Why converting Muslims is taboo in the Catholic Church

By “how many”, I want a number.  Or to get straight to the point, I am wondering if you are a sedevacantist who does not acknowledge the two recently proclaimed Doctors.  If I read you correctly, you do reject an ecumenical council convened by a Pope. 

So you proclaim yourself a “copper-plated Catholic”, huh?  Are you speaking ex cathedra when you pronounce this judgment?

 Interesting little “aside” fact to go with that….rather nice co-incidence (or not as the case may be) …..Fatima is originally an arabic name which translates loosely as         ” Motherly”

Arrogant? What are you on about?

Yes, of course I read Peter’s comment. I don’t usually reply to posts I haven’t read, which I cannot say for you, it seems.

I’ve seen the ignorance and material needs of these places with my own eyes, I suspect unlike you. And I repeat (wearily): “self-inflicted wounds”.

The origin of the village name of “Fatima” is from a story of the wars between the Portuguese and the Moors of Portugal. A Moslem girl, Fatima, fell in love with a catholic knight and was beheaded by her father as a result. Don’t know if that’s historically accurate, but I lived 40 kms from Fatima for three years, and that’s the story you hear locally. 

I like the “motherly” story though.

The idea that he was a “village idiot” and couldn’t possibly have been capable of making it up is false

It’s also directly contradictory of islamic theology — which claims that the divine only manifests in those with purity and perfection.

Dear Howard, look up the number on wikipedia for yourself, but remember to include all up to St. Hildegard, pronounced a Doctor of the Church only a week or two ago.

No, I am not a sede-vacantist.

By suggesting I am, you show (early on, which is good, so we won’t have to continue this discussion) that you don’t really understand the points being made or the reasons why. That being the case, there is little point in continuing.

You created this focus on Catholics, so it’s hypocritical to now suggest that other members of the forum are paying undue attention to the sufferings of those Catholics.

No, I understand the objections to the Novus Ordo.  It is ridiculous to think I would not simply because I acknowledge the *authority* of the Pope and the bishops in union with him to make decisions, whether wise or not.

I now see that I made an error, though; you are not the one who referred to the Holy Father as “Ratzinger”, it was Parasum.  I would say that is obviously and deliberately disrespectful when used by any Catholic of him AFTER his election as Pope.  When you responded to my comment, I thought you were responding as the person who had shown disrespect to the Pope.  Sorry for that misunderstanding.

By the way, I may also have lined up my response under the wrong comment.

Ben,

Aztecs in Mexico 

Incas in Peru

 Ouch!  I’m not at all sure that is justified.

 I don’t know the facts of your story, but it sounds logical.  And yes, a muslim girl named Fatima.  (meaning motherly) having the town named after her.  But it’s nice that Our Lady should appear in a place named “motherly”.  Fits in nicely.

Which Traditionalist said they are the ultimate judge? Not one of them. Certainly not me.

But we do have minds and we do have opinions. Strong opinions. And we are right, as time will surely tell. 

Sure, they would say that. Did they make that up after he beheaded the 800 Jews, or before?

Scary, your priest is wise. That assessment is not far off.

For Scary:

I’ve just read this for the first time. It really shocked me.

http://sspx.org/superior_generals_news/problems_causes_remedies.htm

I think so too.

There’s a kind of IT gap between pages 1 and 2 of the comments section, where posts can vanish into for a couple of hours. I can now see your post BTW …

Sensible answers from your priest.

Some of his claims are outrageous, and unacceptable.

Generally speaking, the statements of Monseigneur Fellay demonstrate his tendency towards theological approximation — whereas theologians must always be very precise in their statements.

Oftentimes we hear the
solution to the crisis is to increase our fidelity to the pope and bishops. Yet,
in his letter Msgr. Perl admits bishops don’t obey and anarchy is the result.
The answer is to be faithful to the bishops?! Illogical!

Wrong — there are certain matters where Bishops are free to exercise their own personal Authority without interference from the Pope, as is established by the constant teaching of the Church, of both Councils and Popes.The fact that this means that some individual Bishops might abuse that Authority is far preferable to the alternative.After the meeting, Cardinal
Ottaviani took the Archbishop by the arm and said, “It’s the Boss who
wants it,” that is to say, Pope John XXIII. He made the rule that condemned
theologians not be on the list and also ordered that they be
on the list!Pastor aeternus : “the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church”

Lumen gentium : “the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power”

Sovereign decisions by the Pope cannot be legitimately questioned by other Catholics, unless they can be demonstrated to be objectively heretical.

To find out for himself, Archbishop Lefebvre
was granted an audience with Pope John XXIII who demolished in an hour what he
had written in his encyclical ten days before!

