Topic: Pope Francis says atheists are going to heaven

[Marc1152]

I must say, I have to pick my chin off the floor after reading this. 

Is it just me or is it sounding like Pope Francis is a universalist?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/22/pope-francis-good-atheists_n_3320757.html

The new Pope is quite ecumenical. He says Jews have a special place and is fuzzy about converting them

The  whole doctrine of no salvation outside the Catholic Church is sooo last week.

If you read his enthronement homily it is all flowers and good feelings. He is really very soft on actual Christianity from what I can see so far.

Counting down to when he kisses a Koran.

[William]

Orthonorm is great. Even if he slightly hates me. Most of the things you'd think about him aren't actually true if you pay careful attention to his posts.

[Romaios]

Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God'

Again he said unto me: "Prophesy upon these bones, and say unto them: O ye dry bones, hear the word of the Lord! Thus saith the Lord God unto these bones; Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live."

[Santagranddad]

Yes, the mocking continues and now extends to S Matthew 5, 13. See also Leviticus 2, 13.

Let us be clear what is happening here, we have a poster mocking part of Our Lord's Sermon on the Mount. The words of the God man, Jesus Christ, and this on an Orthodox Christian website! This is intolerable and I ask the Moderators to step in.

This cannot stand.

[augustin717]

nvm
 i'm taking it to random postings

[Papist]

This article is just another example of the press misrepresenting what the Pope actually says/does. I have yet to hear the Pope say that "atheists are going to heaven."

[SolEX01]

I like the new pope more and more. First castigating capitalism, then making overtures to atheists. Not that bad. Plus it's also good he really irks those people that care about lace cottas. Not that i care, but most of them deserved to be annoyed.

Why does your faith status say Romanian Orthodox?

It's where I pay the church tax.

You have to pay a church tax to go to heaven?   

Heaven? That's "pie-in-the-sky" silliness for gullible fools.

Church tax is what you pay in order to mock them with a clean conscience and still get a proper Orthodox funeral.

There's also weddings and baptisms - for those who buy into the capitalist "family" myth.

The concept of Stewardship hasn't made it to the Romanians.   

[rakovsky]

I must say, I have to pick my chin off the floor after reading this. 

Is it just me or is it sounding like Pope Francis is a universalist?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/22/pope-francis-good-atheists_n_3320757.html

The new Pope is quite ecumenical. He says Jews have a special place and is fuzzy about converting them. Counting down to when he kisses a Koran.

FYI you are talking more about interfaith, rather than "Ecumenism", which is between Christians.

[Dpaula]

I like the new pope more and more. First castigating capitalism, then making overtures to atheists. Not that bad. Plus it's also good he really irks those people that care about lace cottas. Not that i care, but most of them deserved to be annoyed.

Why does your faith status say Romanian Orthodox?

It's where I pay the church tax.

You have to pay a church tax to go to heaven?   

Heaven? That's "pie-in-the-sky" silliness for gullible fools.

Church tax is what you pay in order to mock them with a clean conscience and still get a proper Orthodox funeral.

There's also weddings and baptisms - for those who buy into the capitalist "family" myth.

The concept of Stewardship hasn't made it to the Romanians.   

I can confirm that it did not.
Hopefully, in time, things will change and they will begin to realize that it is not a "tax" they're paying.

[JamesR]

Hehe you guys aren't in the cool Orthonorm click like me until you've had audio chats with him on lazy summer nights 

[theistgal]

But I'll let theist gal weigh in on this.

(waking from post-vacation sleep) whuh?? are you saying I'm fat?

OH! An opinion, you want! I can do that!

My opinion is the same as Our Lord's - remember all that stuff He said about how some people would be surprised to find that they'd ministered to Him and were thus going to be rewarded? Something about, "Whatsoever you do to the least of these my brethren, you do unto Me"?

Of course, that would be an ecumenical matter ... 

[Marc1152]

But I'll let theist gal weigh in on this.

(waking from post-vacation sleep) whuh?? are you saying I'm fat?

OH! An opinion, you want! I can do that!

