Why do Modern Popes Embrace Idolatry?

[LilyM]

Lily, I was messing with you, but seriously, you know the reversion to the EF would take time. If the Pope abrogated the OF today, the majority of priests could not pray the EF. They wouldn’t know where to start. It’s silly to ask why it’s not happening so abruptly.

A minority of Cardinals at VII wanted the EF in the vernacular. They didn’t ask for a new Mass.

Name something about the Gregorian Rite you don’t like. You can’t without flirting with anathema or rejecting the demand and decree of the man who called VII in the first place. As long as John XXII was alive there was to be no changes to the Mass of the Ages. Why would he write Veterum Sapientia and publish the 1962 Missal if he was going to tolerate a new Mass in the vernacular ? Sadly he died before the close of the Council. GRHS

You may’ve been messing, but far too many believe it to be literal unvarnished truth for me to let it go unchallenged.

At the risk of flirting with anathema and possibly disappointing John XXIII (not that his successors who may’ve done the same were any the less valid Popes guided by the Holy Spirit than he was) I don’t like several things about the EF -

a) the lectionary - much less scripture proclaimed during the Mass than in the EF

b) readings in Latin and then in vernacular - needless repetition

c) more than one confiteor - unnecessary

d) the prolixity of the prayers - clearer and simpler language can be a benefit and an advantage in the Mass as it is in every other situation. And short and sweet does not equal lacking in meaning.

It’s often been pointed out that the OF’s Eucharistic Prayer 2 is the most ancient but also the shortest of all its EPs, and I’m sure the good folk who used it in the early centuries of the Church found their faith didn’t suffer one iota by not having the extra minutes of verbiage recited in order to ‘clarify’ various theological points for their benefit.

e) inability of priests to concelebrate, leading to the bizarre practice of several priests saying Mass on separate altars at the same time.

f) I LIKE hearing the priest say the words of consecration for a few reasons - not least of which being that I can be assured that the Mass I’m attending is valid on that score at least.

Ever read St Bernardine of Siena’s sermon about priests who would ‘consecrate’ the host by saying a HAIL MARY over it? This abuse was possible purely because the Canon was silent and no-one any the wiser. Not that priests never mangle the words of consecration in the OF, but at least if they said a Hail Mary over the Host EVERYONE would know it, and even the not-so-bright pennies would realise that there’d been no consecration and thus no valid Eucharist.

I guess it’s open to debate, but I believe he did in fact demand the Council be closed, while he lay on his deathbed.

Opinions are like elbows, everyone’s got one … and John XXIII’s, in this instance, are the opposite of infallible. Which is why Paul VI felt free to ignore them and continued on with the Council.

 

[pnewton]

NO modern pope has embraced idolatry! To make such an outrageous claim is to commit the sin of rash judgment. Do you believe the Holy Father should ignore non-Christians? Or would you rather him reach out to them as a means to help lead them to Christ?

Of course not. This whole thread is an ancharitable, slanderous opportunity to criticize the Holy Father by those indoctrinated in bigotry. For those not versed in English:
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/idolatry

• Main Entry: idol·a·try
• Pronunciation: -trē\
• Function: noun
• Inflected Form(s): plural idol·a·tries
• Etymology: Middle English ydolatrie, from Anglo-French, from Medieval Latin idolatria, alteration of Late Latin idololatria, from Greek eidōlolatreia, from eidōlon idol + -latreia -latry
• Date: 13th century

1 : the worship of a physical object as a god

2 : immoderate attachment or devotion to something

No where has the Holy Father worshiped any object as God. This is inflammatory rhetoric. Perhaps instead of worrying about how close He gets to those who worship Satan, the OP needs to worry about how much he is doing the Devil’s work by spreading lies and slander.

I Believe started a thread ( a good one) challenging us to think why we bash those we do. I think this question needs to be asked here. Yes, it is fine to question the actions of those in authority. What I see her is not questions but slanderous exaggerations and insults.

Since when did Traditional Catholics embrace sola scriprura? St. Paul just preached and didn’t interact with pagans? The Bible does it say that he didn’t. It is truly sola scriptura in the extreme, to beleive such an argument from silence, or that since the Bible doesn’t record St. Paul asking about the weather, therefore he never did.

