Translate

Sunday, November 10, 2019

ON THE USE OF IDOLS IN CATHOLIC WORSHIP, EXCUSE ME CARDINAL CUPICH?





I am puzzled over this statement from Cardinal Cupich as reporterd by Lifesite news:

Archbishop Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago defended the use of the “Pachamama” statues during the Amazon Synod, saying the church has “always adopted pagan elements in its traditions and especially its liturgical rites” while quoting from a Vatican document about “inculturation.”

Cardinal Cupich don't embarrass yourself with half truths. Yes we have "baptized" and Catholicized some pagan elements, but not idols. Seasons of the year, Christmas trees, the asperges (formerly fertility rites) were Christianized but were never used as pagans would have used them and I can't think of any idol (like the golden calf) that the Church ever used in the way pagans use their idols, meaning in a liturgical or worshipful way.

For example, the abomination of what happened in the Vatican Gardens where pachamama was used in a pagan way, not a Christian way, with people dancing about it and prostrating themselves before it was in no way Christianized by those doing it. Pachamama was pachamama, not a baptized reinventing of the idol into the Blessed Virgin Mary as some contended at the time and falsely.

To christianize this idol, the Church, meaning the pope, would have to declare the idol to be a representation of the Blessed Virgin Mary with Child. More than likely the Christianized version would need to be clothed and perhaps crowned. And the worship of it eliminated and made veneration.

As I see it, what happened in the Vatican Gardens was idol worship with no Christian element.

Correct me if I am wrong. 

30 comments:

Dan said...

Let's see.. these things were Christianized.. Does that mean the pagans were proselytized/evangelized until the formerly pagan aspects were seen in a Christian way? Cause that would be mean and stuff, and not building bridges, see..

Face it, these evil non-Christian (I was going to write non-Catholic, but they are beyond that) are in charge and leading those who follow astray. And it is on purpose.

Marc said...

The Pachamama worship pre-dates Vatican II, so it’s clearly in need of updating so us moderns can truly appreciate it and actively participate in it. We need committees established to ascertain the most effective way for Americans to worship the Pachamama, actually, because the ancient Incan method doesn’t speak to me as a 21st century American. For starters, I don’t speak Incan and I don’t like the bowing. And dirt is kind of, well, dirty. So here’s why I propose:

The president of the worship should actually turn away from the Pachamama during the worship. I know it sounds crazy, but only by turning away from it can he actually be said to lead us toward it.

Next, all the ancient Pachamama rituals and songs need to be changed completely so that very little of the Pachamama tradition remains.

Finally, we will all pay very little attention to Pachamama and a lot of attention to each other. Ignoring the Pachamama is a great way to show our devotion to it.

Now we all say that nothing essential has changed and we are just like the ancient Incans. In fact, we are better than them because we are finally actively worshipping Pachamama the way it intended.

Mark Thomas said...

In regard to the topic at hand, here are a couple of articles from the wonderful blog Where Peter Is.

https://wherepeteris.com/displays-of-paganism-in-the-vatican-what-can-we-learn-from-them/

https://wherepeteris.com/still-worried-about-pachamama-read-laudato-si/

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Victor said...

One should not expect anything different from a Francis toady. Francis is successfully stacking the college of cardinals to his pagan ideology.

Mr Thomas:
As for your first link, Sybyls and naked Saints are not gods or godesses, nor are they idols to be worshiped as the Amazonians were doing at the Vatican, by bowing and kneeling to them. Sybyls were prophetesses, some, like in the Dies Irae, prophesised doom, but Jesus Christ is the Merciful Saviour from such doom.

As for the second, it almost convinces me that pope Francis is a heretic: "There is not a standard culture, there is not a pure culture that purifies the others; there is the Gospel, pure, which is inculturated." WRONG! There is a standard culture that purifies the others, and it is the Catholic culture. To preach of no standard culture is to preach relativism. Francis is a neo-Modernist through and through.

Marc said...

Today, our priest (along with every SSPX priest) said a mass in reparation for this idolatry. We sung the Litany of the Saints at the end of mass as well, and yesterday was a fast day per the instruction of the Superior General.

As Fr. Pagliarani said, “Truly, the seeds of apostasy which our venerable Founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, had identified from the earliest days as being at work in the Council, continue to yield their putrid fruits with renewed effectiveness. In the name of inculturation, pagan elements are increasingly integrated into divine worship and we can see, once again, how the liturgy that followed of the Second Vatican Council is perfectly suited to this. ... [We] ask God to protect His Church and to spare it from the punishments that such acts [the pope’s idolatrous worship service] cannot fail to draw down upon it.”

Cletus Ordo said...

Cardinal Cupich defends using pagan idols.