My opinion is the same as Our Lord's - remember all that stuff He said about how some people would be surprised to find that they'd ministered to Him and were thus going to be rewarded? Something about, "Whatsoever you do to the least of these my brethren, you do unto Me"?

Of course, that would be an ecumenical matter ... 

Or it means winking at heresy because you don't want to cause a stir. Im okay, your okay .. It has little to do with ministering to people.

[theistgal]

Or it means winking at heresy because you don't want to cause a stir. Im okay, your okay .. It has little to do with ministering to people.

So Our Lord was guilty of heresy when He said that even people who hadn't realized they'd known Him in this life could still go to Heaven because they'd served Him through others - and those who kept calling Him "Lord, Lord!" could still go to Hell?

Let me give you the full quote so you can tell us exactly where the heresy part kicks in. It's from the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 25, verses 31 through 46:

31 “But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne.
32 “All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats;
33 and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the right.
34 “Then the King will say to those on His right, ‘Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
35 ‘For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in;
36 naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink?
38 ‘And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You?
39 ‘When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’
40 “The King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.’
41 “Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels;
42 for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink;
43 I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.’
44 “Then they themselves also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?’
45 “Then He will answer them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’
46 “These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

(Honestly, what DO they teach them in these schools?)

[lovesupreme]

In related news, Pope Francis went to bathroom today and no one can confirm that he washed his hands.

You heard it first, folks! The Vatican is a den of filth!

[Santagranddad]

Or it means winking at heresy because you don't want to cause a stir. Im okay, your okay .. It has little to do with ministering to people.

So Our Lord was guilty of heresy when He said that even people who hadn't realized they'd known Him in this life could still go to Heaven because they'd served Him through others - and those who kept calling Him "Lord, Lord!" could still go to Hell?

Let me give you the full quote so you can tell us exactly where the heresy part kicks in. It's from the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 25, verses 31 through 46:

31 “But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne.
32 “All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats;
33 and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the right.
34 “Then the King will say to those on His right, ‘Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
35 ‘For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in;
36 naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink?
38 ‘And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You?
39 ‘When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’
40 “The King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.’
41 “Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels;
42 for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink;
43 I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.’
44 “Then they themselves also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?’
45 “Then He will answer them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’
46 “These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

(Honestly, what DO they teach them in these schools?)

I cannot make any informed comment in response to the question, "what DO they teach them in these schools?", as regards North America.

In considering the question in a UK context the answer might be multi-faith studies, with children having little exposure to Holy Scripture (New or Old Testament). This has repercussions when exposing them to literature because they are thrown by expressions drawn from Scripture that would have been familiar to preceding generations.

Only talking this week to teachers at primary and secondary a further problem arises. An attitude on the part of students of, "Ownership, and not wanting to or outright refusal to work on anything they deem boring", according to one and echoed by others. Low levels of literacy too don't appear to help. This last point has been repeated by the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) and the Institute of Drectors (IoD).

[Marc1152]

Or it means winking at heresy because you don't want to cause a stir. Im okay, your okay .. It has little to do with ministering to people.

So Our Lord was guilty of heresy when He said that even people who hadn't realized they'd known Him in this life could still go to Heaven because they'd served Him through others - and those who kept calling Him "Lord, Lord!" could still go to Hell?

Let me give you the full quote so you can tell us exactly where the heresy part kicks in. It's from the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 25, verses 31 through 46:

31 “But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne.
32 “All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats;
33 and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the right.
34 “Then the King will say to those on His right, ‘Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
35 ‘For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in;
36 naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink?
38 ‘And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You?
39 ‘When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’
40 “The King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.’
41 “Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels;
42 for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink;
43 I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.’
44 “Then they themselves also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?’
45 “Then He will answer them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’
46 “These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

(Honestly, what DO they teach them in these schools?)

 Neither the Catholic or Orthodox Church's  teach your interpretation. But thanks for sharing your personal beliefs. I think you may have confused two separate questions..

Serving the poor is not a replacement for the Church.. I have known many Communists ( actual Party members) who worked tirelessly for the poor ( to their credit of course)/ However, that is not a replacement for Christianity..

