www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Help answering a Protestant friend.

If anyone can help or direct me to get these questions answered to my Protestant friend, regarding the late Pope John Paul II:

"Would you kiss the Quran? What about holding a 'World Religion Meeting' and not bringing up Jesus in that Meeting, nor bringing anything that points to Jesus? Would you Put a Crown of Gold on Mother Mary's Statue? Would you Name Mother Mary the Co-Redemtrix?

Melchizedek,

I don't have too much of substance to say here; others will hopefully be more helpful in that regard. But what I do want to say is the following.

First, all of these questions begin with the phrase, "Would you . . . " In that sense, then, we cannot answer for you. But, that said, I don't quite see the point of these questions. What does it matter if you say, "Yes, I would," or, "No, I would not?" How does that have any relationship to the truth of the faith whatsoever? In other words, I wonder what point your friend could possibly be getting at.

Myself, I would not kiss the Quran. So what? I also would (God willing) not fail to mention Jesus at a "World Religion Meeting." So what? What if I would put a crown on Mary? So what? What if I myself was apprehensive to call her Co-Redemptrix? So what?

In other words, none of these things are articles of faith; none of them are matters of dogma. The Pope is not infallible in any of these sorts of actions, and we don't have to agree with him. We could, in fact, believe that he acted wrongly on all these counts (although of course we should be respectful and not too quick to judge), and we could even, respectfully, criticize his actions. They do not have dogmatic significance whatsoever.

Second, I'm not entirely sure what the problem with some of these things might be. We all, as Catholics, kiss icons and venerate the saints, so what is, in principle, the problem with putting a crown on a statue of Mary? It expresses the same sort of veneration. If your friend has a problem with veneration of the saints, that's a whole different issue that we ought not to get into right now; but, assuming that we all venerate saints, I don't see a difference in principle. Also, even regarding the idea of Mary as Coredemptrix, I am not entirely sure of what the problem is (since it is never explicitly said; rather, the questions are apparently supposed to be suggestive of something). Even those who do say these sorts of things, as far as I understand it, do not deny that Christ is the Redeemer of Mankind. All that they seem to mean is that Mary cooperated with the Lord; and if that is all they mean, then what exactly is the problem with saying that (provided, again, that we acknowledge that it is Christ who has saved us and has redeemed mankind)? Did not Mary freely say, "Let it be done to me according to thy word" (Lk. 1:38)? The Incarnation, which was the crucial beginning of our Salvation, happened through her; she was the handmaiden of the Lord (Lk. 1:38), and Christ receives His humanity from her. Furthermore, did Mary not freely stay at the Cross with her Son, and would she not have suffered there as well, beholding Him crucified? Remember that the just Simeon, immediately after proclaiming that her Son will be the salvation of all, and therefore in that very same context, immediately tells her that, "a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also" (Lk. 2:34-35). These sorts of things seem to be all that is meant; and furthermore, as I already mentioned, it's not dogma.

Perhaps your friend will have difficulties with the idea of even cooperating with the Savior's suffering, and so on. Well, in that regard, read Corinthians 1:24, where Paul says: "Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of His body, that is, the church." Or, for more of the idea of being a "co-worker" with God, continue reading through St. Paul. In Colossians 1:29, he speaks of himself as "striving according to his [Christ's] working, which worketh in me mightily;" in 1 Corinthians 3:9 he says, "we are laborers together with God" (and the Greek is synergountes, which literally means "operators together with"); in 2 Corinthians 6:1 he says, "we then, as workers together with Him," using the same Greek word; in 1 Thessalonians 3:2 he addresses, "Timothy, our brother and co-worker of God" (again, the same Greek word is used); etc., etc. If St. Paul himself is a co-worker with God, as is Timothy, and if St. Paul's sufferings also benefit the church, then how much more so can these things be said of the Mother of God, who contained God in her womb and was more closely united to Him than any other human being, who remained a virgin on the Lord's behalf, who watched not only her Lord but her very Son be tortured and crucified, and who was told explicitly by Simeon that a sword would pierce her soul as well?

Hopefully these words of mine will be helpful. Perhaps look at Catholic Answers (catholic.com) to see if they have anything to say in this regard, as well.

Thanks, and may God bless you,
Jason

I can't defend Pope John Paul's actions. Sorry!

