Pope Francis

[Peace]

12 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

Yes, he did indeed. In the video above of the ceremony held in the Vatican gardens it is clear the idol is venerated. Among other signs of worship the group gets on their knees and bows down low before the idol. Pope Francis has confirmed the idol's name as Pachamama. According to Wikipedia "Pachamama is a goddess revered by the indigenous people of the Andes. She is also known as the earth/time mother. In Inca mythology, Pachamama is a fertility goddess who presides over planting and harvesting, embodies the mountains, and causes earthquakes."

No. He referred to them as "pachamama statutes" and suggested that they might have been displayed at the closing Mass. He did not confirm that they were venerated. He did not confirm that they were the idol goddess Pachamama and he did not confirm that that they would be on display during the closing Mass (and nor were they).

[KnightofChrist]

5 minutes ago, Peace said:

No. He referred to them as "pachamama statutes" and suggested that they might have been displayed at the closing Mass. He did not confirm that they were venerated. He did not confirm that they were the idol goddess Pachamama and he did not confirm that that they would be on display during the closing Mass (and nor were they).

The evidence of the veneration is undeniable, from an honest and objective point of view. I've provided both video and photographic evidence. Are you honestly asking us to deny our own eyes? They are not bowing before these 'statues' in your point of view? This extreme form bowing is not veneration? This is your position?

We have people bowing low to Pachamama 'statues'. Statues are not always idols, true. But they are idols when they are given the name of idol deities and people bow low before them. Statue or idol, Pachamama is still a idol goddess. The people are still bowing before these statues.

The Pachamama statue, surrounded candles, was put on display in the Traspontina Carmelite Church, close to the Vatican, on Saturday, October 26. In front of the altar, chairs were moved so the statue could be venerated in a circle. While the altar where Christ sits in the Tabernacle is in the shadows.

 

 

[fides' Jack]

I had been using the term "prostration".  Veneration is how we honor the saints - we venerate them (it's an attitude, rather than a bodily position).  In my mind, prostration is reserved as an act of worship, and depending on where you get your definitions, they were doing half-body prostrations.  It clearly wasn't a good thing, regardless of how you interpret it.

Peace is correct in saying that the pope did not confirm them to be named "pachamama" statues.  He merely referred to them as such, but that was enough to confirm it for the purposes that we needed, which was to know that he never should have allowed them to be there in the first place.

I don't condone the taking of the statues from St. Peter's by lay people.  In my opinion it was theft, though it might be possible to convince me it was justifiable.  The pope and cardinals and bishops who had authority over them being there should never have allowed it, and had the responsibility to remove them immediately.  The fact that they didn't was why there is a scandal (i.e. they caused the scandal, not the statues).  The ends don't justify the means.

No orthodox Catholic can still hold to the belief that the "verdict is still out" on whether or not Pope Francis is good or bad.  At the very, very least he has caused confusion among the faithful, he has not clarified when the needs of the faithful required it, he has sown division, he has attempted to change established Church teaching on more than one occasion (and of a nature that it could possibly lead to the damnation of a multitude of Christian souls), and he has allowed something to take place that could very easily be described as flat-out idolatry, at the Vatican.  In short, he has not fulfilled the duties of his office - not by a long shot.  I don't know what the definition of "anti-pope" is, so I won't call him that.  But he's not a good pope.  This is not opinion; it is evident to any remote observer who has any knowledge of Church teaching.

11 hours ago, Peace said:

[...] he did not confirm that that they would be on display during the closing Mass (and nor were they).

Can you provide evidence that they were not present during the closing Mass of the synod?  I haven't seen any pictures of there...  I would assume if they were, it would have made the usual news sources, already, but that's not evidence in itself.

Just curious, as I was worried about it.  Thanks.

Edited October 28, 2019 by fides' Jack
context

[Guest]

[Guest]

[KnightofChrist]

2 hours ago, Josh said:

What did happen in the Vatican gardens Josh? What's your position on it? The bowing down before a statue. A statue which Pope Francis' confirms is named after a idol goddess. 

