Church Authority and the Amazon Controversy

Status
Not open for further replies.
Adamek said:
“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?
Click to expand...
The items were presented directly to the Pope. The Pope blessed one of the statues and gave it the identity of Our Lady of the Amazon–that is, gave it the identity of a Christian icon. You may as well say that a Christmas tree is pagan because it is a Christianized version of a pagan tradition.

Now, if you want to argue that the items should not be in a church because only one of them was Christianized and even that one might be misconstrued, fine. Do not argue that the items were not a gift to the Holy See meant to establish a relationship between an indigenous nation because those given the gift don’t have a seat at the United Nations.

What makes this is a theft is that the item belonged to the Holy See and was taken without permission in order to permanently deny the Holy See from ownership of the item.

It was a theft and the motivation does not excuse the theft. Don’t sugarcoat it.
 
Last edited:
PetraG said:
The items were presented directly to the Pope. The Pope blessed one of the statues and gave it the identity of Our Lady of the Amazon–that is, gave it the identity of a Christian icon. You may as well say that a Christmas tree is pagan because it is a Christianized version of a pagan tradition.
Click to expand...
You will have to provide some proof of all of this. I mean, actual proof, as in a quotes, pictures, etc. BTW. You may recall one of the bishops saying that the pagan idols had nothing to do with Our Lady.
 
whatistrue said:
I could, but I wouldn’t break someone else’s.
Click to expand...
I would, if it was placed in our church. Remember, the churches do not belong only to the priests or bishops. Strictly speaking, we faithful Catholics are also owners of these churches. The clergy are merely the stewards, and if they are not doing their job of purging our houses of worship to be free of idols, then we the laity have the right and duty to do so.
whatistrue said:
When did I assert that they weren’t?
Click to expand...
You didn’t. I was just giving you an opportunity to show that the other assumption – that they were not idols – was a better one.
 
Adamek said:
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.
Click to expand...
Vatican City is a sovereign nation, and the Holy See is a legal corporate person in international law, with the Pope is it singluar sovereign head. That makes him an absolute monarch. (This also explains why there was a papal tiara from about the 8th century until the mid-20th century. Bishops wear mitres; monarchs wear tiaras.)


And sorry, but looking at Church history I am VERY sure that Holy Mother Church has never considered monarchs to be idols whose recognition would be a violation of the First Commandment. That is just not true and never has been.
 
Last edited:
I suspect that upon reflection, you might want to change some parts of this statement, as it does not follow previous discussion.

Even if I go along with the argument that the pope is a monarch, his jurisdiction would be limited to the territory of Vatican City alone. He would have the right to change laws governing said state. For example, he could issue a decree regarding how often the Swiss guard need to change their undergarments.

The pope, on the other hand, can not change laws regarding the universal church “whenever he wants”, as you state. As a “servant of the servants of God”, he is placed in that position to symbolically “wash our feet”, if you will, and not be a dictator, which does not go with the office of a religion based on love and charity.
 
I would guess there are a tremendous number of things that we agree on, but who would debate what we agree on? 😉
Speaking of, I need to admit I’ve thrown my two or three ideas into this debate enough times. Besides, I don’t think the Holy Father is going to lower the boom on whoever did this, even if they are caught.
 
Didn’t you forget the ret of that sentence? “…and the universal destination of goods”. How is the case under discussion related to that?
 
When Christians in Japan were persecuted in the Edo period and were cut off from the rest of the entire world, they used to venerate statues of goddesses of other religions as Mary. They had no own depictions of her, so they venerated other. The Indians in the Amazon, especially when they are in the Vatican, the centre of the western Church, are not forced to use ‘mother Earth statues’.
Also, various sources claim that the statue is something different. You can view it as Mary, but it’s a multiuse object and not a Indian depiction of Mary.
We used to make people who destroy pagan temples saints, such as St. Boniface who cut down the Germanic ‘world tree’ Irminsul or St. Wenceslas who destroyed pagan Slavic worship sites.
I don’t think we should today destroy religious art of other religions in normal circumstances, but we really shouldn’t put it in our churches. And especially not in Rome, the eternal city.
This was a great act of protest and I think it should move the clergy to think about what the right course for the Church is.
 
