and my God has changed," he said. "It is even more beautiful now."
I am not anti-Catholic or else... I myself went to a Catholic school, but the whole story is sickening me... what's going on?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/19/AR2010121904265.html?sid=ST2010122000139
I personally think that the Roman Catholic Church is wrong at its foundation regarding its relations with Muslims. You don't need to look any further than the Catechism of the Catholic Church, where it says in paragraph 841: The vast majority of Roman Catholics that I've met seem to take this as stating that Christians and Muslims worship the same God, and hence that Christians ought to be accommodating to Muslims, who after all are trying their best to worship God but are naturally handicapped by the distorted view of God given to them in the Qur'an. I personally vociferously dissent from this view (as I did when I myself was still RC), and question why such mealy-mouthed pablum is even in the Roman Catholic Catechism in the first place (shouldn't the catechism deal with Roman Catholic Christianity, not Islam or any other religion?), but there ya go...it's a recipe "good relations" with Muslims, drawn up by those who perhaps aren't aware of the Islamic tradition regarding this subject, as exemplified by medieval poetry like this (warning: Incredibly tired and boring Islamic content; This video was actually originally sent to me by a Muslim who asked that I watch it "with reasonableness"...as though its objections aren't the same old Islamic nonsense we've been hearing from Muslims for 1400 years! ::))
He said that he feels sorry if the feelings of the muslims were hurt. It is easier to see if you understand Arabic.
I can get you the actual video if you would like.
God bless
Ebnyasoo3