http://www.cmri.org/novusordo.html

If anyone has a few minutes to spare I was hoping you could clarify some things for me. Since learning about Traditional Catholcism (mostly through the media attention placed on Hutton and Mel Gibson) I have done some research about it online and came across this site posted above. The arguments in text seem valid enough and the reference to Pope Pius V's decree and declaration of the perpetuity and inviolate nature of the Ordo Missae make me think that some of Vatican II's reforms were invalid . I must admit that I am wholly ignorant on this matter and this is not meant to be devisive but with the information posted on this website I would be inclined to believe that some of Vatican II's changes were heretical. If anyone has information about how Traditional Catholicism has a skewed interpertaion about this whole situation or about how most of the information is just plain bunk then I would be glad to read it. Thank you in advance

-- J.D. Brabant (joshua123@qwest.net), March 14, 2004

Answers

Bump

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 14, 2004.

You might wish to read Did the Pope Intend to Bind His Successors from Changing the Tridentine Mass?

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), March 14, 2004.

J.D.

You might find this article helpful.

http://www.catholictradition.org/who.htm

It is by a traditionalist, so it presents traditionalists as the way to go. It does however describe the different philosophical groups of catholics albeit with a bit of condescension. Mel Gibson is a Sedevacantist (splinter group of traditionalists). CMRI is likewise a Sedevacantist site. They believe that the post Vatican II popes are all heretics and are therefore not real popes.

-- David F (notanaddress@nowhere.org), March 14, 2004.

David F said: They believe that the post Vatican II popes are all heretics and are therefore not real popes.

Then who were/are their popes to whom they submit? What about the gates of Hades not prevailing against the Church? (Mt. 16:18). It seems that from this view, the traditionalists say that evil did indeed prevail? Please correct me if I'm confused.

JD, thanks for bringing this up. I have heard the traditionalist controversy discussed in this forum, but I never quite understood what exactly it entailed. I was really scared to bring it up, because I thought people might get mad at me for starting controversy or division. Is it like a "Protestant Reformation" all over again?

If you have material or opinions from either perspective to share, please feel free to email me privately if necessary (in case there are some reading this who are concerned about this issue who are not allowed to post in this forum - I remember at least one such person).

God bless,

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), March 15, 2004.

David F., I realize you are only trying to help J.D. but I question whether it is wise to allow your post to stand. It refers to a site admittedly "traditionalist" that promotes ideas that neither the Catholic Church nor this forum condones. It claims the Catholic Church only possesses part of the Truth. This is not in keeping with our beliefs and for Catholics to recommend this site is very confusing to those who might come to our site looking for Catholic Truth. This confusion is borne out by the very next post after yours made by Emily.

I don’t think it is our place to be promoting or exposing beliefs which are contrary to ours or which contribute to confusion about what we stand for. I would like the opinions of others on this matter. Should this post be removed for reasons I have mentioned or should it be allow to stand in the interest of free debate?

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), March 15, 2004.

Hi Ed,

I understand that David was explaining the beliefs of traditionalists and not of true Catholics (authority under Rome). I was just asking how the traditionalists deal with some of the problems that seem to arise with this view.

I think it should stand in the interest of free discussion. Just because you post a link doesn't mean you have to agree with what it says. In fact, we should be prepared by reading what others believe in order to know what they are talking about and explain to them why they are wrong. I have been wondering about this issue, and as I said, I was afraid to bring it up for fear of causing controversy. But I bet there are others like me who would like clarification about the issue.

Thanks & God bless,

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), March 15, 2004.

Dear ED,

You said that I am only trying to help. Help what? I had a simple (posssibly complex inquiry) and you question it's presence on a Cathoic forum. I am not leading people anywhere they can't already take themselves with logical thought. I just simply wanted to know what educated informed and Spirit-filled Catholics thought about an apparent contradicion in doctrine. If there is no contradiction then why do you even attack my post. If the website I posted is simply a group of misguided and exclusive indivduals who know nothing of the True Faith than enlighten us all and rip apart their asinine arguments. This may sound harsh but I have never been challenged before on this forum and I think I have the right to pose any question I think of that pertains to the True Faith.

-- j.d. brabant (joshua123@qwest.net), March 15, 2004.