And just WHY are any of us surprised?

Anonymous said...

Papolatry noun: Worship of the Pope; excessive veneration or admiration of the pope. adjective: papolatrous.

Anonymous said...

Bee here:

I don't think he and I follow the same religion.

God bless.
Bee

Православный физик said...

With Bishops like these....

Even Eye of the Tiber can't make this stuff up...

DJR said...

Mark Thomas said..."In regard to the topic at hand, here are a couple of articles from the wonderful blog Where Peter Is."

And here is a sample, from 2016, of some material from one of the wonderful writers at the wonderful blog Where Peter Is:

John Paul Shimek writes: Well, we disagree on a great deal. Probably we have radically different visions of the Church. Thankfully, mine is in the ascendancy in the Age of the Francis Revolution. I give so-called 'fundamentalist Catholics' another 5, maybe 10 years at the most. Then they will be driven from every parish in America. I think they already sense this and that's why they're trying to set up pseudo parishes of their own.

Thesis 6. Homosexuality and masculinity are not mutually exclusive terms. Effeminate and American heterosexual conservative are very often co-extensive terms.

John Paul Shimek writes: If I had a mission in life, it would be to make Catholic Traditionalism an unthinkable option. I have nothing against Tradition. It is the oxygen of Catholicism. But I have everything against TraditionalISM. It is poison injected into the Body of Christ.

Steve Skojec: I really do appreciate the candor with which you expose the agenda of people on your side. I also hope you suffer from the fact that you will never win.

John Paul Shimek writes: Thankfully my side is already winning.

And again:

John Paul Shimek writes: Probably this won't satisfy your demands. But permit me to test out some theses that I have been mulling over in my mind. Understood correctlu (sic) they might form an answer to your questions.

1. I think that the Spiritual Friendship project is too soft and that Dignity USA is too para-ecclesial.

2. I believe David and Jonathan enjoyed a same-sex relationship honored by God.

3. I believe a redeemed and Christianized expression of homosexuality is possible and constitutes a means of sanctification and deification. This kind of gay is good and godly.

4. Relationships lived according to this model are good, God-praising, and needed by the Church for the salvation of the world.

5. The Church does not have a teaching on homosexuality but has evidenced a failure to teach.

John Paul Shimek writes: I recognize that each of these theses is capable of further development. But I'm satisfied with their current formulation now.

_____

And further, from a 2014 Milwaukee Magazine interview (notice the theme):

"According to Shimek, delegates at the Milwaukee synod were saying that 'we need to clean up our own house before we can speak to the issues of same-sex marriage,' which isn’t to imply that all of the representatives opposed same-sex marriage.

“'If I had to say what was missing,'” he says, “'there wasn’t a group or community of LGBT Catholics'” that was present.

So much for the wonderful blog Where Peter Is.

Dan said...

DJR, I think your response to Mark Thomas explains a couple of questions that I had about him.

The Egyptian said...

worked out well for the Anglicans, didn't it. So let's follow them down the pit, shall we??
----------------------------

John Paul Shimek writes: Probably this won't satisfy your demands. But permit me to test out some theses that I have been mulling over in my mind. Understood correctly (sic) they might form an answer to your questions.

1. I think that the Spiritual Friendship project is too soft and that Dignity USA is too para-ecclesial.

2. I believe David and Jonathan enjoyed a same-sex relationship honored by God.

3. I believe a redeemed and Christianized expression of homosexuality is possible and constitutes a means of sanctification and deification. This kind of gay is good and godly.

4. Relationships lived according to this model are good, God-praising, and needed by the Church for the salvation of the world.

5. The Church does not have a teaching on homosexuality but has evidenced a failure to teach.

TJM said...

DJR,

You may have discovered why MT is the way he is.

David Burkovich said...

This was written above.....

2. I believe David and Jonathan enjoyed a same-sex relationship honored by God.

3. I believe a redeemed and Christianized expression of homosexuality is possible and constitutes a means of sanctification and deification. This kind of gay is good and godly.

4. Relationships lived according to this model are good, God-praising, and needed by the Church for the salvation of the world.

5. The Church does not have a teaching on homosexuality but has evidenced a failure to teach.

This is all baloney....men can and do love other men more than they can love women. The least expression of love is through sexual means, it is just a physical feeling that is short lived. A greater love, an incomparable love, is wanting to sacrifice or help or even give your life for another. For example, 2 men in combat together will develop a love for each other that will last a lifetime. Even when they are apart from each other for years and years that loving, brotherly, inexpressible love always exists. When Jesus said to Peter, "Do you love me?" and Peter replied, "yes I love you". Did this have anything to do with sex? Homosexuality always has to do with sex that is how its adherents proclaim their "love" for each other but is it really "love" or more like lust and self fulfillment, and selfishness. The same happens during sex between a man and a woman unless there is that sacrificial bond between them, willing to give all for each other without expectation of reciprocity. Love is lost on most of this generation who have no idea what true love is. Woe are we if we do not find true love, and this can only be found by following the example of Jesus Christ. Period!!!

