What was/is the Vatican's defense of the Pachamama worship service?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Episcopalian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I have had similar experiences. I have to admit that I have also heard this discussed amongst Protestant groups.
 
Yeah it doesn’t even make sense. This has nothing to do with Mexican culture…
 
Emeraldlady said:
As I have just pointed out, Pope St John Paul II didn’t engage in explaining away the ‘scandalous’ things he did, and everything worked out just fine when all the drama faded
Click to expand...
It all boils down to what is offensive to God. If I listen to a music video and it contains even one blasphemy , if I watch one movie and it contains a simulated or real sin, that is offensive to God.
If a movie or music video of today was played to people 80 years ago it would be called out and out pornography or blasphemy. Look at one famous singer, he openly wears a pagan god, an Egyptian god, and promotes him in his music videos. These are offences against God.
If I call an idol an idol but attempt to explain it away, that is offensive to God.

If I cause you scandal that is offensive to God.

And if you dont mind, don’t hint at what a Saint did that you say is scandalous, be specific. What did Saint John Paul do that was offensive to God.

Why are we called to reparation, because of all the offences to God. Because we offend against our Creator,
God.

And there are bishops and priests who have now called for us to engage in reparation against offence to God for the goings on of this Synod.
 
Last edited:
GiftofMercy said:
if I watch one movie and it contains a simulated or real sin, that is offensive to God.
Click to expand...
Do you mean this literally? So if a movie depicts murder, theft, gossip, oppression,slavery, rape, the worship of pagans, etc., it is automatically offensive to God? No matter the value of the story being told?
GiftofMercy said:
And there are bishops and priests who have now called for us to engage in reparation against offence to God for the goings on of this Synod.
Click to expand...
There are, but there is also very real confusion about what actually occurred. The alarm was first raised regarding this being the worship of a very specific Incan deity, Pachamama, but it is now pretty well established that this was not the case. And yet, the Pope himself used “Pachamama” in his description of the carved statues. Now, it is a high probability that the Pope was speaking colloquially and did not mean o say that this was an actual Incan deity being represented. He’s not exactly known for his precision in language. 🙂 Personally, I don’t think there’s any reason to panic.

I think the bishops who spoke out against this jumped to conclusions based on bad information. I tend to be a mildly optimistic person and I trust the Church. On the other hand, I would welcome clarification, but I’m not counting on it coming at this point.
 
babochka said:
Do you mean this literally? So if a movie depicts murder, theft, gossip, oppression,slavery, rape, the worship of pagans, etc., it is automatically offensive to God? No matter the value of the story being told?
Click to expand...
Yes the priest I have been listening to means it literally.
He gave this example, if your husband has some sort of joke about you on his phone and plays it over and over and laughs, regardless of your feelings, that is disrespectful and offensive to you.
This is the same with God. Don’t offend him 🙂

Offense as in his words, offensive to God. He says hollywood used to be bound by a moral code that went out the window in the 50s and 60s. Before that , these bad acts by people could be portrayed without being offensive to God.
These stories can be told without the offence and sacrilege.
He went as far as to say, one blasphemy, turn the thing off, it will limit your growth to an ordered person.

BTW he is an exorcist.
 
GiftofMercy said:
40.png
babochka:
Do you mean this literally? So if a movie depicts murder, theft, gossip, oppression,slavery, rape, the worship of pagans, etc., it is automatically offensive to God? No matter the value of the story being told?
Click to expand...
Yes the priest I have been listening to means it literally.
He gave this example, if your husband has some sort of joke about you on his phone and plays it over and over and laughs, regardless of your feelings, that is disrespectful and offensive to you.
This is the same with God. Don’t offend him 🙂

Offense as in his words, offensive to God. He says hollywood used to be bound by a moral code that went out the window in the 50s and 60s. Before that , these bad acts by people could be portrayed without being offensive to God.
These stories can be told without the offence and sacrilege.
He went as far as to say, one blasphemy, turn the thing off, it will limit your growth to an ordered person.

BTW he is an exorcist.
Click to expand...
On the surface, I don’t think I agree with him, but I would like to hear more before I make a decision. Do you mind linking to his talk? You can PM it to me if you prefer.
 
Offence against God I should say. not offence to God. When I first came back to the Church I saw all this stuff , how we had become so complacent about living our lives and in committing acts that we are called to reparation against, sacrilege, blasphemy, and indifference to God and not keeping commandments.
I stopped watching a whole lot of tv because every second word was 'oh my… or similar. Even simple cooking shows on the cooking channel were full of it at times.
Glorification of the body and its pleasures, complete rejection of God in script, worship of pagan idols even in the form of new age. I challenge anyone to turn on a tv show and see how far you get without watching something that is an offence against God.
 
Last edited:
I found the answer by reading for about 90 seconds. Of course, I do not read the outrage blogs.
 