 

[Marfran]

Of course not. This whole thread is an ancharitable, slanderous opportunity to criticize the Holy Father by those indoctrinated in bigotry. For those not versed in English:
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/idolatry

No where has the Holy Father worshiped any object as God. This is inflammatory rhetoric. Perhaps instead of worrying about how close He gets to those who worship Satan, the OP needs to worry about how much he is doing the Devil’s work by spreading lies and slander.

I Believe started a thread ( a good one) challenging us to think why we bash those we do. I think this question needs to be asked here. Yes, it is fine to question the actions of those in authority. What I see her is not questions but slanderous exaggerations and insults.

Since when did Traditional Catholics embrace sola scriprura? St. Paul just preached and didn’t interact with pagans? The Bible does it say that he didn’t. It is truly sola scriptura in the extreme, to beleive such an argument from silence, or that since the Bible doesn’t record St. Paul asking about the weather, therefore he never did.

:clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping:

Right on, Brother!!!

 

[Matrix_Refugee]

Of course not. This whole thread is an ancharitable, slanderous opportunity to criticize the Holy Father by those indoctrinated in bigotry. For those not versed in English:
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/idolatry

No where has the Holy Father worshiped any object as God. This is inflammatory rhetoric. Perhaps instead of worrying about how close He gets to those who worship Satan, the OP needs to worry about how much he is doing the Devil’s work by spreading lies and slander.

I Believe started a thread ( a good one) challenging us to think why we bash those we do. I think this question needs to be asked here. Yes, it is fine to question the actions of those in authority. What I see her is not questions but slanderous exaggerations and insults.

Since when did Traditional Catholics embrace sola scriprura? St. Paul just preached and didn’t interact with pagans? The Bible does it say that he didn’t. It is truly sola scriptura in the extreme, to beleive such an argument from silence, or that since the Bible doesn’t record St. Paul asking about the weather, therefore he never did.

Amen to all of that! As for the Popes attending services, etc. at synagogues and meeting with rabbis… I think this is to help us Christians remember where we came from, to remember that we are all what Pius XII called “Semites in spirit”. Our faith was founded not only by God, but a God Who chose to be born a Jewish man, the son of a Jewish woman. Our first Pope and our first bishops were also Jewish. This is something that I think too many Traditionalists have lost sight of and it saddens me to no end. It’s one reason I love and embrace Nostrae Aetate.

 

[I_Believe]

You may’ve been messing, but far too many believe it to be literal unvarnished truth for me to let it go unchallenged.

At the risk of flirting with anathema and possibly disappointing John XXIII (not that his successors who may’ve done the same were any the less valid Popes guided by the Holy Spirit than he was) I don’t like several things about the EF -

a) the lectionary - much less scripture proclaimed during the Mass than in the EF

b) readings in Latin and then in vernacular - needless repetition

c) more than one confiteor - unnecessary

d) the prolixity of the prayers - clearer and simpler language can be a benefit and an advantage in the Mass as it is in every other situation. And short and sweet does not equal lacking in meaning.

It’s often been pointed out that the OF’s Eucharistic Prayer 2 is the most ancient but also the shortest of all its EPs, and I’m sure the good folk who used it in the early centuries of the Church found their faith didn’t suffer one iota by not having the extra minutes of verbiage recited in order to ‘clarify’ various theological points for their benefit.

e) inability of priests to concelebrate, leading to the bizarre practice of several priests saying Mass on separate altars at the same time.

f) I LIKE hearing the priest say the words of consecration for a few reasons - not least of which being that I can be assured that the Mass I’m attending is valid on that score at least.

Ever read St Bernardine of Siena’s sermon about priests who would ‘consecrate’ the host by saying a HAIL MARY over it? This abuse was possible purely because the Canon was silent and no-one any the wiser. Not that priests never mangle the words of consecration in the OF, but at least if they said a Hail Mary over the Host EVERYONE would know it, and even the not-so-bright pennies would realise that there’d been no consecration and thus no valid Eucharist.

Opinions are like elbows, everyone’s got one … and John XXIII’s, in this instance, are the opposite of infallible. Which is why Paul VI felt free to ignore them and continued on with the Council.

The Gregorian Rite is flawless. Guess we’ll have to disagree.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Completely agree with this! There are photos of the Apostolic nuncio lighting candles on a table with Hindu statues at some “ecumenical” meeting. There are articles about priests embracing Zen Buddhism. And of course the above mentioned by thunderballs.

