Pope's Take on the Koran?

[crossnote]

The Vatican does not rate or call heresies "venerable." The Vatican does not give the best and worst of natural religions list.

So according to the OP... "Does anyone have any official catholic statement that is clear and concise (not nuanced) as to where the Pope stands when it comes to the Koran itself?"
...your answer would be 'no'?

 

[Greyy]

So according to the OP... "Does anyone have any official catholic statement that is clear and concise (not nuanced) as to where the Pope stands when it comes to the Koran itself?"
...your answer would be 'no'?

What part of my post wasn't clear? Are you insinuating the Pope needs to make an official statement despite 1400 years of Catholic teaching on Islam and the Quran?

 

[prodromos]

Then you have a very creative memory

My memory is fine.

 

[Greyy]

My memory is fine.

That's funny, since all the evidence shows otherwise, as far as this point. The photograph is obviously not professional, it is just a snap that is passed around years later. The image didn't make it to the main stream media. ABC didn't have a blurb about the photo. The NY times didn't have an article. Local news channels throughout the country didn't cover it.

No one noticed, no one cared. Your post had two things that weren't true. One, that the Pope considered it "venerable", he doesn't. Second, there was a "scandal", there wasn't. The photo was about as obscure and unnoticed as the one of Donald Rumsfeld and Saddam.

 

[prodromos]

That's funny, since all the evidence shows otherwise, as far as this point. The photograph is obviously not professional, it is just a snap that is passed around years later. The image didn't make it to the main stream media. ABC didn't have a blurb about the photo. The NY times didn't have an article. Local news channels throughout the country didn't cover it.

No one noticed, no one cared. Your post had two things that weren't true. One, that the Pope considered it "venerable", he doesn't. Second, there was a "scandal", there wasn't. The photo was about as obscure and unnoticed as the one of Donald Rumsfeld and Saddam.

I was living in Greece at the time. Apparently it was not made widely known in the Americas. It made the news in the Balkans.

 

[prodromos]

Your post had two things that weren't true. One, that the Pope considered it "venerable", he doesn't. Second, there was a "scandal", there wasn't.

Perhaps in the West you have forgotten how we venerate people and things. When we meet a priest we venerate him by kissing his right hand, when the cross is brought out or the Gospels, we venerate both by kissing them. When we venerate an icon of Christ or Panagia or another of the Saints we do so by kissing them. We do the same with the relics of the Saints.
I guess if you no longer do those things in the West then Pope JP II kissing the Koran probably didn't mean much to you, but to Christians in the East it sent a seriously perplexing message.

 

[crossnote]

What part of my post wasn't clear? Are you insinuating the Pope needs to make an official statement despite 1400 years of Catholic teaching on Islam and the Quran?

1400 years of Catholic teaching on the Quran?
Ok, what is Rome's official teaching on the Koran? That was my original question.

 

[Landon Caeli]

What part of my post wasn't clear? Are you insinuating the Pope needs to make an official statement despite 1400 years of Catholic teaching on Islam and the Quran?

1400 years of Catholic teaching on the Quran?
Ok, what is Rome's official teaching on the Koran? That was my original question.

The Catholic Church has no position on the koran. Or the book of Mormon, or Scientology books...

The Catholic Church does not claim to hold positions on thousands and thousands of things, we are free to form our own opinions using our own conscience.

 

[Landon Caeli]

...Personally, I think the koran makes for good tinder.

 

[crossnote]

The Catholic Church has no position on the koran. Or the book of Mormon, or Scientology books...

The Catholic Church does not claim to hold positions on thousands and thousands of things, we are free to form our own opinions using our own conscience.

But Greyy said 'despite 1400 years of Catholic teaching on Islam and the Quran'.
This has always been the confusing thing, for a Body that claims unity, I can never get an official statement on anything.

 

[Landon Caeli]

But Greyy said 'despite 1400 years of Catholic teaching on Islam and the Quran'.
This has always been the confusing thing, for a Body that claims unity, I can never get an official statement on anything.

I don't believe Greyy is Catholic. At least, not according to his stated religion.

 

[crossnote]

I don't believe Greyy is Catholic. At least, not according to his stated religion.

Mea culpa, the way he was speaking authoritatively for the Pope and Vatican in posts 33 & 34, he had me fooled.

 

[SolomonVII]

1400 years of Catholic teaching on the Quran?
Ok, what is Rome's official teaching on the Koran? That was my original question.

The Church has an official position on who Christ is, in that he is the only begotten son of God, that he was crucified and resurrected on the third day, and will come again to judge the living and the dead. I would say if Muslims reading the Koran get that understanding of Jesus from the Koran, then the Church is fine with that.
Any other understanding contradicts the truth that the Church proclaims with much assurance and certainty.

