Thoughts on Amazon Synod

[pnewton]

Can you imagine St. John Paul II doing something like this?

Have you forgotten his Koran controversy, or his ecumenical prayer services? Yet he is a Catholic saint and one of the greatest popes.

Yes the image is Pagan, it’s called Pachamama.

No, and I do not care what doctor said what. I am tired of this being passed around as if it being repeated will make it true. There is no single religion in the Amazonian region, though there are a lot of common elements. In any case, this Pachamama myth is Incan, not Amazonian. For this who do not know geography, South America is big. Not everything in South America is everywhere. This sort of misunderstanding is why vloggers and bloggers are not a better source of how to handle the Amazon than Catholic priests who actually live there and know that the Amazon is not the Andes, and a hundred miles of jungle is like a thousand miles elsewhere.

The only religion I know of which has currently engaged in conversion by force is Islam in certain places. I don’t know of any Catholics trying to evangelize by coercion.

While the Bloody Mary, Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, and the Spanish Inquisition are sources for Protestant propaganda, there is also a great deal of truth that seeded these legends. Besides European coercion, the Spanish conquest of the Americas was often coercive.

 

[pnewton]

The point is after Spanish arrived her image went from angry diva to gentle Maternal figure, likely due to Christian influence

This part may be true, but it still is not the Amazon. The Spanish conquered the Incas, not Amazonian tribes. It was the Nineteenth Century before any exploration of the region took place. The only thing prior were some trips down the river (think driving down I10 as an exploration of Texas). The mere name “Amazon” should give some pause as to how this Pachamam has to be a myth. The name was given because of the all woman warrior tribes, the do not actually exist.

 

[Genesis315]

Have you forgotten his Koran controversy, or his ecumenical prayer services? Yet he is a Catholic saint and one of the greatest popes.

Which is exactly why those acts were scandalous, leading to attitudes of indifferentism. Now they are being used as a model for more of the same–no doubt by those in both good and bad faith. Since these kinds of indifferentist acts have become common place, has understanding of the Catholic religion as the one and only true religion increased or decreased? Have acts smacking of indifferentism by Catholic clergy increased or decreased?

When the Church, and especially her bishops and Popes, abhorred such activities, we went about converting the world. Now, at best, we have an identity crisis which has led to churches, monasteries, and rectories empying and the South America itself increasingly opting for Protestantism where Christ is preached and non-Christian religions condemned unequivocally.

Serious Catholics who venerate John Paul II do not do so for his well-meaning but scandalous acts of indifferentism; they do so for the other instances when he was unwavering and uncompromising, particularly as witness to sound morality and against atheistic communism.That his mistakes may have led others to participate in activities foreign to Catholic tradition is not something to be emulated (no saint or Pope is perfect).

 

[CapitalistCatholic]

Have you forgotten his Koran controversy, or his ecumenical prayer services? Yet he is a Catholic saint and one of the greatest popes.

Why is it that you assume that Saints are perfect in any way. They can make mistakes, just as St. John Paul the Great did. Everything they did wasn’t heaven sent.

 

[Aquinas11]

Amazonia is a different region

Pachamama myth is Incan, not Amazonian.

Completely missed the point, which is that Pachamama original legend was one of angry maternal figure and now is gentle maternal figure after Christian influence.

 

[pnewton]

Which is exactly why those acts were scandalous, leading to attitudes of indifferentism.

That is an opinion, though there is no evidence. The word “scandal” is used a little too freely. Most of the time it is used by people that haven’t stumbled at all. For example, you do not seem to believe in any indifferentism, I assume.

Why is it that you assume that Saints are perfect in any way.

Why do you assume it was a mistake? Furthermore, if saints are allowed mistakes, why is anyone angry at our Pope, if he, or his people, made a mistake? I would think this is to be expected at times. Yet the statement was made the St. John Paul never did anything like this.

Such actions like this synod, and the papacy of the St. John Paul are seen through our own opinions. I would say that the criticism/support is more a reflection of the individual Catholics and what they think, like, etc., than the actual synod.

 

[Alphard]

St. Jon Paul II also put a Buddha statue on the Altar, and after he repented. Only because he is a Saint doesn’t means he did not mistakes.

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

gracepoole:

Emeraldlady:

And such a great job it did

There is this continued underlying falsehood that all was well in the Church before the Council. It was not. Post WWII, the failure of the Church to reach and keep peoples faith was already frighteningly apparent. There is the false belief that if the Church had just let well enough alone that everything would be fine. I challenge you to take the time to read the 16 documents that came from Vatican II and just realise how urgent the need for reform had become. Without reform, the Church would be a niche clique with little standing in the modern world in which it is so desperately needed. Start with Ecclesiam Suam 1964.

