How is the Pope kissing the Quran not heresy?
And even if not ex-cathedra etc etc how can the Vicar of Christ do something like that, this is an insult to all the European nations who suffered at the hands of Islam…did Euro countries go apeshit when this happened?
Other urls found in this thread:
bloggerpriest.com
wikiislam.net
en.wikipedia.org
novusordowatch.org
archive.li
quranx.com
islamqa.info
novusordowatch.org
8ch.net
vatican.va
twitter.com
Yeah, because the middle-east/north africa/central asian christian didn't get, and continue to be winnie the poohed by Islam.
t. euro for whom the ottomans caused constant problems and persecution
Heresy: "a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas"
Scandal? Definitely. Heresy? No. And when it comes to scandal, those who are scandalised (i.e. you) sin mortally.
yeah lmao he totally should have spit on it or something
i'm sure that would have worked out really nicely for arab christians
Why are you people like this
Because those are the only two options, right?
Yeah, who knows how bad those Christians being burned alive by ISIS would have it right now if some creepy old pedophile didn't kiss the book that's responsible for them being killed in the first place.
...
But user!
Muh Pope was just pranking that Muslim! He never kissed the Quran in ex cathedra.
Think about it. They honestly believe that crawling around on all fours and kissing the feet of people, and kissing and licking the feet or toes of statues isn't worship. So their muted response here makes a twisted kind of sense.
Responses like this are why you guys get banned by the mods.
Saint Pope John Paul II kissed a great many things. It was kind of his thing. It didn't mean endorsement. The minute he blessed that Qur'an, he made it unusable to Muslims. It's worse than rubbing it in bacon grease to them.
Maybe you should think before you post about "m-muh catlick herrrsy".
First: learn what heresy is, this word has a very specific meaning. As for why he did it - see the context:
bloggerpriest.com
Anyway, I wouldn't put too much attention in this, because it seems to have been a choice that was needed to be done quickly, in a moment. And from experience everyone should know that when one takes decisions in a moment, rather than carefully considering them first, they are often mistaken, or weird, or wrong - because one didn't consider all arguments, all options, etc. and there wasn't time to think about this decision thoroughly enough. Decisions made when you face a hard dilemma and have very little time to solve it are therefore a bad indicator of a person's plans, beliefs, etc. I'm sure you have been faced at least some times in your life with similarly stressful and hard to decide dilemmas concerning decisions you had to take immediately - and I'm sure you sometimes chose, due to lack of time to consider, the wrong/unoptimal option.
You would be better off studying what a person wrote, said in speeches, etc. to know what they think and believe, because unlike with momentary, stressful decisions, here the person has time to consider what they are going to do.
Maybe he was just spitting on it in a subtle way
This…this doesn't sound "under-pressure-heat-of-the-moment" at all. It sounds extremely premeditated. Also, a person's actions ultimately speak far louder than their words, written or spoken. Would Jesus Christ kiss a volume from the Talmud?
This is your mind on papal doublethink.
how do you miss the point this hard
I am serious. Go ask /islam/. A Qur'an blessed by a "mushrikeen" is unusable and must be destroyed. They take Qur'an extremely seriously. There are so many rules concerning it. Can't place it on the same shelf as other books, can't put it on the floor, must read it with absolute reverence. Can't make marks in it or tear its pages - even accidentally. His Holiness blessing that Qur'an was an absolute "screw you" to Muslims.
So this:
bloggerpriest.com
says:
But you're saying that in order to show proper respect, he actually SHOULDN"T have kissed it?
Speaking the truth boldly usually gets you banned on reddit, shame it happens here too.
Noice.
And Pope Francis excuses Islamic violence
tbh you're the reason the fact that whatever interest I have in Catholicism is dwindling.
You’re dead wrong on that point. They take great joy in any measly endorsement they can find. Some book in the 70s claimed Muhammad was the most influential person ever (just most influential, not good. The list contained quite a few dictators and murderers) yet Muslims tout it as proof that everyone likes Muhammad
Hutton Gibson called him garrulous Karolus, the Koran Kisser.
