W
whatistrue
Guest
Have you asked them, or has anyone else asked them? If so, what was the answer?
Church Authority and the Amazon Controversy
- Thread starter Willing_Spirit
- Start date
- Status
C
CapitalistCatholic
Guest
The Vatican officials have states it’s not Mary, or any sacred image. It’s not pagan either, which was my second assumption. I’m just wondering why they bow to it if it’s not a sacred or pagan image.
W
whatistrue
Guest
My previous question still applies. I don’t know the answer - does anyone here?
C
CapitalistCatholic
Guest
How am I to ask Vatican officials about the specifics of the fertility ceremony?
W
whatistrue
Guest
Write a letter or email? You may not get an answer, but it seems to me that there are addresses available for all sorts of inquiries. Or perhaps there is a record of an interview published somewhere. It just seems to me that there is a lot of assuming going on. Not pointing a finger specifically at you, just a general observation.
C
CapitalistCatholic
Guest
People wouldn’t have to assume if the Vatican just clearly stated what their intentions were. 
W
whatistrue
Guest
Perhaps it was stated and just not widely published. I don’t know. I do know that some things are either not widely disseminated or get edited into a completely different sense than was sent out by some (not all) outlets.
W
whatistrue
Guest
You beat me to it and said it better than I would have.
R
rom
Guest
If it is just a work of art, then it should be placed in the Vatican Museum, not in a church. And, if it is just an assumption that these statues were idols, then it is equally just an assumption that these were mere works of art. Here is the thing: We’ve seen the Amazonian pagans kneeling and bowing to these statues, but we don’t see these same pagans bowing and kneeling before a mere work of art. That’s the empirical evidence that these statues were idols. Now it is your turn. Do you have an empirical evidence that these were not idols?
Of course you are not Moses. I understand you can’t divide the Red Sea into two. But I’m sure you can break a statue, now can’t you? You don’t have to be divine or Moses just to obey the First Commandment.
P
PetraG
Guest
There are positive requirements for what furnishings belong in a church. Having said that, I don’t think there is a reason to believe these items were meant to be a permanent addition to the church. If someone made a gift of a statue of Venus or Athena to the Holy See, they would not be objects of worship, but they still would not belong in a Catholic church. They would belong in the Vatican museum.
Yes, they ought to have been displayed in a museum, not in a church and especially not on an altar in a church. Having said that, they were not placed there for veneration or worship. Removal did not require stealing artwork belonging to the Holy See that was a diplomatic gift. It did not require throwing it in a river. It did not require videography. This was a self-important overreach of authority and a theft. I can believe the motives were meant well, but the act should not be defended. The act calls for repentance, not defense.
If you don’t agree, well, I’ll go with the way the Pope and the Magesterium interpret the matter.
Last edited:
Oh, and one more thing. When the Jews said that it was unlawful to kill, they were talking about killing other Jews. The “thou shalt not kill” did not cover non-Jews, cats, squirrels, etc.
P
PetraG
Guest
As to thread, this has nothing whatsoever to do with whether stealing a diplomatic gift that belongs to the Holy See is a moral act. It is not. Rationalize all you like, it just is not.
Last edited:
The pope and the magisterium are not the same thing.
P
PetraG
Guest
The Pope is not just the head of the Universal Church. He is also the monarch of the Holy See. The items that were stolen belonged to the Holy See. I don’t see the cardinals and other bishops defending this theft, not even the ones who would advocate in favor of immediately taking the items off of the altar and out of the sanctuary of the church.
“Diplomatic gift” implies a government that would have gifted the objects to the Holy See and then the Holy See made a decision to place said objects in the middle of St. Peter’s basilica, and pray to them.
Question: which government donated these “gifts”? I don’t recall seeing any diplomats.
Question: who in the Holy See received them? I don’t recall the gift-giving ceremony.
Question: who in the Holy See made the decision to place them inside St. Peter’s?
R
rom
Guest
The Hebrew word רצח used in the original text of Exodus 20:13 can actually be translated both ways. The same word is used also in Numbers 35:11: רֹצֵחַ מַכֵּה נֶפֶשׁ בִּשְׁגָגָה. However, it would be incorrect to think that the same word should always be translated as “murder.” In Exodus 20:13 it is ok to translate it as “murder,” but in Numbers 35:11, translating it as “murder” is problematic because it would refer to a “murderer” who has killed a person unintentionally. But that’s insane. How could a person who killed another person unintentionally, be called a murderer? For this reason, the RSVCE (Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition) used the word “manslayer” rather than “murderer” in its translation. Actually, it would have been just as acceptable if it used the word “killer,” so that the text in Num 35:11 would refer to a “killer” who has killed a person unintentionally. But you are right. Exodus 20:13 can be translated as “You shall not murder.” I will not prolong this discussion since we are out of topic here, but you may respond again, if you wish to say the last word.
I hope that by “monarch” you mean a butterfly. The church has no royalty. If you are treating the pope as such, you are worshipping an idol. That’s baaaaaaaad.
- Status