Ecclesiam Suam (August 6, 1964) | Paul VI

The Church’s standing in the modern world should be one of Her last concerns. Better a small faithful remnant than a watered down faith.

I simply could never imagine Jesus advising that. He reached out far and wide and while the Pharisees were chastising Him for ‘watering down the faith’, he was planting, planting, planting, seeds that in due time ushered in a glorious spring time harvest.
[/quote]

Glorious spring time harvest? Like the glorious flowering of the Catholic Church? Before Vatican II?

 

[GordonP]

Quebec fell before the Council, so it is probable that the Council postponed more Quebec’s for several decades.

The Church came out of WWII with its credibility in tatters. If nothing had been done, the Church would be a niche clique, like Emeraldlady said, consisting of reactionary cranks and weirdos.

 

[otjm]

sure, no problem.

The oath was instituted by Pope Pius X on September 1, 1910, and was rescinded on July 17, 1967 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with the approval of Pope Paul VI.

Sorry, it took me a while as the notice of your post wandered into a different file.

 

[graciew]

Maybe you did…
These are carvings of pregnant women.
What was so disturbing in a pregnant woman that prompted a man to break in ,grab and destroy them?
Not just anyone will viciously do away with something as special as a mother with child.
And seek attention for himself through recording it. Attention probably lacking who knows … at home.

Maybe you did, after all, miss the point.

 

[Aquinas11]

What was so disturbing in a pregnant woman that prompted a man to break in ,grab and destroy them?

Wow so now it was a sexist motive.

Can’t make this up

 

[gracepoole]

sure, no problem.

The oath was instituted by Pope Pius X on September 1, 1910, and was rescinded on July 17, 1967 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with the approval of Pope Paul VI.

Sorry, it took me a while as the notice of your post wandered into a different file.

Thank you. But that doesn’t help, unfortunately. You wrote, “I am not only aware of the oath, but also aware that the Church no longer uses it. Reason? Scripture scholarship has moved on in the last 100 years. It (the term) was specifically focused on a specific problem, and new problems are not related.” It’s the section in bold that needs a reference.

 

[graciew]

A personal motive…and dragging quite a few into it in celebration.
Weird

 

[Aquinas11]

Weird

Indeed, engaging in misandry and feminist conspiracy theories to explain an act plainly involving removal of religious idols from place of worship is very weird

 

[graciew]

The Police will determine.They are already investigating , it has been reported.

 

[Aquinas11]

Let’s hope it’s not a sexist all-male police force. They might conclude their motive was something other than the curvature of the idol’s tummy.

 

[Genesis315]

Lol at the alternate history in this thread. Post-WWII Catholicism was on top of its game and actually had more credibility than ever. It had full monasteries, seminaries, rectories, and pews and actually could influence social mores and popular media, which it did. Schools and parishes were being built, not closed. Pius XII’s pontificate saw dramatic increases in every positive indicator. Our stance against communism saw us no longer as “other” amongst non-Catholic believers in God. Just look at the popular image of priests in media: always respectable and wise, always good.

Again, read Pope John’s speech convoking the Council–it’s all roses. In fact, that was the overarching point for his Council–the Church finally, since the French revolution, had the kind of relationship with society where it could more positively engage and shape the new order. Even the move to embrace ecumenism was founded on the positive view Protestants had developed of the Church during and after the war. They actually seemed open to real unity.

Instead, we chose a pastoral approach that destroyed our identity and the things that bound us together and instead we took direction from the world. On the ecumenical front, we sacrificed to the Protestants instead of drawing them to us. Vatican II didn’t postpone anything–the drop off was immediate and sharp as clergy and religious left and the people just stopped showing up. Protestants have moved further and further away from the truth.

If anything, the tacky liturgies and world-echoing temporal focus has made the Church unnecessary and irrelevant–and it shows. At least our tradition gave us a credibility beyond our own merits since it was handed on and not devised by us. Now we rest on the credibility of our leaders–and if anyone thinks they have any, you’ve been living in a cave for decades.

The fact that we still have converts after all that is a testament to God’s grace and the fact that the information age allows people to discover the faith and traditions of our fathers when it is hard to see in our own times.

 

[graciew]

Perspectives.
You see Pachamama. I don t.

 

[twf]

No he didn’t. Someone did during an ecumenical event in Rome. Later it was removed. St John Paul simply happened to be Pope.