 

[Peace]

23 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

The evidence of the veneration is undeniable, from an honest and objective point of view. I've provided both video and photographic evidence. Are you honestly asking us to deny our own eyes? They are not bowing before these 'statues' in your point of view? This extreme form bowing is not veneration? This is your position?

I have no idea what it is for them. I did not ask them about it. I do not know what their culture is, and I do not know what their intention was.

We kneel before a statue of Mary and pray to God, and Protestants accuse us of worshiping a statute because they do not understand our culture and our intention. Protestants do a similar thing to us that you are doing to them.

23 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

We have people bowing low to Pachamama 'statues'. Statues are not always idols, true. But they are idols when they are given the name of idol deities and people bow low before them. Statue or idol, Pachamama is still a idol goddess. The people are still bowing before these statues.

The nature of the specific statues, and the sense in which Pope Francis referred to them as "pachamama statutes" is unclear. He did not state "This is a statute of the goddess known as Pachamama". If you read the various statements there were various ambiguous things said about the nature of the statutes, that they represent "nature" "life" or other such things, concepts that can be associated with the goddess, apparently. It is not clear at all whether the statutes were meant to refer to a deity or as representative of the concepts in some sense. Perhaps they intended to venerate the gift of life by their actions. I have no idea because I have not asked them.

This is not a culture that I understand, but I think that some people can be a bit too quick to judge the intentions of other Catholics, without having a full understanding of their culture, what the statutes are to them, and what their intention is. It is really similar to what Protestants do to us. They do not take any time to fully understand our culture and our intentions, find some photos on the internet, view a Wikipedia page, and then jump to hasty conclusions that we are worshiping idols. We are after all, dealing with Catholics here. We are dealing with Catholics from a particular part of the world that have a culture that is different than our own. It's not like a group of Wiccans tried to sneak a statute into the Vatican. I think that as fellow Catholics we at least have to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they do not have an intention to worship or venerate an idol God, and try to fully understand what the situation is before making conclusions. Rash judgment, after all, is a sin. They could very well be in error and in need of correction, but I don't think the rush to condemn them (or to use it as fodder to attack Pope Francis) is warranted at this point without further information.

13 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

No orthodox Catholic can still hold to the belief that the "verdict is still out" on whether or not Pope Francis is good or bad. 

I am an orthodox Catholic and I hold the belief that "the verdict is still out". Thus, your statement is proven incorrect.

13 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

At the very, very least he has caused confusion among the faithful, he has not clarified when the needs of the faithful required it, he has sown division, he has attempted to change established Church teaching on more than one occasion (and of a nature that it could possibly lead to the damnation of a multitude of Christian souls), and he has allowed something to take place that could very easily be described as flat-out idolatry, at the Vatican.  In short, he has not fulfilled the duties of his office - not by a long shot. 

None of these are true, except that I would agree that he has caused some confusion among the faithful (as is likely the case with every pope if you closely scrutinize their writings and/or actions).

13 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

I don't know what the definition of "anti-pope" is, so I won't call him that.  But he's not a good pope.  This is not opinion; it is evident to any remote observer who has any knowledge of Church teaching.

I did not say that he was a good pope so there is nothing to argue about here. I take it that you think Pope Francis is a bad pope. Would you also call John 23, Paul 6, and John Paul II bad popes? For whatever Pope Francis has done, I would not say that anything comes close to allowing large numbers of homosexuals and pedophiles to enter and operate with impunity within the priesthood.

13 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

Can you provide evidence that they were not present during the closing Mass of the synod?  I haven't seen any pictures of there...  I would assume if they were, it would have made the usual news sources, already, but that's not evidence in itself.

Just curious, as I was worried about it.  Thanks.

One of the articles that @dUSt posted indicated that they statutes were not present at the closing Mass.

[KnightofChrist]

You don't know, you don't want to know what you can see with your own eyes. 

We need to create time travel so we can go back in time and save the martyrs who rather die than burn one incense before a Jupiter statue. Because that would be idolarty.  Now we can tell them it depends on their culture, and what's really in their heart. 

Pope Francis clearly confirmed the statues as Pachamama. And clearly the statues were venerated. I have honor and respect for you but find your position irrational. I cannot deny what my eyes see and Pope Francis' own words. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, KnightofChrist said:

What did happen in the Vatican gardens Josh? What's your position on it? The bowing down before a statue. A statue which Pope Francis' confirms is named after a idol goddess. 