Right now in my parish there is a “altar of the dead” decorated with sugar skulls, candles, and photographs placed there by parishioners as we remember the faithful departed during November.

In a couple of weeks there will be a cornucopia with gourds and pumpkins and decorative corn in front of the Altar.

Next will be three days when Aztec dancers process across town to bring in the Virgin of Guadalupe.

After that come the Christmas Trees.

All in the Sanctuary, all things that have to do with cultural traditions in my part of the world.

Sure, cultural decorations that are from other cultures may not be familiar to our eyes and sensibilities, that does not make them evil.
 
TheLittleLady said:
I found the answer by reading for about 90 seconds.
Click to expand...
Did you find all the answers? Because conflicting answers have been given.

I am at peace with this, but others or not. Would it be so difficult to give clarification so as to bring peace to those who can receive it, acknowledging that some people will never accept that peace.
 
Yep, for me it was a simple reading of the Encyclopedia that I have at home. Then, my existing understanding of the pagan things that have been “baptized” by the Church that are now part of Catholic everyday life (wedding rings, Christmas trees, altar of the dead, etc)

ETA. Also knowing Scripture, recalling when St Paul preached in front of the Altar to the Unknown God. St Paul did not pull down the altar nor throw it in a river, he used that as a way to meet people where they were.
 
Last edited:
TheLittleLady said:
Yep, for me it was a simple reading of the Encyclopedia that I have at home. Then, my existing understanding of the pagan things that have been “baptized” by the Church that are now part of Catholic everyday life (wedding rings, Christmas trees, altar of the dead, etc)
Click to expand...
But do you acknowledge that if there had been actual worship of a pagan goddess, that would be problematic?

While many pagan items have been successfully incorporated into Catholicism to the enrichment of us all, there are cases where the opposite is true and a veneer of Catholicism has been laid over practices that are are incompatible with Christianity. (I am thinking of Santeria, in particular.) Again, I don’t believe that this is what is happening at the Vatican, but I also believe that those who have concerns are not all reactionary right-wingers who don’t deserve a voice in the Church.
 
Episcopalian said:
…
Click to expand...
The placement of a Buddha statue on the altar of a Catholic church in Assisi was made by Buddhists in 1986, that did not realize the inappropriateness of the gesture. St. Pope John Paul II did not escape criticism, however.

A communications official (secretary of the Commission for Information) for the Amazon synod, Fr. Giacomo Costa said with regard to the statue:
"It is not the Virgin Mary, who said it is the Virgin Mary?” … “It is an indigenous woman who represents life,” … “it is a feminine figure” … “neither pagan nor sacred.”
Click to expand...
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/...-figure-at-amazon-synod-not-virgin-mary-76253

http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2019/10/08/191008c.html
 
Last edited:
Maybe it is the convert in me, or the teacher in me? I’ve been accused of worshiping everything from a statue of the Infant of Prague to the Pope himself, I acknowledge that things may look like worship to those who are afraid of things they don’t understand.
 
babochka said:
This article is the most balanced I have found on the subject and perfectly explains what I am saying about the lack of clarity coming from the Vatican.
Click to expand...
Yes, JD is good for that. 🙂 It is interesting to note that even the solitary statement about the statues on the Vatican news site that I linked to above was only issued because reporters inadvertently overheard it and began reporting on it.

I am somewhat curious as to how stories like this play out in other countries besides the U.S. The notion that some Vatican officials dismiss such concerns as "propaganda from ‘anti-Francis Americans’” makes me wonder just how different this is perceived and reported on in other parts of the world.
 
TheLittleLady said:
Maybe it is the convert in me, or the teacher in me? I’ve been accused of worshiping everything from a statue of the Infant of Prague to the Pope himself, I acknowledge that things may look like worship to those who are afraid of things they don’t understand.
Click to expand...
If somebody were genuinely interested in an explanation, would you take the time to offer one? Or would you just write off their concerns as silliness or worse? As a teacher, I would think that you would choose to educate.

Likewise, the Vatican could choose to educate. They could provide an explanation as to the meaning of the actions that were part of the ceremony. I think that most everybody is on board with the idea that this was not an image of a pagan goddess, but many are still confused by and uncomfortable with the scenes of people prostrating themselves before these images, which have been confirmed to be nothing but symbols of life. I am assuming that there is an explanation and I could certainly benefit from learning it. How much more could a others benefit who are convinced that something unchristian has occurred?
 
Last edited:
Wampa said:
Joe, be sure to read the remarkably even-handed analysis link posted by babochka above. It explains that people’s concern was more than the presence of the statutes in a church.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is a nice summary. I was offline for the week this all erupted, so I’m playing catch-up. 😄 I definitely understand why people are scratching their heads over it. At the same time, I’m trying to filter out the exaggerations and hyperbole.
 
Of course I would educate.

My guess is “The Vatican” assumes that Catholics understand what worship is and what it is not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top