Whatever that was, it wasn’t a ‘stunt’ (Jiffy Pachamama Removal Service)

In the Light of the Law ^ | Oct 22, 2019 | Edward Peters

[Mrs. Don-o]

A few days ago men removed some female figurines (centerpieces for several weird ceremonies in Rome the last few weeks) from a church and tossed them into the Tiber River. Vatican spokesman Paolo Ruffini dismissed the act as a “stunt”. Regardless of how one assess this act, however, I think it not accurate to describe it as a mere “stunt”.

A “stunt” is a gesture that calls attention to a problem but does not itself solve the problem. For example, chaining oneself to a lamppost could call attention to the plight of the unjustly imprisoned but does not itself free the imprisoned. Standing on the corner with one’s mouth duct-taped might call attention to the suffering of the voiceless but does not itself give them a voice. Such acts are stunts, good stunts or bad, but in the end, stunts. What the Tiber men did was different.

Removing these figures from a church and tossing them into the Tiber does not simply call attention to the problem of setting up such objects in a church it also removes the statues from the church and thus solves the problem of having them set up in a sacred place. Such an act, good act or bad, is more than a “stunt”, it is form of direct action against a problem.

The Vatican having ruled out the possibility that the nude statues might represent the Virgin Mary or ‘Our Lady of the Amazon’, it is disputed whether the figurines portray the Amazon pagan goddess Pachamama or (at least per a handful of Vaticanisti) merely some vague “life force”. It is not for me to opine on who or what the objects actually represent and if someone wants to argue that chanting to and bowing before figurines of naked women does not count as worshiping strange gods, well, who am I to say?

But a fuller assessment of the act of these two men does not rest solely on whether the figures are demonic or merely faddish. 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.

As a man of law I am also a man of order and, as a rule, I hold that removing objects from private property is not an act of good order. But then, neither is setting up idols (whether to demons or to secular causes) in Catholic churches an act of good order. Over time the disregard of law by those in charge eventually brings about disregard of law by those subject to it. And that in turn can result in acts that are much more than mere “stunts”.

* See Cong. for Divine Worship (Mayer), excerpt from let. “Qua in mentem quaedam normae quoad ‘Concerti nelle chiesa’ revocantur” (05 nov 1987), Communicationes 19 (1987) 179-181.

[MHGinTN]

The Holy Spirit of God, using an already pagani,ed bunch of men always in power struggles ... Proving what was written long before the Roman Catholic brand was even imagined. Do you k ow where you can find that in the Septuagint?

[DoodleBob]

Actually, if trads unleashed a storm of satirical absurd memes with these horrible statues, photoshopped into pics with church leaders that bring them ridicule, THAT would be great.

[Mom MD]

Most of it was compiled by 100 AD or so under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Long before the Roman sect existed

[Mom MD]

And that was the NT. Do you seriously believe the Jews had no OT compiled until the council of Trent when the Roman church could not even get a majority to agree on a defined list?

[HarleyD]

Several interesting points to note from the article:

1) The Vatican approved the placement of the nude statues for some "weird" celebration.

2) These statues are owned and belong to the Church.

3) While the Vatican says they do not represent a pagan god, this continues to be in dispute. The author certainly believes this to be so.

4) The Catholic Church isn't even following the clear edicts of it's own canon.

Well, enough Catholic bashing.

[ealgeone]

Who compiled the OT and NT books into the current Bible as we know it?

Well, for Roman Catholicism, the Council of Trent is when the RC canon was dogmatically defined.

[daniel1212]

Even statues know enough to swim the Tiber away from the Vatican
.

[daniel1212]

One would have a hard time in Bible times explaining kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, beseeching such for Heavenly help, and making offerings to them, and giving glory and titles and ascribing supernatural attributes to such which are never given in Scripture to created beings (except to false gods), including having the uniquely Divine power glory to hear and respond to virtually infinite numbers of prayers individually addressed to them.

Which manner of "adulation" would constitute worship in Scripture (Words for worship in the NT), yet Catholics imagine that by playing word games then they can avoid crossing the invisible line between mere "veneration" and worship.

In addition, prayer to created beings in Heaven (PTCBIH) certainly does not come from the Bible. Nowhere in Scripture do we see any believers engaging in prayer to created beings in Heaven or instructed to do so, despite the Spirit inspiring the recording of over 200 prayers by believers, and despite this being a most basic practice, and despite there always being plenty of created beings to pray to, and occasions for it since the Fall. Yet the only prayers or offerings in Scripture to anyone else in the spiritual world is by pagans, including to the only Queen of Heaven see therein. Who were as adamant as many Catholics in defending their blasphemous practice :

As for the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of the Lord, we will not hearken unto thee. But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes... (Jeremiah 44:16-17)

[ealgeone]

The vote was 24 yea, 15 nay, 16 abstain to approve the canon.

55 total possible votes.

44% voted yea.

This means 56% either voted no or abstained.

Rome could not even get a simple majority on this issue.

So much for a "unanimous" consent on this issue.

What else is interesting is the issue of the Latin Vulgate being THE official translation. Other texts were not allowed.

YET in 1943 Pius XII allowed translation based on texts other than the Latin Vulgate. That's quite a lot of change from the group that claims they never change.

I tell ya, when you start peeling back the layers of the onion it gets interesting.

But IF the Roman Catholic really looked at their history they'd also find a number of the dogmas they've been told they HAVE to believe are based on books rejected by the early church and in some cases condemned by the early church.

Yet, they blindly continue to accept what they've been told.