[theistgal]

Neither the Catholic or Orthodox Church's  teach your interpretation. But thanks for sharing your personal beliefs. I think you may have confused two separate questions..

Serving the poor is not a replacement for the Church.. I have known many Communists ( actual Party members) who worked tirelessly for the poor ( to their credit of course)/ However, that is not a replacement for Christianity..

I didn't say "being poor is a replacement for the Church". I quoted the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ. If you think that's just my own "personal beliefs" ... well ... yes, I guess that would be true, since I've committed myself to following Jesus Christ. If that's Communism, then dress me in red and call me Mao. But I don't think it is.

[Marc1152]

Neither the Catholic or Orthodox Church's  teach your interpretation. But thanks for sharing your personal beliefs. I think you may have confused two separate questions..

Serving the poor is not a replacement for the Church.. I have known many Communists ( actual Party members) who worked tirelessly for the poor ( to their credit of course)/ However, that is not a replacement for Christianity..

I didn't say "being poor is a replacement for the Church". I quoted the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ. If you think that's just my own "personal beliefs" ... well ... yes, I guess that would be true, since I've committed myself to following Jesus Christ. If that's Communism, then dress me in red and call me Mao. But I don't think it is.

Slow down.. You've missed the question..

Somehow..You have tied Ecumenism with helping the poor. You need to explain your logic.
Are you really saying that you can be saved by works alone.. ??

For example, if someone is out side the Faith but helps the poor and needy, that is good enough?  Therefore we should be Ecumenical since helping the poor is the Prime Directive.. so to speak???

That would be a very innovative interpretation of Scripture and not something taught by the Church either Catholic or Orthodox, so help me out here and explain your thinking..

Thanks

[Jonathan Gress]

Or it means winking at heresy because you don't want to cause a stir. Im okay, your okay .. It has little to do with ministering to people.

So Our Lord was guilty of heresy when He said that even people who hadn't realized they'd known Him in this life could still go to Heaven because they'd served Him through others - and those who kept calling Him "Lord, Lord!" could still go to Hell?

Let me give you the full quote so you can tell us exactly where the heresy part kicks in. It's from the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 25, verses 31 through 46:

31 “But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne.
32 “All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats;
33 and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the right.
34 “Then the King will say to those on His right, ‘Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
35 ‘For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in;
36 naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink?
38 ‘And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You?
39 ‘When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’
40 “The King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.’
41 “Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels;
42 for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink;
43 I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.’
44 “Then they themselves also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?’
45 “Then He will answer them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’
46 “These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

(Honestly, what DO they teach them in these schools?)

I don't think those passages mean what you think they mean. What Christ is talking about is showing mercy to poor people who are not Christ. What He's saying is that, when you give food to a beggar named Joe, you are actually in a mystical manner showing the same mercy to Christ. He is NOT saying it doesn't matter whether or not you believe in Him.

You need BOTH faith AND works. One without the other doesn't cut it.

[theistgal]

I don't think those passages mean what you think they mean. What Christ is talking about is showing mercy to poor people who are not Christ. What He's saying is that, when you give food to a beggar named Joe, you are actually in a mystical manner showing the same mercy to Christ. He is NOT saying it doesn't matter whether or not you believe in Him.

You need BOTH faith AND works. One without the other doesn't cut it.

What I'm talking about is the idea that one absolutely MUST be a member of the visible Church in order to be saved. The Catholic Church (and most of the non-Internet Orthodox I've met) says that while it's extraordinary, it is possible to be a member of the Church without realizing it.

And whenever Jesus was asked "who would be saved?" He responded with stories like this one, or the parable of the Good Samaritan. (Samaritans definitely being "heretics" in the eyes of the Jews, btw.) It does not seem to me, reading the words of Christ Himself, that He was overly concerned about His followers belonging to the "right" Church, but more about how their belief made them ACT towards others.

This is not the "social Gospel" - it IS The Gospel!

[yeshuaisiam]

Well when you think you are God, it sort of makes sense... Unfortunately he'll find out he's not God.

[theistgal]

Well when you think you are God, it sort of makes sense... Unfortunately he'll find out he's not God.

Sorry, but who are you talking about?  

