changing attitudes

This is from ewtn website
ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/VIENNE.HTM#25

Council of vienne

25]. It is an insult to the holy name and a disgrace to the Christian faith that in certain parts of the world subject to Christian princes where Saracens live, sometimes apart, sometimes intermingled with Christians, the Saracen priests commonly called Zabazala, in their temples or mosques, in which the Saracens meet to adore the infidel Mahomet, loudly invoke and extol his name each day at certain hours from a high place, in the hearing of both Christians and Saracens and there make public declarations in his honour. There is a place, moreover, where once was buried a certain Saracen whom other Saracens venerate as a saint. A great number of Saracens flock there quite openly from far and near. This brings disrepute on our faith and gives great scandal to the faithful. These practices cannot be tolerated any further without displeasing the divine majesty. We therefore, with the sacred council’s approval, strictly forbid such practices henceforth in Christian lands. We enjoin on catholic princes, one and all, who hold sovereignty over the said Saracens and in whose territory these practices occur, and we lay on them a pressing obligation under the divine judgment that, as true Catholics and zealous for the Christian faith, they give consideration to the disgrace heaped on both them and other Christians. They are to remove this offence altogether from their territories and take care that their subjects remove it, so that they may thereby attain the reward of eternal happiness. They are to forbid expressly the public invocation of the sacrilegious name of Mahomet. They shall also forbid anyone in their dominions to attempt in future the said pilgrimage or in any way give countenance to it. Those who presume to act otherwise are to be so chastised by the princes for their irreverence, that others may be deterred from such boldness.

My question: why does pope john Paul II differ in his attitudes toward followers of mahomet and their leaders?

Generally, how should we behave? Like pope john paul II or according to what is stated in the council of Vienne?

John Paul 2 differed. My own personal thought? Speak softly and carry a really really big stick.

Islam is a theocracy; or a deadly mix of religion and politics. Recent history shows that large numbers of them, having emigrated to Western Europe and North America, do not “blend in”. While it can be argued as to how effective they are, they have a marked tendency towards setting up their own laws, and many show a marked intolerance for other religions.

On the other hand, if you read about the Cairo conference, it was the combination of Catholics and Muslims which stopped the NGOs from implementing a policy of contraception and abortion.

Pope John Paul II was more likely following the precepts of Vatican II than those of the Council of Vienne which was held in 1311.

It seems obvious to me that we should not allow public displays of the Muslim religion on our property or in our homes. This would be scandelous and suggest to others that we held the Muslim faith to be equal to our own. However, Muslims should have the same rights to free speech and worship in their own spaces and public spaces as Christians have and they should not be persecuted for their faith. I don’t see a contradiction here.

Many non-Catholic Christians objected when Pope John Paul II kissed the Koran during a visit to a mosque several years ago. However, in showing respect for Islam’s scriptures, the Holy Father was following the advice of one of the greatest evangelists of all time, the Apostle Paul, who described his own approach to inter-faith dialogue in these words:

1 Corinthians 9:19-23
19Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. 23I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

Would the apostles Paul kiss a book which says Christ is not God and that anyone who honours him as such is doomed to hell?

If he was in Mecca, he would if he knew what was good for him. :wink:

But seriously, even when Paul stood in Athens, he found a way to open a door by announcing to them the Good News based upon a statue to an Unknown God.

But how often have I personally been hammered in this forum because I have not been more accommodating of the differences between East and West? There are many who believe that I should overlook the errors of Orthodoxy and love you all to death so that you’ll be so impressed by how Christ-like I am, you’ll all sign up for RCIA. How likely is that? Yeah, that’s what I think, too.

So, putting that last bit aside, isn’t it a bit hypocritical to attack me for not overlooking our differences while taking another shot at the pope for doing so?

I have to be honest with you, Ignatian (and any other EO lurking) this is what is absolutely infuriating about “dialoguing” with Orthodox Christians. It is a one-way street, and no matter what the issue, you never miss a chance to denigrate the Pope, the Catholic Church or individual Catholics.

Just once, just once, it would be nice to hear an Orthodox member of this forum say, “Gee, you have a good point…I hadn’t considered that before.”

But it will NEVER happen, because if you admit even the slightest possibility that Rome is not leading all Catholics straight to hell, then you yourselves are on slippery slope that is completely unthinkable, aren’t you?

Seriously, do you not see the double-standard at work when you take a shot at both me and the pope for doing the opposite things with regard to those of other faiths?

We’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t.

Sheesh. :slight_smile:

If I believed it were alright for any Christian to kiss the Quran I would agree with you, but I don’t and hence why what I think the Pope did was bad. I haven’t been one to condemn everything a pope has done, quite the opposite in other places I have actually defended some Popes from unfair criticism and even Pope Francis himself.

I don’t know about all this other stuff you’re bringing up. All I know is the reason why I reject the idea we can rightly kiss a thing like the quran. As Orthodox Christians we kiss what we venerate, the same with Catholics I assume. What message does it send to people to kiss the Quran as one might do the icon of Christ or as I might the bible before I read it?

Do I think the Pope was totally evil, totally despicable because of this one action like so many anti Catholics claim? No, but I do think he made a mistake. I don’t like when some of my own church leaders or other orthodox speak of Muslims as brothers or as if theirs is a legitimate faith. Islam to me is a faith which is totally opposed to who Jesus is. The Faithful Muslim has it in their creed to deny who God is and this what the Quran does, it says Jesus is not God. We should not respect such a book in such a manner in my opinion. We should respect holy things in such a manner or things.