This needs to stop!

That’s nothing compared to the Catholic priest, of Jewish origin, who doubles as a Jew in religion. That he is allowed to, shows how messed-up the Church has become: for no Catholic of Anglican or other Protestant origin would be allowed to be a Protestant as well as a Catholic. I think this link, and the quotations from it, speak for themselves:​

• [FindArticles.com | CBSi (FindArticles.com | CBSi)
• “We see ourselves rooted in Israeli society with a real respect for Jews as they see themselves and we follow the Jewish liturgical calendar and observe many of their holidays like Sukkot and Hanukkah,” explained Fr. David Mark Neuhaus, vicar for the Hebrew-speaking community in the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem. Neuhaus, a 47-year-old Jesuit priest, was raised a Jew in South Africa and became a Catholic while studying in Jerusalem.
• “I attend a Reform synagogue regularly,” said Neuhaus, who speaks with the clarity of a seasoned lecturer. “I go to the synagogue as an expression of who I am historically, socially and, to a certain extent, spiritually. The melodies of the synagogue are much closer to my heart than the chants in a Benedictine monastery because I grew up with those melodies. Many of our members attend synagogue as an act of solidarity.” Neuhaus points out that Israel is the only society where Jews constitute a majority and the Jewish religion, history and culture establish the rhythm of life for the Catholic community.

 

[Lev23]

Recent Popes have attended meetings or festivals with leaders of other faiths, such as Islam, Buddhism, etc. The Pope is the leader of the Catholic Church, which is the fullness of God’s revealed truth to mankind. Every soul on earth is called by God to come to the Church, and for the Pope to (implicitly) accept idolatry is CONTRADICTORY to his mission as a Christian!

Let me make my point this way…

Do you honestly think that the first pope, the Apostle Peter, traveled to Greece and said to the temple leaders of the Greeks gods,
“Hey there guys! Lets all dance together. I will worship God, while you worship your idols. It’s all good!”

             **OF COURSE NOT!**

He traveled to pagan populations to tell them about Christianity, not to have get-togethers!! As a matter of fact, he was killed by the Roman authorities for doing just that!

Why are Popes today so afraid to do this? They should put politics aside and place more importance on the real matters! I find the judgment of God to be of infinitely more importance than the judgment of the media.

To be a friend of God is to be an enemy of the world, and to be friends with the world is to be an enemy of God!

I know that the Church will always prevail, because it is founded and kept alive by Christ, but this is crazy what the Popes have been doing!

Most here on this thread has sidestepped the real issue you raise.

The issue is not about Popes showing respect to other religions and their material things(holy writ/statues, etc.), praying in non-christian worship places, and dialoging with other religions.

The issue is about getting together with different religions at once to all pray to the same God in their own way to create a “spiritual energy” to bring about peace. An example of this happened on October 27th, 1986 in Assisi, Italy.

Since when did Traditional Catholics embrace sola scriprura? St. Paul just preached and didn’t interact with pagans? The Bible does it say that he didn’t. It is truly sola scriptura in the extreme, to beleive such an argument from silence, or that since the Bible doesn’t record St. Paul asking about the weather, therefore he never did.

For traditional catholics, what is really disturbing is at that event, the Dalai Lama was allowed to put a statue of buddha on the alter of the Basilica of St.Francis in Assisi, and with his monks, performed a worship ceremony.

Is there a line that can be crossed with ecumenical encounters with other religions?

The OP raises a VERY IMPORTANT issue. And sadly, he gets no applause on this thread like others received for giving vanilla answers.

Let me lay this point out. The true God, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of Israel, who is patient, slow to anger, has gone through years and years of man’s sillyness on how they choose to worship their idea of God. The God of Israel has made Himself known through His chosen people and His scriptures. At this time, His chosen ones know that the only way to Him is by worship and praise through His one and only Son, Jesus Christ.
**1 Corinthians 15:3-8
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. **

The God of Israel has carefully laid out a direct line to Him. There is no wiggle room for mans ecumenical dialogue or prayer services that can change that.

People did not like the idea that Israel had the only way to God. The idea of only one people and one way to the true God is not popular to the world. But we got to remember that God has gone through generations that forgot Him and choose to fashion their own gods and make their own way to them. Think of the flood, the tower of Babel, etc.