Tbh this isn't something I'm that involved with or paying a bunch of attention to. I give the Pope the benefit of the doubt and trust his efforts to evangelize. I trust the Holy Spirit will guide him. 

If I'm going to freak out about things and start calling the Pope a heretic I would start with previous Pope's. Ones who kissed the Koran ect. Or like Peace said freak about Pope's who blatantly overlooked sexual abuse and predators and helped cover for them. (Although I'm not going that route and give them the benefit of the doubt and grace as well) Not that Francis didn't ignore and cover for abusers. I honestly don't know. But he inherited a bunch of this mess. And perhaps was part of the problem before becoming Pope. But overall I like him. As much as I like Pope's. I smell of elderberries I know.

At this point I trust Jesus will do his will with his Church. I trust the gates of hell won't prevail. I give whoever the Pope is the benefit of the doubt. I think people who have thousands and thousands of followers in the Catholic media who lead people to view the Pope as a heretic are very dangerous spirituality. 

If I was going to start my own Church or join someone else's because of questionable leadership/actions in the Catholic Church I would of moved way before Pope Francis. 

While some of these people in media may speak truths they lose me and become toxic imo when they start saying one Mass is better than the other. And all the other things they say. Yesterday's Gospel is one of my favorites. The tax collector and the Pharisee. And I'm sure you can figure out why.

Edited October 29, 2019 by Guest

[Peace]

51 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

You don't know, you don't want to know what you can see with your own eyes. 

I would like more information before passing judgment on them.

Quote

We need to create time travel so we can go back in time and save the martyrs who rather die than burn one incense before a Jupiter statue. Because that would be idolarty.  Now we can tell them it depends on their culture, and what's really in their heart. 

If I go to a museum and burn an incense stick before a Jupiter statute it would not be idolatry my friend. I do not believe that the statute is a god, nor does it represent any god for me. It is a statute of a mythical figure who I know does not exist. Nor is burning an incense stick something that I do as an act of worship. I might get kicked out of the museum but that is neither here nor there.

Now if I think the Jupiter statute is a god or represents some god and burn an incense stick before the statute as a form of worshiping this god, that would be idolatry.

Similarly, if a person kneels as a form of worship, and believes that Mary is a god or that a statute of Mary represents the god Mary, and then kneels before this statute to worship Mary, that would also be idolatry. This is exactly what many Protestants "see with their own eyes" but of course we do not commit idolatry because of our intention and because of "what is in our heart". So yes, those things do matter, even if you make light of them

Quote

Pope Francis clearly confirmed the statues as Pachamama. And clearly the statues were venerated. I have honor and respect for you but find your position irrational. I cannot deny what my eyes see and Pope Francis' own words. 

That is fine with me, but again I think it can be very similar to what Protestants do. They see us kneel before a statute of Mary, they read many of our prayers that are extremely respectful of Mary and accuse of idolatry. They cannot deny what their eyes see, even though what their eyes see is wrong.

Edited October 29, 2019 by Peace

[Guest]

 

Edited October 29, 2019 by Guest

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Peace said:

I would like more information before passing judgment on them.

If I go to a museum and burn an incense stick before a Jupiter statute it would not be idolatry my friend. I do not believe that the statute is a god, nor does it represent any god for me. It is a statute of a mythical figure who I know does not exist. Nor is burning an incense stick something that I do as an act of worship. I might get kicked out of the museum but that is neither here nor there.

Now if I think the Jupiter statute is a god or represents some god and burn an incense stick before the statute as a form of worshiping this god, that would be idolatry.

Similarly, if a person kneels as a form of worship, and believes that Mary is a god or that a statute of Mary represents the god Mary, and then kneels before this statute to worship Mary, that would also be idolatry. This is exactly what many Protestants "see with their own eyes" but of course we do not commit idolatry because of our intention and because of "what is in our heart". So yes, those things do matter, even if you make light of them

That is fine with me, but again I think it can be very similar to what Protestants do. They see us kneel before a statute of Mary, they read many of our prayers that are extremely respectful of Mary and accuse of idolatry. They cannot deny what their eyes see, even though what their eyes see is wrong.

