The organisation behind the Idol (Pachamama) disposal

[Crusader13]

Not saying that’s a bad thing, but why is it always the converts to Catholicism (Marshall, Voris, this guy etc.) that are trying to shake things up and teach us how bad the Catholic Church is? They always seem behave like they know better, like we should listen to them, not the corrupted church.

I think its similar to when people leave communist controlled countries and have lived under that style of regime; then they get to the US and see young college students sporting Che T-shirts and talking about how great socialism would be. They speak from experience and first hand knowledge of how the other side lives.

So when Marshall talks about his time as an Episcopalian priest and how he doesn’t like when he sees clergy or laity pushing for similar changes, he feels the need to speak out.

 

[Crusader13]

Do they oppose worship ad orientem, toward the rising of the Sun (god)? That is one aspect of paganism in the Church.

I don’t understand your statement here. Are you implying that ad orientem is directed towards the sun because of a pagan idea that the sun is a god???

 

[Polak]

One and one other thing. If Tschugguel hasn’t done this for publicity, as he states in his latest video, then why the interviews with so many Catholic media sources? If he really did reveal who he is simply to avoid looking like a petty criminal and wanting to explain why he did it, why not just make the one video, say what you want to say, and that’s it? But no, he’s now making videos that give Catholics guidance on how to be good Catholics. Personally I think he wants to be another Taylor Marshall, that’s why the twitter profile with an ever rising following (thanks to his interviews) and the same with Youtube.

I know I’m being very negative. I just have too many questions. I’m not against the guy, he seems like a nice fellow, but I don’t like it when I get a strong sense of an ulterior motive, and I don’t think his act was purely to get pagan idols out of the church.

 

[Taras_Bulba]

Bingo. If we learned nothing else from twenty plus years of sex scandals, it’s that the institutional church and its mouthpieces aren’t exactly good about coughing up information. Shouldn’t have to say it…

 

[Crusader13]

I know I’m being very negative. I just have too many questions. I’m not against the guy, he seems like a nice fellow, but I don’t like it when I get a strong sense of an ulterior motive, and I don’t think his act was purely to get pagan idols out of the church.

Well unfortunately the last part of your post is strictly what you assume to be his motive and it doesn’t necessarily make it so.

One point of view is that he and others who share his views are trying to encourage Catholic faithful that they are not alone in this fight. That every day more Catholics are shouting for a return to the traditions and teachings that have since been put aside or forgotten. Teachings and practices that would have never allowed a statue like pachamama to be placed inside one of our Churches.

There’s nothing wrong with wanting to be another figure like Dr. Marshall and others. Everyone likes to label people in this group with terms like radicals, reactionaries, disobedient, etc, etc. But they aren’t calling for people to leave the Church or to turn their backs on the Pope; they are constantly telling people to listen to members of the clergy who are upholding the faith.

I’m not going to apologize when someone from the laity speaks out against clergy who support women deacons or those who rally against men like James Martin or Cupich. The dissent isn’t coming from the laity, but from the clergy who no longer want to safeguard the Church and her teachings.

 

[Polak]

I wouldn’t say I am a hardcore traditionalist, but I certainly sympathise with people who have serious issues with some of the things the Catholic Church is doing or proposing.

You’re right, it is simply my opinion of why he did it. I can’t know his motive. I am still curious to know why he isn’t able to give a clear answer why he set up patreon and paypal accounts for people to be able to make donations. He hasn’t really said what that money will be going to, and I feel people making any donations are being a bit naive. Feel free to donate of course, but it might be nice to know what you are donating to, no?

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Sometimes if you do something like he did and don’t reveal yourself you get called a coward for not speaking up.

 

[Crusader13]

Feel free to donate of course, but it might be nice to know what you are donating to, no?

Absolutely and that I agree with you . I’m not giving his organization any money without knowing the planned usage of his funds. It does seem a little premature to set up funding in this manner and perhaps its like you said, maybe he wants to be the Dr. Marshall of Austria, who knows lol

 

[Dovekin]

Dovekin:

Do they oppose worship ad orientem, toward the rising of the Sun (god)? That is one aspect of paganism in the Church.

