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.
TheLittleLady said:
Of course I would educate.

My guess is “The Vatican” assumes that Catholics understand what worship is and what it is not.
Click to expand...
Yet it has become clear that some, including some bishops, do not understand what occurred. I view these things through the eyes of faith and I am choosing to trust, but to me, prostration is always an act of worship. It would be good to have the ceremony explained. If such a thing had happened at my local Cathedral, a program with a brief explanation would have been included and appreciated.
 
Last edited:
I mean I agree the Pope shouldn’t be expected to weigh in on every little thing

But when apparently large groups of Catholics say “um wait a minute, Father…it seems to me like those people, some of them priests, might have been dancing in front of and worshipping a statue of a South American deity in the Vatican. Could you, uh, clarify that?” That seems to me not to be some little passing matter. Like we kind of need absolute clarity on that.
 
It’s definitely NOT a figure representing the Virgin Mary.

The Pachamama is an idol that is revered above Jesus and above the Virgin Mary.

Our Priest says we must pray and fast in order to stop this kind of scandal from continuing.

I don’t know if Pope Francis knows the truth about this idol. But he needs to be made aware if he isn’t already.
 
Last edited:
That makes no sense to me. Scripture, the Old Testament in particular, is full of descriptions of sinful evil acts. Some are described so graphically I could never let a child be exposed to them (remember the guy who literally chopped up his daughter and sent the pieces to the 12 tribes). Yet these graphic descriptions of evil were included for a purpose. To tell a story about people, sometimes their sinful actions need to be included.
If we take your words literally, we will have to completely suppress the entire movie and novel and television industry. Even the most innocent of kids movies generally includes some sort of villain who sins in some way.
Lord of the Rings was written by a devout Catholic, and even the most traditionalist Catholics seem to support it, yet it is full of characters who commit acts of evil.
In fact…can you give me an example of even a single 1950s film that doesn’t include at least one character sinning in some manner? If there is no sin, no imperfection, there is no tension, and thus no story.
If we follow this rule of thumb, we must condemn every Hollywood movie ever made, yes including those 1950 films you referenced, and watch only biographies of saints…as long as those biographies don’t mention the sins they may have committed in life. (If, for example, you read the Acts, you’ll find very explicit descriptions of the evil acts St. Paul committed before his conversion).
 
Last edited:
babochka said:
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,
Click to expand...
Um,. the Vatican was quite clear these were Incan fertility goddesses. And there is indeed a photograph of priests and people at the Vatican - I don’t know if bishops or not were there, as only posteriors are clear - but, at any rate, they group were fallen on their faces in front of the pagan fertility goddesses. Which is simply blasphemy.
 
annem said:
40.png
babochka:
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,
Click to expand...
Um,. the Vatican was quite clear these were Incan fertility goddesses. And there is indeed a photograph of priests and people at the Vatican - I don’t know if bishops or not were there, as only posteriors are clear - but, at any rate, they group were fallen on their faces in front of the pagan fertility goddesses. Which is simply blasphemy.
Click to expand...
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
 
twf said:
That makes no sense to me. Scripture, the Old Testament in particular, is full of descriptions of sinful evil acts.
Click to expand...
And yet, Jewish people of the Old Testament and even now will not pronounce out loud the Divine name, because of one reason
they do not want to cause an offence against God.

We cannot take the Old Testament out of context and say well look at that wicked action, we must keep it all in context.
The Context in the Old Testament is do not cause offence to God, if you do, repent and do penance. The city of Nineveh is a great example, 5 words by one prophet and the people and all their beasts, put on sack cloth and repented, immediately. No waiting.
They started repenting even before their king heard about Jonah’s message.

We are so conditioned by the secular world we now believe 'OM… or watching bikini clad women starting a motor vehicle race, or bullying , or the discourse that comes out during elections is ok. We think the violence and simulated stuff in Video games is ok.
This is what many of us were born into. We do not know a different world, that of 80 years ago when this stuff was not tolerated in society.

And yes, if you
twf said:
If we take your words literally,
Click to expand...
As said by the exorcist priest, take a book, if you like it, and make it good, tear out all the offences towards God if you want to read it. Turn off a movie or video or video game if you see even one offence against God. Look at all the supernatural evil that has entered the genre, for example.

I said during the 50s and 60s when the morality codes and law in hollywood was loosened . So if you want great examples, perhaps go back before this.

We should be turning off, what is not of our Catholic values.

Lift that bar and keep it high. Stop tolerating the 'OM…" Stop tolerating the dress standards you would not wear yourself, stop tolerating the behaviour you would not engage in yourself, stop tolerating the simulated sin, stop tolerating the real sin.

And yes, as the leaders of my religious community say, why watch all that when you can be reading and watching religious literature and praying. That is our purpose, to give glory to God and lead each other to God.
so yes
twf said:
and watch only biographies of saints
Click to expand...
They can mention sin, but we don’t want to see St Augustine running around having simulated fornication with everyone do we? As in today’s standards of Hollywood.
We don’t want to graphically see St Paul torturing, this can be portrayed without the graphics
 
Episcopalian said:
Has anyone found anything in the Vatican’s defense
Click to expand...
I haven’t seen enough information on a culture and relationships that I am unfamiliar with, to determine whether judgment can be made against the Vatican, whether an attack requires defense. I wait and see what the Holy Spirit draws out.
 
