My first car was a Ford Geo. Thing was a piece of junk.
Got me to point A to B so I guess that's all that matters. my current car is a chevy silverado. I
was lucky to get a good 60 second auto quote on that sucker so I'm happy with it. My dream
car is a Lamborghini Galllardo. Anyone see the new Reventon? Anyway what's your story?

"I can't even think about the man without going into a violent rage." Pray for IG.

Inquisitor-
Hey, thanks for that last post. It gives me enough information that I can now just skip over reading any of your subsequent posts and deal with the more rational posters that remain.
What a relief!

"Please tell me what Pope John Paul II intention was?"
No clue. But I'm not inclined to show him any mercy. Whatever his intentions were, they were not good. It was a grave act for which he should have been thoroughly rebuked.
"Also what did you do to "be united with him in mind and heart" during his pontificate?"
Nothing. The man's pontificate was a complete disaster. Everything he touched was a disaster. The best thing Catholics could do is completely ignore him, or else be constantly scandalized. I can't even think about the man without wanting to go into a violent rage. To put it bluntly, Alexander VI was a much, much, much better pope than John Paul II. In fact, the more I think about JPII, the more I actually come to *like* Alexander VI.

Inquisitor Generalis,
Please tell me what Pope John Paul II intention was?
Also what did you do to "be united with him in mind and heart" during his pontificate?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

"I am willing to give Pope John Paul II the benefit of the doubt based on what I believe his life witnessed to..."
This is exactly the reason why some of us are NOT inclined to give JPII the benefit of the doubt.

Breier,
I think most commenters here would agree that we would not have kissed the koran, but I am willing to give Pope John Paul II the benefit of the doubt based on what I believe his life witnessed to; a love of Christ and his neighbor.
And yes popes can and have made mistakes, but that does not give us the right to bad mouth them personally and repeatedly.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Breier,
Ok, just what was the Pope John Paul II intention then Breier. You already said it was indefensible so you have judged the Pope intentions and found him guilty. Please inform me what his intentions were.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

All this wretched apologetics and special pleading is harming the cause of orthodox Catholics. Why can't people admit that a mistake was made and move on? To obstinantly defend to the death, ostrich-like, is counterproductive to authentic loyalty to the Holy See. If people can never admit that the Pope makes a mistake, they indeed look like they're not facing the facts, which plays into rad-trad hands. Why not just admit, yeah, he probably shouldn't have done that, but you really have to look at the big-picture and all the good things that came out of John Paul II's pontificate? That would be a more convincing argument than the see-no-evil hear-no-evil.

Anyone interested in Dave Armstrong's discussion of Pope John Paul II kissing the koran can find it here.
http://web.archive.org/web/20030604152818/http://i...
Inquisitor Generalis,
I of course know you will not be interested in Mr. Armstrong's discussion. I would not suggest disagreeing with Pope Pius X especially where he states in his catechism:
62 Q: How should every Catholic act towards the Pope?
A: Every Catholic must acknowledge the Pope as Father, Pastor, and Universal Teacher, and be united with him in mind and heart.
But perhaps you should give just as much respect and obedience to the living pope as you do the dead ones. I don't know if Pope Benedict XVI would ask us to burn protestant bibles.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

"You are the one; and it is clear you are not going to back out of recommending it."
Give me one good reason why I should disagree w/Pope St. Pius X on this matter. Just one.

That was not directed at you, Father. You got through the ether faster than I did.

Besides, why should the person who merely references something be somehow *more* guilty than the one who originally said it?

Speaking of "leaps of illogic"...

Yes, St. Pius recommended it as you claim.
However, he is not the one repeatedly posting it here.
You are the one; and it is clear you are not going to back out of recommending it.

"St. Pius is not the one repeating the Bible-burning reference. You are."
St. Pius is the one who recommended book burning. So, yes, you are comparing St. Pius to the KKK. You're not gonna back out of this one.

Jonathan,
Would you object to the Pope kissing a pornographic magazine? Even Playboy articles contain some little truth. Or is the Koran, a book who's truth is corrupted by blasphemy, heresy, and infidelity, just not as objectionable to you?
Really, I appreciate your zeal in defending the Holy Father, but this is defending the indefensible. We don't question the Holy Father's good faith, but that action was a manifest error, and has scandalized untold numbers of Christians.
I agree, it doesn't bear repeating, and people should put it behind us and focus on the future. But as long as it's being discussed, we need to keep our common sense.

Since you repeatedly refer to it, I'm comparing you, I.G., not St. Pius, to the K.K.K.
St. Pius is not the one repeating the Bible-burning reference. You are.