I don’t understand your statement here. Are you implying that ad orientem is directed towards the sun because of a pagan idea that the sun is a god???

Something like that. This is one way Benedict XVI expressed it:

Just as God assumed a body and created the time and space of this world, so it is appropriate to prayer—at least to communal liturgical prayer—that our speaking to God should be “incarnational”, that it should be christological, turned through the incarnate Word to the triune God. The cosmic symbol of the rising sun expresses the universality of God above all particular places and yet maintains the concreteness of divine revelation. Our praying is thus inserted into the procession of the nations to God.
Josef Ratzinger Spirit of the Liturgy

Please note, I have nothing against the use of pagan symbols for Christian worship. I am just observing that people who do object to pagan symbols probably should be protesting against ad orientam worship.

 

[IanM]

He also wrote in The Spirit of the Liturgy:
Five years before he became Benedict XVI, Joseph Ratzinger wrote that, notwithstanding various liturgical innovations, “one thing has remained clear for the whole of Christendom: praying towards the east is a tradition that goes back to the beginning.” As he wrote in The Spirit of the Liturgy :

The common turning toward the east was not a “celebration toward the wall;” it did not mean that the priest “had his back to the people.” . . . For just as the congregation in the synagogue looked together toward Jerusalem, so in the Christian liturgy the congregation looked together “toward the Lord.” . . . They did not close themselves into a circle; they did not gaze at one another; but as the pilgrim People of God they set off for the Oriens , for the Christ who comes to meet us.

It was a tradition to face Jerusalem, in short!

Here can be found a more detailed article :Facing East - The Catholic Thing

 

[HarryStotle]

Please note, I have nothing against the use of pagan symbols for Christian worship. I am just observing that people who do object to pagan symbols probably should be protesting against ad orientam worship.

Only if the assumption is accepted that the source of “ad orientam” is from paganism rather than from within authentic Judaism –> Christianity.

Here is a short list of some of the references to the east in the Bible:

• The garden is planted in the east, in Eden (Gen 2:8)
• Cherubim are stationed on the east side (Gen 3:24) of the Garden of Eden
• Parts of the burnt offering are to be thrown to the east side of the altar. (Lev 1:15)
• The tabernacle’s entrance faces east (Num 3:38)

Here is a set of three references to the east from Ezekiel 43 …

Then he brought me to the gate, the gate facing east. 2 And there, the glory of the God of Israel was coming from the east; the sound was like the sound of mighty waters; and the earth shone with his glory. 3 The vision I saw was like the vision that I had seen when he came to destroy the city, and like the vision that I had seen by the river Chebar; and I fell upon my face. 4 As the glory of the Lord entered the temple by the gate facing east, 5 the spirit lifted me up, and brought me into the inner court; and the glory of the Lord filled the temple.

Meanwhile, the west also has significance.

To the west of the land (Israel) was the sea, representing evil and death (Dan. 7:2, 3).
The “sea” is often referred to as the west (Num. 3:23).
The west is the place of darkness because that is where the sun sets (Ps. 104:19, 20).

The point being that east and west have their own significance in Judaism and Catholicism that does not, in any way, reduce to pagan influence.

 

[Emeraldlady]

IanM:

No to paganism in the Church! No to the globalist agenda in the Church! No to the ongoing destruction from within!

I fully support these aims, but I wonder what they mean by them.

Do they oppose worship ad orientem, toward the rising of the Sun (god)? That is one aspect of paganism in the Church.

Do they support enculturation, like the creation of an “Amazon Rite”? What else could opposition to a “globalist agenda” possibly mean?

Will they rally around Pope Francis when he is attacked, as when vandals break into one of his churches? Do they even know what a willing religious submission to Papal teaching is? What else could prevent “destruction from within”?

They seem to be opposed to their own principles.

So well said. I really believe that Protestants who’ve never acknowledged human authority in faith and Catholics who’ve abandoned the Church for a faith of self worship, have a hard time coming into accepting the idea of the Pope. They come in paying lip service to it, but when push comes to shove, they’d rather reject it than see that authority as the challenge of the Holy Spirit in their lives.

Perhaps it should be focused on more in RCIA?