Mel- Do you really have a Protestant friend who asked these questions? Or is this a literary device to register your own objections?
When the Pope kissed the Koran, he was showing respect for those elements of Islam that reflect revealed and natural Truth, not the errors therein.
When he held the meeting of world religions to pray for peace he was expressing a fundamental human solidarity, quite apart from any evangelistic purpose [his other writings show his complete Christocentricism.]
Crowning Mary's image merely states the obvious: as the Mother of the King she is Queen.
And John Paul did not in any formal way declare Mary Co-Redemptrix, though conservative Catholics urged him to do this
At the same time, this easily-misunderstood term does express a truth about the Mother of God: as the Image and Type of the Church, she shares in a pivotal way in the Redemption of Christ. In a sense we are all co-redeemers.
Hope that helps.
-Daniel

Dear Mel you said:

"Would you kiss the Quran?"

I say:

If I were Pope and I was a saint enlightened to do so in order to foster understanding between the faiths, then certainly I would do so. But frankly I truly believe that when Pope John Paul II humbled himself to do so, he was giving his blessings through that kiss to the people following the Koran so that by these blessing they may some day enter into the realm of Christ.

You know it all comes down to how we perceive Pope John Paul the II. To me the agony of seeing him standing or sitting for hours with all his maladies, only enforced in me the saintliness of the man.

If we trust him and respect him, perceiving him as a saint, then we must try to understand his motives through the enlightenment given him by God, and the love within his heart.

If on the other hand, we blinded ourselves through preperceived ideas, and did not notice his physical ailments and his selfless sacrifice, then we can only perceive his actions as being faulty.

You Said:

What about holding a 'World Religion Meeting' and not bringing up Jesus in that Meeting, nor bringing anything that points to Jesus?

I say:

Pope Paul II did not do anything that God Himself would not have done. Notice that when he tried to pacify the suffering Copts in Egypt in recent years, Our Lord had His mother Mary appear on top of a church. Now why is that? Because they accept Mary as the Virgin Mother of our Lord.

Pope Paul II gave the Muslims that which they would have accepted rather than giving them our Lord Jesus which would have alienated them at difficult time... since they consider Him only a prophet.

You said:

" Would you Put a Crown of Gold on Mother Mary's Statue?"

I say:

I'm Orthodox and we do not have statues, but if we had I certainly would crown her. She is Queen of heaven and earth because no saint could achieve heaven without her intercession. It was her excessive purity that made her worthy of giving birth to Jesus, (remember her human nature was taken from Mary), and also her willingness in giving of herself freely to God' Will that gave us the 'Logus', (Word), in human form.

She is therefore the link between heaven and earth...and as St. Gregory Palamas said, no saint could enter heaven and earth without Mary.

Zenovia

You know I have looked at the picutres and can't figure what the Pope is kissing, I don't think we know what in the world he was kissing the Vatican has never confirmed that he kissed the Koran mostly the church detractors suggest this, I am not saying it is not within the realm of possibility its just that we just don't know for sure.

Anyways the Pope has spelt out many times to Muslims and the world that while the Christian faith and Islam share some imprortant agreements on divine revelation the Pope also said the ultimately Islam "it reduces reduces divine revelation."
From Crossing the Threshold of Hope" JP2 said.
"Some of the most beautiful names in the human language are given to the God of the Koran, but He is ultimately a God outside of this world, a God who is only Majesty, never Emmanuel, God with us. Islam is not a religion of redemption. There is no room for the Cross and the Ressurection. Jesus is mentioned, but only as a prophet who prepares the the last prophet Muhammed. There is also mention of Mary, His Virgin Mother, but the tradegy of redemption is completly absent For this reason not only the theology but also the anthropology of Islam is very distant from Christianity."

Now if that sounds like the Pope is agreeing with Islam and the Quaran and is compromising the gospel. The Pope is the master peacemenaker so he often dialogues in what he has in common with other religions this is great way to communicate to agree we are not enemies here on all points in facts we are allies albeit with important differences. People of faith are increasingly a minority in the modern world we should join together and work toward common goals that the athiestic world overllooks or shuns. We are all creatures of the same God this is why the Pope saught to pray with other religious leaders at Assisi he did it a second time I beleive with some minor changes as even he recognized legitamate criticism while monotheistic religions pray to the same God and the Pope feels praying with Jews and Muslims is perfectly ok he did rethink his postion about praying with polytheist at the same time. SO yeah even the Pope makes mistkaes on ecunemical endeavors. But some funides are so bent out of shape they won't pray with Catholics or Jews as we workship a differnt God to them so you can get carried away when you so anti-ecunemical and only your sect with the right doctrine has a gateway to God. God made Mary full of grace why not put a crown of gold on her crown I am sure Solomon did the same for his Queen mother why not do it for the ultiamte Queen mother Mary mother of God. Protestants don't even know what we mean by Co-Redemptrix - co does not mean equal merely participating. If Mary says no the entire plan of salvation goes awry we would have another Eve saying no to God. Imaigine the consequnces of that! Thank Good she said yes to our means of salvation Jesus Christ. As Mother Teressa said No Mary No Jesus, Know Mary Know Jesus.