 
Well said and thank you, Peace. Thank God that He alone can judge us and not our fellow man.  There is a saying "Do not judge, you do not know what storms I have asked a person to pass through". It's not in Scripture, but still a logical type of thought to flow on from the following:

3 hours ago, Josh said:

 

 Must confess, Josh, that I am not sure whether you are agreeing with the above quotes, or challenging something said elsewhere and my problem as I have not been following this thread.   But I really did like the main point of the quotes above and so gave you a "Like".  Of course, too, I am a long term fan of Pope Francis  I said with his election that if he put his foot down, it would go right through the floorboards. In other words, I think he can be VERY assertive and a figure of commanding authority if he must and needs be.

I think a lot of it with the Papacy as with the President of the USA and our own Prime Minister.  Once they are actually in the role, they are dependant on advisors etc. around them and a totally different experience to before they assumed the authority they now might have.

Edited October 29, 2019 by BarbaraTherese

[Guest]

[KnightofChrist]

Ritual bowl for demonic Pachamama placed on St. Peter’s altar at closing Mass of #AmazonSynod

ShareTweetPinMail

Robert Moynihan is a long-time vaticanista.  In his latest “Letter #59, 2019: In plain sight“, he looks into the pagan element worked into the closing Mass of the Amazon Synod (“walking together”).  We had speculated about whether or not the wooden demon idols of Pachamama, a demon goddess to whom human sacrifice was offered, a kind of “mother earth” embodiment, but clearly demonic, would be involved at the closing Mass of the “walking together”.   Nope. No demon statuette.

That doesn’t mean that Pachamama, the demon pagans worshipped with human sacrifice, wasn’t being openly honored during the Mass, and even put on altar of St. Peter’s, above the bones of the Apostle!

Moynihan at great length establishes with reference to video of the closing Mass the bringing forward at the offertory a bowl with a plant that that Francis instructed Msgr. Guido (that poor man) Marini to put on the altar.  Of course gifts at the offertory are NOT to be placed on the altar, much less trash like this.

What was put on the altar?

A bowl of dirt with various plants, one with red flowers.

Those are ugly plants.  Since they are not beautiful, they must have some other meaning or purpose.

Skipping to the point… Moynighan posted:

Then, after further searching, I learned that a bowl of soil with plants in it is often connected with ceremonial rituals involving Pachamana.

There is one among many websites that describes the ritual (link):

“If it is difficult for you to move to a natural space to offer to Mother Earth, do not worry, you can perform your own ritual at home:

“- Use a bottle or flower pot full of dirt, there you proceed to make a hole, it is recommended to do it with your hands to connect with the energy of the ritual.  [This goes back to what happened in the Vatican Gardens… the pagan, demonic ceremony.]

“- A kind of well is made, and food and drinks are poured for the enjoyment of the Pachamama.

“- The food option is extensive, one can place anything from fruits to Creole foods and seeds. In the case of drinks, chicha, natural juices, honey, wine, even coca leaves are suggested.

“- Then we proceed to cover it with dirt and flowers.

“Every year more people join in and they learn to leave our daily work and reflect and realize who we are, where we are and have this gesture of recognition and thanks to Mother Earth, which we say is humanity, the earth, the air, the animals, the water, the fire, which is everything that makes our life.”

Also: “You should never miss something red, it is the favorite color of the Pacha!  [Red flower.]

So it seemed that the bowl of flowers presented at the offertory of the final Synod Mass, and then placed on the altar during the consecration, may have been connected with a ritual of veneration, and thanks, to Mother Earth, known as Pachamana…

So the images were not in the basilica, but perhaps an offering to Pachamana, in a bowl, was…

Ann Barnhardt has the goods on this black bowl.  HERE  She has several posts.  In summary….

These black bowls, the same as the one with the red flower on the altar of St. Peter’s, were all over the place in the Synod Hall.

They were all over the church Santa Maria in Traspontina, where all the evil displays and presence of this demonic shaman and women religious were found all day.