 

[HarryStotle]

So well said. I really believe that Protestants who’ve never acknowledged human authority in faith and Catholics who’ve abandoned the Church for a faith of self worship, have a hard time coming into accepting the idea of the Pope. They come in paying lip service to it, but when push comes to shove, they’d rather reject it than see that authority as the challenge of the Holy Spirit in their lives.

Perhaps it should be focused on more in RCIA?

So, let me get this straight…

It is never possible for the Holy Spirit to challenge the “authority” of the Pope?

The Pope is always right?

By the way, I think you are making a category error. Challenging the authority of the Pope and challenging the statements and actions of the Pope regarding specific words and deeds are two different things. You do understand the idea of ex cathedra, yes?

The Holy Spirit acting in the magisterial authority of the Church has made the parameters of the authority of the Pope explicit in Church teaching.

The people who criticize the Pope regarding certain words and actions are not necessarily challenging the authority of the Pope, i.e., the chair of Peter, per se. They might be challenging the idea of the impeccability of the Pope, or the all too human foibles and faults of the Pope.

Conflating the two under the umbrella term, “authority of the Pope,” is opening yourself to genuine critique from the perspective of very orthodox, and very clear Church teaching, not just former Protestants.

I would be careful about what you claim is the extent of the authority of the Pope and how far it applies. You might be drawn into the error of defending some pretty bad actions by men who have been popes. Take Stephen VI…

Date of birth unknown; died about August, 897. Stephen was a Roman, and the son of John, a priest. He had been consecrated Bishop of Anagni, possibly against his will, by Formosus, and became pope about May, 896. Whether induced by evil passion or perhaps, more probably, compelled by the Emperor Lambert and his mother Ageltruda, he caused the body of Formosus to be exhumed, and in January, 897, to be placed before an unwilling synod of the Roman clergy. A deacon was appointed to answer for the deceased pontiff, who was condemned for performing the functions of a bishop when he had been deposed and for passing from the See of Porto to that of Rome. The corpse was then stripped of its sacred vestments, deprived of two fingers of its right hand, clad in the garb of a layman, and ultimately thrown into the Tiber. Fortunately it was not granted to Stephen to have time to do much else besides this atrocious deed. Before he was put to death by strangulation, he forced several of those who had been ordained by Formosus to resign their offices and he granted a few privileges to churches.
Source: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14289d.htm

This is undisputed history.

 

[MiserereMeiDei]

She had a thread on that very issue. She has at least strongly intimated that she would have stood with the pope and majority of bishops during the Arian heresy citing the convenience of hindsight for those who believe they would have dissented, ignoring, of course, those laity who did dissent. She has not, to my knowledge, given an opinion about those who did didn’t at the time.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

So well said. I really believe that Protestants who’ve never acknowledged human authority in faith and Catholics who’ve abandoned the Church for a faith of self worship, have a hard time coming into accepting the idea of the Pope. They come in paying lip service to it, but when push comes to shove, they’d rather reject it than see that authority as the challenge of the Holy Spirit in their lives.

Perhaps it should be focused on more in RCIA?

So, let me get this straight…

It is never possible for the Holy Spirit to challenge the “authority” of the Pope?

The Pope is always right?

These are not conundrums that concern the children of the Church in our limited capacities. We have the Magisterium for such conundrums so that we enter into faith with proper humility.

Heb 13 17 Have confidence in your leaders and submit to their authority, because they keep watch over you as those who must give an account. Do this so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no benefit to you.

By the way, I think you are making a category error. Challenging the authority of the Pope and challenging the statements and actions of the Pope regarding specific words and deeds are two different things. You do understand the idea of ex cathedra , yes?

This oft invoked principle is of no help to your argument. The Church has only formally defined two dogma’s under this principle. (Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary). We are expected in all other matters to assent to the authority of the Pope to lead.

The Holy Spirit acting in the magisterial authority of the Church has made the parameters of the authority of the Pope explicit in Church teaching.

The people who criticize the Pope regarding certain words and actions are not necessarily challenging the authority of the Pope, i.e., the chair of Peter, per se. They might be challenging the idea of the impeccability of the Pope, or the all too human foibles and faults of the Pope.

