Pope Francis

[Peace]

8 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

No one has been quick to attribute idol worship to fellow Catholics. That is attributing such quickly without thought and solid evidence. 

Well I suppose we have different definitions of quick.

Quote

This goes back to your position of not knowing being irrational. A detailed ritual ceremony recorded for eyes to see matching that of a pagan ceremony was held in the Vatican gardens. The pride of place of that ceremony were statues with the name of a false goddess. The Vatican stated the statues were not Mary and Pope Francis clearly stated were named Pachamama. The evidence greatly favors my position. I've not been quick to attitude the sin of idolarty to anyone involved. But the evidence makes clear that a false goddess was given some level of veneration. 

Yes, I have noted that you have not accused anyone of idolatry. You merely accused them of venerating a demon.

I think the substantive evidence (what little there is) has been discussed before so there is no point in rehashing it.

Quote

I understand what you are saying here is that your difficultly in accepting the clear evidence is due to your preconceive prejudices against conservative or traditional Catholics. 

I am a conservative and traditional Catholic so I am not sure why I would be prejudiced against myself. Now if you are referring to certain groups of people who like to go around calling themselves "Trads" or certain groups like Church Militant or what have you, I must admit that I am more inclined to listen to the words of Catholic clergy than the personal conclusions of members of these groups. I am prejudiced against them in this sense, this is true.

Quote

You can find statues of the black Madonna, ones that were originally made with dark skin, not just ones that turned dark in time. They are out there. 

I thought you might mention this. I think it depends on the particular images, but most of the ones I see are basically an Eastern European looking woman with tanned skin. From what I understand the reasons for that are either some type of artistic license or that the pictures darkened over time, as you mentioned? What we don't see very often are images like the first photo in this link:

https://udayton.edu/imri/mary/b/black-madonnas-origin-history-controversy.php

Or statutes/figures etc with genuinely African facial features. Sure, I am sure they exist, but they are not easy to find.

But yeah this is starting to get a little off the original topic.

Quote

As for the rest I think you take and make things too personal in most debates and discussions we've held. This time is no different. What statue of Mary I have has really nothing to do with what happened in the Vatican in these recent days. It would not matter to me if this same thing happened with a bunch of white folks bowing down low to Jupiter. My position would be the same. I'm not looking at the kinds of people but the actions of those persons.

I don't think I personally accused you of of racial bias. But I do sense an element of it in some of the criticisms and the rash conclusions made by some people.

Quote

Unless we can trace our ancestry all the way to full blood Jewish progenitors, then we all have ancestry that worship pagan gods.

Well I think the Jews are also guilty of that FWIW. God seemed somewhat angry about that whole golden calf incident.

Quote

That gives us no license to worship false gods or to participate in ceremonies were false gods appear to be worshipped.

Wait a second. You mean I am not permitted to worship the devil? Well this is certainly news to me. If you had only clarified this at the start of the conversation perhaps all of this could have been avoided.

Have a good Sunday.

[KnightofChrist]

28 minutes ago, Peace said:

Well I suppose we have different definitions of quick.

Yes, we do indeed. 

28 minutes ago, Peace said:

Yes, I have noted that you have not accused anyone of idolatry. You merely accused them of venerating a demon.

What happened in the Vatican gardens was idolatry and the veneration of a demon. I've just not been quick to believe that. I've been convinced by the evidence. 

28 minutes ago, Peace said:

I think the substantive evidence (what little there is) has been discussed before so there is no point in rehashing it.

We also have a completely different understanding of the amount evidence. You dismiss the clear visual and audible evidence because the individuals may not in their hearts actually be worshipping a pagan idol.

28 minutes ago, Peace said:

I am a conservative and traditional Catholic so I am not sure why I would be prejudiced against myself.

 

28 minutes ago, Peace said:

Now if you are referring to certain groups of people who like to go around calling themselves "Trads" or certain groups like Church Militant or what have you, I must admit that I am more inclined to listen to the words of Catholic clergy than the personal conclusions of members of these groups. I am prejudiced against them in this sense, this is true.

It has been a common theme among your posts to take a anti-trad position. Lol sometimes I think you just like to disagree with whatever position I take. You almost admitted as much earlier in the thread jajaja.

