Pope Francis

[KnightofChrist]

Pope Francis confirmed what was being venerated in the Vatican Gardens was the idol goddess Pachamama. And that the idol will be on display during the closing Mass of the Amazon Synod.

The Bitter ol' BeardieWeirdie is right those that disagree are horrible horrible super mega hitlers. 

 

 

[Guest]

This guy is weirder.

 

[KnightofChrist]

All you're posting is s**t talking personal attackers.

[Peace]

9 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

Pope Francis confirmed what was being venerated in the Vatican Gardens was the idol goddess Pachamama. And that the idol will be on display during the closing Mass of the Amazon Synod.

No, he did not.

[KnightofChrist]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

No, he did not.

Yes, he did indeed. In the video above of the ceremony held in the Vatican gardens it is clear the idol is venerated. Among other signs of worship the group gets on their knees and bows down low before the idol. Pope Francis has confirmed the idol's name as Pachamama. According to Wikipedia "Pachamama is a goddess revered by the indigenous people of the Andes. She is also known as the earth/time mother. In Inca mythology, Pachamama is a fertility goddess who presides over planting and harvesting, embodies the mountains, and causes earthquakes."

[Peace]

12 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

Yes, he did indeed. In the video above of the ceremony held in the Vatican gardens it is clear the idol is venerated. Among other signs of worship the group gets on their knees and bows down low before the idol. Pope Francis has confirmed the idol's name as Pachamama. According to Wikipedia "Pachamama is a goddess revered by the indigenous people of the Andes. She is also known as the earth/time mother. In Inca mythology, Pachamama is a fertility goddess who presides over planting and harvesting, embodies the mountains, and causes earthquakes."

No. He referred to them as "pachamama statutes" and suggested that they might have been displayed at the closing Mass. He did not confirm that they were venerated. He did not confirm that they were the idol goddess Pachamama and he did not confirm that that they would be on display during the closing Mass (and nor were they).

[KnightofChrist]

5 minutes ago, Peace said:

No. He referred to them as "pachamama statutes" and suggested that they might have been displayed at the closing Mass. He did not confirm that they were venerated. He did not confirm that they were the idol goddess Pachamama and he did not confirm that that they would be on display during the closing Mass (and nor were they).

The evidence of the veneration is undeniable, from an honest and objective point of view. I've provided both video and photographic evidence. Are you honestly asking us to deny our own eyes? They are not bowing before these 'statues' in your point of view? This extreme form bowing is not veneration? This is your position?

We have people bowing low to Pachamama 'statues'. Statues are not always idols, true. But they are idols when they are given the name of idol deities and people bow low before them. Statue or idol, Pachamama is still a idol goddess. The people are still bowing before these statues.

The Pachamama statue, surrounded candles, was put on display in the Traspontina Carmelite Church, close to the Vatican, on Saturday, October 26. In front of the altar, chairs were moved so the statue could be venerated in a circle. While the altar where Christ sits in the Tabernacle is in the shadows.

 

 

[fides' Jack]

I had been using the term "prostration".  Veneration is how we honor the saints - we venerate them (it's an attitude, rather than a bodily position).  In my mind, prostration is reserved as an act of worship, and depending on where you get your definitions, they were doing half-body prostrations.  It clearly wasn't a good thing, regardless of how you interpret it.

Peace is correct in saying that the pope did not confirm them to be named "pachamama" statues.  He merely referred to them as such, but that was enough to confirm it for the purposes that we needed, which was to know that he never should have allowed them to be there in the first place.

I don't condone the taking of the statues from St. Peter's by lay people.  In my opinion it was theft, though it might be possible to convince me it was justifiable.  The pope and cardinals and bishops who had authority over them being there should never have allowed it, and had the responsibility to remove them immediately.  The fact that they didn't was why there is a scandal (i.e. they caused the scandal, not the statues).  The ends don't justify the means.

