Baron Alexander Tschugguel of Pachamama fame calls for Pope to clarify what he said about gay unions

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maximian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
twf said:
Yes, on the continent they gave out noble titles like cough drops. In jolly ol’ England, a “Lord” or “Lady” is still someone quite apart.
Click to expand...
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
If you YouTube “Vatican Gardens Ceremony” or some such you’ll find the ritual in question. It involved native peoples from South America, a tree and a pachamama idol.
 
twf said:
Yes, on the continent they gave out noble titles like cough drops. In jolly ol’ England, a “Lord” or “Lady” is still someone quite apart.
Click to expand...
I’ve seen Scottish lordships advertised for sale on the internet, so clearly not all British titles (and Englabd and Scotland are both part of Britain) are held in equal.eateem.
 
No no no… these are Scottish LAIRDships. No amount of money can make you a true Lord in the English sense of the word.
 
Best to get an accurate story about this and it just so happens CA has posted an accurate story on this. We dont need to go to drama making media sites to find out the truth.
We can just do a CA search and find an accurate assessment of what happened.

Answer:​

Pope St. John Paul II did not place a statue of Buddha on the altar of a Catholic church in Assisi in 1986, and he did not do so in any of the subsequent interfaith Assisi gatherings. Neither did any other Catholic official. Rather, the placement was done once by Buddhists in 1986, who did not realize the inappropriateness of the gesture, which they did not repeat.
Please do not spread dis information about this. Note the Buddhists did not realise their error and they
DID NOT REPEAT the error.

I think critical thinking needs to go further and truth sought before statements are made about incidents that could lead Catholics and others onto a false path. We are on a Catholic Answers forum, we should listen to CA when it posts answers like that one.

Given this story has not been accurately represented here, what faith do we have in other ‘stories’ people are posting as the evils of Ecumenism.

The tree planting in the Amazonian Synod was attended and participated in by Franciscan Friars. Pope Francis consecrated the Synod to St Francis of Assisi during that tree planting ceremony. Hardly a pagan practice to consecrate to a Catholic saint now is it.

The tree-planting is Pope Francis’ first gesture to mark the Season of Creation, building on a message he issued last month that invited the world’s 1.2 billion Catholics to celebrate the season. The Season of Creation is an annual celebration of prayer and action for the environment that is observed by many Christian churches. It begins on September 1, the World Day of Prayer for Creation, and concludes today, the Feast of St. Francis.

Consecrating the synod to St. Francis is a powerful symbolic gesture with strong resonance in Amazonian countries, where Catholics constitute a majority of the population. In the words of Pope Francis, “St. Francis is the example par excellence of care for the vulnerable and of an integral ecology lived out joyfully and authentically.” Dedicating the synod to St. Francis signifies the Church’s strong commitment to protecting indigenous peoples and the Amazon rainforest.

Ednamar de Oliveira Viana, the indigenous leader from the Maués region, Brazil, who planted the tree alongside the Pope, said, “To plant is to have hope. Planting in the Vatican Garden is a symbol that invites the Church to be even more committed to the forest peoples and all of humanity. But also, it is the denunciation of those who destroy our common home by greed in search of their own profit.”
 
Last edited:
It’s turning into a moderately fun game of “What are some Catholics willing to pretend is okay” though. And the number of backflips they’re willing to do to get there.

Come on friend. Even Jimmy Akin cites Wikipedia as a reasonable (starting) source for much information. Can you not feel yourself stretching beyond what’s reasonable here? Is there not one moment when you wonder whether maybe the other position is more correct on this one?

This isn’t even a topic I’ve ever gotten super invested in but… honestly. It’s a literal idol. A literal idol. Come on.

I’m honestly exhausted of this too and I’m not even as familiar with it as (name removed by moderator) seems to be.

It’s

a

literal

idol

of

a

specific

pagan

goddess.

Stop

doing

mental

backflips

trying

to

find

ways

to

imagine

it

isn’t.

Living in the Church today is like being gaslit all. the. time.

God help us all.
 
RhodesianSon said:
it is not our place to question or speak I’ll of someone in a position of authority so far above us.
Click to expand...
St. Paul publicly corrected St. Peter (Cephas in Aramaic) to whom Our Lord gave the keys of the kingdom not because of anything he said but what he DID. Even though the Council of Jerusalem (at which St. Peter presided) declared that the OT dietary laws were no longer binding, St. Peter ate with Gentile Christians separately from those who were of Hebrew origin. IOW, he was giving a bad example. Gal. 2: 6-14:

[6] But of them who seemed to be some thing, (what they were some time, it is nothing to me, God accepteth not the person of man,) for to me they that seemed to be some thing added nothing. [7] But contrariwise, when they had seen that to me was committed the gospel of the uncircumcision, as to Peter was that of the circumcision. [8] (For he who wrought in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, wrought in me also among the Gentiles.) [9] And when they had known the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship: that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision: [10] Only that we should be mindful of the poor: which same thing also I was careful to do.