If it's Jesus, He WAS God.

If it's the Pope, neither he - nor ANY Catholic - thinks the Pope is God.

[podkarpatska]

Well when you think you are God, it sort of makes sense... Unfortunately he'll find out he's not God.

Not clever, not funny because it's not true. Those of us who are Orthodox have plenty of legitimate issues with the Papacy, but you can't win a debate with such a patently false premise. Neither papal supremacy, papal infallibility , the title of "Vicar of Christ" or any other assertion, even those of the most rabid, sedevactantivist-minded ultramontanist claim the Pope to "be" God.

Besides, the man did not preach universal salvation, he spoke of redemption. Fallen mankind is redeemed through Christ's crucifixion but not all shall be saved. And Orthodoxy does NOT preclude salvation outside of the Church, it teaches a, for lack of a better term, a grudging "agnosticism" regarding that premise for with God, ALL things are possible.

[stanley123]

some people are taking the huffington post seriously?!
 

The huffington post now claims that the Vatican says that atheists cannot be saved. I am not sure if this means that the Vatican is saying that the Pope was wrong.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/28/vatican-atheists-cant-be-saved_n_3346201.html

[Marc1152]

I don't think those passages mean what you think they mean. What Christ is talking about is showing mercy to poor people who are not Christ. What He's saying is that, when you give food to a beggar named Joe, you are actually in a mystical manner showing the same mercy to Christ. He is NOT saying it doesn't matter whether or not you believe in Him.

You need BOTH faith AND works. One without the other doesn't cut it.

What I'm talking about is the idea that one absolutely MUST be a member of the visible Church in order to be saved. The Catholic Church (and most of the non-Internet Orthodox I've met) says that while it's extraordinary, it is possible to be a member of the Church without realizing it.

And whenever Jesus was asked "who would be saved?" He responded with stories like this one, or the parable of the Good Samaritan. (Samaritans definitely being "heretics" in the eyes of the Jews, btw.) It does not seem to me, reading the words of Christ Himself, that He was overly concerned about His followers belonging to the "right" Church, but more about how their belief made them ACT towards others.

This is not the "social Gospel" - it IS The Gospel!

Then let's discuss the doctrine of "There is no salvation outside the ( Catholic/Orthodox) Church"..This idea is often miss understood IMHO.

In the first place, God can save whomever he saves. With that said, he has also made it clear through his Church that there is no salvation outside of it. So what exactly does that mean?

People absolutely cant be saved.. BY... other faiths. If you are a Buddhist, even though you do virtuous acts and a really great person, you are not saved by Buddhism. If God saves you, it is by and through his Church. Sometimes we dont exactly understand how that happens, but we are not supposed to. We are to convert people and actively bring them to Baptism and Faith within the Church. How and when God uses his Church past our normal experience is way above our pay grade.

When a Roman Pope kisses a Koran or says Jews don't have to convert, he is saying that they can be saved.. BY.. Islam or Judaism. That reveals him to be at odds with Church teachings.. I will refrain from characterizing him further, but the doctrine of no salvation outside the Church is Orthodox and there for a reason and should not be ignored lightly.

[theistgal]

When a Roman Pope kisses a Koran.

And that's the point where I bow out of this thread. 

[Mor Ephrem]

When a Roman Pope kisses a Koran.

And that's the point where I bow out of this thread. 

As long as it's not to bow to a Koran... 

[lovesupreme]

some people are taking the huffington post seriously?!
 

The huffington post now claims that the Vatican says that atheists cannot be saved. I am not sure if this means that the Vatican is saying that the Pope was wrong.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/28/vatican-atheists-cant-be-saved_n_3346201.html

Boy, you gotta love what passes as journalism nowadays. "Pope reneges on proclamation that he never actually made." Yeah, let's pretend we didn't misconstrue the pope's words and call out the Vatican on backtracking.

[Santagranddad]

To take issue with this or any other Pope because of what he believes, teaches or actually does is one thing, but to take issue with him on something he doesn't believe, hasn't said or done on the basis of a journalist's 'story' is crazy.

[TheTrisagion]

some people are taking the huffington post seriously?!
 