"Do you acknowledge the Roman Pontiff, John Paul II was the Head of the Church?"
Yes, unfortunately.
"Burning Protestant semi-Bibles is like burning crosses. The KKK does it."
So now you're comparing Pope St. Pius X to the KKK?!? This is too much.

Inquisitor Generalis,
Do you acknowledge the Roman Pontiff, John Paul II was the Head of the Church?
Just curious.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Self-Appointed Inquisitor, you've posted the Koran-kissing of His Holiness John Paul II and the Bible-burning of St. Piux X several times now, thus going against Jimmy Akin's posted Rule Number 2.
Burning Protestant semi-Bibles is like burning crosses. The KKK does it.

Pope St. Pius X advocated refusing Protestant Bibles w/disgust or having them burned, if inadvertently accepted. Clearly, things have changed a lot since that time, given that JPII kissed the Koran, of all books.

"There is absolutely no excuse whatsoever for kissing the Koran. JPII's actions are inexcusable. How can anyone defend this? "
Easy, really. Its no sin to honor what little truth is in the Koran. And as someone mentioned, it is a Middle-Eastern tradition to kiss the gifts one is given.
Or are you, in your paranoia, assigning the act of kissing a context it does not have?

""Count Tradula" and "Inquisitor Generalis" have the same URL. One and the same!"
What's w/you neo-Catholics and thinking you never really have anything on someone until you've "exposed" them for something? This is no big deal. We've always admitted that Count Tradula and Inquisitor Generalis are one and the same. Who cares.

Father,
I'm sure there are some prejudiced folks about. But these are the least likely to be influenced by anything anybody writes.
With regard to talking about the Pope, we need to distinguish between personal holiness and pontifical performance. Saint Pope Saint Celestine V was a holy man, but his pontificate was a disaster, ending in resignation. To criticize his incompetence was not deny his saintliness.
Pope Paul VI, for all I know, was a good man, and he did a glorious thing with Humanae Vitae. Even so, I think, policy-wise, his pontificate was disastrous. This is a historical judgment, not envenomed polemic. And it's a judgment Catholics are free to make, just as they argue about the official merits of Alexander VI, Boniface VIII, Pius IX, Pius XII, or anyone else.
I don't think most people have an interest in judging the personal holiness or virtues of Pope John Paul II. That job can be left up to the Congregation of Saints and his biographers. What they're talking about is the assesment of prudential decisions he made.
To respond to the scandal of the Assisi prayer-meeting, it is insufficient, in my view, to simply invoke the Pope's substantial goodness.
Something substantive is required.
As far the Koran, any sane person can interpret that incident charitably and indulgently, but still have substantial problems with it.
But it's one incident among many, many other problematic things. If people want to have a serious discussion, they ought to turn to a more subsantial concern: the legacy of JPII's episcopal appointments and the efficacy of his method of discipline, or lack thereof, during his glorious reign.

There is absolutely no excuse whatsoever for kissing the Koran. JPII's actions are inexcusable. How can anyone defend this? Remember, Pope St. Pius X recommended refusing Protestant Bibles w/disgust or having them burned, if inadvertently accepted.

Again, I have not advocated kissing the Koran.
Since the Koran is a text sacred to Muslims, and since it contains things we Christians reject, I do not approve of the kissing of the Koran.
To be fair to John Paul II, there are those posting on this blog who take opportunities to discredit him consistently--simply dismissing the man's goodness because of instances of apparent imprudence. To borrow your words and apply them as a description of the prejudice of some persons against John Paul II:
"A man like John Paul II, whatever good he may contain, is bad. One might as well kiss the Anti-Christ."

Father,
Sure every book contains truth. But I feel this argument about the Pope and the Koran often lends itself to special pleading, making excuses, on the Pope's behalf.
If containing some truth makes someone venerable, then we ought to venerate all the heresies, and kiss the icons of the heresiarchs. This is of course absurd.
The Talmud, the Koran, Mormon sacred texts, all these texts have something in them that is true and praiseworthy. But they're also filled with, speaking strictly, damnable heresy, infidelity, untruths, and otherwise satanic utterances.
We can all distinguish between "good" and "bad" books. A book like the Koran, whatever good it may contain, is bad. One might as well have the Pope kissing Nietzche.

John,
I did not advocate kissing the Koran.
I merely pointed out that there is something inside the Koran that is "kissable." I was reacting to a poster who--in my personal judgment--regularly tries to discredit John Paul II .
I do agree with you that kissing the Koran itself is problematic. I do not know what the Holy Father's thoughts were in doing so.
This morning's Gospel was the occasion for me to state in my homily that Christ presents himself as the fullness of true salvation, and that therefore all other faiths either do not offer the fullness of salvation or offer falsehood itself.