[7] “The gospel of the uncircumcision”: The preaching of the gospel to the uncircumcised, that is, to the Gentiles. St. Paul was called in an extraordinary manner to be the apostle of the Gentiles; St. Peter, besides his general commission over the whole flock, (John 21. 15, etc.,) had a peculiar charge of the people of the circumcision, that is, of the Jews.

[11] But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. [12] For before that some came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them who were of the circumcision. [13] And to his dissimulation the rest of the Jews consented, so that Barnabas also was led by them into that dissimulation. [14] But when I saw that they walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all: If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as the Jews do, how dost thou compel the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

[11] “I withstood”: The fault that is here noted in the conduct of St. Peter, was only a certain imprudence, in withdrawing himself from the table of the Gentiles, for fear of giving offence to the Jewish converts; but this, in such circumstances, when his so doing might be of ill consequence to the Gentiles, who might be induced thereby to think themselves obliged to conform to the Jewish way of living, to the prejudice of their Christian liberty. Neither was St. Paul’s reprehending him any argument against his supremacy; for in such cases an inferior may, and sometimes ought, with respect, to admonish his superior.

That’s what Baron Tschuggel is doing, as did St. Catherine of Siena and other Saints.
 
Last edited:
Another anomaly of the instant information age:
20 people carrying a sign are given legitimacy at an absurd level.
 
And Wikipedians decided to remove that source as unreliable. Thanks.
 
For some reason your reply didn’t show up in my notifications (though I don’t even know how ‘mute’ works and have never muted anyone)… but I’m glad I saw this reply.

You’re right and I apologize. I came back to this thread because I regretted what I wrote last night. I was angry and frustrated on different fronts (beyond CAF; you’re not the only one I spoke to with poor judgment), and vented at you in a totally inappropriate way, with a counterproductive tone and writing style. I unreservedly apologize: I’m sorry; please forgive me. (Whether you choose to mute me is up to you; I won’t presume to weigh in one way or the other on that.)
 
Last edited:
It was removed according to a consensus of interested editors, just as everything else works there.

And interestingly, I was drawn to Baron von Tschugguel’s Wikipedia page by this thread, and found it was replete with references to Taylor Marshall, some of which I removed of my own volition. You’re welcome. Some other references were retained, because they actually referred to Marshall’s blog via legitimate media such as the National Catholic Reporter.
 
Last edited:
I know it’s 8 days old but I just saw this reply and…😂:ok_hand:t2:
 
RhodesianSon said:
The pope does not owe us anything.
Click to expand...
No of course not. Pope owes this to God. At least one Ecumenical Council says that it is duty of Pope to defend and clarify Faith. That is main reason why Papacy exists. At least one Pope was posthumously excommunicated by Holy Church for not doing this job.

In other words, asking for clarification is our right and it’s Pope’s job to provide it. Word “demand” is harsh but asking Pope to do his job is far from bad, wouldn’t you agree?

By the way we all answer to God. Your Priest is above you in his authority yet you have right to ask for Confession etc. I see no problem with this.
 
Last edited:
Who?? …who is this person and what are his qualifications??
 
Any Catholic at all can ask for clarification.

Asking for clarification does not mean Pope was wrong, right, ambiguous or precise. It means simply that one is unsure of what to think of what Faith teaches or what Pope believes in. It’s that simple. You don’t need qualifications to ask at all. I asked Priest about divine simplicity and Trinity in view of it despite not being expert in philosophy or dogmatics. We can ask Priests about Confessions or Eucharist despite never studying Sacramental theology.

So why does everyone give benefit of doubt to the Pope but never to the people asking for clarification?
 
OrbisNonSufficit said:
So why does everyone give benefit of doubt to the Pope but never to the people asking for clarification?
Click to expand...
With all due respect, the Vicar of Christ gets a little more leeway than a kid (for all intents and purposes) whose notoriety comes from an act of vandalism
 
More actually as his leadership and words comes with weight and therefore the duty to assume positive intent by the hearer

As for the act of vandalism that you are defending … seems like you made a strong case for breaking the law being mortal sin in the underage drinking thread… why the change of heart? (Most won’t know what that comment means, but you know)
 
Last edited:
Uh oh!!! The 4th Commandent that you so emphatically defended is no longer in play… destroying someone’s property is against the law… against the 4th commandment and, by your own words, grave matter … caught speeding my friend
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top