28 minutes ago, Peace said:

I thought you might mention this. I think it depends on the particular images, but most of the ones I see are basically an Eastern European looking woman with tanned skin. From what I understand the reasons for that are either some type of artistic license or that the pictures darkened over time, as you mentioned? What we don't see very often are images like the first photo in this link:

https://udayton.edu/imri/mary/b/black-madonnas-origin-history-controversy.php

Or statutes/figures etc with genuinely African facial features. Sure, I am sure they exist, but they are not easy to find.

But yeah this is starting to get a little off the original topic.

I don't think I personally accused you of of racial bias. But I do sense an element of it in some of the criticisms and the rash conclusions made by some people.

Well I think the Jews are also guilty of that FWIW. God seemed somewhat angry about that whole golden calf incident.

Yes, the Jews would at time fall into idolatry when they adopted or mixed pagan ritual with their worship. 

28 minutes ago, Peace said:

Wait a second. You mean I am not permitted to worship the devil? Well this is certainly news to me. If you had only clarified this at the start of the conversation perhaps all of this could have been avoided.

Have a good Sunday.

You too man!

[Peace]

1 hour ago, KnightofChrist said:

We also have a completely different understanding of the amount evidence. You dismiss the clear visual and audible evidence because the individuals may not in their hearts actually be worshipping a pagan idol.

Well as I mentioned before I don't see how the evidence here is all that different than the "evidence" that Protestants use against Catholics when they accuse us of Mariolatry. I guess we just have different standards when it comes to the type of evidence that would justify the ultimate conclusions you have reached. I don't see enough at this point. If you think that is unreasonable or putting on blinders that is cool by me. I think your conclusions are unwarranted at this point but we can still be friends.

Quote

It has been a common theme among your posts to take a anti-trad position. Lol sometimes I think you just like to disagree with whatever position I take. You almost admitted as much earlier in the thread jajaja.

Not at all my friend. It is the common theme among your posts to take the anti-Peace position. I think we both see ourselves as defending the Church but because we have different approaches on the ways that conflict should be resolved, the roles of tradition and church authority, we are bound to be at odds.

My main issue with "Trads" is when they try to impose their preferences for what is ideal worship on the Church at large. If certain groups prefer the TLM, certain types of music, positions for receiving the Eucharist and so on that is perfectly cool by me. My main parish is actually one that has TLM, Ad orientum, chant, communion while kneeling, etc. It is a very "traditional" parish in the sense that Trads often use the word and it is certainly a good way to worship. What I don't like to see is when Trads attack other people who do things differently. Perhaps that is something that I am particularly sensitive to as a catholic "minority" within the minority that we are.

Now of course that does not cover worshiping the devil at Mass. Even I have my limits, the bleeding heart liberal that I am. If you honestly think this was an instance of people in the Vatican worshiping Satan I can't fault you for speaking out against what you believe, but I have not reached that conclusion myself.

Edited November 3, 2019 by Peace

[Seven77]

5 hours ago, Peace said:

It might do it just to annoy my good friend @KnightofChrist.

Or perhaps I might do it for aesthetic reasons. I will title my new photograph "Incense in Front of Large Jupiter Statute." It is a lovely image isn't it? I'll be as famous as Ansel Adams.

Now, doing so may very well be scandal but the discussion was actually whether or not it would be idolatry. The point I was trying to make was that both external action and interior disposition are important in determining whether idolatry has occurred. That was all.

 if your internal disposition is that you do not want to commit idolatry, but you carry out actions externally that suggest you possibly are committing idolatry, what then?  in my example of St. Thomas More I tried to show that even though interiorly he didn't want to give in to what King Henry wanted, he externally did not. Even his daughter suggested he sign while in his heart holding fast to the truth.  That's the compromise that we can't do. As far as this discussion goes, at best, this gives scandal to someone who doesn't understand our actions--- they may get seriously confused and even fall because of our actions which don't match up with our inner disposition. So I don't know if the bishops in question were choosing to commit idolatry, the fact is, by their external actions they appear to suggest otherwise and may cause people to actually feel that they were indeed committing

 

 

 

5 hours ago, Peace said:

I dunno about all that. At least the statutes I saw were of a pregnant brown woman. I didn't find them to be crude looking and I do not think the people in that region would share in your opinion either.

