The organisation behind the Idol (Pachamama) disposal

[MagdalenaRita]

This is such a good explanation of Church authority.

 

[HarryStotle]

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.

Refer to my last post, but it bears repeating.

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.

We are expected in all matters to assent to Scripture and Tradition as faithfully interpreted by the teaching magisterium (Bishops led by the Pope in accordance with Scripture and Tradition)

The authority of the Pope does not stand on its own and isolated from everything that has occurred in the Church before, and especially not separate from Scripture and Tradition, that are the final arbiters of the faith (CCC84).

 

[gracepoole]

I committed sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance…
[/quote]

So, so many are in that group, Gov. Anyone who has engaged in bigotry, for example. Rejoice! God’s mercy is unlimited and eternal.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

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.

It’s all in the wording when logic goes. Once one diminishes the authority of the Church anything can be justified in that mind with the right phrasing. Citing Magisterial teaching over 2000 also admits to the Church’s long history of inculturation and assimilation in evangelising. That began with a listening exercise at the Amazon Synod. It is a much rarer event to have Christians walk into lands and destroy their idols than it is to fearlessly listen to hear what is good and holy that can be turned to God.

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 Magisterium who is the legitimate interpreter of Tradition and Scripture did not declare the the images evil or destroy them. This was done by random zealots who think of themselves as a Magisterium of one.

 

[Emeraldlady]

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.

Again, this line of argument does not mount a defense for random zealots with no title, formation in the Magisterium or prudence of any sort. If and when the Magisterium were to make a definite statement regarding these events, the faithful can have confidence. All you are trying to do is make a case for personal interpretation superior to the Magisterium.

 

[MiserereMeiDei]

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.

St. Basil

Religious people keep silence, but every blaspheming tongue is let loose. Sacred things are profaned; those of the laity who are sound in faith avoid the places of worship as schools of impiety, and raise their hands in solitudes , with groans and tears to the Lord in heaven. ( Epistle 92)

Matters have come to this pass: the people have left their houses of prayer, and assemble in deserts,— a pitiable sight; women and children, old men, and men otherwise infirm, wretchedly faring in the open air, amid the most profuse rains and snow-storms and winds and frosts of winter; and again in summer under a scorching sun. To this they submit, because they will have no part in the wicked Arian leaven. ( Epistle 242)

Cdl. St. John Henry Newman

THE episcopate, whose action was so prompt and concordant at Nicæa on the rise of Arianism, did not, as a class or order of men, play a good part in the troubles consequent upon the Council; and the laity did. The Catholic people, in the length and breadth of Christendom, were the obstinate champions of Catholic truth, and the bishops were not. Of course there were great and illustrious exceptions; first, Athanasius, Hilary, the Latin Eusebius, and Phœbadius; and after them, Basil, the two Gregories, and Ambrose; there are others, too, who suffered, if they did nothing else, as Eustathius, Paulus, Paulinus, and Dionysius; and the Egyptian bishops, whose weight was small in the Church in proportion to the great power of their Patriarch. And, on the other hand, as I shall say presently, there were exceptions to the Christian heroism of the laity, especially in some of the great towns. And again, in speaking of the laity, I speak inclusively of their parish-priests (so to call them), at least in many places; but on the whole, taking a wide view of the history, we are obliged to say that the governing body of the Church came short, and the governed were pre-eminent in faith, zeal, courage, and constancy.
(Arians of the 4th Century)

http://www.newmanreader.org/works/arians/note5.html

 

[MiserereMeiDei]

"Here of course I must explain:—in saying this then, undoubtedly I am not denying that the great body of the Bishops were in their internal belief orthodox; nor that there were numbers of clergy who stood by the laity and acted as their centres and guides; nor that the laity actually received their faith, in the first instance, from the Bishops and clergy; nor that some portions of the laity were ignorant, and other portions were at length corrupted by the Arian teachers, who got possession of the sees, and ordained an heretical clergy:—but I mean still, that in that time of immense confusion the divine dogma of our Lord’s divinity was proclaimed, enforced, maintained, and (humanly speaking) preserved, far more by the “Ecclesia docta” than by the “Ecclesia docens;” that the body of the Episcopate was unfaithful to its commission, while the body of the laity was faithful to its baptism; that at one time the pope, at other times a patriarchal, metropolitan, or other great see, at {466} other times general councils, said what they should not have said, or did what obscured and compromised revealed truth; while, on the other hand, it was the Christian people, who, under Providence, were the ecclesiastical strength of Athanasius, Hilary, Eusebius of Vercellæ, and other great solitary confessors, who would have failed without them …
( Arians of the 4th Century )

http://www.newmanreader.org/works/arians/note5.html

 

[HarryStotle]

The Magisterium who is the legitimate interpreter of Tradition and Scripture did not declare the the images evil or destroy them. This was done by random zealots who think of themselves as a Magisterium of one.