[daniel1212]

Do you need an explanation of the difference between latria, dulia, and hyperdulia? Tell the truth, now.

Better yet, go tell me that unless the word "latria" is used then what is described using other words (such as Proskunētēs Proskyneō/Proskuneō Sebō/Sebomai) cannot be worship. Go ahead and play word games to deny what Scripture reveals.

They adore felt banners.

The fallacy of false equivalence - unless one is kneeling before a banner and praising the entity it represents in the unseen world, beseeching such for Heavenly help, and making offerings to such, and giving glory and titles and ascribing supernatural attributes to such which are never given in Scripture to created things (except to false gods), including having the uniquely Divine power glory to hear and respond to virtually infinite numbers of prayers individually addressed to them.

[daniel1212]

I don't know, but if you're judging people wrongly, you're breaking the commandment against bearing false witness.

And "with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again," (Matthew 7:2) meaning in this case that while you are charging your opponent with bearing false witness, this is based upon the premise that those kneeling and praying before a statue of Mary in praise and adulation are not engaging in what Scripture refers to as worship. Which premise is dubious in the light of how worship is described in Scripture and what "veneration" of the Mary of Catholicism often means. Thus there is a strong case that Roman_War_Criminal is not bearing false witness, and if not hen you are. But you can argue that kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represents in the unseen world, beseeching such for Heavenly help - and making offerings to them, and giving glory and titles and ascribing supernatural attributes to that entity which are never given in Scripture to created beings (except to false gods), including having the uniquely Divine power glory to hear and respond to virtually infinite numbers of prayers individually addressed to them - is not what Scripture describes as worship. Or you can argue that none of those RWC refers to engage in the above.

Funny how Protestants claim "all sins are equally bad" which would make *your* bearing false witness just as bad as *my* idolatry, wouldn't it?

A valid point, but not all Protestants claim "all sins are equally bad," and which indeed that are not. They equally make one a law-breaker, but in both degree of evil and of guilt there are differences, thus the progression of Rm. 1 which Protestants commentators point out.

[Mark17]

” Like, bootstrapping yourself into eternity?

Can you translate that into English, MDO? I used to believe I was saved by works. I don’t anymore.

[daniel1212]

The Mary of the catholic church teachings is not the Mary of the Bible...although catholics do ‘believe’ that she is as well as what they are indoctrinated to believe about her. 86 posted on 10/22/2019, 8:00:27 PM by caww

Where are you getting this mistaken idea? 87 posted on 10/22/2019, 8:03:52 PM by Salvation

The scriptures is where I confirm teachings if true or not. 91 posted on 10/22/2019, 8:14:39 PM by caww

The Catholic Church gave you the Scriptures. Both OT and NT. If you are using the kjv you do not have a complete Bible nor the complete word of God. 94 posted on 10/22/2019, 8:23:53 PM by Salvation

You are in error: the Holy Spirit gave us the scriptures. Pride is a sin 96 posted on 10/22/2019, 8:27:43 PM by MHGinTN

And to whom were they given — the Catholic Church through all the authors. What Bible was first printed by the Guttenberg press? The Catholic Vulgate. Look it up! 97 posted on 10/22/2019, 8:34:27 PM by Salvation

The OT was give. to the Jews long before the Roman sect existed. The NT was given to Jew and Gentile by the Holy Spirit long before the Roman sect existed as well. You might want to check that chip on your shoulder 111 posted on 10/22/2019, 10:02:31 PM by Mom MD

Who compiled the OT and NT books into the current Bible as we know it?

And regardless of the fact that your church as we know it did not give us the OT and NT books into the current Bible as we know it, your argument seems to be that being the magisterial discerners and stewards of Holy Writ means that such are the infallible authorities on it, whose judgments must therefore be followed if one will obey God? And that such infallible authority is essential to know what writings are of God?

Please affirm or deny this as it seems to be your argument, and indeed you are making an argument with your polemical assertions which require a response.

[daniel1212]

The vote was 24 yea, 15 nay, 16 abstain to approve the canon. 55 total possible votes. 44% voted yea. This means 56% either voted no or abstained. Rome could not even get a simple majority on this issue.

To be accurate, this was informal vote of 24 yea, 15 nay, with 16 abstaining (44%, 27%, 29%) as to whether to dogmatically affirm (as an article of faith with its anathemas on those who dissent from it).

[Mark17]

We do know that Romans 1 says that when people suppress the truth of God and reject that which can be known of God that is in them in the place of God, they create their own idols ‘in the form of man’... as well as beasts and other animals.

Ouch Caww. Your whole post is going to leave a scar. 😁 Of course, you know what happens next. God gives them over to a reprobate mind. Only my suspicion, but I think it’s possible, that once God gives them over to a reprobate mind, there is probably little chance they will ever be saved. Does that sound reasonable?

[Mark17]

Did your computer have a hiccup? 😁👍👊

[ealgeone]

Thanks for the update. I’ll note that for future discussions.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I never believed I was saved by works alone. THat's actually a defined heresy, condemned by the Council of Carthage in 416 and 418.

I believe I AM saved by a living faith in Jesus Christ Our Lord.

---

"Bootstrapping" refers to "putting yourself up by your own bootstraps," an impossible task.

[Mark17]

Hey bro. You are a Marine dad. I am a USAF Officer dad. 👍

[Mrs. Don-o]

I don’t think you, who are familiar with Greek, as well as with the well-worn commonplace terms of apologetics, are unfamiliar with the word latria: adoration, the supreme worship allowed to God alone.