Specifics ? I’ll take this with a good pinch of salt.The big intellectuals of the
Council- de Lubac, Congar, Rahner, Murray- were
all condemned because of their errors in the ten years preceding Vatican II!
Today, what they taught is now considered the doctrine of the Church!

I very much doubt that this is true.Lubac’s teaching that the natural and the supernatural are one and the same is NOT Catholic doctrine — nature has a supernatural cause, not the other way round.Congar was never formally condemned — he was instead considered as persona non grata for a while.Rahner’s plainly heretical concepts of the Trinity and of the relationship between God and Creation are NOT Catholic doctrine.John Courtney Murray’s Americanist understanding of religious liberty (“liberty” being essentially understood here in its American political understanding) is NOT Catholic doctrine — the doctrine of Religious Freedom is instead founded on the dogma of Free Will.In the aftermath of Vatican II, Yves Congar was quoted:
“I had been given a very hard job
during the Council. It was to prepare this part of the document in which I was
to prove that religious liberty is found in Holy Scripture, which it is not!”I disagree with Congar’s opinion — ALL of the earliest books of the Old Testament plainly illustrate that the early Hebrews exercised their religious freedom quite extensively — this does not mean that bad choices deriving from an improper use of one’s freedom have magically become good ones.Pope John Paul II issued an apostolic letter to prepare for the Jubilee Year
2000 titled, Tertio Millennio Adveniente [On the Coming of the Third
Millenium]. The word “adveniente” refers to Advent, a literal
concept of the Holy Father referring to the period of the Church from Vatican II
to the Year 2000. This “Advent” is the time of preparation for a new
era. Those who pretend the famous three zeroes of millenial years will usher in
new eras have been condemned in former times. Practically speaking, the pope is
a milleniarist, but at the same time Rome says it’s not milleniarism.The logic of Monseigneur Fellay is shoddy, and unacceptable — he’s adding 2 and 2, and coming up with 5.In his encyclical, Ut Unum Sint, Pope John Paul II explained and
defended the primacy of the pope. Immediately after the correct teaching in the
encyclical, he asks that new ways to exercise the primacy be researched.?????And ???
Pastor aeternus : “the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church”

Lumen gentium : “the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power”

