Holy Wisdom: Why the Pope should call for the return of the Hagia Sophia.

VDH's Private Papers ^ | 12/7/2006 | Bruce S. Thornton

[Zemo]

God is everywhere - what matters what direction the pope prays in - the make up of the prayer is what matters.

[N3WBI3]

roamed by people stuck in the iron-age

(nitpick) Technically the Native Americans were not in the Iron Age, they had little metal working of any kind. Stone age is more appropriate..

[Zemo]

I tried to be reasonable and compromise - but you were correct after all.

[montag813]

Maybe we should turn the Kabba into a base for a giant new pork and liquor store - complete with topless waitresses and dogs as guards..

That sounds great! However let's have Jews guard them. The same Jews we give their houses to.

[Silly]

I have more than a little problem with posters not referring to the Pope in the correct fashion. Being as blatantly anti-Catholic as you are, there's no sense in referring you to any of the Catholic blobs perspectives on this since your small mind is firmly closed.

His name is his name. He may be your Pope, but he's not mine. E.g., Americans address Judi Dench as Judi Dench, not Dame. Her title is not recognized by our non-royal system.

I may be anti-Catholic, but only when Catholicism goes against God's word. I know and work with Catholics, and discuss many issues with them. Every sect, and every Christian, veers off from God's word on certain issues; what is small-minded is a prevailing Catholic attitude that they are not part of the greater Christian community and must submit themselves, like all other Christians, to the cause of theological unity, at the cost of sectarianism.

If you have corresponded with me at all, you know I engage on the issues and listen to all sides. So, in your own words, three short sentences, why is Ratzinger facing Mecca to pray when it is a meaningless ritual of a false religion?

And what is a blob?

[Silly]

What matters is that his actions can be construed -- rightly or wrongly -- by those of weak or no faith, to mean he is treating Islam as co-equal or legitimate. He needs to be able to meet with Muslim leaders, face to face, and -- in love -- tell them their religion is the ranting of a madman and without placing their trust in Jesus Christ, they will be seperated from God forever.

If he can't do that, he's got a problem as a leader within Christianity.

[Zemo]

I am not Catholic so it is not up to me to apologize (by apologize I mean the original meaning of the word which means 'offering an explaination') for the pope.

[Patriotic1]

blobs = blogs

[Patriotic1]

He is the head of state for the Vatican, and he also has a religious title. Your refusal to use the proper title says more about you than you think. Would you call the Queen of England 'Lizzy'?

While we haven't conversed, I've read enough of your posts to know what I think of your arguments.

Blob is a typo for blog.

Before Vatican II, our altars always faced East(Jerusalem). I think Pope Benedict knows where Jerusalem is. The fact the media think it's Mecca is meaningless.

While he was pre-16: Meanwhile Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the Vatican's powerful doctrinal office, has written a new book in which he suggests that priests turn away from the people in order to face east during portions of the Mass. He also supported placing tabernacles in a central location in churches and endorsed a "renewed appreciation" of kneeling. All are customs associated with pre-Vatican II liturgical piety.

And then there is the fact that Islam, which came along 600 years after Christ, always had elements of Christianity they claim as their own. They are the ones imitating Christians with regard to facing East...not the other way around.

[Patriotic1]

Also (copied from another site, so I cannot claim any typos)...

Suppose he had not faced toward Mecca: he would have been acting with singularity - that is, been making a spectacle of himself. Muslims may or may not be aware of singularity or of something equivalent in Islam - but, he would by Catholic standards (even if not by theirs) have been drawing attention to himself; which would have been

* very discourteous to his hosts

* entirely out of place in a house of worship (one which is important to them, even if not to him)

* and, completely pointless: he would have likely caused offence, if not to his hosts then to the Turkish public; which would be tolerable (though not desirable) provided that it was possible to achieve some good by not facing Mecca. But what good would not doing so have achieved ?