No orthodox Catholic can still hold to the belief that the "verdict is still out" on whether or not Pope Francis is good or bad.  At the very, very least he has caused confusion among the faithful, he has not clarified when the needs of the faithful required it, he has sown division, he has attempted to change established Church teaching on more than one occasion (and of a nature that it could possibly lead to the damnation of a multitude of Christian souls), and he has allowed something to take place that could very easily be described as flat-out idolatry, at the Vatican.  In short, he has not fulfilled the duties of his office - not by a long shot.  I don't know what the definition of "anti-pope" is, so I won't call him that.  But he's not a good pope.  This is not opinion; it is evident to any remote observer who has any knowledge of Church teaching.

11 hours ago, Peace said:

[...] he did not confirm that that they would be on display during the closing Mass (and nor were they).

Can you provide evidence that they were not present during the closing Mass of the synod?  I haven't seen any pictures of there...  I would assume if they were, it would have made the usual news sources, already, but that's not evidence in itself.

Just curious, as I was worried about it.  Thanks.

Edited October 28, 2019 by fides' Jack
context

[Guest]

[Guest]

[KnightofChrist]

2 hours ago, Josh said:

What did happen in the Vatican gardens Josh? What's your position on it? The bowing down before a statue. A statue which Pope Francis' confirms is named after a idol goddess. 

 

[Peace]

23 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

The evidence of the veneration is undeniable, from an honest and objective point of view. I've provided both video and photographic evidence. Are you honestly asking us to deny our own eyes? They are not bowing before these 'statues' in your point of view? This extreme form bowing is not veneration? This is your position?

I have no idea what it is for them. I did not ask them about it. I do not know what their culture is, and I do not know what their intention was.

We kneel before a statue of Mary and pray to God, and Protestants accuse us of worshiping a statute because they do not understand our culture and our intention. Protestants do a similar thing to us that you are doing to them.

23 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

We have people bowing low to Pachamama 'statues'. Statues are not always idols, true. But they are idols when they are given the name of idol deities and people bow low before them. Statue or idol, Pachamama is still a idol goddess. The people are still bowing before these statues.

The nature of the specific statues, and the sense in which Pope Francis referred to them as "pachamama statutes" is unclear. He did not state "This is a statute of the goddess known as Pachamama". If you read the various statements there were various ambiguous things said about the nature of the statutes, that they represent "nature" "life" or other such things, concepts that can be associated with the goddess, apparently. It is not clear at all whether the statutes were meant to refer to a deity or as representative of the concepts in some sense. Perhaps they intended to venerate the gift of life by their actions. I have no idea because I have not asked them.

This is not a culture that I understand, but I think that some people can be a bit too quick to judge the intentions of other Catholics, without having a full understanding of their culture, what the statutes are to them, and what their intention is. It is really similar to what Protestants do to us. They do not take any time to fully understand our culture and our intentions, find some photos on the internet, view a Wikipedia page, and then jump to hasty conclusions that we are worshiping idols. We are after all, dealing with Catholics here. We are dealing with Catholics from a particular part of the world that have a culture that is different than our own. It's not like a group of Wiccans tried to sneak a statute into the Vatican. I think that as fellow Catholics we at least have to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they do not have an intention to worship or venerate an idol God, and try to fully understand what the situation is before making conclusions. Rash judgment, after all, is a sin. They could very well be in error and in need of correction, but I don't think the rush to condemn them (or to use it as fodder to attack Pope Francis) is warranted at this point without further information.

13 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

No orthodox Catholic can still hold to the belief that the "verdict is still out" on whether or not Pope Francis is good or bad. 

I am an orthodox Catholic and I hold the belief that "the verdict is still out". Thus, your statement is proven incorrect.

13 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

At the very, very least he has caused confusion among the faithful, he has not clarified when the needs of the faithful required it, he has sown division, he has attempted to change established Church teaching on more than one occasion (and of a nature that it could possibly lead to the damnation of a multitude of Christian souls), and he has allowed something to take place that could very easily be described as flat-out idolatry, at the Vatican.  In short, he has not fulfilled the duties of his office - not by a long shot. 

None of these are true, except that I would agree that he has caused some confusion among the faithful (as is likely the case with every pope if you closely scrutinize their writings and/or actions).

13 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

I don't know what the definition of "anti-pope" is, so I won't call him that.  But he's not a good pope.  This is not opinion; it is evident to any remote observer who has any knowledge of Church teaching.