The veil in the Temple is torn, Jesus Christ is the only way to the one true God, who is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Only by Jesus, does the Jew and Gentile become one new man. These are important things that are forgotten when approaching other religions.

 

[pnewton]

Is there a line that can be crossed with ecumenical encounters with other religions?

The OP raises a VERY IMPORTANT issue. And sadly, he gets no applause on this thread like others received for giving vanilla answers.

What is a vanilla answer? I do not understand in the context of posts unless it is an answer that you perceive to lack substance, maybe? Then let me say a vanilla answer may well be the best answer to a loaded question. If serious discussion was desired the OP sure went about it the wrong way.

Each of the topics (Assissi, Koran) have been addressed several times and I did not get from the way this thread started that it was the intent to examine these incidents. Yes, one can cross the line in ecumenical encounters. The clearest line is one of indifferentism, where one would embrace the idea that all religions are just different paths up the same mountain to God. No Pope has done this.

One may also draw the line that if you are preaching the gospel with your ears closed and your mouth open in a one-sided monologue, then you lack fortitude. The image of the street preacher that listens to no one and yells at everyone comes to mind. Few are this extreme.

Most people are in the middle. It is imprudent and ineffective to ignore the world outside the Church, except when we insult or preach to them. On the other hand, it is imprudent and dangerous to the faithful to leave the impression that the Catholic Church is only one path to God, or that the Holy Father believes the Church is only one path to God. The Holy Father must serve as an example to us all to love and embrace the idolator, not the idolatry. Most of us live in a diverse world. We preach with our lives, using words when necessary. What we must not do is alienate the lost by our abrasive personalities. The Gospel of Jesus will bring division to be certain. We, however, must not be the cause of that division.

If the OP wanted to discuss the imprudence of some of the Popes action, then that is what should have been suggested. However, I stand by my original statement that this thread title is ridiculous. It is far more misleading than anything the Holy Father has said and done.

 

[Marfran]

What is a vanilla answer? I do not understand in the context of posts unless it is an answer that you perceive to lack substance, maybe? Then let me say a vanilla answer may well be the best answer to a loaded question. If serious discussion was desired the OP sure went about it the wrong way.

Each of the topics (Assissi, Koran) have been addressed several times and I did not get from the way this thread started that it was the intent to examine these incidents. Yes, one can cross the line in ecumenical encounters. The clearest line is one of indifferentism, where one would embrace the idea that all religions are just different paths up the same mountain to God. No Pope has done this.

One may also draw the line that if you are preaching the gospel with your ears closed and your mouth open in a one-sided monologue, then you lack fortitude. The image of the street preacher that listens to no one and yells at everyone comes to mind. Few are this extreme.

Most people are in the middle. It is imprudent and ineffective to ignore the world outside the Church, except when we insult or preach to them. On the other hand, it is imprudent and dangerous to the faithful to leave the impression that the Catholic Church is only one path to God, or that the Holy Father believes the Church is only one path to God. The Holy Father must serve as an example to us all to love and embrace the idolator, not the idolatry. Most of us live in a diverse world. We preach with our lives, using words when necessary. What we must not do is alienate the lost by our abrasive personalities. The Gospel of Jesus will bring division to be certain. We, however, must not be the cause of that division.

If the OP wanted to discuss the imprudence of some of the Popes action, then that is what should have been suggested. However, I stand by my original statement that this thread title is ridiculous. It is far more misleading than anything the Holy Father has said and done.

Well said!

:clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping:

 

[Lev23]

Each of the topics (Assissi, Koran) have been addressed several times and I did not get from the way this thread started that it was the intent to examine these incidents. Yes, one can cross the line in ecumenical encounters. The clearest line is one of indifferentism, where one would embrace the idea that all religions are just different paths up the same mountain to God. No Pope has done this.

But why have some allowed idolatry to happen on top of catholic alters? Yes, the Popes have not done this but it was allowed by other religions. Can one embrace idolatry in this way and not perform it themselves?

Can a Bishop allow any religion to come into a parish of their diocese, and perform their rituals on top of the alter?

I don’t know, maybe you can clear this up for me.