Zenovia- Nice to agree with you again.
I also note that there are a lot of icons with Mary crowned...
-Daniel

Dear Daniel,

I just noticed an error I made in the following quote: "(remember her human nature was taken from Mary)," Of course I meant that Jesus' human nature was taken from Mary). I'm a little out of it at times. But thank you for agreeing with my post. Gosh it is a change!

Zenovia

Hi,

Maybe. Not out of the blue, but if it serves a legitimate process, yes.

The Quran is highly esteemed by many individuals of good will.

If, by kissing their scriptures, I can express my respect and gratitude for what they have brought to the global table of cultures and civilizations, then yes, I would do so.

I would probably take the opportunity to mention there are disagreements between our faith systems, and that I acknowledge those disagreements, and that I firmly stand on my Christian faith.

However, those disagreements are not enough to enkindle hatred or disrespect for their great culture and religious and moral values.


Well, I would try. However, I would keep in mind that, if I am the host, it is my duty that all my guests feel welcome.

I guess it depends on the purpose of the meeting.

Of course. She is the Queen of Heaven and Earth. Why wouldn't I?

No. It would be imprudent to do so.

First of all, it would be confusing, because the term could imply her role in the work of Redemption is comparable to that of her son, and quite frankly, that is not the case.

Her role is comparable to our own role, although hers is perfected to the extreme, and I would use those terms only in order to propose the idea of our own co-responsibility in the work of our salvation and the salvation of the entire world.

Second of all, it is not necessary. There are those who want this idea to be proclaimed as a dogma of the faith. However, the doctrine itself offers little if any insight into the mystery of God. In my book, such doctrines do not qualify as dogma.

Last, but not least, by merely using the term, I would be giving the impression of supporting or being in agreement with openly heterodox factions in the Church (Fr. Gobi and his followers). I'd be very careful and very clear in not letting this ever happen. Not as a layman, not as Supreme Pontiff.

Shalom,
Memo

Me, personally, I guess my first-reaction answer would be "no" to all of them - although, actually, crowning statues of Mary is an old-fashioned gesture that I see no harm in - May Crownings were in a lot of old school Catholics' experience. I've never seen it done, but I've heard my mom-in-law talk about doing it.

But regardless of how you or I would answer those four questions, you are not - and I am certainly not - the Pope and - as such - you and I have no first hand knowledge of the awesome responsibility that spiritual role entails. And even if we did and even if we did come to a different course of action, what does that mean? If one believes the Pope to be infallible, one does not necessarily believe that every act he individually performs is always the correct one. He's not perfection; he's human.

I am reminded that I was at an Anglican wedding some time ago. The reverend mentioned the writings and sayings of JP2 several times, he mentioned Aquinas a couple times, but the Archbishop of Canterbury received but one mention (albeit a good mention -- for agreeing with JP2, actually). I was reminded in listening to this wedding homily that the Pope's responsiblity is to Catholics, yes - but it is also to our other Christian brethren and, really, to all of God's children. So I heard all about these things JP2 had to say in a church that rejected papal authority centuries ago.

I am also reminded of some of my Orthodox Jewish friends who mourned JP2 in Jerusalem. Actually, they tell me the sort of public outpouring of grief for a Christian leader in their community was unprecedented. Because JP2 reached out to them, they reacted with kindness and sincere grief.

None of these questions sound like the ones that Protestants normally ask about the Catholic faith. They do sound like the kind of thing that an SSPX member would ask.

Are you sure your Protestant friend isn't just a schismatic masquerading as a heretic?

Gal- You underestimate the sophistication of modern-day Protestants.
One of the problems with Protestants is that they balk at the title "Mother of God"; it sounds too much like Mary is prior in being and essence to God Himself. I mean the mother pre-exists her son, right?
But that is not what Catholics and Orthodox mean at all, and resistance to this leads to deep theological error; to practical Nestorianism, in fact.
They will say that Mary is the mother of Jesus, but not the Mother of God, with nary a thought to the consequences of such logic. In fact, they unthinkingly seem to say that Christ is two persons, a Divine Person and a human person.

While He possesses two natures, in fact He is One Person, and Mary is the Mother of that Person, hence the Mother of God, without implying in any way that she is other than human, albeit a highly-favored human.