I did not say that he was a good pope so there is nothing to argue about here. I take it that you think Pope Francis is a bad pope. Would you also call John 23, Paul 6, and John Paul II bad popes? For whatever Pope Francis has done, I would not say that anything comes close to allowing large numbers of homosexuals and pedophiles to enter and operate with impunity within the priesthood.

13 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

Can you provide evidence that they were not present during the closing Mass of the synod?  I haven't seen any pictures of there...  I would assume if they were, it would have made the usual news sources, already, but that's not evidence in itself.

Just curious, as I was worried about it.  Thanks.

One of the articles that @dUSt posted indicated that they statutes were not present at the closing Mass.

[KnightofChrist]

You don't know, you don't want to know what you can see with your own eyes. 

We need to create time travel so we can go back in time and save the martyrs who rather die than burn one incense before a Jupiter statue. Because that would be idolarty.  Now we can tell them it depends on their culture, and what's really in their heart. 

Pope Francis clearly confirmed the statues as Pachamama. And clearly the statues were venerated. I have honor and respect for you but find your position irrational. I cannot deny what my eyes see and Pope Francis' own words. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, KnightofChrist said:

What did happen in the Vatican gardens Josh? What's your position on it? The bowing down before a statue. A statue which Pope Francis' confirms is named after a idol goddess. 

Tbh this isn't something I'm that involved with or paying a bunch of attention to. I give the Pope the benefit of the doubt and trust his efforts to evangelize. I trust the Holy Spirit will guide him. 

If I'm going to freak out about things and start calling the Pope a heretic I would start with previous Pope's. Ones who kissed the Koran ect. Or like Peace said freak about Pope's who blatantly overlooked sexual abuse and predators and helped cover for them. (Although I'm not going that route and give them the benefit of the doubt and grace as well) Not that Francis didn't ignore and cover for abusers. I honestly don't know. But he inherited a bunch of this mess. And perhaps was part of the problem before becoming Pope. But overall I like him. As much as I like Pope's. I smell of elderberries I know.

At this point I trust Jesus will do his will with his Church. I trust the gates of hell won't prevail. I give whoever the Pope is the benefit of the doubt. I think people who have thousands and thousands of followers in the Catholic media who lead people to view the Pope as a heretic are very dangerous spirituality. 

If I was going to start my own Church or join someone else's because of questionable leadership/actions in the Catholic Church I would of moved way before Pope Francis. 

While some of these people in media may speak truths they lose me and become toxic imo when they start saying one Mass is better than the other. And all the other things they say. Yesterday's Gospel is one of my favorites. The tax collector and the Pharisee. And I'm sure you can figure out why.

Edited October 29, 2019 by Guest

[Peace]

51 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

You don't know, you don't want to know what you can see with your own eyes. 

I would like more information before passing judgment on them.

Quote

We need to create time travel so we can go back in time and save the martyrs who rather die than burn one incense before a Jupiter statue. Because that would be idolarty.  Now we can tell them it depends on their culture, and what's really in their heart. 

If I go to a museum and burn an incense stick before a Jupiter statute it would not be idolatry my friend. I do not believe that the statute is a god, nor does it represent any god for me. It is a statute of a mythical figure who I know does not exist. Nor is burning an incense stick something that I do as an act of worship. I might get kicked out of the museum but that is neither here nor there.

Now if I think the Jupiter statute is a god or represents some god and burn an incense stick before the statute as a form of worshiping this god, that would be idolatry.

Similarly, if a person kneels as a form of worship, and believes that Mary is a god or that a statute of Mary represents the god Mary, and then kneels before this statute to worship Mary, that would also be idolatry. This is exactly what many Protestants "see with their own eyes" but of course we do not commit idolatry because of our intention and because of "what is in our heart". So yes, those things do matter, even if you make light of them

Quote

Pope Francis clearly confirmed the statues as Pachamama. And clearly the statues were venerated. I have honor and respect for you but find your position irrational. I cannot deny what my eyes see and Pope Francis' own words. 

That is fine with me, but again I think it can be very similar to what Protestants do. They see us kneel before a statute of Mary, they read many of our prayers that are extremely respectful of Mary and accuse of idolatry. They cannot deny what their eyes see, even though what their eyes see is wrong.

Edited October 29, 2019 by Peace