Lets say that hypothetically similar looking statutes (without any possible idol associations, to separate that element out for the moment) were used in association with St. Mary by people in the Amazon region. I will be perfectly wiling to remove those statutes if you and @KnightofChrist agree to remove the thousands of images of a snow white European looking Mary that can be found across Catholic Churches in the USA. I do not like the snow white Mary and blue eyed Jesus since we know that neither is representative of reality. Deal? Let's just remove all of those statutes simply because of my own personal preferences concerning what is appropriate.

ah, I think you may have misunderstood me. But that's my fault because I couldn't really clarify what I meant. I have no problem whatsoever with the diversity of portrayals of Our Lady. And, for what it's worth, I don't think that Our Lady looked European… I think she really does look like she appears on the wilma of St. Juan Diego. I'm pretty sure I don't have a problem with how the people in the Amazon may respectfully portray her in art. As it is, this is a work by one artist. I wonder what the majority of people there would have her look like. Specifically, my problem is that it is kind of indecent… I see this as an artist. There is a kind of art that could be described as hyper realistic which is inappropriate because of its attention to detail in parts of the human body which should be far less detailed. I think this could be an example of hyper realism in this form of cultural artwork. I have no problem with a less detailed version of a statue that looks like that.

5 hours ago, Peace said:

 

es, from limited information it appears that some type ocorrection/instruction needs to take place. But I don't know what happened and what the complete situation is. I only have tidbits of real information here and there along with numerous rantings and speculations of various Trad websites. As I wrote before, I would want more information concerning what actually happened before passing judgment on it.

We have demon worship conspiracy theories being generated because of a plant.

Well I generally agree that it would not be prudent to do that, if that is what happened here (although there is some evidence to suggest that this type of thing happened with the Christmas Holiday).

 I don't want to speculate with some kind of theory about what happened – – I tend to do that in my mind but very conservatively in public. I believe that I'm just judging what I'm seeing without being too much into it, the actions speak pretty loudly.

 Also, jm actually not all that convinced that December 25 was chosen as the date for Christmas in order to supplant the festival of Mithra, etc. if I understand correctly, the early church held that the Resurrection and Incarnation happened on the same day of the year, March 25. If so, then it is perfectly reasonable to have to celebrate the Nativity of Christ on December 25.

5 hours ago, Peace said:

Find the people in the photo and ask them what happened. Or send a new Dubia to the Pope? How about we demand that these bishops be excommunicated?

I don't know what happened but as I wrote before you can go all over the internet and find Protestants who take pictures of Catholics kneeling and praying before statutes, crucifixes, etc. and accuse us of idolatry. Without more information I am not willing to sit here and insinuate the same against fellow Catholics, let alone clergy.

But if that floats your boat go for it.

I do not like to insinuate anything about anyone… Just judging actions here. Kneeling is different than prostrating face down on the ground. Although perhaps, in the Amazonian region such a gesture is equivalent to kneeling and veneration not adoration… I'm possibly willing to entertain the possibility. I wish the actions were explained clearly but they weren't, which is unfortunate.

5 hours ago, Peace said:

Well it is not the only thing we can do, but probably the best.

 no doubt. 

Sorry about the typos above… Using crappy voice dictation software.

[tinytherese]

7 hours ago, Peace said:

Well as I mentioned before I don't see how the evidence here is all that different than the "evidence" that Protestants use against Catholics when they accuse us of Mariolatry. I guess we just have different standards when it comes to the type of evidence that would justify the ultimate conclusions you have reached. 

 

Pachamama is specifically referred to as a goddess whereas Our Lady and the saints are not referred to in the Catholic faith as gods, so it's not the same thing. 

[Peace]

On 11/3/2019 at 3:57 PM, tinytherese said:

Pachamama is specifically referred to as a goddess whereas Our Lady and the saints are not referred to in the Catholic faith as gods, so it's not the same thing. 

Well I think if we worshiped a statute of St. Mary that would still be idolatry.

[Peace]

On 11/3/2019 at 2:06 PM, Seven77 said:

 if your internal disposition is that you do not want to commit idolatry, but you carry out actions externally that suggest you possibly are committing idolatry, what then?  