I don’t think I have a double standard either. I think it is a perfect point concerning nature of the subject. Paul would not have kissed a statue of anyone or a book which denied who Christ is for the sake of being ecumenical. True, Paul was quite shifty and smart but when it came down to testifying to the truth he would not give the wrong impression. Please leave your personal feelings out of these discussions, especially when the person you address them to has little care for them.

And when was the last time you wrote, “Gee, you have a good point…I hadn’t considered that before,” to an Orthodox poster?

It’s just…too…easy.

Dec 18, '14, 9:42 pm.

I was chatting with prodromos about the two genealogies of Jesus here: forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=929515

I wrote:

Joseph had two fathers?

Well, I’ve just done some reading on this theory, and I am completely dumbfounded. I’ve been at this for a long time, prodromos, and that’s the first time I’ve ever heard this explanation.

Thank you! :clapping:

Just an observation: In only three generations, this family had:

  1. a man die young with a child (his wife remarries and has a second child)
  2. the child of the man who died young also dies young (and childless), so his younger brother marries his brother’s wife and fathers Joseph
  3. Joseph also dies young and childless (having adopted Jesus, the son of Mary)

Jesus’ father, grandfather and great grandfather all died young and two out of three childless.

prodromos cleared up a few other things for me along those lines…you can read the whole exchange if you like.

:slight_smile:

Seriously, dude. You’re embarrassing yourself.

Perhaps you embarrass yourself. The exchange seems to have changed your outlook little, as you continued to argue that St. Luke gives Mary’s genealogy, despite the fact that he does not include St. Joachim in the genealogy. That’s not very much of a concession to the point Prodromos was attempting to make, now was it?

First, in post #109, I specifically referenced the information I got from prodromos. In post #116, I told prodromos, “I like the Heli/Jacob theory better”, and in post #124, I simply said that the theory that Luke offers Mary’s genealogy is widespread. I have already abandoned that carryover from my Protestant days in light of better information provided by prodromos. I’ve even modified a few of my standard files to reflect this new information.

But that’s a secondary issue.

Having been proven wrong by the obvious fact that I did recently say, “Gee, you have a good point…I hadn’t considered that before” or words to that effect to an EO member of this forum, now you move the goal posts.

It’s no longer about whether I have ever said thank you to an EO for teaching me something. To save face, now you’re questioning whether or not I’ve ACTUALLY changed my position. But that was not what you asked when you confidently challenged me three posts ago, is it? :nope:

Do you not understand that others following the thread can see through what you’ve done? Can you? :shrug:

I have seen your recent posts in some of the threads, and I have chosen not to respond to them. I suggest you consider ignoring mine, as well.

:tiphat:

When you make outrageous and indecent claims like the claim that Orthodox Christians must hold to the notion that the pope is leading all of his followers straight to hell (who has claimed that?) your erroneous posts are rather hard to ignore. Perhaps you should be embarrassed of such slanderous remarks as well. If you truly find me so loathsome (how Christian), then perhaps you should cease to slander Orthodox Christianity so that I might have little occasion to respond to the outlandish caricature of Orthodoxy which you continue to present here at CAF.

Did I thank prodromos for teaching me something about the genealogy of Jesus or not?

It’s a simple yes or no question.

A simple non-sequitur, yes, as it involves you making no concessions at all. You want me to concede a point to you? I have an idea then. If you concede that, “But it will NEVER happen, because if you admit even the slightest possibility that Rome is not leading all Catholics straight to hell, then you yourselves are on slippery slope that is completely unthinkable, aren’t you,” is a ridiculous and outrageous piece of slander, and retract that statement, then I will gladly conceded that you can make meaningful concessions to your opponents.

:compcoff:

Unwilling to withdraw your slanders against Orthodox Christians. No matter, just so long as everybody else knows that it’s slander. One does not need to believe that the Pope is leading his entire religious body straight to hell to be an Orthodox Christian. In fact, one may agree with the papacy’s historical opposition to liberalism in Europe and still be an Orthodox Christian. One may also disagree with certain things that individual popes do without believing that the pope is leading his flock straight to hell. That is for Christ to judge. One need only disagree with the pope on certain matters of doctrine (papal infallibility and the Filioque being the major ones) to be an Orthodox Christian.

Cav-

The last time you issued a challenge, you simply said that I haven’t actually changed my position. So, if I say everything you just wrote, what’s to prevent you from simply saying, “You didn’t really mean it” again this time?

Look, YOUR position (which may not even be that of the rest of the EO community) is that Catholics are heretics. Not formal heretics, perhaps, but material heretics at the very least. Our pouring baptisms aren’t even valid in your opinion, so we may not actually be Christians at all.

The whole idea of the papacy is abhorrent to you, and the Pope is at the center of the whole mess that you reject. For all the lip service you EO give to the Bishop of Rome about “primacy of honor”, you don’t ACTUALLY “honor” him at all. Why should you? He’s a heretic, and the head heretic at that.

Filoque? Heresy. Immaculate Conception? Heresy. Papal infallibility? Heresy.

YOU are in the one, true Church. We’re not even close to being in communion with your Patriarchs.

So, if the Pope is not leading all of his adherents straight to hell by his errors, then exactly what is your understanding of how the salvation of a billion unbaptized Roman Catholics will be achieved? And what is the fate of the billions who have died in the past thousand years separated from true Orthodoxy?

Are you aware that Eastern Rite Churches in union with Rome are not required to put the filioque in the Creed which they recite at the Holy Mysteries?

Yes.

Are you aware that the Orthodox have also changed the original Nicene Creed as was permitted by an Ecumenical Council for clarifying purposes?

East and West have both modified the Creed to clarify its meaning. Only the West gets accused of heresy. :shrug:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.