Anonymous said...

https://wherepeteris.com/paganism-in-the-vatican-hermeneutic-of-suspicion-at-its-peak/?fbclid=IwAR14gkEe1yIftCuCzdDclaRV0JLtK4IM9d52Xo3iedJnY09ULvVVbS40DKg

Bob said...

Most commentary, including often mine own, is an attempt to out-witty the article writer, to be even more clever, add even more zing.

With the way you closed that short article by pointing out any Christian use would automatically exclude the worship claimed as legit enculturization by the current regime...just not gonna even attempt to out-witty that one. I am SO sorry that Blasé, or whatever that vindictive creature's name, will likely not read it, or he would be trying to have you committed to a One Flew Over The Cuckhold's Nest retreat center.

Anonymous 2 said...

Oh my goodness, Anonymous (at 6:24 am), are you out of your mind? Trying to confuse matters with subversive, nay even heretical, notions like facts, epistemological and cultural humility, critical thinking, open-mindedness, suspension of judgment, and similar nonsense? You really do need to get with the program.

This said, there seems to be a process for inculturation and the liturgy. It would be interesting to know whether it was followed, assuming it was relevant to these particular circumstances (which perhaps it was not):

https://adoremus.org/1994/03/29/instruction-inculturation-and-the-roman-liturgy/



Anonymous said...

Anon 2- I know, I am a living, breathing, walking, talking tragedy of clear thinking, reason, and humility.

Such a burden to bear in our current broken culture....

Sigh...

Oh, I'm now selling Trixie Cosmetics. PM me if you'd like to sponsor a House Party. You get 11.7% of the sales!

Dan said...

Anonymous. So you sell Trixie cosmetics? I knew you were a certain priest.

Anonymous 2 said...

No, Dan, it’s not a certain priest. It’s Trixie the Troll.

Dan said...

Since Trixie cosmetics seems to be made for drag queens, I guess Trixie the Troll is the 'drag name.'

Had to look up Trixie cosmetics... kind of sad that any Catholic would know about such a brand. But then again, I just think Anonymous is a priest, I don't think they are Catholic.

Anonymous said...

"...kind of sad that any Catholic would know about such a brand."

The expectation that a Catholic would not know about things that go on in the world is rather telling.

Have you never heard of Playboy magazine? Of course you have. Is it "kind of sad that any Catholic would know about such a brand"?

Hardly.

Anonymous 2 said...

Dan,

There you go again, leaping to unwarranted assumptions. Why do you assume I didn’t have to look it up too?

Anonymous 2 said...

I could just have easily assumed that you posted the Trixie cosmetics point as Anonymous, then commented on it as Dan, no? In fact, now that I mention it . . . . Hmmmm.



Dan said...

Playboy brand has been in MAINSTREAM media for decades. Trixie cosmetics is quite a specific subset of cosmetics. Your arguement FAILS Trixie.

Dan said...

A2, are you forgetting that it was Anonymous that mentioned Trixie cosmetics? It wasn't you (as A2) that mentioned it. Why assume I thought A2 knew anything about Trixie brand cosmetics?

Maybe YOU are both.

Anonymous 2 said...

Dan,

You made the “sad” comment in responding to my post, not Anonymous’ post. But I do see that your comment is directed rather at Anonymous. Perhaps I was just too distressed by your gratuitously offensive, sarcastic suggestion that our priests are not Catholic. I really do not understand why you (or Anonymous Trixie Troll) have to be so vicious. Now_that_is not Catholic! I suspect, though, that it is rooted in some deep-seated pain and brokenness (we are all broken in some way, after all) and I hope and pray that you, Anonymous Trixie Troll, and indeed all of us will find the healing we need. I mean that.

Anonymous said...

Dan - You, a "good Catholic," actually KNOW about Playboy???

I shudder to think that next you will tell us that you know what kind of photography is published in Playboy!!!

How can a "good Catholic" actually know this sort of thing???

Oh, my goodness... Where are my smelling salts???

Please, please don't tell us what else you know....!

(What else DO you know?)

Dan said...

Let's see.... hmmm I have heard about the show "Sex and the City" - never watched it....

Trixie cosmetics VERY specialized subset of knowledge. But you know that.

Dan said...

Final comment Trixie. Are you actually trying to argue that NORMAL men would know about a cosmetic line made for drag queens? Really?

I guess you DO need to hide behind 'Anonymous.'