"...kissing a book, which means completed adoration..."
You think that when a priest kisses the Lectionary, he's adoring it? Giving it the honor reserved for God alone?

Father
I am surprised you as a clergy would actually support the kissing of the koran. I think it sent the wrong message. As far as what they think of Mary that is well and good-but the last time I checked they deny Jesus as the Son of God, despise us for actually thinking that any man on earth should be called "God", and accept their Koran as the New Testament. So if you think kissing a book, which means completed adoration and acceptance, as our clergy , as you are well aware do with the Gospel was a good thing for the Vicar of Christ to do, then I think you are very accepting of anything goes and all faiths are on the same footing as the post above says. For that matter, why did the cleric not reciprocate and kiss the New Testament at the same time JPII kissed that Koran?

Inquisitor Generalis,
Y'know, JPII did kiss the Koran, remember. Let's not forget that.
Since you remind us over and over, of course with out the slightest attempt at context, how could we forget.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

JPII kissed all the presents he got on that trip. It's Middle Eastern custom to kiss gifts to show appreciation to the giver, I understand.
So if you want to imply that JPII not only revered the Koran, but also scarves and various items of clothing, while Islamic people who got gifts from JPII all were members of an obscure sect of Rosary-worshippers... you go right ahead. No need to stick to the truth or anything.

On December 10, 2001, zenit.org published an interview with an Islamic scholar who pointed out that the Koran venerates Mary deeply as "Immaculate" and as "a faithful example to follow, valid for all the world´s believers."
That's an affirmation worthy of being kissed--though most Protestants would disagree.

Y'know, JPII did kiss the Koran, remember. Let's not forget that.

We absolutely did not compromise our faith and teachings... unless you hold that the Gates of Hell have prevailed and the Church has promulgated error.

"...the Church bent over backwards to make all faiths basically equal to Christianity." It didn't.
"Vatican II was held for that purpose." It wasn't.
"...while we compromised our faith and teachings for them..." We didn't.
Evidence, please?

Nostre Aetate of Vatican II says we must hold the Moslems "in high esteem"-Is that still binding?
And I kind of got a snicker today as I was reading how Pope B16 was using the Second Vatican Council's pastoral constitution "Gaudium et Spes" addressed the question of contemporary culture and freedom. I quote from Zenit
"Culture, it said in No. 59, "has constant need of a just liberty in order to develop." For this reason it has "a certain inviolability," which is, however, not absolute. It is limited by the common good and the rights of individuals and the community, the document said.
And concerning these limitations, Benedict XVI commented on the importance of respecting religious beliefs, during his speech Monday to Morocco's new ambassador to the Holy See. "It is necessary and urgent that religions and their symbols be respected," the Pope said.
He added that this implies that "believers not be the object of provocations that wound their lives and religious sentiments." A principle valid for all religions, Christianity included."
I find this quite funny how the church bent over backwards to make all faiths basically equal to Christianity and Vatican II was held for that purpose if you take a look at those 16 documents-and those same people could care less about us while we compromised our faith and teachings for them, and now we have to use Vatican II to protect US!

====
"Count Tradula" and "Inquisitor Generalis" have the same URL. One and the same!
====
"Jeb Protestant" posts all over jimmyakin.org and also at another Catholic blog, Amy Welborn's. His posts vilify Catholics, Asians, Hispanics and non-Europeans. Does he belong to the KKK?
====

Count Tradula-
"The problem w/the printing press is that it put the Bible in the hands of idiots."
May I point out that the printing press also put the Bible in the hands of many brilliant saints?
-------------------
I think we are going to see a lot of people and institutions taking a "new tack" on Islam. Radical Islamism increasingly makes this a necessity.
Sharia Law is all-encompassing. Those who would impose it on the world can't be engaged in negotiation, because Sharia itself leaves no room for compromise. It is an all-or-nothing system, and it will have to be met with overwhelming force eventually.
The Sharia fanatics declared war on us long ago, and whether in Iraq, Afghanistan, or elsewhere, we would have been eventually forced to engage them militarily.
Now it's just a question of who wins in the end.

What shame?

"Inocencio, thank you."
"They boast of their shame."

True as you say: "In my dictionary 'influence" and "transformation' mean two different things."
However, that which brings transformation does so necessarily by way of influence.
Your first statement remains absolutely false: "The transformation of our nation by non-Europeans is profoundly new."
Your second statement implies some transformation: "Non-Europeans have always influcenced our culture." (The spelling is yours.)

In my dictionary "influence" and "transformation" mean two different things.