The huffington post now claims that the Vatican says that atheists cannot be saved. I am not sure if this means that the Vatican is saying that the Pope was wrong.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/28/vatican-atheists-cant-be-saved_n_3346201.html

Boy, you gotta love what passes as journalism nowadays. "Pope reneges on proclamation that he never actually made." Yeah, let's pretend we didn't misconstrue the pope's words and call out the Vatican on backtracking.

LOL, so true!

[Marc1152]

When a Roman Pope kisses a Koran.

And that's the point where I bow out of this thread. 

I understand.. To me it speaks to the issue. If you venerate a Koran you are saying it has the power to save. I don't see how it can be taken any other way so if you want you can let me know what the alternative interpretations  are.  If not, that's fine.

[theistgal]

I'm not responding to the poster above me directly, but would just like to say, if anyone here thinks I "venerate the Koran", then I guess there's nothing left to say. 

[Marc1152]

I'm not responding to the poster above me directly, but would just like to say, if anyone here thinks I "venerate the Koran", then I guess there's nothing left to say. 

I think you may have trouble with basic reading comprehension. No one suggested that you venerated a Koran.

[lovesupreme]

I'm not responding to the poster above me directly, but would just like to say, if anyone here thinks I "venerate the Koran", then I guess there's nothing left to say. 

Nice try. We all know you Byzantine Catholics are really just crypto-Islamists trying to convert Western Christians with the "mysticism" of the East. 

[Surnaturel]

When a Roman Pope kisses a Koran.

And that's the point where I bow out of this thread. 

I understand.. To me it speaks to the issue. If you venerate a Koran you are saying it has the power to save. I don't see how it can be taken any other way so if you want you can let me know what the alternative interpretations  are.  If not, that's fine.

Pope John Paul II's kissing of the Koran surely seems to have been imprudent, but you are wrong to claim that JP II thought that Islam can save. This is quite evident in all of his writings.

[Mor Ephrem]

If you venerate a Koran you are saying it has the power to save. I don't see how it can be taken any other way...

Kissing a Koran doesn't necessarily imply that it has the power to save.  It can mean that, I suppose, but that's not the only meaning.  We kiss icons of saints all the time, but we don't say they can save us: they and we are saved by Christ.  We kiss lots of people, but they can't save us: we show our love, esteem, and care by showing this sort of affection.  No high school boy ever made out with a girl out of soteriological considerations: I need not elaborate.  And so on.   

Not that I think JPII was correct by any means to venerate the Koran; not by a long shot.  But affirming the salvific nature of Islam is not the only possible interpretation one could derive from this, though because it is one major interpretation, it should've been avoided at all costs.  I think the kiss said more about JPII the person than it did about how JPII viewed Islam. 

[Surnaturel]

If you venerate a Koran you are saying it has the power to save. I don't see how it can be taken any other way...

Kissing a Koran doesn't necessarily imply that it has the power to save.  It can mean that, I suppose, but that's not the only meaning.  We kiss icons of saints all the time, but we don't say they can save us: they and we are saved by Christ.  We kiss lots of people, but they can't save us: we show our love, esteem, and care by showing this sort of affection.  No high school boy ever made out with a girl out of soteriological considerations: I need not elaborate.  And so on.   

Not that I think JPII was correct by any means to venerate the Koran; not by a long shot.  But affirming the salvific nature of Islam is not the only possible interpretation one could derive from this, though because it is one major interpretation, it should've been avoided at all costs.  I think the kiss said more about JPII the person than it did about how JPII viewed Islam. 

That's a very wise and charitable observation. Much appreciated.

[theistgal]

I think you may have trouble with basic reading comprehension. No one suggested that you venerated a Koran.

You do know that there are actual human beings reading your posts, right? Not just nameless, faceless, soulless automatons? Because that was a tad rude. 

[lovesupreme]

I don't get it. Pope John Paul II probably just kissed the Koran out of respect for the Muslims who were present with him. It was a gesture of respect, not a proclamation of faith.

