Are there any Catholics out there tonight who don't know that on October 4, a number of pagans and at least one Franciscan bowed down to the ground before pagan statues in the Vatican Gardens, in the presence of the Pope?
Not a lot, I'm thinking.
But there might be a lot who don't know the fate of the pagan idols - carved wooden images of a pregnant, naked woman, widely supposed to represent 'Pachamama', a fertility goddess who presides over plantings, among other sundry items like earthquakes (the Pope was planting a tree from Assisi, on the Feast of St Francis, to inaugurate the Amazon Synod).
It was also suggested that the idols represented the Blessed Virgin Mary. But even if, incredibly and - heaven forbid! - 'inappropriately' a naked pregnant image could suggest the Mother of God, no Catholic would bow down to the ground in worship before it.
And papal biographer/hagiographer Austen Ivereigh misfires twice, first in his attempt to have the image linked to the BVM, and second in saying, lamely, "everything that is human that is not evil is of God". Surely he wasn't saying a carved wooden idol is human?
Anyway, yesterday those naked pregnant idols - suggested by some to represent the Blessed Virgin Mary - were stolen away under cover of darkness and tipped into the Tiber.
https://youtu.be/CngoabjurIo
Good riddance to bad rubbish?
Catholic priest and apologist Father Mark Goring would seem to agree. He likens the action of the idolnappers to that of Christ, casting money-changers out of the temple.
But then, my 'little' daughter points out that while idol worship in the Vatican in the presence of the Pope is not a good idea, neither is biffing them into a river. "They were artefacts," she said, "and were probably precious to someone."
Father Nathaniel Tat Brazil says:
No to
Pachamama.
Yes to the Blessed Virgin Mary
Yes to the Blessed Virgin Mary
Break down
their altars, smash their sacred stones and burn their Asherah poles in the
fire; cut down the idols of their gods and wipe out their names from those
places.
- Deuteronomy 12:3
- Deuteronomy 12:3
Our
Lady of Guadalupe protector of the Americas, pray for us!
Anthony Trenwith says:
And what about JPII’s Buddha?
Father Brazil:
Buddha is not God but yes he
is an Idol as well. Anyway no Buddha in the Church.
Pachamama wasn’t in a church (unlike Buddha).
· Fr Brazil: They were in a Church (Santa Maria
in Traspontina) before Courageous Souls (I think one of them is Nigel Murray!) took them off to the
Tiber .
"Other religions found everywhere try to counter the
restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing
"ways," comprising teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites. The
Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these other religions found
everywhere (which?) try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own
manner, by proposing "ways," comprising teachings, rules of life, and
sacred rites. The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in
these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and
of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects
from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that
Truth which enlightens all men" - Nostra Aetate 2.
Maybe St. Benedict
can enlighten you: 
St Benedict Destroying Idols, Juan Andres Rizzi
You do realise you’re bound by oath to accept Nostra
Aetate don’t you?
I say:
Nostra Aetate does not have any dogmatic authority. Vatican II is the only Ecumenical Council that remained entirely pastoral and never engaged the Extraordinary Magisterium.
Pope Paul VI himself stated that "in view of the Pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility."
So Catholics are required to give the teachings of VatII only 'religious assent', which is motivated not by faith but by obedience to the religious authority.
If there is any conflict between obedience and faith, the moral virtue of obedience must give way to the theological virtue of faith. Faithful Catholics must disregard any teaching that is opposed to a truth contained in the deposit of Faith.
I say:
Nostra Aetate does not have any dogmatic authority. Vatican II is the only Ecumenical Council that remained entirely pastoral and never engaged the Extraordinary Magisterium.
Pope Paul VI himself stated that "in view of the Pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility."
So Catholics are required to give the teachings of VatII only 'religious assent', which is motivated not by faith but by obedience to the religious authority.
If there is any conflict between obedience and faith, the moral virtue of obedience must give way to the theological virtue of faith. Faithful Catholics must disregard any teaching that is opposed to a truth contained in the deposit of Faith.