Sorry Ed I did not read your post well enough at all. I apologize for thinking that you didn't want this topic discussed on this forum.

-- j.d. brabant (joshua123@qwest.net), March 15, 2004.

No problem J.D. It's not that I mind this topic being discussed. Our archives are full of it. What I find troubling is the site that has been mentioned for referral. It presents our Church in an unfavourable light, not the sort of thing this forum was created for.

Thanks for your comment Emily.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), March 15, 2004.

Emily,

Mel is a Sedavacantist who denies this current pope. That means that he has a real problem. If the Vatican II popes are not valid then the Bishops and priests ordained by them are as well. Mel has private masses directed by priests who trace their ordinations to popes pre dating John 23rd. That means that any Sedavacantist will be in real trouble ideologically in the near future when there are no such priests. The bulk of traditionalists are not in the same boat as Mel.

Ed, The Traditionalists recognize JPII as their pope they simply have trouble with Vatican II which in the words of Pope Paul 6th was not infallible. They follow the teachings of the pre Vatican II Papacy and wonder why modern popes want to change so much of the Church.

JD, Vatican II is valid its just that Traditionalists feel it has been a disaster for the Church (lose of religious, divorce/annulment rates, decreased vocation rates, mass attendence, conversion rates, pennance, belief in real presence).

I am not catholic yet. My wife is a traditionalist though. I am still exploring my faith. "The gates of Hell will not prevail against Her" no matter what. That said I would hope we all feel that we need to speak up when we see problems with Her direction.

-- David F (notanaddress@nowhere.org), March 15, 2004.

David F. while I can appreciate what you are saying, our Faith is all about OBEDIENCE, complete obedience. Our Faith is not a “smorgasbord-type” faith. We can't pick and choose what we like and leave the rest. Truth - pure Truth, is immutable, unchangeable, in its oneness. You can’t water it down, you can’t play fast and loose with it as Father Caropi likes to say. You can’t play word games. You can’t be a part-time Catholic. You can’t believe in abortion for example, and call yourself a Catholic. There is no such thing as a “Pro-Choice Catholic” just as there is no such thing as a Catholic who does not comply with the teachings of Vatican II or the Holy Father. You can’t claim to follow a Pope and then disregard part of what he teaches on behalf of the Church and the Faith. Our Faith is an integrity, you take it all, in its entirety, or you don’t take it. If you are under the impression to the contrary I suggest you avidly look into what I am saying before you commit to our Faith. It’s better you be told this now straight out, then later after you’ve converted.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), March 15, 2004.

David F. You continually label Mel Gibson a sedevacantist. This is a serious charge. Can you prove it? If not, you are slandering him. I have read much about his traditional beliefs for the past year and I don't believe he has stated that the Chair of Peter is empty. All we know for sure is that he worships at the Traditional Latin Mass. Many people would like to diminish him and his work by saying he is schismatic and a sed, and maybe he is, but he has not said so, nor has the Holy Father, nor Cardinal Ratzinger, nor anyone properly authorized to make that determination said so, to my knowledge.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), March 15, 2004.

To me it almost sad beyond words that there is so much turmoil, confusion, and anguish about this issue. We hear conflicting statements from the Vatican hierarchy and bishops about Latin Mass, independent priests, SSPX masses, SSPX priests, FSSP, etc. all the time. Meanwhile, so many good and faithful catholics worship under a cloud. There are conflicting statements from the Vatican hierarchy, Cardinal Ratzinger et al., about what constitutes schism on the part of the laity. There is obstinance on both sides, there is scorn on both sides, there is pharisaical behavior on both sides. Please pray for the return to the church of those who are in schism. And please pray for those are falsely labeled as schismatic that they do not have that terrible cross to bear much longer.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), March 15, 2004.

What better prayer than that of Jesus Himself for His Church (John 17:9-11 DRV)

I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me: because they are thine: And all my things are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them. And now I am not in the world, and these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name whom thou has given me; that they may be one, as we also are. Amen.

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), March 15, 2004.

