What really bothers me is that EVEN IF it were not a pagan ritual… why does the Vatican / Pope leave us wondering? If it wasn’t a pagan ritual, tell us plainly! So many people want to excuse it - if it’s excusable, go ahead and say so. Instead the silence is so loud… the not-clear wording of not-defined phrases is so frustrating… makes one so suspicious that perhaps someone doesn’t want to admit something.
A rose called by any other name is still a rose. This ‘ecological ritual’ is nothing more than a sugar coating of a pagan ritual. The enemies of Christ know exactly what they are doing. But they still go on, because this is all part of the mission to try to get the gates of hell to prevail against the Catholic Church. When the victory of Our Lady comes, all of the current and past jugglery and sugar coating will come to light. Till then sit tight, hold fast to your faith, and pray that our weak ecclesiastics become like the Holy Apostles and Martyrs who wouldn’t dare try such antics that invoke the wrath of the Almighty.
This was not an issue of infallibility. No doctrine was given, nor any instruction to faithful to think one way or another. Therefore, it was hurtful, or helpful; prudent, or imprudent, or may all this, but in different ways.
In my experience, no clarification in such matters ever convinces anyone, and for those that aren’t judging him, no clarification is needed. People are too opinionated. Sometimes, letting a kerfuffle die with time is the only action.
In reading your link I don’t see where he says these things were NOT part of Jewish worship but more that he is discussing that they were also used in pagan worship, ie:
Then how do you account to clergy questioning other clergy?! Maybe you think laity like me has no right to criticize choices in Church hierarchy… but what about the Dubia cardinals? Bishop Schneider? And I have multiple relatives in religious life & they are just as scandalized by what happened in the Vatican gardens as I am.
www.vaticannews.va
I do not know what source others are using to decide. I will go with the Pope.
Ok, so you and the Pope agree it was a statue of the pagan goddess pachamama. Would you prostrate yourself before it, incense it, bless it, and process it around? What other intention is there for doing that to a statue of a pagan goddess? I don’t think one can have it both ways.
I don’t account for it. I am not their accountant. They too deserve the benefit of the doubt as they perform their role, of which questioning each other is a part.
I do not know, but the Pope says they were “without idolatrous intention.” Do you reject that opinion?
When did that happen. It doesn’t make sense to me. The link from the Crux website does not have him calling it that. Did he say this himself, or did others say it about him?
I was hoping the Holy Father would clarify he never denied Christ’s divinity instead of clarifying the status of idols.
How about the $750,000 taken from the Vatican bank? No, let’s focus on the $25 Pachamamam
I agree, it makes no sense. See the links in my post #265 in this thread which are links in English and the original Italian from the Vatican news service of his exact words. He called them “statues of pachamama” but denied an idolatrous intent and apologized to those offended by them being thrown in the river. He then noted the possibility they might be brought out for the closing Mass (they are currently in police custody after having been recovered from the river).
www.vaticannews.va
Not sure what “idolatrous intention” means, do you? I know they are idols and they are in a Church. Who needs to possess this “idolatrous intention”? THe people who placed it there? The Pope? So many questions…