Sovereign
decisions by the Pope cannot be legitimately questioned by other
Catholics, unless they can be demonstrated to be objectively heretical.A few years ago Cardinal Ratzinger issued a text condemning the theology of
liberation. The first text was a clear condemnation. The second text was
announced and it was said that the second and the first had to be read in the
light of the first and second respectively. But, in the second version you find
phrases which justify the theology of liberation. So, liberation theology is
simultaneously condemned and justified!The position of the Church towards liberation theology is unambiguous — the position of the Church towards the liberation theologians is far more complex. Some actions by those theologians are rightfully praised for their deep Charity ; their theology OTOH is unambiguously condemned.Last year, a Sri Lankan priest, Fr. Tissa Balasuriya, O.M.I., was
excommunicated because of the heresies he taught about the Blessed Virgin Mary
and the Church. Less than one year later, his religious order had his
excommunication lifted even though Fr. Tissa Balasuriya preferred to sign his
own text of abjuration rather than the one given him by Rome. After his
excommunication had been lifted, Fr. Balasuriya said he had absolutely no
regrets, that he had not taken anything back. So he continues to be the same
heretic, but now is no longer excommunicated!This account is untrue — “his
own text of abjuration” was rejected by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Fr. Balasuriya accepted that there errors could be inferred from his book, although he would not himself agree with such inferences, and therefore rejected the accusation of personal doctrinal error. He wrote : “I realize that serious ambiguities and doctrinal errors were perceived in my
writings and therefore provoked negative reactions from other parties, affected
relationships and led to an unfortunate polarization in the ecclesial community. I truly
regret the harm this has caused. “. All of his writings are now subjected to a condition of imprimatur from his bishops.It’s a simple case of the “theologian’s sin”, which is that it is possible for an overly hasty theologian to unwittingly teach doctrine in a manner that could lead others into error — ironically, this very same accusation could be made against Monseigneur Fellay in these comments of his own. It does NOT constitute a heresy in either case, just a sin.The pope wrote again this year [1998] to the German bishops about abortion.
For a woman to have an abortion in Germany, she must first appear before a board
of consulters for counseling and receive a certificate of proof she has done so
before she can submit to the murder of her baby. By law, one third of the board
of consulters are Catholic bishops. The pope wrote to forbid the German bishops
to grant this certificate under pain of direct cooperation in the abortion. In
response, the German bishops held an extraordinary meeting and agreed that in
a year’s time they would obey the pope’s order!This account is partial and one-sided. The German bishops were engaged in a fundamentally flawed but well-intentioned attempt to prevent these abortions — it’s estimated that they were saving 5000 lives a year through their actions — but it is true that these were incompatible with Catholic doctrine. They therefore complied to the request from the Pope and the CDF in 2000.In one of the important ecclesiastical magazines of Holland
[July 1998], a
bishop wrote such scandalous things I had to check with the chancery who
verified the words as his. In his article, this bishop began: “When I die,
I will not go to heaven, neither will I go to hell, because these words are
words which the Church has taken from the Middle Ages. They have nothing to do
with the reality. Science has now seen the heavens with powerful telescopes, so
these concepts are totally wrong and we can no longer speak of heaven and
hell.” He continues by approving euthanasia, relations outside of marriage,
and contraception. Finally, he argues that 80% of Catholics are committing
excommunicable offenses, but that since it would be impossible to excommunicate
four out of five Catholics we are safe to believe whatever we want! Nothing
happens to him!Well, finally something I can agree with 100% — statements like that deserve excommunication.A friend of ours in the Curia came to visit me recently. He told me a story
that shows a little bit what the pope does or can do. The pope, he told me,
wanted to go to Fatima on the occasion of the 80th anniversary of the first
apparition, but didn’t attend because he was not invited! I didn’t know the
pope needed to be invited to go somewhere! … etc …This story is ludicrous — it is blatantly obvious that for purely practical reasons, a papal visit is only going to be feasible with the agreement of those being visited, simply because of the requirements and preparations that such a visit would necessarily occasion. If anything, this is a diplomatic faux-pas on the part of the Portuguese, if it is true that no response to the request was ever provided.Also — WHERE exactly does Catholic doctrine teach that the Pope cannot make a request, but must always only issue commands ??? +Fellay is just being willfully disingenuous.—(from about there onwards, the quality of Monseigneur Fellay’s talk undergoes a vast improvement)I personally estimate that about half of the priests worldwide have lost
faith in the Real Presence.I’d tend to agree, and who knows what the % is among the Laity !!!But modern thinkers say truth is the agreement between our
intellect and life.I have NEVER heard anyone suggest such a definition of truth — it is patently absurd.Modern philosophies also deny
that our intelligence can understand the essence of things- the deepest part of
things – which can’t change.This is a gross over-simplification of one of the most virulently debated questions in philosophy, Ancient, Mediaeval, and Modern. Some modern philosophers teach what +Fellay describes…Another disaster is perpetrated in
theology by the
refusal of bad theologians to distinguish between nature and grace. This leads
to a failure to distinguish between body and soul. To refuse to distinguish
between created nature and the grace of the Creator concludes to no distinction
between creatures and the Creator, between man and God! What does Pope John Paul
II himself say?
“Every man and every people, by the fact that Our Lord died on the cross and
by the action of the Holy Ghost, every man is a child of God. He is a
participant of divine life and is called to eternal happiness. [Tertio
Millennio Adveniente]”

Every man! St. Paul says
[Rom. 8:14] that those who are led by the Spirit of
God, are the sons of God. The Spirit of God must be in them. He says very
clearly that the Holy Ghost is not in everybody [Rom. 8:13]. But the present
pope maintains that the Holy Ghost is dwelling mysteriously in everybody because
of the failure to distinguish between nature and grace.This is some very bad theology on +Fellay’s part — certain Graces, including for example the Grace of Free Will, are bestowed on every one of us in our nature as created souls in the image of God. It would be a heresy to claim that the Holy Spirit does not participate in the bestowal of these Graces to all of mankind. This does not make the universally received Graces identical to the Graces provided by Conversion, Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Communion, and so on — nor does it make those universal Graces a part of created nature.

 What do you mean by “May God rest all their souls”? Surely they are having a lively time in heaven aren’t they??

 Ah ok, it’s there now.  But for some reason it looks like a separate new comment.  It was a reply to one of Ben’s which said something about hatred of the Cross being demonic.

I did not say that it was not because they were priests. The point is that priests and religious were rounded up en masse in Poland, as opposed to being sent to the camps as a result of specific acts of resistance as was generally the case in Germany. The difference in numbers speaks for itself.

 Thank you moderators.  Now it’s there and in the right place

Your wrong, so wrong Bernard Lichesten (spelling) was deported to death camp for standing up for the jews.
French Carthusians where targetted for providing shelter to Jews. Bl Titus Brandsma was deported to death for defedning press freedom and writing on defence of jews and others.
Your absolute statement has been falsified by the facts of history.

“History proves this point about inculturation. The Church’s most successful mission was that to the lands of the former Aztec Empire, which were converted to Christianity within a generation, because the missionaries presented the faith as something that would complement and complete the Aztec culture, rather than replace it.” You neglect to mention the major role played by Our Lady of Guadeloupe – a serious omission!