I have my doubts
Just like when the pope sat by and watched as medieval Serbian churches and monasteries were destroyed in Kosovo and 200.000 Orthodox Serbs expelled?
en.wikipedia.org
...
It's almost like people grasp at straws to condemn and slander the Church and her members unceasingly. I wonder whose behind this.
I'm very opposed to the slander Catholic Christians get in here but the Pope and the papacy in general needs to be called out for what it is, herecy. That's actually an action of love towards Catholics.
Because it's just a book. You don't worship a book, do you?
Are you an idiot ? What does that have to do with jews ? It's satan you doofus. Why is there so much sh't being thrown at the Church since the beginning ? A continuous flow of crap against herself, her members, her doctrines, whatever it is you can think of - there's no end to it. Why ? Because the Church bears the Truth and satan HATES it with all his existence.
Get off your Zig Forums infected horse mate.
Forgive me, I didn't mean to insult you but I gave in to the first thing that popped into my head :(
The only ones grasping at straws here are the people tripping over themselves trying to defend this. From implying it's just inter-dimensional Chinese checkers, to trying to say it's a "mortal sin" to even discuss the topic.
Maybe if your leaders stopped doing and saying heretical and out-right satanic things, other Christians would stop condemning you.
...
Tbqh if He did that it would be even worse for the Jews than me rubbing my dick on the book.
No one told you to schism lol
based
I assumed you meant the Jews, as "I wonder who's behind this" is a common meme intended to imply that. Either way, it's not grasping at straws to be concerned about a pope kissing and showing reverence towards a monstrously evil book.
I don't get why you think it is heresy. He didn't say "there is only one god whose name is Allah and Mohammed is his prophet."
Every time I see this I don't get why it's such a big deal. It doesn't really mean anything.
The Pope is just V E N E R A T I N G the book like he would a statue of Mary.
It's not that big of a deal and every Catholic knows it. It's just one of the standard catalog of images Prots use to "prove" Catholicism is heresy. Next comes the pic of Francis kissing a black man's foot.
Ahaha this is the power of Vatican 2 Catholicism. It is Clear that just as St Pope Gregory said, anyone who claims the title universal bishop is the forerunner to the Antichrist. No wonder that this gay syncratism is so common and even dogmatised by Vatican II
Compared to crawling forward and passionately kissing the toes of a statue it's pretty mild. So in one way, it makes sense they don't see the big problem.
How can it be something born of the 1960s when you believe that Islam was invented by the RCC way back in the 600s?
What? it is like the mental gymnastics are making your brain melt.
Also don't forget that photo with a bunch of people surrounding a statue of Mary and a forest in the background, looking like it was taken in some tropical country. It's pretty much obligatory at this point.
Someone needs to read more Psalm 115 and Psalm 135.
He is giving honor to a blasphemous book by a warlord. In that book he commands the slaughter of unbelievers (us), denies Christ is God, denies He dies on the cross and was resurrected, etc. How does that not bother you?
Honestly I've seen it brought up more by sedes and other traditional Catholics than by prots.
Easy. He never acknowledged anything in the book was true. He can kiss every copy of Harry Potter ever printed, but that doesn't make any of it true nor does it mean he believes Harry Potter to be nonfiction.
The absolute state of catholic mental gymnastics
Bump. This thread needs more attention.
Also, here's a nice hq version. One of my favorite pics for sure.
Not a problem with the many paths to salvation doctrine.
The kissing is just a demonstration of the above. Not that I endorse it.
If you think about it, it makes sense.
Catholics kiss idols of the virgin mary, but that means its just V E N E R A T I O N not worship.
So if anything, the Pope is just venerating the Quran, not giving it legitimacy.
Bap cucks BTFO by muh BASED Pope once again
btfo
For muslims worship the same God as we do….MWAH! now that's a spicy meatball!
...
...
You are incorrect. Here’s proof you’re incorrect: the Quran was a gift to him. If they didn’t allow infidels to touch it, they wouldn’t have given it to him.
The guy that was standing right next to him, who was a catholic patriarch, even said it he kissed it out of respect.
novusordowatch.org
The catholics here pretending it was just one of those infamous papal pranks obviously know more than him, though.