Brian, I don't think it's confusing at all. I don't think the Vatican is sending mixed messages. If you're ever in doubt about a priest or a parish, just check with your respective Conference of Catholic Bishops and see if that priest or parish is registered as a priest/parish in the Roman Rite. Do they submit to the authority of the local Bishop appointed by Rome or don't they? It's that simple. If they don't, you might want to begin asking yourself why not.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), March 15, 2004.

"The arguments in text seem valid enough and the reference to Pope Pius V's decree and declaration of the perpetuity and inviolate nature of the Ordo Missae make me think that some of Vatican II's reforms were invalid"

This would be a valid conclusion if you accept the premise that Pius V's statement on the Mass was inviolate. However, in fact, no statement by any Pope regarding the order of the Mass is inviolate. Only statements regarding doctrine and morality, and then only when promulgated as official teaching of the Church binding on all the faithful, are inviolable. Pius V stated his opinion on the order of Mass, nothing more, regerdless of how forcefully he may have stated it. It was binding on Catholics while he was alive, but is certainly subject to change by any subsequent Pope. It is unsupportable to say that every Pope prior to Pius V could freely make necessary changes in the order of Mass - which was done many times over the centuries - but that no Pope after Pius V could do so, simply because he said so!

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 15, 2004.

Ed,

I am referring to statements made by Cardinal Ratzinger regarding attendance at SSPX mass, most specifically regarding a case in Hawaii. Also, another Cardinal, I thought said recently that the Vatican considers SSPX to be a private concern ie. not analagous to Protestants or similar groups in schism, and indicating that it is a matter of disagreement or discipline rather than schism. In addition, the Catholic Patriot Association in China is not considered schismatic, yet is completely heterodox on abortion and other issues. When I get home tonight maybe I can look up the exact names, quotes, statements etc. I could be misinformed or misinterpreting things I read or hear. Very many on this forum seem to be more knowledgeable than I on theology, canon law, liturgy and the like. But I have read quite a bit about this issue in the past year and I still go back and forth.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), March 15, 2004.

Pauline said: You need to realize that the Holy Father that Jesus is praying to is GOD. The old man in the Vatican is just that, .........a (sinful) old man.

Hi Pauline, you need to realize that the Catholic Church does not deny the sinfulness of the popes, just like the rest of us are sinful humans. God simply allows them the grace to speak infallibly at certain times, just as He did when He gave the apostles the ability to write infallibly in the Scriptures, despite the fact that they were sinful humans just like we are.

God bless and guide you into His Truth,

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), March 15, 2004.

P.S. Pauline, I already knew that Jesus was praying to God the Father in that passage. Thanks.

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), March 15, 2004.

Brian,

Mel's father is an outspoken Sed who has published his beliefs. See link http://www.flatlandbooks.com/gibson.html. Mel was raised in a Sedevacantist home and attended SSPV masses growing up. He also claimed in an interview msnbc.msn.com/id/422452/ that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation. He fears for his Episcopalian wife's soul based on his beliefs. Is he a Sed? He has not said as much but I would bet on it. I love Mel and have tremendous respect for him no matter what.

Ed, I never took a vow of obedience. I will obey the Holy Father in matters of faith and morals. I will never kiss the Koran even if ordered to do so. I will never be happy with altar girls. I will never be happy with the Eucharist being placed in the hand. I am not wild about Ecumenism either. I will not praise Martin Luther. JPII has done all of these things. Thats his perogative. He evidently wants to unite with other faiths by softening the Church's appearance but I can understand those who don't appreciate it. I am joining the Church with my eyes open but I understand that its not all roses. These are not infallible issues but have been made part of Church life since Vatican II.

Emily, Traditionalists are real catholics too. If you had a time machine and set it to the 1950s everyone would be a "traditionalist".

Understand all that I am 36 years old and I am leaving the Episcopal church for the One True Church. I can understand and respect traditionalists as well as orthodox Catholics. I do not like so called cafeteria catholics nor Sedevacantists because I agree we need to obey the Church and respect the Vicar of Christ. We do need voice our displeasure to our prisets, Bishops and the Holy Father when it is warranted.

-- David F (notanaddress@nowhere.org), March 15, 2004.

Emily, Just realized that you seemed to state that traditionalists don't recognize the current pope. Sedevacantists don't but traditionalists do.

-- David F (notmyaddress@nowhere.org), March 15, 2004.