Conflating the two under the umbrella term, “authority of the Pope,” is opening yourself to genuine critique from the perspective of very orthodox, and very clear Church teaching, not just former Protestants.

How do you distinguish between ‘foibles and faults’ and authentic guidance? The heirarchy of the Church specifically marked by the Magisterium, is the defense against those things. Not us. It is only pride that thinks that we are some sort of Magisterium of one.

 

[Emeraldlady]

I would be careful about what you claim is the extent of the authority of the Pope and how far it applies. You might be drawn into the error of defending some pretty bad actions by men who have been popes.

How do you define ‘bad actions’. What of Catholics who believe that the prohibition against contraception in the third world is a shameful travesty perpetrated by Pope St Paul VI and subsequent Popes? What argument do have against them?

 

[HarryStotle]

Um, Exodus 20:15, anybody?

Okay, let’s assume one Biblical passage provides cover for the entire episode. We should not steal, so the Pachamama should not have been removed.

The display of an Incan idol in a Catholic Church now has been given precedence by the authority and sanction of the Pope himself, apparently. This is a green light, of sorts, no?

So Norse Catholics who want to get back into touch with their pagan roots can begin importing statues of Thor or Sif into their parish churches. Those in New Zealand of Maori descent can begin to bring Maui, Taranga, or Makeatutara into theirs. The Inuit can import Sedna. Etc., etc.,

I am thinking that a prohibition against stealing doesn’t really take into account the entire incident and its implications to churches as sacred places of worship.

 

[Emeraldlady]

She had a thread on that very issue. She has at least strongly intimated that she would have stood with the pope and majority of bishops during the Arian heresy citing the convenience of hindsight for those who believe they would have dissented, ignoring, of course, those laity who did dissent. She has not, to my knowledge, given an opinion about those who did didn’t at the time.

The laity didn’t dissent on that issue. It was the pre Magisterium who dealt with it. The laity could not possibly have had the proper knowledge and formation to take on that task.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

I would be careful about what you claim is the extent of the authority of the Pope and how far it applies. You might be drawn into the error of defending some pretty bad actions by men who have been popes.

How do you define ‘bad actions’. What of Catholics who believe that the prohibition against contraception in the third world is a shameful travesty perpetrated by Pope St Paul VI and subsequent Popes? What argument do have against them?

The prohibition against contraception promulgated by Pope St. Paul VI upholds and aligns with the magisterial teaching of the Church for the past 2000 years. Importing pagan idols into a Catholic Church does not.

That is why the authority of the Church – i.e., the basis for determining “bad actions” – is firmly grounded on Divine Revelation and the guidance of the Holy Spirit in Sacred Tradition. It isn’t grounded in the opinions of the current Pope, especially if those views directly contradict or go against what has been defined as authoritative Church teaching previously.

The shameful travesty of Pope Stephen’s actions do not have any support from Church Tradition or Divine Revelation. Pope Paul’s teachings definitively do. The importation of idols into sacred Catholic churches do not.

As an aside, I answered this for you specifically in another thread on the subject…

https://forums.catholic-questions.org/t/pagan-statues-seized-and-thrown-in-tiber/572333/201?u=harrystotle

 

[HarryStotle]

How do you define ‘bad actions’. What of Catholics who believe that the prohibition against contraception in the third world is a shameful travesty perpetrated by Pope St Paul VI and subsequent Popes? What argument do have against them?

Spelled out from the other thread…

Your faith, according to Church teaching, ought to be founded upon the “Sacred deposit” of the faith the depositum fidei , contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition that are the final arbiters of the faith (CCC84). The magisterium is “not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant” (CCC86). The magisterium bears the “task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition. This responsibility has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone (CCC85).”

In other words, Scripture and Tradition are authoritative above the authority of the Pope and magisterium. The Pope and Bishops ought always be servants to Scripture and Tradition and base any teachings upon them. The Pope does not have the authority to contradict Scripture and Tradition because these have been revealed infallibly through history by God and the actions of the Holy Spirit.

The “Pope alone” is not Catholic dogma. Scripture and Tradition as faithfully interpreted by the teaching magisterium (Bishops led by the Pope in accordance with Scripture and Tradition) is the proper authority we ought to follow.