I remember seeing a video with one of the antipopes venerating the тαℓмυd, which calls the Mother of God a whore and Christ a worlock, among other blasphemies. Could I be remembering this wrong, or maybe he just bowed to it there in the Jєωιѕн ѕуηαgσgυє? What the source and point in the source this was would be helpful. Thanks.

Anyone who kisses a Quran is an infidel.

Anyone who claims to be 'catholic' and does so is a heretic.

Anyone who has been elected Pope and does so incurs excommunication due to said heresy.

Anyone SINCE Wojtyla who calls him 'blessed' or anything of the sort is all of the above.

I do not speak of my own authority... Holy Scripture calls A-lah and all other false gods devils, so praying to them or venerating their books makes one an enemy of God.

The Authority of Holy Church Herself says that one who prays with heretics and/or for heretics IS a heretic, the material heresy of kissing a disgusting book like the Quran notwithstanding.

St. Anthony of Padua, hammer of heretics, terror of Hell, pray for us.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.

Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.

I should also point out that after JPII messed with the Code of Canon Law in 1983 Canonizations and Beatifications done afterwards were no longer protected by Infallibility as per the definitions of the First Vatican Council.

Disregard first post, it somehow got formatted wrong due to your poorly formatted post.

There was no effort made by Wojtyla or Ratzinger to bring the Mohammedan infidels into any sort of union with anyone except their Modernist, all-for-one, one-for-all baloney.

To say that equating the Quran and the Bible in terms of respect is the same thing as equating the Summa with the Bible is laughable. Simply absurd.

The Bible is a product OF THE CHURCH; the Church was not born FROM the Bible, the Bible was born FROM the Church. Likewise, SAINT (notice the emphasis?) Thomas Aquinas was and is considered the Angelic Doctor of the Church, and her greatest theologian after Our Lord and His Apostles. The Summa, then, may also be considered a product OF the Church and thus worth of incredible respect.

There is no sense in which the Summa is EQUAL to the Bible in terms of its content, because it does not contain, for instance, the Words of Our Lord, but in terms of its benefit to the Church, the Summa is far above many, many other works of the saints.

In other words, to honor the Summa as a great, praiseworthy and venerable gift of God to the Church in CONCORD with Holy Scripture is not out of the question.

To honor the Quran, which calls Christ Jesus Our Lord all sorts of blasphemous things, and calls Our Lady unprintable, disgusting things, is wrong on its own for any person. To VENERATE the Quran by kissing it or otherwise making obeisance to it IS HERESY. There is NO sense in which the Quran deserves to be honored AT ALL, let alone with the veneration of a (supposed) Pontiff of Holy Church.

If romantheology and his kind ever thought that Wojtyla was a faithful Catholic, that one instance of his veneration of that vile book of excrement should be enough to prove that he was a pertinacious heretic and NOT a valid Pope. Disgusting, to say the least.

@Nishant:

The quote from St. Catherine deals with the Pope's PERSONAL weaknesses or sins, not those against the Faith and certainly not public material heresy like was demonstrated by Wojtyla. I will be the first to admit that Popes, bishops and everyone else can be sinful, even terribly so, at times, but NOTHING excuses the abandonment of the Catholic Faith like that criminal did.

St. Francis of Assisi, preacher of the Faith to the infidel Sultan, pray for us.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.

Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.

Ecuмenism, properly understood, is nothing more or less than the effort to bring all separated communities into corporate reunion with the Catholic Church. When there are prospects for the return of some 300 million souls, as among the Eastern schismatics, then an ecuмenism of return is a worthy prospect, and, if properly pursued is likely to be more fruitful than individual conversions alone. If the leaders of the Church act for zeal of souls, they could achieve great good. If they act out of human respect, they stand condemned in that matter, as St.Peter, Prince of the Apostles, was.

The ecuмenism you're speaking of is totally different from the ecuмenism that is hapenning today. Ecuмenism of the return does contain charity and respect, but it also involves attempts at conversion.

The ecuмenism of today, the ecuмenism of the modernists, involves no conversion. Did you by any chance watch Assisi III two days ago? If you did, you would not have noticed the slightest attempt at conversion. Benedict actually went up to the microphone and said that all religions "lead to peace and justice". That is abosolute heresy, he needs to be preaching that the Catholic Church is the One True Church and that those outside it will not be saved. But oh, we wouldn't want to hurt anyone's feelings. Let's not worry about doctrine, let's all just prance around and pretend we're all fine and that we're all going to Heaven.

There is zero chance of conversion with that type of ecuмenism. It is Freemasonic in origin, it puts all religions on the same level. If you were a non-Catholic and were told by the Pope that there is truth in your religion and that it also leads to "peace and justice", would you really feel the need to become Catholic? If all religions are equal, why convert? That is the fallacy in this new ecuмenism.

I know, it just seemed to me that you were getting ecuмenism of the return a bit mixed up with the ecuмenism hapenning today.

No biggie.