Fr Brazil:
"Catechism
of the Catholic Church:
The first commandment condemns polytheism. It requires man neither to believe in, nor to venerate, other divinities than the one true God. Scripture constantly recalls this rejection of "idols, [of] silver and gold, the work of men's hands. They have mouths, but do not speak; eyes, but do not see." These empty idols make their worshippers empty: "Those who make them are like them; so are all who trust in them."42 God, however, is the "living God"43 who gives life and intervenes in history."
The first commandment condemns polytheism. It requires man neither to believe in, nor to venerate, other divinities than the one true God. Scripture constantly recalls this rejection of "idols, [of] silver and gold, the work of men's hands. They have mouths, but do not speak; eyes, but do not see." These empty idols make their worshippers empty: "Those who make them are like them; so are all who trust in them."42 God, however, is the "living God"43 who gives life and intervenes in history."
2113
Idolatry not only refers to false pagan worship. It remains a constant
temptation to faith. Idolatry consists in divinizing what is not God. Man
commits idolatry whenever he honors and reveres a creature in place of God,
whether this be gods or demons (for example, satanism), power, pleasure, race,
ancestors, the state, money, etc. Jesus says, "You cannot serve God and
mammon."44 Many martyrs died for not adoring "the Beast"45
refusing even to simulate such worship. Idolatry rejects the unique Lordship of
God; it is therefore incompatible with communion with God."
You are bound to accept
the Catechism of the Catholic Church, right?
·
Rewi Pene says:
What about Papatūānuku and Ranginui!! They are mentioned in the NZ RE curriculum!! If it’s good enough for the Māoris it’s good enough for the Amazonions.
Father Brazil says:
Yes, like in the Philippines we have deity Idols before Spain came and brought us the True Faith in Christ, we still do learn about them we call them Bathala and Anito but we don't worship them anymore. Like the Maori diety and God's they are part of the Culture but as Catholic we do not worship them. It's against the first commandment to worship other Gods besides the Holy Trinity.
Viva Cristo Rey!
Rewi
Pene: thank you Father!!!
And we don’t worship Pachamama either! So that’s that
sorted then...
She is our Mama, not the Pachamama!
This is the best thing that's happened at the synod. Men finally standing up for Jesus and the Catholic Church, while our "leaders" are leading souls to hell. That thing is an idol and should not be in any church. I hope the Pope takes note and realises he's got a fight on his hands.
ReplyDeleteI see the mention of 'JP II's Buddha'. Sandro Magister wrote about this, in fact the Buddha statue was placed by a buddhist participant without the Pope knowing or approving it. Let's be clear, it was not an instruction or personal act of Pope John Paul II.
ReplyDeleteRegardless, Nostra Aetate's instruction not to reject what is true and holy in other religions is to be done with prudence proclaiming Christ the Way, the Truth and the Life. There is a balance in Nostra Aetate which is sidelined in practice. Nostra Aetate is often whipped out to silence those who hold to the one true reign of Christ, a difficult topic when it comes to inclusivism.
Furthermore, surely we have a right to be offended at this Pacamama statue taking central place at this synod. Also, the image of the woman breastfeeding the animal is obscene anywhere but surely offensive to any Catholic? What were they thinking?
Sandro Magister wrote that for Pope Benedict, "A dialogue among the religions on an equal footing - Ratzinger has in fact warned even after his resignation of the papacy - would be “lethal for the Christian faith.” Because every religion “would be reduced to an interchangeable symbol” of a God assumed to be equal for all."
That is the distinction which has been lost with Pope Francis' Amazon synod. What we see are interchangeable symbols which are presumed to represent God here there and everywhere. It just isn't true. Natural religion is at best an echo in the heart of man for his desire for God, not the other way around.
Yes, thank you, Linda. It's a relief to hear that about the 'JPII Buddha'.