The gates of hell will not prevail.

Anne Catherine Emmerich said something to the effect of:

"Even if only one Catholic remained, then he would be the Church, and the gates of hell will not have prevailed."

Good meditation material.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), March 15, 2004.

This is such an interesting discussion. I am struggling with Tradionalism in my life right now.

I KNOW the gates of hell have not, and will not prevail. BUT, I am much distressed each time I attend the Mass.

When I attend a local Latin indult, I feel left out, ignored, and an outsider. I have a hard time staying focused, and get annoyed that I can't understand what is being said. I do enjoy the choir, however, the beauty, the reverence, and the silence.

When I attend my regular parish mass, I love the familiarity, the songs, the elements of the mass...I understand it all! Then I get distracted by altar girls in go-go boots and mini skirts, whispering and giggling during mass, the priest skipping out on parts of the mass, a lay-person giving a homily, liturgical abuse...just ongoing distress which is so hard to worship in!!

I wish there could be real unity between the two factions.

Peace, Danielle

-- d.haskell (danigirl@mac.com), March 16, 2004.

danielle,

you are not alone in your frustrations. I grew up in a very conservative parish where people followed the teachings of vatican II to a tee. So it is understandable that i am quite frustrated with my college parish, which has done aways with kneeling during the entire mass!!!

HOWEVER, while traditionalism is a viable alternative, there are two things to consider: first, if you go to normal traditionalism, then you are okay, but you have left those in your former parish without a voice of conservative devotion to the proper forms of mass. I would recommend you stay and help your parish to get out of those liturgical errors and save a bunch of people from "Catholic light" syndrome. Second, if you go to an extremist form of traditionalism such as SSPX or sedevacantism, then you are putting yourself in jeopardy of schism, which represents a formal break with the church.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), March 16, 2004.

David F, here are some reflections -- from an orthodox Catholic to one who is still not a Catholic (but I hope will become one) -----

I will obey the Holy Father in matters of faith and morals.

In matters of faith and morals, it is not "obedience" that is required, but belief (assent).

I will never kiss the Koran even if ordered to do so.

It should be obvious that no one will ever be "ordered to do so." However, your statement raises the question of whether you may be planning to be a disobedient Catholic, sinfully unwilling to live according to the Church's disciplinary rules (Canon Law and Liturgical Law). Please don't join the Church until you have made up your mind to be obedient. The last thing the Church needs is another rebellious person.

I will never be happy with altar girls. I will never be happy with the Eucharist being placed in the hand.

No one is required to be "happy" with these things, but only to acknowledge that the successor of Peter can allow them to exist.

I am not wild about Ecumenism either.

Here you are doctrinally in the wrong. Everyone must be in favor of ecumenism (efforts to unite all Christians), since Jesus has prayed for it. Now you can criticize the wisdom of some specific "tactic" being used by church to further ecumenism, but you cannot be completely against the effort in general.

I will not praise Martin Luther. JPII has done all of these things.

I don't believe that there is any way that the pope -- please consider calling him something more formal than "JPII" -- has ever praised Martin Luther. Someone must have misinformed you.

-- (Ut@UnumSint.net), March 16, 2004.

JD,

The first time that the Tridentine was altered after Quo Primum was about 30 years later. It has been altered about a dozen times since then. Therefore, if the church was not allowed to change it, EVER, this should have been a big debate in the 1600s, not now. No one who practices the Tridentine now, to my knowledge, practices the exact form that was said originally, most use the missal of 1962. Even people who claim that Quo Primum means the Tridentine can't ever be changed... use a changed Tridentine mass!

What you'll find when you talk to quo primum people is they say "well, those changes were "little" changes, that's o.k., just not "big" changes. That doesn't work, something's either binding or it's not. One Pope can't bind the church to a rite, it's not a matter of faith or morals. What was meant was it's binding until the Magesterium changed it -- which again occured soon after its passing.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), March 16, 2004.