====
To J.Protestant:
In an earlier post, you wrote:
"The transformation of our nation by non-Europeans is profoundly new."
However, now you have written:
"Non-Europeans have always influcenced our culture."
Your argumentation is self-contradictory and non-coherent.
====
To. I.Generalis:
My reference to the meaning of "Catholic" makes use of a Patristic argument against heresies. The progressivist heresies that some U.S. Catholics promote are insular, exalting local ideologies against the universal Church.
I am not a progressivist. Doctrinally I am conservative, traditional and classical. I wear a full Benedictine monastic habit all the time.
I have not defended unqualified immigration. Living in San Diego, I am in support of strong fencing on our border with Mexico. We have a right and an obligation to prevent illegal immigration--and not merely moderate it.
====
To both J.Protestant and I.Generalis:
The history of anti-Catholicism in the U.S.A. is coupled with Protestant nativist xenophobia (and heresy).
====

"Catholic, not insular; Catholic, meaning universal, not isolated and restricted."
Ugh!!! Whenever somebody says this, you KNOW some progressivist nonsense is coming next. Sure enough, Fr. Stephanos gives it to us w/a defense of immigration.

The problem with the EU is that it can impose secularism continent wide. Do you think the EU would support a reactionary Christian nation? Look at what happened a few years ago when AUstria voted for a right of center government -- the EU threatened sanctions.
Non-Europeans have always influcenced our culture. The situation now is that they are a wedge used to advanced multiculturalism and ecumenicalism. Just look at California, which is now "majority minority." Social conservatism is dead in that state, notwithstanding all the supposed "family values" Hispanics and Asians (which is a myth for another day).

The impulse of the E.U. is in its constitution. No constitution, no impulse. The problem is constitutional, constitutional, constitutional. Change the constitution. Any E.U. agenda that is anti-Christian, secularist and pro-homosexual is going to be enacted through its constitution.
The transformation of the U.S.A. by non-Europeans is not profoundly new. Our nurses in the U.S.A. include a significant number of Filipinas. The railroads that historically laced together the American West were dependent on Chinese laborers. During and before that, the enslavement of Africans enabled the developing wealth of the U.S.A. The original inhabitants of this continent were not Europeans. They immigrated from Asia.
Non-European transformation of this land is profoundly ANCIENT and constant.
My reference about ethnic Israelites is meant to challenge what seems to me to be your fear of "foreigners."
The U.S.A. as a "nation of immigrants" is pertinent to this discussion. It illustrates that foreign immigrants as FOREIGN immigrants are not the problem. PROBLEMATIC foreign immigrants are problematic.
As for your reference to homosexuality and the E.U., that is also a constitutional ill.
You and I belong to the human race which is at times "militantly anti-Christian and secularist" as you say. Are we going to check out of it? Or are we going to deal with it?
I am in favor of limiting the number of immigrants from Islamic countries. However, that is a complex thing to do. What about Christians from Islamic-majority countries? Christianity in Iraq has been a constant from the time of the apostles. (It seems the apostle Thomas went there.) San Diego County and Detroit in the U.S.A. have two of the largest populations of expatriate Iraqi Christians in the world, I believe.

I don't see how the fact that the US is "a nation of immigrants" is relevant. All nations are nations of immigrants. Spain is a combination of Phonecians, Arabs, Moors and who knows what. In any event, my ancestors came here legally. In fact, many of my ancestors made some money and then returned to their homeland. America is also a nation that has had various pauses in immigration so that immigrants can be absorbed. The transformation of our nation by non-Europeans is profoundly new.
And whoever said that God intended that the Church be made of ethinic Israelites? That Christians should evangalize Mohammedans doesn't mean that we should let our country become Mohamadden by immigration.
The problem with the EU is not that it is a union of nations, the problem is that the impulse behind it is militantly anti-Christian and secularist. Tinkering with one or two aspects of the constitution isn't going to change anything.

The E.U. itself, or another such organization, is not an evil in itself. What they include or exclude in their constitution--that's the source of problems.
The U.S. is also a Union.
Human beings have a right to Migration. The U.S. allows us to migrate out and migrate in. The U.S. also has a right and an obligation to control immigration for the good of its citizens and residents. Controlling is distinct from preventing.
It is insincere for Americans to argue against immigration. Everyone in the U.S. or everyone's ancestors in the U.S. immigrated here--by land, sea or air. A U.S. resident or citizen who was wholeheartedly against immigration would be 100% sincere only by leaving the U.S.
The U.S. and its culture was built by immigrants. Its decay and the decay of its culture is not something imported. Do we accept our U.S. culture just exactly the way it presently is?
Christians profess the Church to be One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. Catholic, not insular; Catholic, meaning universal, not isolated and restricted.
"Go out to all the world ... make disciples ... baptize." How would we ever obey the Lord's command if it were not for immigration? He didn't intend his Church to be composed only of ethnic Israelites living only in Israel.