Again, the hour is late and the time of playing nice with other religions in hope of not offending is not important or should even be on the list of to-do things for Christians. By playing nice I mean that Christians organize religious get-togethers and have a many ways to God prayer and worship services. The God of Israel has gone through this for thousands of years with false gods and false worship. God presently makes Himself known through His only Son, Jesus Christ, a fact of life that should not be taken lightly.

And while some here use St.Pauls preaching in Athens to excuse some of the things mentioned here, we got to remember he had a chance to do so because there was an alter to a unknown God. I don’t know of any religion today that has an unknown God. They are all defined by their worshipers and their rituals are precise.

And as for the lateness of the hour-
**Acts 17:29-31
“Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by man’s design and skill. In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead.” **

These religious leaders can either sneer at Jesus Christ and the resurrection or follow Him. St.Paul did not worship with them, each in their own way to create a spiritual energy towards God to achieve a specific goal. But instead he laid out his evidence for the true God.

 

[TMC]

The Popes know what some Christians have forgotten, which is that as Christians:

we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one.

The only error is that the Popes have allowed some who oppose them to twist their actions around and create doubt in the faithful. The Popes know that all who seek in good faith to worship God worship the same God that we do - because there is only One. That is not to say that they worship Him perfectly, or as well as Catholics, or even well at all. But the first step to uniting all under Christ’s banner is to acknowledge that all people of good heart that worship any God worship the same God. Ecumenism is a way of saying to other faiths “you have some of the truths, but we have the rest of the story.” The cynical focus on the first part, the disingenuous pretend the second part doesn’t exist.

I wish the Church had made this message clearer, but there are some who are so intent on tearing down the Church that no amount of clarity would assuage them.

For those that cry foul on the last few Popes, how would you have them deal with the billions of souls that are not Christian? Should we not reach out to them? Is the only true form of evangelism Crusade and conquer?

 

[Lisa44]

Let’s put the shoe on the other foot - what would you think if the Dalai Lama went to a meeting with the Pope, received a gift of a Bible from him and kissed it? Then received a blessing from Pope Benedict? …

…

Lily, just to clarify. You are prefacing your argument on a non-reality, a ‘what-if’.

The Dalai Lama did NOT kiss the bible.

You cannot speak for the Dalai Lama and say - Well he WOULD…

He didn’t, and we do not know if he would, because he hasn’t.

I used to be a Buddhist and I can tell you with some confidence that it is unlikely that he would. Given his beliefs it would be totally hypocritical for him to make such a gesture towards the Bible.

Similarly, it is hypocritical of the Pope to do this also, given his belief that Jesus is God, and the Koran says he is not God.

It is all about logic in this instance, two opposite facts cannot both be true. Jesus cannot be God, and also not be God.

The Pope made a gesture that was totally illogical.

 

[pnewton]

But why have some allowed idolatry to happen on top of catholic alters? Yes, the Popes have not done this but it was allowed by other religions. Can one embrace idolatry in this way and not perform it themselves?

It is not embracing idolatry. That has been said repeatedly and saying it more often won’t make it more true.

If it is the Assissi incident, I then this pagan worship occured during a meeting of world religious leaders. Being at Assissi, the Catholic Church was host. In this role, church facilities were made available so that the guests could hold their own religious services. Therefore, pagan religions had idols in a Church. Was this a wise move? I don’t think so, but it was not embracing idolatry on the part of the Pope or anyone else.

Let me say my ex-girlfriend comes to some legitimate business. She had to go to the restroom, so I let her use my facilities and she leaves. Now the press gets a hold of this story and reports that ex-girlfriend uses bathroom at my residence. The Wanderer gets hold of the press story and reports that my ex-girlfriend was in my house with her pants down.

So if you want to disagree with whether such ecumenical meetings should ever happen, or whether parish halls or rented facilities would be better choices to allow guests to worship, then fine. It is a good argument. If you want to accuse the Pope of idolatry, then you slander and judge to an extent that God alone is judge.

 

[pnewton]

Similarly, it is hypocritical of the Pope to do this also, given his belief that Jesus is God, and the Koran says he is not God.

It is all about logic in this instance, two opposite facts cannot both be true. Jesus cannot be God, and also not be God.

The Pope made a gesture that was totally illogical.