And Protestants would be very sensitive to any reduction of the unique role of Christ. Hence the objection to the Pope's kissing the Koran, or attending the World Day of Peace.
If they pursue it they will read John Paul II's numerous Christocentric encyclicals, apostolic letters, etc, and either become bewildered or convinced that this was truly a Man of God...
-Daniel
ps: by the way, who is your favorite Stooge? I would guess it to be Larry, but maybe I am wrong.

It does have a Jack Chickean ring to it though, doesn't it? Mel, does your friend read comic tracts?

Dear Melchizedek,

There are even some on this Forum who want to celebrate the Passover!

Sort of makes the rest of your questions pale in importance, doesn't it?

Seriously, though, there are Protestants who are open to Marian devotion. Please inform your friend about the book written by a Methodist Minister on the Rosary, J. Neville Ward, "Five for Sorrow, Ten for Joy."

As for crowns, all Christians are called to be "priests, prophets and kings." St Paul talks about the crown of martyrdom, does he not? We are all called to wear the crown of Grace since God, in His Goodness, wants His Gifts to be our merits.

Mary, the Saints, those of the Church on earth, are all called to intercede for one another that we may be saved in Christ. We are all called to be "lamps" to reflect the Light that is bestowed on us to the entire world. In this way, we are co-workers with Christ in the salvation of the world.

Calling a world meeting of all major religions? Didn't St Paul speak to the pagans of his day? Did he not walk through Athens and see a pagan temple to the "Unknown God" and then tell the pagan Greeks that it is about this "Unknown God" that he came to tell them about? When Christians attend such meetings, they may witness to Christ in a number of ways of their choosing - and do so.

Kissing the Koran? The Pope was showing respect to another religion and Vatican II itself said there were elements of salvation in the world religions.

Frankly, this Pope did more to draw Muslims to the Church and to see the Church in a good light than any Evangelical or other fundie Christian.

I've met some and I even know a few who have become Catholics as a result of their love for Pope John Paul II.

He was teaching us to embrace the world in love. That is the first step and by our love we shall be known. It is the first seed that is planted in the souls of others who do not know Christ - or else have a skewed picture of Him based on the way He is reflected in the lives of "Christians."

Alex


Alex

This has me thinking about a e-mail discussion I had with my "non-denominational" Christian friend.

I was doubting the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19 and was looking for other interpretation to compare with.

Here is a response I got from my friend.

Q: Please explain Matthew 16:18-19.

A: In these verses, Christ stated, "And I say unto you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

In order to understand the meaning here, we must start reading from verse 13. Christ asked the disciples, "Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?"

Peter answered, " You [Jesus] are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (vs. 16). Then Christ responded, "You are Peter [petros, which means little rock], and upon this rock [petra, means very great rock, referring to Christ Himself] I [pointing to Himself] will build My church" (vs. 18). Most people assume here that Christ is building His Church on Peter. But this is not the case. Christ is the great "Rock" upon whom the Church is built (Deut. 32:3-4, 15, 18; I Cor. 10:4; Eph. 2:20; I Pet. 2:6), not Peter (Eph. 1:22; 5:23; Col. 1:18).

Christ was telling Peter that He (Christ) was about to establish the New Testament Church, lead it (Eph. 5:23), be with it always (Matt. 28:20), and that the gates of hell [Hades - the grave] would never prevail against it. God's Church was to continue to exist, doing His Work through the ages as a "little flock" (Luke 12:32), until the end of the age, when it would circle the whole world with the good news of the kingdom of God (Matt. 24:14). This Church would be persecuted (John 15:20; 16:33), but would never die out, remaining until Christ's Return.

In Matthew 16:19, Christ continues, "And I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" The "keys" He is referring to here is symbolic language meaning that He gives His ministers the knowledge of how to enter the kingdom. This knowledge shows the way of life a Christian must follow in order to achieve salvation. Luke 11:52 shows Christ reproving certain lawyers for hiding or suppressing this knowledge, thus preventing themselves and others from entering the kingdom.

Continuing, "...and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven..." Some will say that this verse gives men the power or authority to change what God has said in the Bible. This is absolutely not the case! No man can change what God has said! The true ministers of God have been given the authority to bind only that which is in agreement with God's laws. That, then, would be backed up - bound - by God. When God's ministers make a decision, it is based on Scripture - based on God's will. But this in no way is giving ministers the power to forgive sin. Only God can and does that (Mark 2:7). God does give ministers the ability to discern when a person has repented of certain sins, thus concluding that God has forgiven them.