Depends on the circumstances.

On 11/3/2019 at 2:06 PM, Seven77 said:

In my example of St. Thomas More I tried to show that even though interiorly he didn't want to give in to what King Henry wanted, he externally did not. Even his daughter suggested he sign while in his heart holding fast to the truth.  That's the compromise that we can't do.

 The document that St. Thomas More signed was different because objectively the language on it was clear as to what it represents. If there is a piece of paper that says "I worship the devil" I can't sign my name to it because there is no question as to what it represents.

But on my coffee table right now I have a statute of an angel. I also have a candle on the table. If happen to move the candle in front of the statute and light the candle because I think the shadow of the flame looks cool on the statute, have I committed idolatry for doing so? I don't think so. I am guessing that on plenty of Catholic coffee tables around the world there are a candle and a statute near each other.

Now if I come home one evening and my younger brother who has just become a Wiccan convert says "Peace! I have created a new ceremony to worship the God of Wicca. It consists of taking this candle and lighting it in front of this statute on your coffee table." If I say "Hell yeah bro let's do it!" then I am am idolater.

The action in either case is exactly the same. The point here is that you can't take any specific action and say "This action is objectively an external act of idolatry" without looking at the person's intention and understanding of the situation.

I mean if there is a Wiccan cult somewhere who kneels before a statute of Mary to worship her as a God, do you thereby commit idolatry when you kneel before a statute of Mary to pray the rosary? The physical action is exactly the same so you have to look at the internal disposition of the person.

Heck. Sitting my couch and typing on my MacBook Pro as I am doing now could be an act of idolatry if my intention by doing so is to worship Steve Jobs.

It kind of seems that because some action "Looks like" idolatry to you, you assume that it must also "Look like" idolatry to other people, so their doing the action is a compromise or participating in something that might give scandal? But what if your assumption is wrong?

If kneeling before a statute of Mary to pray "Looks like" Mariolatry to Protestants have you compromised or scandalized your Protestant friends when you kneel before a statute of Mary to pray the Rosary in front of them? Protestants conclude that we have compromised because they are projecting their standards on us. Are we projecting our own standards on these Amazon folks? This is the question I think.

On 11/3/2019 at 2:06 PM, Seven77 said:

ah, I think you may have misunderstood me. But that's my fault because I couldn't really clarify what I meant. I have no problem whatsoever with the diversity of portrayals of Our Lady. And, for what it's worth, I don't think that Our Lady looked European… I think she really does look like she appears on the wilma of St. Juan Diego. I'm pretty sure I don't have a problem with how the people in the Amazon may respectfully portray her in art. As it is, this is a work by one artist. I wonder what the majority of people there would have her look like. Specifically, my problem is that it is kind of indecent… I see this as an artist. There is a kind of art that could be described as hyper realistic which is inappropriate because of its attention to detail in parts of the human body which should be far less detailed. I think this could be an example of hyper realism in this form of cultural artwork. I have no problem with a less detailed version of a statue that looks like that.

I dunno man. It wasn't exactly a porno.

On 11/3/2019 at 2:06 PM, Seven77 said:

Also, jm actually not all that convinced that December 25 was chosen as the date for Christmas in order to supplant the festival of Mithra, etc. if I understand correctly, the early church held that the Resurrection and Incarnation happened on the same day of the year, March 25. If so, then it is perfectly reasonable to have to celebrate the Nativity of Christ on December 25.

I'm not convinced by it either but it doesn't seem totally implausible.

On 11/3/2019 at 2:06 PM, Seven77 said:

I'm possibly willing to entertain the possibility.

Alright. I'll take what I can get.

[Seven77]

On 11/4/2019 at 7:49 PM, Peace said:

Depends on the circumstances.

 The document that St. Thomas More signed was different because objectively the language on it was clear as to what it represents. If there is a piece of paper that says "I worship the devil" I can't sign my name to it because there is no question as to what it represents.

But on my coffee table right now I have a statute of an angel. I also have a candle on the table. If happen to move the candle in front of the statute and light the candle because I think the shadow of the flame looks cool on the statute, have I committed idolatry for doing so? I don't think so. I am guessing that on plenty of Catholic coffee tables around the world there are a candle and a statute near each other.