...
Yep, excellent source. Surely there's nothing bias there!
Bad translation. "Friend" should be "Allies" and it is in reference to conflict/war, not in general life.
Pic related.
The Bishop of Rome is doing a wonderful job tbh
Wrong. You are listening to liars. If you want to know about a verse, read the exegisis (tafsirs). All muslim apologists and muslims you meet are professional liars. It is their job 24/7 to lie about their religion. Never trust them.
quranx.com
from Ibn Kathir, one of the most respected tafsirs:
The Prohibition of Taking the Jews, Christians and Enemies of Islam as Friends
Allah forbids His believing servants from having Jews and Christians as friends, because they are the enemies of Islam and its people, may Allah curse them. Allah then states that they are friends of each other and He gives a warning threat to those who do this,
ibn Abbas (mohammed's cousin and only named scholar by mohammed):
(O ye who believe!) in Muhammad and the Qur'an. (Take not the Jews and Christians for friends) seeking their assistance and help. (They are friends one to another) He says: some are followers of the religion of others in secret and in the open, just as they are friends of each other. (He among you) O group of believers (who taketh them for friends) seeking their assistance and help (is (one) of them) in alliance and is not included in Allah's protection and safety. (Lo! Allah guideth not) to His religion and proof (wrong-doing folk) the Jews and Christians.
Al-Jalalayn (The two jalals, very well respected tafsir):
O you who believe, do not take Jews and Christians as patrons, affiliating with them or showing them affection; they are patrons of each other, being united in disbelief. Whoever amongst you affiliates with them, he is one of them, counted with them. God does not guide the folk who do wrong, by affiliating with disbelievers.
Do not show them affection or affiliate with them.
It's typical nonsense islamic lying apologetics to say it is only during warfare or other BS. None of these extremely respected scholars (the top in all of sunni islam) say this is just for war time. Do not listen to their lies.
Explaining why taking christians as close friends is haraam. Read that - nowhere does it say it is only for "wartime" or only for that, it says not to imitate them, send them to schools, allow a disbeliever to have a higher position in a job, be a close or trusted friend, take advice from them etc.
If you're a real christian don't fall for these lies.
NO U
Not an argument, anyway. I can read the actual Arabic and it says, quite clearly, "allies".
Also also, quranx and islamqa are Saudi sponsored Wahabbist websites. You trust wahabbists?
hahahah quranx is Wahhabist? lol it doesn't matter you can read the tafsirs from any site. clearly this guy is a winnie the pooh mohammedan don't listen to him.
so you with your puny Arabic understand the Quran better than all the scholars of Islam. ibn Kathir, ibn Abbas they are all liars right? hahahah my sides. go away Abdul, your BS won't work here.
Zig Forums in a nutshell about Islam.
...
Taqiyya.
Rather Turkish than Protestant!
Of course it was heresy, “Saint” “Pope” John Paul was a wicked man
>>>/islam/
Plenty of people can read Arabic. Scholars and people who have left Islam. Learn from this man who saw the light
kek
No surprise there. The Catholic-Muslim alliance is deeply rooted in history.
Some people even believe that the Vatican created Islam in order to weaken the Christian East.
t.muslim
i've studied islam for many years, and know many muslims and arab christians. only accept sources? you're clearly an abdul here, do you even know the people i've quoted? you clearly don't haha or your bullshitting.
first you laughibly call quranx a wahhabist source really exposing yourself. the english translation fo ibn kathir is available on many other websites, so is ibn abbas, al jalalayn etc. these are all the most respected tafisrs for all of sunni islam. they aren't extremist at all.
you provide no tafsir, no reputable scholars saying otherwise, just "muh i spek arabic this is what it means". you are an idiot actually speaking about the verse with no content, not even referencing the asbab al-nuzul. and guess what, no regular person has the authority to interpret the quran, that's for the scholars. so we go to what the scholars say.
none of the highest scholars in islam say what you are claiming. so otherwise they're ALL liars… or you are. hmm. nice try abdul.
and auliya, the plural of wali can't just be said IT MEANS ALLY only, it means protector, friend, helper etc. Don't play games abdul. Leave your satanic religion of deception - look what it's doing to you. Why do all of the scholars of islam disagree with you? They must be islamophobes right, ibn Abbas, ibn Kathir, all islamophobes right? Hahaha
Still no satisfactory answer…
He's not kissing it, they told him it was scratch'n'sniff
I think people are confused on what "scandal" and "being scandalized" actually means.