The black bowl was in the pagan Vatican garden ceremony in honor of Pachamama:

Look on the left.

A closeup shows there is a symbol on the bottom of the upturned bowl.  Ann may have found a version of that symbol, which is, surprise, for Pachamama.

Detail… rotated.

With a red flower in honor of the demon goddess on the altar at St. Peter’s at the direction of Francis.

So, an obvious of statue wasn’t placed on or near the altar of St. Peter’s Basilica, but this instrument with the demonic symbol was placed on the mensa of the altar of Sacrifice directly over the bones of Peter himself.

The implications of this are, frankly, horrifying to contemplate.

 

Please share!

Source: https://wdtprs.com/2019/10/ritual-bowl-for-demonic-pachamama-placed-on-st-peters-altar-at-closing-mass-of-amazonsynod/

[Guest]

[Seven77]

On 10/29/2019 at 1:43 AM, Peace said:

I would like more information before passing judgment on them.

If I go to a museum and burn an incense stick before a Jupiter statute it would not be idolatry my friend. I do not believe that the statute is a god, nor does it represent any god for me. It is a statute of a mythical figure who I know does not exist. Nor is burning an incense stick something that I do as an act of worship. I might get kicked out of the museum but that is neither here nor there.

Now if I think the Jupiter statute is a god or represents some god and burn an incense stick before the statute as a form of worshiping this god, that would be idolatry.

Similarly, if a person kneels as a form of worship, and believes that Mary is a god or that a statute of Mary represents the god Mary, and then kneels before this statute to worship Mary, that would also be idolatry. This is exactly what many Protestants "see with their own eyes" but of course we do not commit idolatry because of our intention and because of "what is in our heart". So yes, those things do matter, even if you make light of them

That is fine with me, but again I think it can be very similar to what Protestants do. They see us kneel before a statute of Mary, they read many of our prayers that are extremely respectful of Mary and accuse of idolatry. They cannot deny what their eyes see, even though what their eyes see is wrong.

 I know you meant  it hypothetically, but why on earth would you burn incense before a statue of Jupiter, in the museum?  The only wayI could possibly envision it is if said statue was literally stinking up the place and you were a security guard on night duty. Otherwise, it would cause scandal to someone who might see you do it (think St. Paul's words in first Corinthians, on abstaining from meat offered to pagan "gods," which do not exist

Furthermore, think of it in this way: St. Thomas Moore refused to acknowledge King Henry VIII's unlawful marriage to Anne Boleyn and his declaration of being the head of the Church of England--- even after his daughter suggested that he could  sign off on it while upholding the truth in his heart. The same kind of thinning g was suggested to the old man in first Maccabees. You can't do it. Just can't. Even if you burn incense before statue of Jupiter while holding that you really don't believe  that Jupiter even exists.  I don't know of any situation hypothetical or real other than the one I gave

And can i just say how horrible looking the pacha mama are? i mean for real, they are so crude and because of their detail   are very unworthy of being associated with anything Christian let alone the Most Holy and Blessed Virgin Mary.  moreover, such depictions are known to be associated with paganism by their very name in that culture. what a confusion the whole thing must be to some of them, them, especially the neophytes. what a scandal.

yes things can be appropriated a&nd baptized, but not everything. especially  things that are already associated with something else, for example, it's like taking a known depiction of a Hindu god and saying that we now claim the  stature to be Christ.

 Worse still, if the statue is some kind of concept of fertility or life… Why on earth did certain bishops fall prostrate before it? Yikes.  I have never seen anyone down on the face before a statue of Our Lady or any Saint let alone a statue of a concept or idea. Prostration is a gesture of  the worshipOf adoration, no way around it.

the only thing we can do is pray, prayer is everything .  All you holy men and women of God, Saints, pray for us!

Edited November 1, 2019 by Seven77

[Guest]

https://www.dosmanosperu.com/blog/celebrating-pachamama-in-peruvian-andes/

https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/catholicism-confronts-new-age-syncretism-11322

1 hour ago, Seven77 said:

the only thing we can do is pray, prayer is everything .  All you holy men and women of God, Saints, pray for us!