Now if I come home one evening and my younger brother who has just become a Wiccan convert says "Peace! I have created a new ceremony to worship the God of Wicca. It consists of taking this candle and lighting it in front of this statute on your coffee table." If I say "Hell yeah bro let's do it!" then I am am idolater.

The action in either case is exactly the same. The point here is that you can't take any specific action and say "This action is objectively an external act of idolatry" without looking at the person's intention and understanding of the situation.

I mean if there is a Wiccan cult somewhere who kneels before a statute of Mary to worship her as a God, do you thereby commit idolatry when you kneel before a statute of Mary to pray the rosary? The physical action is exactly the same so you have to look at the internal disposition of the person.

Heck. Sitting my couch and typing on my MacBook Pro as I am doing now could be an act of idolatry if my intention by doing so is to worship Steve Jobs.

It kind of seems that because some action "Looks like" idolatry to you, you assume that it must also "Look like" idolatry to other people, so their doing the action is a compromise or participating in something that might give scandal? But what if your assumption is wrong?

If kneeling before a statute of Mary to pray "Looks like" Mariolatry to Protestants have you compromised or scandalized your Protestant friends when you kneel before a statute of Mary to pray the Rosary in front of them? Protestants conclude that we have compromised because they are projecting their standards on us. Are we projecting our own standards on these Amazon folks? This is the question I think.

I dunno man. It wasn't exactly a porno.

I'm not convinced by it either but it doesn't seem totally implausible.

Alright. I'll take what I can get.

 You got jokes dude, I give you props for the entertaining post.

 Appearances can be deceiving, I will warrant that. Also, only God can judge the heart – – he knows what was intended, etc. But even though we do not know what was really going on inside the hearts of those involved in this incident, we can evaluate the external actions that we have observed. I believe that Knight said the same thing. Anyway, what did we observe? What constitutes gestures of adoration in that culture? What was the statue actually representing or intending to actually represent?  What have leaders that particular culture said about the whole thing? I think that we need to ask these questions and I believe that some of us actually have done so. Based on the answers we can find, we are coming to our conclusions – –  and yes, we must be careful not to judge or condemn persons, just actions. I don't believe that it's merely based on "what it looks like to us," etc.. (the thing about Protestants is that many of them seem not to be asking these kinds of questions but they're only looking at just what they see us doing. It seems to me that that is not what we are doing here.) There certainly were factors involved as you suggest. I have tried to take them, to the best of my ability, into consideration. It's all confusing at best. Again, I think that those involved have a duty to explain.

 God bless bro.

 

 

Edited November 6, 2019 by Seven77

[fides' Jack]

On 10/28/2019 at 10:03 PM, Peace said:

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

I have no idea what you actually believe without your telling me.  However, if you do truly hold the belief that "the verdict is still out", then I would most likely reject your first statement.  Your statement is only proven correct if you can prove the first statement.

Harsh words, I realize.  Might even get me kicked off of Phatmass.  But there it is.

I will say this, we are living in a time when almost all Catholics are heretics in one way or another, and most don't realize it.  I pray God will give me the wisdom to know in what ways I have beliefs contrary to the Church's teachings, because it's almost certain that's the case.  

The verdict is in.  God is currently separating the wheat from the chaff.  Our current pope is a bad one.  It's undeniable, now.

[Peace]

8 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

I have no idea what you actually believe without your telling me. 

I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,

and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,  
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.

I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins
and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come.

8 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

However, if you do truly hold the belief that "the verdict is still out", then I would most likely reject your first statement. 

I am not going to lose any sleep over it.

8 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

Your statement is only proven correct if you can prove the first statement.

Yes. I agree. Let's run with this. It should be fun. Let's play a game of "Is Peace a heretic!"

Please provide us with a definition of "orthodox Catholic".

8 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

Harsh words, I realize.  Might even get me kicked off of Phatmass.  But there it is.

I don't see why you would get kicked off for that. Now if you called my mother a harlot, you should get banned for that.

I am not particularly concerned with your opinion or if you believe that I am not orthodox. I know that I am. God will be the ultimate judge of it.

