Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Beloved Levinite; narses; Revelation 911; NYer; Mrs. Don-o; All

> Wonderful! You’ve exposed me as a newbie! Now what?

Continue along the disrespectful lines that your posts to date indicate, and just possibly you will be introduced to the ZOT.

Usually best to Lurk for a while on this Forum, mate. Learn the flavor of the site, do a few trial responses to threads already up. Gauge feedback, get to “know” a few people with similar interests to you. Understand that this is a Conservative Forum and that devout Catholics are about as Conservative as it gets in this world — so probably not a good idea to attack one of their past Holy Fathers and a truly great World Leader in a maiden thread that you want to post up...

Just a suggestion. I’d happily attend your ZOT but maybe you meant well. I’ll take that risk for the moment.


89 posted on 04/08/2008 10:19:30 PM PDT by DieHard the Hunter (Is mise an ceann-cinnidh. Cha ghéill mi do dhuine. Fàg am bealach.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies ]


To: DieHard the Hunter; Beloved Levinite; Gamecock; ROLF of the HILL COUNTRY; marshmallow
You must remember this
A kiss is just a kiss
A sigh is just a sigh.
The fundamental things apply
As time goes by.


OK, class, contrast and compare:

The Sharif Bible, a translation of the Bible in modern Arabic.


Pope kisses book.

As our valuable Aussie Protestant mate, DieHard the Hunter, has righly pointed out, and as everybody actually knows, the Catholic Church has never been so foolish as to propose that the Pope is intellectually or morally faultless, flawless, or foolproof, let alone impeccable, personally ---- but only that he will never be able to bind the Catholic Church to falsity in matters of faith and morals.

That means the Pope could be stupid or sinful (some of them, esp. during the Renaissance, were notoriously so) but cannot make an erroneous doctrine binding on the whole church. Thus "infallibility" is more a divine protection for the Church than a personal quality of the Pope, since it constitutes a divine promise that no matter how screwed-up a Bishop of Rome may be, he will not be able to make a dogma out of it to mislead the whole Church. (Keywords "gates" "hell.")

So whatever it was that John Paul was doing in the famous 9-year-old picture that has been around the world 10,000 times on the Internet, it was at worst an act of cringe-making personal error and not an erroneous definition of dogma.

Yeesh.

I would want to add that Pope John Paul was Polish after all, and therefore a kisser.

Any time anybody gave him anything, he kissed it as a sign of thanks. He kissed sombreros. CD's. Guitars. Sweatshirts. Soccer balls. Sandwiches. Photographs. Baseball caps. Pineapples. Personal correspondance (letters). Cheeks. Foreheads. Hands. Walls (in Jerusalem.)

He's famous for even getting on his knees and kissing the ground for godsake, and literally for God's sake because he was the kind of guy who easily and spontaneously expressed gratitude for gifts all the time.

It's pretty clear he was kissing the book "as gift" ("as soccer ball") and not as a liturgical gesture canonizing Islamic scripture.

I might render a different opinion if it had been Rowan Williams, GOL (for Groaning Out Loud), but, not unfairly, I'm going to give our Lolek the benefit of the doubt because this is the same guy who commissioned Cardinal Josef ("the Enforcer") Ratzinger to write "Dominus Iesus," which clarified that nobody is saved by anybody except by Jesus Christ Our Lord.

And if it turns out, as wideawake says, that it was an Arabic-language edition of the Bible--

Well, Holy Moses, people.

102 posted on 04/09/2008 8:58:27 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Lolek was a Mensch.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson