Pope angers muslims

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Wezil
It apparently needs to be said yet again:

Islam is a religion of peace.

Never has and never will be. I cannot think of a totally nonviolent religion but Islam is most certainly more violent then most.

It was born in violence & murder and it continues to live in violence & murder. The only true way forward is without any religion.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by VetLegion
Oerdin, edit that while you still can

I could be wrong but I believe I read the cartoons were run by a Danish newpaper not owned by the Danish government.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I could be wrong but I believe I read the cartoons were run by a Danish newpaper not owned by the Danish government.

Welcome to Uncyclopedia,
the content-free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

[Elok]

Originally posted by thesilentone
EDIT, And I don't think they're ever going to come close to what some hope to be a proper re-unification, there's just too many ceremonies and customs that their tight arse priests will refuse to budge on for their to ever be a proper "un-schism". Over a 1000 years!

There are also vast theological chasms to cross, which he only widened if he reaffirmed his church's support for scholasticism in this speech, which seems to be the case. But you can think of it as just a matter of ceremonies if that's what floats your boat. You just happen to be, well, wrong. And the "official" date of the schism is around 1050 AD, so it's not a thousand years yet, although the process was rather gradual so setting a solid date is pretty arbitrary.

[Barnabas]

What is more feasible is the orthodox church dividing and the catholic church coopting some of them.

Nowadays there is strong tension between the Russian Patriarch and the Constantinople/Istanbul one

Traditionally, the Constantinople one should have the most honor (after roma, whom they consider heretic) due to being the ecumenical patriarch, but in reality the russian one is the most important because of the millions of orthodox russians, even the existance of the patriarch in istambul is threatened, since freedom of religion is a very tenuous thing in Turkey, which has very few orthodox christians, but demans the patriarch must be a turk citizen, but turkey closes seminaries, churches etc.
So, there may be no candidate for the position in the future.

There are many russians who now want the patriarch of russia to have the primacy, and the constantinople patriarch has written articles about that being impossible and that it threatens the unity of thwe church,

Also, there are disagreements on contraception, the catholics are more traditional than the orthodox, for catholics all contraception is always wrong, since sex like in nature must always be open to conception (as long as there are no fertility problems obviously), but the orthodox usually dont have a problem with condoms and non abortive contraception.

That could cause problems and division too.

I think there will be problems about that in orthodoxy, not now, but in the next 5 decades, rome will try to take advantage

[thesilentone]

Originally posted by Elok


There are also vast theological chasms to cross, which he only widened if he reaffirmed his church's support for scholasticism in this speech, which seems to be the case. But you can think of it as just a matter of ceremonies if that's what floats your boat. You just happen to be, well, wrong. And the "official" date of the schism is around 1050 AD, so it's not a thousand years yet, although the process was rather gradual so setting a solid date is pretty arbitrary.

I think you'll find the origins of the schism are actually much older, thats just the "official" date, the differences started much earlier. And yes, simplisticly it can be boiled down to ceremonial differences, to someone who isn't religous, like myself.

[Barnabas]

for many years before the schism around 1050, rome and constantinople were in schism, excomunicating each other, (I think the years combined make almost 2 centuries).
During the christological controversies and the iconoclasm controversies, All those schisms were healed all those times, that is why no one thought the schism would last 1000 years

[Elok]

Yeah, tso, and the difference between Sunni and Shia Islam could be boiled down by outsiders to a disagreement over what kind of sweets should be served on Halloween, but it would still be &#$%! wrong. The differences in ceremony are utterly superficial and were only the beginning of the distinction. Get educated and look up: Celibacy of the clergy, Theiosis, Hesychasm, Scholasticism, Original Sin, Immaculate Conception, Blood Atonement, Purgatory, Ex Cathedra, the Filioque...

If it were merely a matter of ceremonial differences, I doubt there would be "Western Rite" Orthodox Churches which worship Anglican/Catholic style. They're a subset of the Antiochians, they've been around for years, and nobody objects except the jingoistic Greeks.

Brachy: The problem with the decline of the Ecumenical Patriarchate under Turkey, depressing as it is, poses no doctrinal threat. Probably primacy will eventually pass to Russia, assuming the EU doesn't grow a pair and make Turkey treat us with basic decency, and that will be that. Meanwhile, we're on the edge of a spectacular revival in North America, unlike the declining RCC.

EDIT: Come to think of it, I haven't been following it that closely...is Turkey still trying to nudge its way into the EU?

[Barnabas]

Revival?

You mean in Alaska and former russian colonies?



If in the rest of the usa eastern orthodoxy is now thriving, then I guess expansion would be a better word

ps: I also hope turkey starts treating the patriarch better

[Elok]

Yeah, expansion would be a better word. Slip of the tongue/typing fingers. But highly significant; I'm afraid I (maybe we) tend to think of all conversions to Orthodoxy as just another case of the Prodigal Son coming home. The fact that these people never consciously left the OCC just didn't cross my mind, to be honest.

[RGBVideo]

is there anything what doesn't anger muslims?

[BeBMan]

I read the Pope just has made an excuse.

[RGBVideo]

Originally posted by BeBro
I read the Pope just has made an excuse.

excusing truth in fear of confrontation

[Combat Ingrid]

Originally posted by VJ
is there anything what doesn't anger muslims?

The cartoon on the left side is probably politically correct in this context

[SlowwHand]

"There is no God but God, and Mohammed is his prophet" would seem to say the same thing.
So what's the big****ingdeal? Get over it.

Pope said to be upset Muslims offended

By FRANCES D'EMILIO, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 21 minutes ago

VATICAN CITY -
Pope Benedict XVI is "extremely upset" that Muslims have been offended by some of his words in a recent speech in Germany, the Vatican said Saturday.

The new Vatican secretary of state, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, said the pope's position on Islam is unmistakably in line with Vatican teaching that the church "esteems Muslims, who adore the only God."

Thus, the pope is "extremely upset that some portions of his speech were able to sound offensive to the sensibilities of Muslim believers and have been interpreted in a way that does not at all correspond to his intentions," Bertone said in a statement.

The words, in a speech Benedict gave to university professors earlier in the week during a pilgrimage to his homeland, angered many in the Islamic world and raised doubts over whether a planned trip to predominantly Muslim Turkey in late November would go ahead.

Leaders across the Muslim world have demanded the pope apologize for his remarks on Islam and jihad, or holy war, despite earlier Vatican's assurances that he meant only to emphasize the incompatibility between faith and war.

Benedict on Tuesday cited an obscure Medieval text that characterizes some of the teachings of Islam's founder as "evil and inhuman" — comments some experts took as a signal that the Vatican was staking a more demanding stance for its dealings with the Muslim world. When giving the speech, the pope stressed that he was quoting words of a Byzantine emperor and did not comment directly on the "evil and inhuman" assessment.

Cardinal Bertone, referring to the emperor's assessment, said "the Holy Father absolutely didn't intend nor intends to make it his own (assessment.)"

The cardinal pointed out that the pope was speaking in an academic setting and suggested that a "complete and careful reading" of the entire text would make clear the pope's reflections about the relationship between religion and violence in general.

He said the pope's speech ended with "a clear and radical refusal of religious motivation for violence, from whatever side it comes from."