* Since he is the earthly visible head of a different religion, the presumption has to be that he was not intending to undermine his own religion; and this presumption is supported by his previous acts as Pope: we aren't talking about an honest-to-God five-star abomination like the Assisi meetings.

* No Pope is at liberty to dishonour the Faith by his conduct, of course - any more than any of us is. And facing toward Mecca is of itself a neutral act - it has to be interpreted by the circumstances in which it occurs. For him to face Mecca, does not mean he was dishonouring the Faith unless there are circumstances apart from that bodily action which strongly suggest he intended to dishonour the Faith. Without such circumstances, & without evidence that those other circumstances strongly suggest that he intended that, there is no reason to take that bodily action of turning to Mecca as evidence of anything untoward. For even Popes are entitled not to have their actions judged harshly, if they can plausibly be judged favourably.

[Silly]

Well, your post was well constructed and thoughtful, so I will answer:

First of all, if I had the distinct pleasure, I would address Elizabeth as "Mum," which is always right and proper for anyone in any circumstances (read your Judith Martin), but avoids the unpatriotic (yes, unpatriotic) act of recognizing anything "majestic" about her privileged position or accident of birth (this includes bowing or courtsying). I think she's quite a lady and a wonderful role model of graciousness, and that's about the best any Christian soul can hope to achieve. A big sincere smile, and the warm acceptance of her handshake would do her honor.

Regarding facing Mecca:

Facing east is an utterly meaningless, empty ritual that does nothing to edify us and does not impress God. Pretending it is neutral does not change this.

Houses of worship are meant for those worshippers dedicated to the faith of that house, and, if agreeable to the hosts, observers who do not participate in their worship. There is no reason a Christian should avoid such a place (we are commanded to preach the Gospel everywhere), but he must give no indication he is kowtowing to a false religion and avoid our duties (we are commanded to preach the Gospel everywhere).

Spectacle? I'll show you spectacles. Read Acts and see the outrageous actions, culturally beyond the pale, of the apostles and other believers. Their actions astonished everyone and turned the world upside down.

Discourteous? Not so. A polite visitor to a house of worship may, in advance, speak to his hosts about his faith and his inability to observe or appear to observe rituals which are not edifying or which may appear to be of another faith. With a warm, gracious smile, he may say, "Sir, thank you for inviting me here today. I am honored to be your guest, and look forward to meeting your people. Before we enter, please let me make clear to you that any lack of observance and participation in these activities on my part is in no way intended to offend. Thank you for understanding! If you cannot accommodate this, I will myself in no way be offended, and hope to continue to be your friend!"

Offensive? Of course I agree. The Gospel is offensive to everyone: to the West and to the East, to the conservative and to the liberal, to the religious and the irreligious. A Christian who is dedicating his life to avoiding offense at the cost of preaching the Gospel to all creatures, everywhere, is either not preaching the Gospel at all, or preaching a watered-down Gospel. As wonderful as the good news of Jesus is, it provokes the deepest emotions: fear, hate, ridicule, aggression -- as well as joy when God moves the heart.

We may well presume his intentions were good, but intentions can make excellent cobblestones. In the last days (and we may or may not be there), there will be many false churches and false leaders who, in the name of peace and unity forfeit the truth and come together under a one-world religion. I'm not suggesting your leader will do this, but I am suggesting that we will be astonished to see the ones who do, and many, many Christians will be led astray.

Just once, please, I'd like to see good ol' Joe Ratzinger (bless his soul) march into a mosque and loudly proclaim that Jesus is the Lord, the Christ, and the God of the universe, and that he has abolished all religion, urging all listeners to believe on his name. His duty is to preach the Gospel without shame. The Gospel is the power of God!

If this act costs him his life, well, I guess he could be elevated to sainthood.

-- a fellow saint, Silly (but not always)

[SunkenCiv]

GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach	join list or digest view topics view or post blog bookmark post a topic subscribe
Note: this topic is from 12/07/2006. Thanks ZeitgeistSurfer. Blast from the Past. Just adding to the catalog, not sending a general distribution. To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.