DeleteSee my remarks on Nostra Aetate in red, bold, above.
I would like to add some further points highlighted by Canon Lawyer Edward Peters with respect to the Pacamama or whatever being in the Carmelite Church along with all the other offensive animal breastfeeding paraphernalia:
ReplyDelete"Canon 1210, addressing the dignity of Catholic holy places in general, states: “Only those things which serve the exercise or promotion of worship, piety, or religion are permitted in a sacred place; anything not consonant with the holiness of the place is forbidden…” And Canon 1220 § 1, addressing churches specifically, states: “All those responsible are to take care that in churches such cleanliness and beauty are preserved as befit a house of God and that whatever is inappropriate to the holiness of the place is excluded.”
Theses canons, in my view, do not simply preclude the placement of obviously demonic or pagan artifacts in our churches, but rather, require those in charge of sacred places to set up objects that are positively conducive to Christian prayer and worship. If, as the Congregation for Divine worship stated in 1987(*), the mere fact that that some music is admittedly beautiful does not justify its performance in churches, then all the more so should church authorities be on guard against setting up objects widely and reasonably seen as representing pagan deities in Catholic sacred spaces. I suggest (and more to the point, the Code of Canon Law understands in, say, Canon 214), that the faithful have the right to trust that what they see in Catholic sacred places is actually there in service to the sacred and is not simply a gesture toward some form of political correctness or the latest cause du jour, to say nothing of it possibly being simply evil. Ignoring concerns about the proper use of sacred space with a shrug and a ‘we don’t really know what it is’ is to ignore the positive duties that Church leadership owes to the faithful."
Oh Linda, if only you were a priest in a pulpit! That's said of course, in jest, but this is exactly the sort of information the faithful should be hearing. Solid, irreformable Church doctrine. Bring it on!
DeleteHaha, definitely a joke. I would rather die than be 'ordained'.
DeleteCardinal Mueller is a voice of sanity. He says the greater sin was putting the idols in the Church because the law of God says idolatry is a sin.' Clear as a bell.
PF is doubling down, more idols to feature at the closing of the synod in St Peter's no less. No wonder South Americans run to Pentecostalism. Pentecostals only have to make the argument that Catholics worship idols and whip out the photos. All these synod shenanigans severely undermine Catholic evangelisation.
The most important thing is to stay put and be clear about the Faith. As St Augustine said, don't be found outside the barn when the barn door is finally slammed shut. It is a great time to be a Catholic for we are deeply engaged in the fight in our time spiritually and we know not to run from it. Fidelity to prayer is the essential key but I know you know that. The victory of the Cross was first won in Gethsemane.
The submission of intellect and will, yes, and the peaceable way to read the documents of Vatican II is according to a hermeneutic of continuity. That does not mean theological discussion stops but as always is ongoing. But it does prevent extreme interpretations on way or another that might threaten unity.
ReplyDeleteNostra Aetate, of itself, doesn't demand anything awry from us as such, but it could be utilised because it is not precise enough. (This use of imprecise language is a reasonable criticism of Vat II documents. JP II returned often to particular passages as a type of interpretive key to overcome this). Returning to NA, for example, "Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet." Is Jesus a Jewish, a Christian or a Muslim prophet? It doesn't say. Some Catholics run around waxing lyrical about Islam's Jesus being a prophet (as if we are almost there with Islam in some sense of unity about this), when the truth is, for Islam, it means Jesus is a Muslim prophet, which is something entirely contradictory in view of Christian revelation. So it becomes confusing on the ground.
More troubling is Pope Francis' Abu Dhabi document:that God wills the plurality and diversity of religions. The whole statement is problematic. Regardless of whether I interpret it according to God's positive will or His permissive will I cannot read it in line with Catholic Tradition. Significantly more problematic than Nostra Aetate.
Oh yes, at Abu Dhabi the Church jumped from the fat of Nostra Aetate into the fire.
ReplyDelete