A quick word about The Picture. First, it is unknown whether John Paul II even knew the gift of this ancient book was The Koran. Pictures are not worth a thousand words if we do not hear what was said and what people were thinking. Second, the Holy Father is a priest. The gesture he did was so automatice he may not have even thought about it or asked what the gift was.

In the worst case, he knew it was the Koran and kissed it to honor it as a gift, then the most that could be criticized is the prudence of such an action, not that he was worshipping it. To use an analogy, many people jumped on President Obama for bowing to some world leader at a summit. However, I do not think anyone (except a few nutballs) would go so far as to say the president was worshipping or submitting to this other world leader. It was just a gesture, maybe stupid, maybe not, but just a gesture.

 

[shoewindow3000]

Wow, as the OP of this thread, I am amazed it has received so much attention!

Anyways, Doesn’t it say in the Book of Psalm that all the idols of pagans are demons?

I will not bow down to any statue of a Hindu god or Buddha!!!

 

[wisdomseeker]

Lily, just to clarify. You are prefacing your argument on a non-reality, a ‘what-if’.

The Dalai Lama did NOT kiss the bible.

You cannot speak for the Dalai Lama and say - Well he WOULD…

He didn’t, and we do not know if he would, because he hasn’t.

I used to be a Buddhist and I can tell you with some confidence that it is unlikely that he would. Given his beliefs it would be totally hypocritical for him to make such a gesture towards the Bible.

Similarly, it is hypocritical of the Pope to do this also, given his belief that Jesus is God, and the Koran says he is not God.

It is all about logic in this instance, two opposite facts cannot both be true. Jesus cannot be God, and also not be God.

The Pope made a gesture that was totally illogical.

I complete agree with you. the pope is the sheppard whom we follow. can you imagine if we as Catholics follow his footstep and begin embrace all these religions?

no wonder we are in a mess today. all because we have let other faiths infiltrate ours. God will not allow such a thing. He did not with the jews and He wont allow this in His Church.

 

[pnewton]

I will not bow down to any statue of a Hindu god or Buddha!!!

Uh, I don’t think anyone else is either.

 

[CWBetts]

I complete agree with you. the pope is the sheppard whom we follow. can you imagine if we as Catholics follow his footstep and begin embrace all these religions?

no wonder we are in a mess today. all because we have let other faiths infiltrate ours. God will not allow such a thing. He did not with the jews and He wont allow this in His Church.

No one is “embracing” anything! Except for you and those who think like you are embracing the sin of pride, thinking you know the faith better than our Holy Father.

 

[wisdomseeker]

No one is “embracing” anything! Except for you and those who think like you are embracing the sin of pride, thinking you know the faith better than our Holy Father.

no, i dont think i know the faith more than the holy father does. what i see is that many Catholics decide that is better to live in denial than see the reality that is what is going on with the clergy.

i am in no way criticizing the CC, i am just pointing out what some clergy are doing to the CC. and many people just says: oh well, all is well.

and i am in no way against the pope, for popes too can make mistakes in their decisions. St Peter did. i am not judging him either. so there is no neither for you to be so upset.

 

[cam100]

The issue is about getting together with different religions at once to all pray to the same God in their own way to create a “spiritual energy” to bring about peace. An example of this happened on October 27th, 1986 in Assisi, Italy.

For traditional catholics, what is really disturbing is at that event, the Dalai Lama was allowed to put a statue of buddha on the alter of the Basilica of St.Francis in Assisi, and with his monks, performed a worship ceremony.

This is a prime example of the type of “evidence” that is used to support the idea that “Modern Popes Embrace Idolatry.” I have tried to research this event, but the only “evidence” I’ve seen is a fuzzy picture that seems to be a buddha-like image on an altar. Nothing in the picture indicates the location of the altar. I have seen this picture with the claim that it is St. Peter’s Basilica, and here it is being labeled as “the Basilica of St. Francis in Assisi.” Without supporting documentation, which I have never been able to find, we don’t know WHERE this altar was, whether it was even ever used for a Catholic Mass or was simply an altar erected in some unknown location by Buddhists for their own ceremonies.

This fact, nothing at all can be deduced from this “evidence”, but this is typical of the support for the idea that “Modern Popes Embrace Idolatry.” A picture is used, and a story is constructed around it. Or a phrase is pulled out of context, and a heap of assumptions placed around it. This type of argumentation is not logical, not charitable, and is very disrespectful.