Danielle,

You sound like you are in a similar situation as me and my family. We live in a small town with a Novus Ordo Mass. We attend mass here probably 50% of the time. The rest we travel 2 hours to the nearest indult Tridentine Mass. Attending the Latin Mass down there is like heaven on earth to me. THE REVERENCE, the prayers, the Gregorian chant, lining up for confession, three priests, all of whom are the most fantastic confessors I've ever been to, the cassocks, the sermons, the children: our family of seven is just an average sized family there, the knowlege of the faith by the congregation...and on and on. But the first few masses I went to I was confused as well. I don't know if you are following along with a translated missal but that is what I do. It took a while to get to understand the order of the mass but I'm getting it now. My wife bought used missals for us all on e-bay. They translate and explain the mass and have pictures.Also, at the catholic bookstore they sell missalettes which translates and explains the mass but does not include the daily readings, feast days etc. There are videos which explain the latin mass as well. Please don't get discouraged, stick with it.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), March 16, 2004.

He also claimed in an interview msnbc.msn.com/id/422452/ that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation. He fears for his Episcopalian wife's soul based on his beliefs. Is he a Sed? He has not said as much but I would bet on it.

Okay, I thought that outside the Church there is no salvation. And I fear for my New Age friend's soul based on my beliefs. Am I a 'Sed', too?

-- Catherine Ann (catfishbird@yahoo.ca), March 16, 2004.

CatherineAnn,

The question is how you define the church. Some people say only baptized Catholics have even the remotest possibility of being saved, this violates many pre-Vatican II documents. We hold out hope for non-Catholics as well, and always have. The same people who misunderstand "tradition", and think it means disobeying the Pope is a good thing also misunderstand this. IMO your new age friend is probably in a bad situation, but OTOH we still hold out hope that through the Grace of God she is saved. She would have a much better chance in the visible Catholic church, but she is NOT automatically damned to Hell for being a non-Catholic.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), March 16, 2004.

Ut,

Here is the New York Times article where our Holy Father praised Luther. I didn't want to pay for the full article and can't find the original copy I had.

Article Preview - FREE Click to purchase complete document: Buy article image - (PDF format. Adobe Acrobat Reader required.)

Pope Praises Luther in an Appeal For Unity on Protest Anniversary:Pope Praises Luther in Appeal for Christian Unity By HENRY KAMMSpecial to The New York Times. New York Times (1857- Current file). New York, N.Y.: Nov 6, 1983. pg. 1, 2 pgs

Article types: front_page Dateline: ROME, Nov. 5 ISSN/ISBN: 03624331 Text Word Count 852

First Paragraph ROME, Nov. 5 -- Pope John Paul II, in a letter issued today, praised Martin Luther, the father of the Reformation who was excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church, saying the world is still "experiencing his great impact on history."

Understand, I will obey the CCC. I have adjusted my life to do so despite tremendous personal sacrifice now and in the future. I just think that sometimes John Paul II makes ill-advised mistakes and I feel that I have a right to go up the chain of command and say so. That does not include showing him any public disrespect among non- catholics. We as laypeople have a right to let our priests, Bishops and the Holy Father hear our concerns. If I follow the CCC isn't that enough obedience? I still feel that the pope praising Luther and kissing the Koran are bad decisions on his part but I love and respect him.

-- David F (notanaddress@nowhere.com), March 16, 2004.

David F, I'm surprised that you are not aware of the fact that the "New York Times" cannot be trusted. It is profoundly pro-death, pro-vice (even sodomy), and anti-Catholic.

'Pope Praises Luther' ... by Henry Kamm ... Pope John Paul II, in a letter issued today, praised Martin Luther, the father of the Reformation who was excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church, saying the world is still 'experiencing his great impact on history.'"

Do you see that the text does not bear out the headline? Yes, Luther had a "great impact on history" (i.e., was like a huge force striking against it). But, for heaven's sake, the pope did not mean "wonderful" when he used the word "great." He just meant "massive" or "profound." You can rest assured that the pope is totally against what Luther did -- denying truths of the faith, rejecting part of scripture, cursing the popes of his time, causing a rupture in the Church, etc.. The only possible "praise" that the pope (or any Catholic) might give to the heretic Luther would be for his having called the Church's attention to some churchmen who were committing abuses in Germany.

Understand, I will obey the CCC."

As I mentioned last time, we do not "obey" doctrine. We believe (give our assent to) it. What we "obey" is discipline (Church-made laws).

I have adjusted my life to do so despite tremendous personal sacrifice now and in the future.