> In like manner, while going along the spiritual way, a man may be disposed to a spiritual downfall by another's word or deed, in so far, to wit, as one man by his injunction, inducement or example, moves another to sin; and this is scandal properly so called. (II,II Q43 a.1)
> Sometimes therefore it happens that there is active scandal in the one together with passive scandal in the other, as when one commits a sin being induced thereto by another; sometimes there is active without passive scandal, for instance when one, by word or deed, provokes another to sin, and the latter does not consent; and sometimes there is passive without active scandal, as we have already said. (Response to objection 4)
And, just to be sure that passive scandal is the same as "being scandalized",
> As already said (Article 1, Reply to Objection 4), scandal is of two kinds, passive scandal in the person scandalized, and active scandal in the person who gives scandal, and so occasions a spiritual downfall. (Article 2)
As to the "mortal sin" part:
> Consequently passive scandal may sometimes be a venial sin, when it consists in a stumbling and nothing more; for instance, when a person is disturbed by a movement of venial sin occasioned by another's inordinate word or deed: while sometimes it is a mortal sin, when the stumbling results in a downfall, for instance, when a person goes so far as to commit a mortal sin through another's inordinate word or deed. (Article 4)
It seems clear that one scandalized when he sins in reaction to another's sins, and not because he merely dissapproves of it (which, in this case, seems absolutely legitimate). So if OP doesn't actually converts to islam or apostatize in reaction to JPII, he should be fine.
because Vatican II is the end time apostasy. Look up sedevacantism. Look up Most Holy Family Monastery
What do you think it makes muslims think about Christianity, and those who are supposed to bear the testimony of Jesus Christ. The pope is a clown whom nobody should take seriously.
Heretics. Follow the true Pope.
/isalm/ already has a thread on this
He's saying that if the Pope spat on the Quran and tossed it into the sea, arab muslims will go on a rampage against arab christians.
This is the most believable one thusfar.
Was Jesus a heretic for loving his murderers? Only satan possesed LARPers want endless war instead of peace towards our fellow man.
The Crusades were justified, but any such continuation of war today would not be. Showing love and respect in brotherhood of man is not legitimizing false faiths or "cucking out", it's doing what Our Lord commanded. Plus is right.
The awful level of strawmanning and dishonest vitriol against the Church is more evidence of the real war going on, and it's disappointing how strong of a hold it has on this board.
it fits with this board. This board is full of disgusting mods anyway who might aswell be sucking islam dick. God was an alien and a devip and an asshole.
You realize Catholic countries have 50 times the firepower of muslim countries? He could've shat on it, if he was serious about his faith.
Have a bump.
Not sure why this surprises you. It's just a one off situation, just politics, nothing to see here…
It's not like the Catechism teaches there is some sort of theological unity between Catholics and muslims, and the Quran is worthy of respect and not a false gospel. What did Paul say about those who come preaching a different Gospel?? I think he said to join together with them in adoring the one, merciful God that judges mankind. Right?
I don't know if it is or not, but I'm pretty sure it is when he gets on his knees to suck sandy mudslime cock.
CATHOLICS BTFO
MODS BTFO
POPE BTFO
RISE UP!
REVOLT AGAINST THE CATHOLIC MOD MAFIA
Seriously, defend this. 1 John 2 and John 6 and the Athanasian creed tend to go the other way. This is dissembly at best, scandal in the expected case, and endangers souls at worst.
Papism endangers souls as it's found nowhere in Scripture and seeks to replace it. All papists need to repent of their false, unbiblical theology.
The sign of the Cross is nowhere in scripture, but is not odious thereto. The liturgy cannot be derived from scripture alone. The key is that tradition cannot supersede scripture, as that would imply God changed.
Romans 2:29