8 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

I will say this, we are living in a time when almost all Catholics are heretics in one way or another, and most don't realize it.  I pray God will give me the wisdom to know in what ways I have beliefs contrary to the Church's teachings, because it's almost certain that's the case.  

I think that perhaps you are using a rather loose definition of heresy.

Regardless that is a good thing to pray for. I commend you. You have earned your reward. Recognition on the internet.

FWIW, we all know that abusing children, watching pornography, sleeping around and on and on is wrong. But we do them with a fairly good frequency nowadays don't we? I think holiness comes more in proper action that having the right theology because at some basic level we all know right versus wrong regardless of how we have been instructed (not to disregard the importance of properly informing one's conscience).

8 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

The verdict is in.  God is currently separating the wheat from the chaff.  Our current pope is a bad one.  It's undeniable, now.

Well. Only God is good. I think we can both agree on that.

[Lilllabettt]

FWIW.... 

The native person who presented the statue to Pope Francis referred to it as "Our Lady of the Amazon" as she did so. This was captured on video with a live mike and translated later by trads hostile to PF. So, no doubt in my mind they're being honest. 

I understand some bigshots at the Vatican scoffed at it being Our Lady and that doesn't surprise me since they are in good part condescending pricks. No doubt they are of the belief that the silly natives are attached to their idols and must be "accompanied" 

But the person that made the statue called it Our Lady, so... at least from that person's part it wasn't intended to be an idol. 

 

[Hna.Caridad]

Thank you Lilllabettt.  I think one of the biggest concerns I have (aside from the outright theft of the images, which seems to be getting glorified by some who claim to be Catholic) is the frequency and the degree to which images of women's bodies (and, by extension, women's bodies themselves) are considered profane by some people who consider themselves "Catholic". 

Unfortunately, our Church has a long history of tolerating those who throw women's bodies (or images of their bodies) into rivers under the guise of "protecting" the Church from witchcraft/idolatry/paganism/whatever the latest "thing" is that some consider threatening.  Rather than considering this image as something that honors God, the God-created female body, and it's life-giving capability (much less as a meaningful image of Mary--Our Lady of the Amazon), some decided to take it upon themselves to force their version of Church and worship and chose to desecrate and then brag about the desecration of these beautiful images.  And God weeps.

 

[Maximilianus]

3 hours ago, Hna.Caridad said:

Thank you Lilllabettt.  I think one of the biggest concerns I have (aside from the outright theft of the images, which seems to be getting glorified by some who claim to be Catholic) is the frequency and the degree to which images of women's bodies (and, by extension, women's bodies themselves) are considered profane by some people who consider themselves "Catholic". 

 

 

For posterity and to not classify this as hyperbole typically perpetuated by neo-pagans and anti-Catholics, can you cite some specific examples in context?

[KnightofChrist]

14 hours ago, Lilllabettt said:

FWIW.... 

The native person who presented the statue to Pope Francis referred to it as "Our Lady of the Amazon" as she did so. This was captured on video with a live mike and translated later by trads hostile to PF. So, no doubt in my mind they're being honest. 

I understand some bigshots at the Vatican scoffed at it being Our Lady and that doesn't surprise me since they are in good part condescending pricks. No doubt they are of the belief that the silly natives are attached to their idols and must be "accompanied" 

But the person that made the statue called it Our Lady, so... at least from that person's part it wasn't intended to be an idol. 

 

You're just assuming the "Our Lady" is in reference to Mary when it could just as easily be Our Lady of the Amazon, Pachamama. I'm not going to dismiss the 'big shots' in the Vatican who made clear this was not Mary, nor will I just dismiss the Pope naming them 'pachamama statues'. 

[KnightofChrist]

"Missio, the pastoral agency of the Italian Episcopal Conference, published a prayer to Pachamama in an April 2019 publication devoted to the Special Assembly of the Synod of Bishops for the Pan-Amazon Region."

[...]

"Pachamama of these places, drink and eat this offering at will, so that this earth may be fruitful. Pachamama, good Mother, be favorable! Be favorable! Make that the oxen walk well, and that they not become tired. Make that the seed sprout well, that nothing bad may happen to it, that the cold may not destroy it, that it produce good food. We ask this from you: give us everything. Be favorable! Be favorable!"

Source: https://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=43919