Nor has the magisterium declared that you are justified in merely dismissing them as “random zealots” and condemning them. The point being, the actions of the perpetrators can be justified or not based upon Scripture and Tradition.

The magisterium has ruled nothing so your position is not to be accepted just by presumption or default. It is an arguable point, which is what is happening on this thread.

In the absence of magisterial determination you would have to make a case, based upon Scripture and Tradition, and authoritative Church teaching, that the display of pagan idols in sacred churches is permissible.

Have you done that?

By the way, merely because Pope Francis appears to gave permitted it does not make the case that the display was permissible by Canon Law or Church teaching. The exhumation, desecration and trial of the corpse of Pope Formosus by Pope Stephen VI was a decision of a pope, but that is hardly enough to justify it according to authoritative Church teaching or dogma.

 

[HarryStotle]

Again, this line of argument does not mount a defense for random zealots with no title, formation in the Magisterium or prudence of any sort. If and when the Magisterium were to make a definite statement regarding these events, the faithful can have confidence. All you are trying to do is make a case for personal interpretation superior to the Magisterium.

That’s funny.

I presumed I was making the case for " Sacred Scripture and Tradition…[being]…the final arbiters of the faith" and “Bishops led by the Pope in accordance with Scripture and Tradition” being the authoritative interpreters.

Where do you read “personal interpretation” being “superior to the Magisterium” in that?

You are the one calling down “random zealots” and declaring them to be definitively wrong. I don’t see any particular hesitation, on your part, in believing your own personal interpretation to be the correct and final one in all that. You certainly keep presuming things about my point of view by “personally interpreting” it.

I have been simply presenting a case for why the agents might be justified based upon Church teaching. I haven’t anywhere proclaimed that I am correct, merely that here is the case for why they might be.

Kindly refrain from impugning me with your own presumptions about me or anyone else. I think there is a stronger case in these threads to show that you have far more trust in your “personal interpretation” and conclusion than I have in my own.

Where have I claimed these men were correct in their actions? Post number would be great.

I have tried to spell out Church teachings on the matter and the implications if the display of idols in Churches is accepted, but did I say the men did the right thing? Anywhere?

 

[HarryStotle]

The Magisterium who is the legitimate interpreter of Tradition and Scripture did not declare the the images evil or destroy them. This was done by random zealots who think of themselves as a Magisterium of one.

Just out of interest, how would you address my post #40 to @blackforest?

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.,

Would you say it comports with magisterial authority for Catholics everywhere to begin importing pagan idols in all parts of the world if they are moved by emotional attachment, or some other reason, to do so?

If not, why not? Perhaps by seeing the implications of a position we might better be in a position to understand and assess it.

 

[blackforest]

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?

Catholic churches display all sorts of objects. We don’t bow down and worship them, either.

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.

Out of curiosity, do you put up a Christmas tree in your home? Does your parish display one?

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.

I see. So stealing’s OK in this case?

 

[HarryStotle]

Out of curiosity, do you put up a Christmas tree in your home? Does your parish display one?

Why do you ask? You aren’t going to point to the mistaken idea of the pagan origins of the Christmas tree are you?

Saint Boniface wasn’t pagan. The German pagans worshiped and sacrificed to Thor at the Thunder Oak not at the evergreen.

Saint Boniface was the one who started the tradition of the Christmas tree.

“This little tree, a young child of the forest, shall be your holy tree tonight. It is the wood of peace… It is the sign of an endless life, for its leaves are ever green. See how it points upward to heaven. Let this be called the tree of the Christ-child; gather about it, not in the wild wood, but in your own homes; there it will shelter no deeds of blood, but loving gifts and rites of kindness.”

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Out of curiosity, do you put up a Christmas tree in your home? Does your parish display one?

A better cultural artifact should and easily could have been chosen instead. Panchamama looks too much like a pagan idol, while a Christmas tree is just some plant.

 

[HarryStotle]

I see. So stealing’s OK in this case?

Here is the case for why it might be…

One of the men who threw the Idols (Pachamama) in the Tiber speaks! Traditional Catholicism

You may want to know that theft is not an absolute proscription in Catholic teaching. For the notion of theft, the unwilingness of the owner to part with what is rightfully his, is essential. If he be content, or if under some circumstances he can legitimately be presumed to be satisfied with what is done although perhaps displeased at the manner of its doing, there is no theft, properly so called. Moreover his unwillingness must be reasonable, not simply insensate close-fistedness. He is not…

For your convenience…

You may want to know that theft is not an absolute proscription in Catholic teaching.