Bit late to the party here but might have something of value to contribute.
  1. What the exorcist priest says is radical, difficult, and accurate. Every instance we allow to slip past our spiritual defenses does in fact desensitize us to the sin. The fact that we’re having this discussion now evidences that fact. What we are being asked to do is to NOT live “Earthly” lives and that was never, not in any era, under any rule, going to be easy. And in the interest of full disclosure, I’m a gamer and violent video games can be a LOT of fun but I won’t try to convince anyone that it’s making me a better Chrisitian or leading me to sainthood because ITS NOT! It is a weakness of mine though and it has taken its toll.
There is a difference between media that makes light of sin and media that portrays sin for useful reasons. Watching a documentary about the Holocaust does not glorify or encourage such sin. Being confronted by the reality of what was done is sometimes necessary to awaken in us compassion for others, especially others in other countries. Depection of sin is not, in and of itself, leading to near occasion of sin or tempting others to sin. But the moment such healthy depictions cause those effects, then, at least for that individual, that media too must be avoided.
 
  1. As far as the Pachamama statue issue is concerned, first, the matter of the statue and its treatment. The Pope is doing what he do. If he feels this is the best way to reach out and connect to those worshippers, he might be right! Were the statues on the altar? Was any part of the Mass devoted to them? The old adage about catching more flies with honey seems apt here. Welcome in the stranger. Allow them to feel genuinely appreciated and taken seriously. Give them REASON to come to you. Has anyone in your life ever made you feel comfortable sharing your struggles with them by telling you what you’re doing wrong and to make you be more like them? No.
Second, I’d like to share a relevant story from my time in the Air Force. My squadron was a Special Ops unit in Okinawa, responsible for covering the Pacific theater. We flew Army Rangers and NAVY Seals around a bunch. Well, there was a period of a couple weeks where one of our planes was loaded with classified gear, parked on the ramp near the runway ready to launch at a moment’s notice and nobody knew why or what was loaded in the plane. After a couple weeks of uncertainty (in the military, you never want to believe it might be time to do the thing you’re trained to do for real) the Squadron Commander called everyone with the appropriate security clearance in for a briefing. This has since been declassified as far as I can find out. A container ship was caught entering the Red Sea with concealed ballistic missiles. What does this have to do with the Pacific? Well, the media caught wind of it entering the Middle East but the higher ups knew about it before they even left Korea! Our plane was ready to deliver a Seals team to that ship if it was deemed necessary. That day, what I learned was that the people in charge know more than I can even begin to GUESS at not knowing. There are more times than I’m happy about that I simply need to shut up, check my self-importance at the door, and just TRUST that those in charge of me know what they’re doing and that it’s okay if I don’t.

I think Lilypadrees, up above, says all that NEEDS to be said on this point: “I don’t know if Pope Francis knows the truth about this idol. But he needs to be made aware if he isn’t already.”

How self-important and blind do you have to be to make a statement like that??? YOU don’t know if The POPE knows the truth???

Done.
 
Precisely because they were fringe groups. But you do not have to be on the fringe to question why images of pachamama should be set up in churches. And as it is a legitimate and important question, it deserves a clear and definitive answer.
 
Thanks but it says nothing clear about why there should be images of a pagan goddess in churches. Maybe there’s a good reason but then we should hear it. . . .
 
Last edited:
The fact that you are posting the same thing repeatedly does not mean that it has increased in clarity on this issue in the interval
 
TheLittleLady said:
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...
Sorry I’m a little late to the party, but, I would like to point out that although it’s true that the Church has always “baptized” pagan symbols (wedding rings, Christmas trees, altar of the dead, etc) and “absorbed” them, there has never been a single instance when they have “baptized” and “absorbed” a pagan deity, which is exactly what Pachamama is.
pjocko said:
Were the statues on the altar?
Click to expand...
Actually, yes a depiction of Pachamama sits on the altar at St Peters Basilica at this very moment (which I honestly find terrifying), take a look for yourself:


I’m rewording this a bit, but I posed this question in a different thread and really never got much response, so I honestly want to ask it now.
I do not want to distort anyone’s words or actions, I especially don’t want to distort anything that our Pope has or hasn’t said.
I honestly want to present objective facts about Pachamama and the placement of Pachamama on a Catholic altar (not what anyone in particular has had to say about Pachamama), and ask, what do y’all think?

Quote from Wikipedia:

“Pachamama is a goddess revered by the indigenous people of the Andes.”

Source:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pachamamal

If we look at what the altar is used for in the RCC, it is essentially used for the worship of God and there is a reason for every item placed on the altar, take a look:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01346a.htm

It is the commandment of the Lord:
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Source:
The Ten Commandments,
https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/command.htm

If we look at the objective evidence:
  1. Pachamama is a pagan god.
  2. Pachamama has a place on the altar at St Peters Basilica.
  3. Catholic teaching holds that the altar is reserved for the worship of God and that there is a specific meaning behind everything that is placed on the altar.
  4. It is the commandment of our Lord not to worship any other god.
Hence it is my opinion that it is objectively wrong to have any depiction of Pachamama on any Catholic altar.
The thought that this is actually happening terrifies me.

I do not think that I am attacking the pope or anyone else by not agreeing with something that is objectively wrong.
 
I’m a little surprised this wasn’t auto-closed for the lack of replies for so long… not sure why some topics do that and others don’t.

But people were asking for defenses, so here’s articles by Dave Armstrong and Mark Shea from back then:

www.patheos.com

"Pachamama" Fiasco: Hysterical Reactionaryism, As Usual

My current position is that the Pachamama controversy is the usual tempest-in-a-teapot / much ado about nothing. I'm ready to assert that no idolatry took place in this instance at all.
www.patheos.com www.patheos.com

www.patheos.com

Amazon Synod: Of Gnats And Camels

I closed yesterday by noting of the people having hysterics over Our Lady of the Amazon that just an ounce of charity would have prevented this whole
www.patheos.com www.patheos.com

I think they wrote some subsequent articles on it (especially Armstrong) but those are their “main” ones on it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top