Veni Sancte Spiritus Veni...........Amen

[Guest]

 

 

[Peace]

19 hours ago, Seven77 said:

 I know you meant  it hypothetically, but why on earth would you burn incense before a statue of Jupiter, in the museum?  The only wayI could possibly envision it is if said statue was literally stinking up the place and you were a security guard on night duty. Otherwise, it would cause scandal to someone who might see you do it (think St. Paul's words in first Corinthians, on abstaining from meat offered to pagan "gods," which do not exist

It might do it just to annoy my good friend @KnightofChrist.

Or perhaps I might do it for aesthetic reasons. I will title my new photograph "Incense in Front of Large Jupiter Statute." It is a lovely image isn't it? I'll be as famous as Ansel Adams.

Now, doing so may very well be scandal but the discussion was actually whether or not it would be idolatry. The point I was trying to make was that both external action and interior disposition are important in determining whether idolatry has occurred. That was all.

19 hours ago, Seven77 said:

And can i just say how horrible looking the pacha mama are? i mean for real, they are so crude and because of their detail   are very unworthy of being associated with anything Christian let alone the Most Holy and Blessed Virgin Mary.  

I dunno about all that. At least the statutes I saw were of a pregnant brown woman. I didn't find them to be crude looking and I do not think the people in that region would share in your opinion either.

Lets say that hypothetically similar looking statutes (without any possible idol associations, to separate that element out for the moment) were used in association with St. Mary by people in the Amazon region. I will be perfectly wiling to remove those statutes if you and @KnightofChrist agree to remove the thousands of images of a snow white European looking Mary that can be found across Catholic Churches in the USA. I do not like the snow white Mary and blue eyed Jesus since we know that neither is representative of reality. Deal? Let's just remove all of those statutes simply because of my own personal preferences concerning what is appropriate.

19 hours ago, Seven77 said:

moreover, such depictions are known to be associated with paganism by their very name in that culture. what a confusion the whole thing must be to some of them, them, especially the neophytes. what a scandal.

Yes, from limited information it appears that some type ocorrection/instruction needs to take place. But I don't know what happened and what the complete situation is. I only have tidbits of real information here and there along with numerous rantings and speculations of various Trad websites. As I wrote before, I would want more information concerning what actually happened before passing judgment on it.

We have demon worship conspiracy theories being generated because of a plant.

19 hours ago, Seven77 said:

yes things can be appropriated a&nd baptized, but not everything. especially  things that are already associated with something else, for example, it's like taking a known depiction of a Hindu god and saying that we now claim the  stature to be Christ.

Well I generally agree that it would not be prudent to do that, if that is what happened here (although there is some evidence to suggest that this type of thing happened with the Christmas Holiday).

19 hours ago, Seven77 said:

 Worse still, if the statue is some kind of concept of fertility or life… Why on earth did certain bishops fall prostrate before it? Yikes.  I have never seen anyone down on the face before a statue of Our Lady or any Saint let alone a statue of a concept or idea. Prostration is a gesture of  the worshipOf adoration, no way around it.

Find the people in the photo and ask them what happened. Or send a new Dubia to the Pope? How about we demand that these bishops be excommunicated?

I don't know what happened but as I wrote before you can go all over the internet and find Protestants who take pictures of Catholics kneeling and praying before statutes, crucifixes, etc. and accuse us of idolatry. Without more information I am not willing to sit here and insinuate the same against fellow Catholics, let alone clergy.

But if that floats your boat go for it.

19 hours ago, Seven77 said:

the only thing we can do is pray, prayer is everything .  All you holy men and women of God, Saints, pray for us!

Well it is not the only thing we can do, but probably the best.

[KnightofChrist]

@Peace

When Catholics kneel before statues of Saints, or Mary it is veneration of the Saint or Mary. While not adoration, which alone belongs to God, it is a form of worship. So perhaps the demon wasn't receiving adoration but worship of a lesser type? Or perhaps just a play game of old demonic rituals with no real of the heart meaning? That there is great confusion on the topic is evidence of failure by Pope Francis.

I have a statue of Our Lady of Guadalupe, and a Infant Child of Prague. One of the best things about Catholicism is that you can find devotion of Our Lady of just about any race.