For the notion of theft, the unwilingness of the owner to part with what is rightfully his, is essential. If he be content, or if under some circumstances he can legitimately be presumed to be satisfied with what is done although perhaps displeased at the manner of its doing, there is no theft, properly so called. Moreover his unwillingness must be reasonable, not simply insensate close-fistedness. He is not justified in declining always and without regard to conditions to assent to the alienation of what belongs to him merely because it is his.
Theft - Encyclopedia Volume - Catholic Encyclopedia - Catholic Online

In other words, if there is very good reason – i.e., if the owner completely understood the repercussions of the theft and would agree the theft in those circumstances would be permissible – then no theft occurred.
A justification for the theft would be if the owner properly understood the offence against God that the presence of this property created, the owner under those circumstances of full knowledge could reasonably agree to the removal of his property. If those conditions exist, there is no real theft.

This isn’t to imply that even completely unreasonable owners have to be convinced, but merely that reasonable owners fully understanding the conditions would need to be.

In other words, if the idols are a real affront to God and a reasonable person understands that they are, in fact, then that would be sufficient to show there was no real theft. It doesn’t depend upon hurt feelings or on whether the mistaken beliefs nor the sensibilities of the one whose property was stolen were offended, but on whether there is a real affront to God having been perpetrated.

 

[MiserereMeiDei]

Or the question could have been answered.

 

[HarryStotle]

Catholic churches display all sorts of objects. We don’t bow down and worship them, either.

These are known to be idols of the Incan goddess Pachamama – not all sorts of objects. They were, in fact, bowed down to and worshiped at the Vatican by those who participated in a previous ceremony including a garbed Franciscan tertiary or friar (uncertain).

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Would you accept display of figurines of Thor or some other mythological god or goddess in your home by your young children if they began to bow down to them or show behaviour that appeared to imitate worship or adoration?

 

[HarryStotle]

Catholic churches display all sorts of objects. We don’t bow down and worship them, either.

Whether or not Catholic churches do in fact display “all sorts of objects” is irrelevant. These are the relevant Canon Laws that apply by doctrine to the case…

Can. 1210 In a sacred place only those things are to be permitted which serve to exercise or promote worship, piety and religion. Anything out of harmony with the holiness of the place is forbidden. The Ordinary may however, for individual cases, permit other uses, provided they are not contrary to the sacred character of the place.

Continued…

 

[HarryStotle]

Even more germane:

Can. 1211 Sacred places are desecrated by acts done in them which are gravely injurious and give scandal to the faithful when, in the judgement of the local Ordinary, these acts are so serious and so contrary to the sacred character of the place that worship may not be held there until the harm is repaired by means of the penitential rite which is prescribed in the liturgical books.

Whoever displayed the idols acted in a manner seemingly contrary to Canon Law.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

That’s not really something to worry about.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

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.

St. Basil

Religious people keep silence, but every blaspheming tongue is let loose. Sacred things are profaned; those of the laity who are sound in faith avoid the places of worship as schools of impiety, and raise their hands in solitudes , with groans and tears to the Lord in heaven. ( Epistle 92)

Matters have come to this pass: the people have left their houses of prayer, and assemble in deserts,— a pitiable sight; women and children, old men, and men otherwise infirm, wretchedly faring in the open air, amid the most profuse rains and snow-storms and winds and frosts of winter; and again in summer under a scorching sun. To this they submit, because they will have no part in the wicked Arian leaven. ( Epistle 242)

Cdl. St. John Henry Newman

THE episcopate, whose action was so prompt and concordant at Nicæa on the rise of Arianism, did not, as a class or order of men, play a good part in the troubles consequent upon the Council; and the laity did. The Catholic people, in the length and breadth of Christendom, were the obstinate champions of Catholic truth, and the bishops were not. Of course there were great and illustrious exceptions; first, Athanasius, Hilary, the Latin Eusebius, and Phœbadius; and after them, Basil, the two Gregories, and Ambrose; there are others, too, who suffered, if they did nothing else, as Eustathius, Paulus, Paulinus, and Dionysius; and the Egyptian bishops, whose weight was small in the Church in proportion to the great power of their Patriarch. And, on the other hand, as I shall say presently, there were exceptions to the Christian heroism of the laity, especially in some of the great towns. And again, in speaking of the laity, I speak inclusively of their parish-priests (so to call them), at least in many places; but on the whole, taking a wide view of the history, we are obliged to say that the governing body of the Church came short, and the governed were pre-eminent in faith, zeal, courage, and constancy.
(Arians of the 4th Century)

The part of the laity in defeating that heresy was preciously in their assent to the teaching of officially recognised Pope Liberius and his faithful Priests and Bishops. The dissenters followed a phoney unduly installed ‘authority’ in Felix II.

Again another example of what the part of the laity is our Church today. Nothing can be gained by dissent.