You are to be much commended for this. Some are unwilling to do this, even when their conscience says that they must.

I just think that sometimes John Paul II makes ill-advised mistakes and I feel that I have a right to go up the chain of command and say so.

You are absolutely right, as long as you are talking about disciplinary matters, not doctrine.

I still feel that the pope ... kissing the Koran" is a "bad decision on his part ...

Please don't be too hasty in criticizing him. To my knowledge, it has never been made clear that the pope really knew that the book being given to him (as a gift) was really a Koran, rather than a Bible or Book of the Gospels. In other words, he may have made an honest mistake, thinking that it was a book honored by all Christians. If he was under a mistaken imprerssion, then none of us has a right to criticize his action.

However, let's suppose that he knew it was a Koran. Perhaps, without stopping to think, he just did what he was taught as a youth to do in Poland -- kiss a gift that is given to you -- as a sign of gratitude to the giver, not as a signal of approval of the book's contents. Again, I think that it would be unfair to criticize him, if this is what happened.

Or perhaps, after thinking for a moment, the pope intentionally kissed the book as a sign of respect only for those truths that it contains (those that we share with Islam). If this is what actually happened, then I think one could make an argument that he acted either prudently or imprudently -- and that he left himself open to legitimate criticism by you and others. The problem, though, is (as I said) that no one knows exactly what was in the pope's mind on that day -- and that's why we should not even comment on it.

-- (Ut@UnumSint.net), March 17, 2004.

CORRECTED VERSION OF THE ABOVE, WHICH HAS MESSED-UP HTML -----

David F, I'm surprised that you are not aware of the fact that the "New York Times" cannot be trusted. It is profoundly pro-death, pro-vice (even sodomy), and anti-Catholic.

'Pope Praises Luther' ... by Henry Kamm ... Pope John Paul II, in a letter issued today, praised Martin Luther, the father of the Reformation who was excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church, saying the world is still 'experiencing his great impact on history.'"

Do you see that the text does not bear out the headline? Yes, Luther had a "great impact on history" (i.e., was like a huge force striking against it). But, for heaven's sake, the pope did not mean "wonderful" when he used the word "great." He just meant "massive" or "profound." You can rest assured that the pope is totally against what Luther did -- denying truths of the faith, rejecting part of scripture, cursing the popes of his time, causing a rupture in the Church, etc.. The only possible "praise" that the pope (or any Catholic) might give to the heretic Luther would be for his having called the Church's attention to some churchmen who were committing abuses in Germany.

Understand, I will obey the CCC."

As I mentioned last time, we do not "obey" doctrine. We believe (give our assent to) it. What we "obey" is discipline (Church-made laws).

I have adjusted my life to do so despite tremendous personal sacrifice now and in the future.

You are to be much commended for this. Some are unwilling to do this, even when their conscience says that they must.

I just think that sometimes John Paul II makes ill-advised mistakes and I feel that I have a right to go up the chain of command and say so.

You are absolutely right, as long as you are talking about disciplinary matters, not doctrine.

I still feel that the pope ... kissing the Koran" is a "bad decision on his part ...

Please don't be too hasty in criticizing him. To my knowledge, it has never been made clear that the pope really knew that the book being given to him (as a gift) was really a Koran, rather than a Bible or Book of the Gospels. In other words, he may have made an honest mistake, thinking that it was a book honored by all Christians. If he was under a mistaken imprerssion, then none of us has a right to criticize his action.

However, let's suppose that he knew it was a Koran. Perhaps, without stopping to think, he just did what he was taught as a youth to do in Poland -- kiss a gift that is given to you -- as a sign of gratitude to the giver, not as a signal of approval of the book's contents. Again, I think that it would be unfair to criticize him, if this is what happened.

Or perhaps, after thinking for a moment, the pope intentionally kissed the book as a sign of respect only for those truths that it contains (those that we share with Islam). If this is what actually happened, then I think one could make an argument that he acted either prudently or imprudently -- and that he left himself open to legitimate criticism by you and others. The problem, though, is (as I said) that no one knows exactly what was in the pope's mind on that day -- and that's why we should not even comment on it.

-- (Ut@UnumSint.net), March 17, 2004.