It is not really the Church's task to interpret another religions books for them. But if the teachings of another religion contradict what is held to be the certain and proclaimed truth about God, then those teaching are deemed to be wrong.

 

[crossnote]

It is not really the Church's task to interpret another religions books for them. But if the teachings of another religion contradict what is held to be the certain and proclaimed truth about God, then those teaching are deemed to be wrong.

So accordingly the Catholic Church would deem the Koran to be wrong.
Here is an official Islamic Koranic site stating in many versions 'Allah has no son'.
The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Translation

 

[chevyontheriver]

So accordingly the Catholic Church would deem the Koran to be wrong.
Here is an official Islamic Koranic site stating in many versions 'Allah has no son'.
The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Translation

The Koran got it wrong. Dead wrong. Not a reliable guide. If you want the reliable guide, it is the canonical Scriptures, just those 73 books that the Church has ruled being within the covers of the Bible. Nothing in the Koran has been ruled to be within the canon. And the canon is closed, so the Koran will never be included.

 

[crossnote]

The Koran got it wrong. Dead wrong. Not a reliable guide. If you want the reliable guide, it is the canonical Scriptures, just those 73 books that the Church has ruled being within the covers of the Bible. Nothing in the Koran has been ruled to be within the canon. And the canon is closed, so the Koran will never be included.

I'll stick with the 66, thanks.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I'll stick with the 66, thanks.

I hope you get the point that the Catholic Church doesn't do position papers on everything. Or decrees by ecumenical councils on everything, or papal decrees on everything. The Church did pronounce many times over in regional synods and ecumenical councils on the books in the canon, excluding things like the Gospel of Thomas. They actually closed the canon before Mohammad even came along. So his stuff isn't even eligible. So officially the Koran is a nothing as far as revelation goes. They haven't declared on the Upanishads either, although I guess those are really old. The point is they have ruled on what is inspired, and its 73 books, not any more or any less. That you are missing a few books is your problem, just like it is a Muslim's problem that they think the Koran is inspired. Some people want to add books and some people want to subtract books. From a Catholic point of view the canon is simply closed.

 

[crossnote]

I hope you get the point that the Catholic Church doesn't do position papers on everything. Or decrees by ecumenical councils on everything, or papal decrees on everything. The Church did pronounce many times over in regional synods and ecumenical councils on the books in the canon, excluding things like the Gospel of Thomas. They actually closed the canon before Mohammad even came along. So his stuff isn't even eligible. So officially the Koran is a nothing as far as revelation goes. They haven't declared on the Upanishads either, although I guess those are really old. The point is they have ruled on what is inspired, and its 73 books, not any more or any less. That you are missing a few books is your problem, just like it is a Muslim's problem that they think the Koran is inspired. Some people want to add books and some people want to subtract books. From a Catholic point of view the canon is simply closed.

Thanks, no problem, I see Jesus didn't refer to the Apocrypha nor did the Apostles as it was not in the Jewish Bible. I'll go with them.

"The Jewish canon, or the Hebrew Bible, was universally received, while the Apocrypha added to the Greek version of the Septuagint were only in a general way accounted as books suitable for church reading, and thus as a middle class between canonical and strictly apocryphal (pseudonymous) writings. And justly; for those books, while they have great historical value, and fill the gap between the Old Testament and the New, all originated after the cessation of prophecy, and they cannot therefore be regarded as inspired, nor are they ever cited by Christ or the apostles" (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, book 3, chapter 9)

 

[chevyontheriver]

Thanks, no problem, I see Jesus didn't refer to the Apocrypha nor did the Apostles as it was not in the Jewish Bible. I'll go with them.

"The Jewish canon, or the Hebrew Bible, was universally received, while the Apocrypha added to the Greek version of the Septuagint were only in a general way accounted as books suitable for church reading, and thus as a middle class between canonical and strictly apocryphal (pseudonymous) writings. And justly; for those books, while they have great historical value, and fill the gap between the Old Testament and the New, all originated after the cessation of prophecy, and they cannot therefore be regarded as inspired, nor are they ever cited by Christ or the apostles" (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, book 3, chapter 9)

With respect to Philip Schaff, who edited a decent edition of the Fathers of the Church, what you quoted sounds almost as crazy as the Koran. Or as outdated or inaccurate as the Koran. You are free to add or subtract any books you want. For whatever reason. I won't even argue with you. For Catholics the canon has been fixed and closed for about 1600 years, not to reopen for any additions or subtractions.

 

[crossnote]

With respect to Philip Schaff, who edited a decent edition of the Fathers of the Church, what you quoted sounds almost as crazy as the Koran. Or as outdated or inaccurate as the Koran. You are free to add or subtract any books you want. For whatever reason. I won't even argue with you. For Catholics the canon has been fixed and closed for about 1600 years, not to reopen for any additions or subtractions.

Forget Schaff, why not go with Jesus and the divinely inspired apostles?