I know, I know, there are probably canons against all that and then there's the whole "lovesupreme is a dirty ecumenist who thinks it would be okay if the Pope sacrificed children to Moloch if it meant making the Moloch worshippers feel better" point that you can sling back at me. I just don't think this is worth getting all upset about. Yes, a practicing Christian probably shouldn't make it a habit of reverencing heterodox religious texts, but Pope John Paul II represented the largest body of Christians in the world, and he needed to show some diplomatic leniency. It would be no different if he bowed to a statue of the buddha when visiting the Dalai Lama. It's saying, "hey, I respect your beliefs because I respect you." Again, not the sort of thing most people should be doing, but an international figure like the pope? There's a time and a place for everything.

[William]

I don't get it. Pope John Paul II probably just kissed the Koran out of respect for the Muslims who were present with him. It was a gesture of respect, not a proclamation of faith.

I know, I know, there are probably canons against all that and then there's the whole "lovesupreme is a dirty ecumenist who thinks it would be okay if the Pope sacrificed children to Moloch if it meant making the Moloch worshippers feel better" point that you can sling back at me. I just don't think this is worth getting all upset about. Yes, a practicing Christian probably shouldn't make it a habit of reverencing heterodox religious texts, but Pope John Paul II represented the largest body of Christians in the world, and he needed to show some diplomatic leniency. It would be no different if he bowed to a statue of the buddha when visiting the Dalai Lama. It's saying, "hey, I respect your beliefs because I respect you." Again, not the sort of thing most people should be doing, but an international figure like the pope? There's a time and a place for everything.

Except for idolatry, there's no time or place for that.

[dzheremi]

It's saying, "hey, I respect your beliefs because I respect you."

There at least two problems with this idea:

(1) The underlying idea that if you respect someone, you will/must/should respect the content of their beliefs.
(2) Because this is your intention, any actions you perform in pursuit of (1) are understandable, and will be understood as you intended by the people you intend to send a particular message to via those actions.

I don't see any reason why either of these should be entertained by anyone who is serious about their faith or interfaith relations, Pope or not.

[LBK]

but Pope John Paul II represented the largest body of Christians in the world, and he needed to show some diplomatic leniency.

Nonsense. Have the representatives of other faiths (Moslems, Buddhists, Hindus, etc) kissed Bibles out of "diplomatic leniency"? 

[TheTrisagion]

I think most people, Catholics included, will agree that kissing the Koran was an imprudent move on PJPII's part.  That does not take away all the good that he did, but I don't think it is extreme to say that he used very poor judgement in that instance.

But hey, who of us have not used very poor judgement at some point in our lives?  Perhaps not in kissing a Koran, but I'm sure is some other aspect of our lives.

[Surnaturel]

I don't get it. Pope John Paul II probably just kissed the Koran out of respect for the Muslims who were present with him. It was a gesture of respect, not a proclamation of faith.

I know, I know, there are probably canons against all that and then there's the whole "lovesupreme is a dirty ecumenist who thinks it would be okay if the Pope sacrificed children to Moloch if it meant making the Moloch worshippers feel better" point that you can sling back at me. I just don't think this is worth getting all upset about. Yes, a practicing Christian probably shouldn't make it a habit of reverencing heterodox religious texts, but Pope John Paul II represented the largest body of Christians in the world, and he needed to show some diplomatic leniency. It would be no different if he bowed to a statue of the buddha when visiting the Dalai Lama. It's saying, "hey, I respect your beliefs because I respect you." Again, not the sort of thing most people should be doing, but an international figure like the pope? There's a time and a place for everything.

Lol!

[Surnaturel]

It's saying, "hey, I respect your beliefs because I respect you."

There at least two problems with this idea:

(1) The underlying idea that if you respect someone, you will/must/should respect the content of their beliefs.
(2) Because this is your intention, any actions you perform in pursuit of (1) are understandable, and will be understood as you intended by the people you intend to send a particular message to via those actions.

I don't see any reason why either of these should be entertained by anyone who is serious about their faith or interfaith relations, Pope or not.

I think it was meant to be a gesture of respect for the Muslims he was greeting but I agree with everyone else ITT that it was imprudent and risks sending the wrong message about a heterodox religion.