Not good enough to justify theft, probably. Not good enough for other purposes, who knows?

Maybe. Not relevant to the definition of theft.

Possibly. Also not relevant to the definition of theft.

Yes. And?

I wouldn’t be so quick to speak for God, but YMMV.

Was it?

I can’t agree with that.

Possibly, but not by some random vigilante with no authority. That is the entire issue as far as I am concerned. Whoever did it did so entirely on their own with no authority from anyone.
 
They also have a history, by and large, of loving people and obeying the Pope.
 
If that were true, why hide it? Why not during the busiest part of the day and why not come forward now?
 
Reaching, stretching, rationalizing, etc. This horse is well and truly dead. Muting thread.
 
This is crazy! It wasn’t theft!

It’s so ridiculous to read a comment that says “well I don’t support this idolatry but I can’t support the person who stole them and vandalized them either”. lol

They were idols plain and simple. Neither the Pope nor the bishops have the “authority” to allow such a thing inside the churches. To claim otherwise is ignorant and foolish.

The idols should’ve never been allowed inside and the only sad part of this whole story is that it took this long for someone to remove them.
 
Last edited:
PetraG said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, let’s just agree to disagree. But let me quote a post I recently made in another thread, “Amazon Synod idols cast in River Tiber today" (Post 292):

“The Pope and the Cardinals were too focused on accommodating the culture of the Amazonians into Christianity that they lose sight of some very basic principles. I am sure they have very good intentions, but it is sometimes justifiable to do something equally drastic to wake them up and tell them that they were going too far when they permitted the Amazonian idols to be displayed in our sacred places.

"Actually, the act of throwing the idols into the river was not so much an act against the Amazonians, but our displeasure at the Pope and the cardinals for permitting these idols to be placed in our sacred places. This is why it is not necessary to ask their permission to throw away those idols, because the act was directed against them. Our Lord never asked the Pharisees if He could overturn the tables of the moneychangers in the temple, did He? That is because the Pharisees were the ones responsible for permitting the temple to be used as a marketplace. Christ was outraged.

"Being polite and courteous, respecting the rights of others, etc. – these are “laws of ethics” that have their place at the proper time and given the proper circumstances. They do not apply all the time and in all circumstances. During a time of war, for example, you don’t ask your enemies permission if you could burn their camps and armories, do you? Right now we are at war with liberal theologians who are trying to destroy our Faith. You call the act of getting rid of the idols theft? Well, under a different set of circumstances. I’d say yes. But these liberal theologians are using these idols to deceive us about what Christianity is all about. They are sneakily trying to steal the true faith from our children and from millions of unsuspecting Catholics worldwide. Isn’t that a bigger theft?”

Now PetraG, maybe you are right. Maybe we shouldn’t have thrown the statues into the Tiber. But I can only blame the Pope and the Vatican for this confusion. There has never been any clear statement from the Vatican that one of the statues represent the Virgin Mary. All I’ve heard was that it was a symbol of life, fertility, even Mother Earth. Well, that’s the problem. If it was life, fertility or Mother Earth, then it is a creature. Worship of a creature is idolatry.
 
Last edited:
Adamek said:
I suspect that upon reflection, you might want to change some parts of this statement, as it does not follow previous discussion.

Even if I go along with the argument that the pope is a monarch, his jurisdiction would be limited to the territory of Vatican City alone. He would have the right to change laws governing said state. For example, he could issue a decree regarding how often the Swiss guard need to change their undergarments.

The pope, on the other hand, can not change laws regarding the universal church “whenever he wants”, as you state. As a “servant of the servants of God”, he is placed in that position to symbolically “wash our feet”, if you will, and not be a dictator, which does not go with the office of a religion based on love and charity.
Click to expand...
He is a monarch, but as such, he has not any special protection in his actions. He is just like any president or earthly king. So those actions as monarch do not touch on the moral questions we are concerned with, anyway: he is not the monarch of the Catholic Church, only Christ is King.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top