Wednesday, October 23, 2019

Dealing With the Madness over the So-Called “Pachamama”


time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him, saying, ‘You are mad; you are not like us.” 
—St. Anthony, Abbot

One of my pet peeves is when people who, for whatever reason, when disagreeing with the stance I take in defending the Pope and the Church tell me to “open my eyes.” (It reminds me of St. Anthony’s quote above). While the people who use it probably thinks they’re clever, it’s merely an ad hominem attack that tells the target that if he doesn’t see things the way the accuser does, it means that the person must be at fault for refusing to “look at the facts.” The problem is, that attack doesn’t refute anything, and it serves as a distraction from the fact that their claims are refutable. 

In fact, the more I study the claims (I’ve seen the video, I’ve researched the accusations) of those who attack the Pope and the Synod, the more I am convinced they are falsehoods on par with those spread by Luther in the 16th century when he grossly misrepresented the Church to push his own agenda. 

It’s a tale that grows more ridiculous, more exaggerated as it spreads across social media. In the beginning, the speculation was that the Pope didn’t read his speech because he was “furious.” Now his critics make him into an apostate. It seems to me that these people are being led astray as the devil turns them into “useful idiots” who do his will while thinking they serve God. 

Please note: I’m not defending idolatry or syncretism. I’m rejecting those accusations as false. I think people should remember this: anti-Catholics routinely accuse us of worshiping statues based on our postures and their falsely labeling statues as “idols.” Catholic critics would be wise to consider the possibility that they are at risk of behaving in the same way. They should ask themselves whether Catholics In Amazonia behave differently than Catholics in the United States or Western Europe.

The Vatican didn’t “admit” it was an idol, let alone Pachamama. The image was a carving that was brought to the synod was chosen as a symbol of life made by an indigenous carver. Different people attribute it to being Our Lady of the Amazon or Pachamama. Meanwhile the statement of the Vatican reflects what those who brought the image intended. If one wants to argue that it is “Pachamama,” or that the rites are “pagan,” they need to prove that these images are used as idols and worshipped in this manner. They need to prove that the people involved were in fact pagan.

But this is exactly what they don’t do. They assume bad will on the part of the Pope and the synod and everything that is unfamiliar or uncomfortable to them, they assume has a bad cause behind it. But where is the research? Where are the peer-reviewed studies? Where are the investigations into the people that they accuse of worshiping idols to determine it is as they think?

There are none. There are only hostile interpretations and rumors building on those interpretations. At the least, this is rash judgment, if not outright calumny. Both are sins against the prohibition on bearing false witness.

9 comments:

  1. Not to mention that "Pachamama" is actually a pagan deity that was worshipped by natives of the Andes mountains, which at least makes it unlikely that Amazonians would also be worshipping it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. There was at least one representative from Peru at the Synod. But most (from the article I read on the Vatican news site) were from Brazil.

    The Vatican site, as far as I can see, is basically just ignoring everyone out there who is saying stuff against Pope Francis, because not only can I NOT see anything on the site that could corroborate their claims, neither can I see anything that could contradict them.

    It really is hard to defend the Pope right now, since all these people are coming out with all kinds of "proof", and this or that bishop in Italy wrote a prayer to Pachamama on the occasion of Missons Sunday, and I can neither confirm nor refute anything.

    All these so-called mentions of Pachamama, are we calling Mary Pachamama now, in an attempt to replace Indigenous culture with Catholic culture? Have we given her that name for real? Or is this all part of the Rad Trad hoax?

    I'm just going to sit here with my box of popcorn...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If one can neither confirm or refute a claim, it is best left unsaid. The accusers have the burden of proof in making their claims.

      The Vatican site is good—when it updates which is slower than I prefer. Sites like Zenit (which often provides full translations), Vatican Radio, and Catholic News Service seems to be the best news organizations out there. Unfortunately, the American sites seem to be more opinions than facts lately.

      God bless.

      Delete
    2. The Vatican is purposely leaving stuff out in order to confuse the faithful. If you actually read carefully LifeSite and ChurchMilitant, you will see that they continue to provide ample evidence.

      For example, a bishop from the Amazon condemned the ceremony in the Vatican garden as pagan and an invitation to the demonic. REPAM, an organization closely allied with the synod, acknowledges the paganism of Pachamama. Once it was exposed, they took the reference off their website.

      They've exposed the agenda of those funding the synod, including the pro-abortion Ford Foundation.

      Just take a look at the who's who of the bishops at the synod and what Francis & co. are pushing becomes clear. There are plenty more bishops who want to speak out, but are afraid to because of how Francis is running the Vatican.

      Delete
    3. Also, in the final document, the paragraph on formalizing women's ministries (a step toward women deacons and eventually priesthood) is left out of the English translation. Why? Because they don't want the pushback from the faithful in America who are defending the Deposit of Faith and Sacred Tradition.

      Delete
    4. I know my responses likely will not be published. Why? Because the author of this blog doesn't tolerate opinions contrary to his own. He does not want the evidence against Francis and the modernist bishops and priests to be shown.

      Delete
    5. LSN and Church Militant are terrible sources. I read the actual transcripts. There’s a huge difference between what was actually said and what the individual quotes wrenched out of context mean.

      Of course there will always be malcontents who interpret things in the worst way and people who try to twist it to benefit themselves (Arius did that back in Nicea I). But those are not the same thing as the intended teachings.

      Delete
    6. If you read the actual documents, you’d know that your claims on women ministries was an outright lie.

      Delete
    7. And I published your comments but none further. My blog is not a platform for malcontents to spread distortion and falsehoods.

      Delete