Skip to main content

Pachamama Exhortation: Is Pachamama Idolatry okay if it's called "tak[ing] up an Indigenous Symbol"?

We had the Pachamama Synod.

Do we now have the Pachamama exhortation?

At the Amazon Synod, Francis said that the pagan Pachamama idols that were bowed down to had no "idolatrous intentions."

It appears that Francis in his Amazon Synod exhortation Querida Amazonia section 79 doubled down that it is admissible to bow down to Pachamama idols if they are called "an indigenous symbol":

"[It] is possible to take up an indigenous symbol in some way, without considering it as idolatry."

This is like a Arian heretic saying:

It is possible to say Jesus is man in some way, without considering it as heresy.

It is aways important to take what someone is saying in the context of their "cosmic worldview" and their past use of ambiguous language.

Is Pachamama idolatry okay if it's called "tak[ing] up an indigenous symbol"?

In practice, Francis has explicitly shown everyone in October, with no apologies, what "tak[ing] up an indigenous symbol" looks like in the Vatican gardens.

It looks like bowing down to Pachamama idols in front of Francis in the Vatican gardens and then saying there was "no idolatrous intentions."

Here's an analogy to make it clearer:

Suppose someone takes something from  you without your permission, doesn't give it back and doesn't even apologize, but says they didn't have a "stealing intention." Then later they say it's "possible to take things without permission from you because that is an indigenous symbol in some way and you mustn't consider it stealing."

Is stealing okay if you call "taking from you without your permission an indigenous symbol"?

If you really are stealing or committing idolatry calling it an "indigenous symbol" or not of "idolatrous intentions" or not of "stealing intentions" doesn't magically stop the act from being stealing or idolatry.

It appears that Francis is so obviously in-your-face about this with his Pachamama exhortation that it's almost embarrassing to see almost all the Francis conservatives and Francis traditionalists missing it.

Is everyone going to forget what happened after the Amazon Synod Pachamama worshipping?

In October, LifeSiteNews reported that Francis confirmed that the idols that were prostrated before and worshipped in front of Francis in the Vatican gardens were images of the pagan goddess Pachamama:

"Pope Francis has... confirm[ed] suspicions that the ["Vatican 'Pachamama'"] statues were idols."

Moreover, the news outlet quotes Francis himself declaring the "pachamama" idols were recovered and may scandalously and sacrilegiously be "displayed... at the closing Mass of the Synod":

"I would like to say a word about the pachamama statues that were removed from the Church at Traspontina, which were there without idolatrous intentions... the Carabinieri... commander said, 'the display of the [idol] statues [will be] at the closing Mass of the Synod.' We'll see."

"I delegate the Secretary of State who will respond to this."

"This is good news, thank you."
(LifeSiteNews, "Full transcript of the Pope's comments on pagan 'Pachamama' statues" and "Pope calls statues 'Pachamama' and apologizes for their removal from church," October 25, 2019)

The LifeSiteNews article, also, revealed that former head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Cardinal Gerhard Muller on EWTN said:

"[A]ccording to the Law of God Himself - the First Commandment - idolism [idolatry] is a grave sin... to bring the idols into the Church was a grave sin, a crime against the Divine Law."

It is apparently beyond doubt that Francis is a explicit heretic in terms of the First Commandment.

Cardinal Muller said Francis actions are "a crime against Divine Law."

Even supposing that Francis's actions had no "idolatrous intentions" which can only be judged by a imperfect council, the very "bring[ing] [of] the idols into the Church" and now saying that he is open and apparently willing to commit the scandalous sacrilege of "display[ing]... the [Sachamama idol] statues at the closing Mass of the Synod" which is "a crime against" the First Commandment that means he is "knowingly corrupt[ing] the faith."

To understand the enormity of the grave heresy, crime and sin of Francis just imagine if Moses on seeing his people prostrating in front of the graven idols had said there was no "idolatrous intentions" so let's "display" the idols in God's Paschal liturgy.

St. Thomas Aquinas stated "idolatry is the most grievous sin" in which "heretics... knowingly corrupt the faith."

There appears to be no doubt that Francis is as Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales says is "explicitly a heretic" in terms of the First Commandment who must by the "Church... [be] declar[ed]... deprived of his Apostlic See":

"The Pope... when he is explicitly a heretic... the Church must either deprive him or as some say declare him deprived of his Apostlic See."
(The Catholic Controversy by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)

It is now sheer madness if Cardinal Muller and the other faithful Catholic cardinals do not convene an imperfect council to "declare" Francis "deprived of his Apostlic See" after he is given canonical due process and allowed the opportunity to recant and, also, to investigate the validity of the Francis conclave and the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI which Bishop Rene Gracida has called for.

The greatest Doctor of the Church St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologiae in "3. Whether idolatry is the gravest of sins?" condemned Francis when he wrote the sin against the First Commandment idolatry is the "most grievous sin" especially when "heretics... knowingly corrupt the faith":

"[I]dolatry is the most grievous sin... heretics, if they knowingly corrupt the faith they have received, from sinning more grievously than idolaters who sin through ignorance... Idolatry presupposes internal unbelief... Idolatry includes a grievous blasphemy."
(Newadvent.org, Summa Theologiae: Idolatry (Secunda Secundea Partis, Q. 94)

Finally, this is a warning to myself and all Catholics, but especially to Cardinal Muller and all the cardinals who believe the Catholic faith.

Our God given faith united with our free will actions as well as our non-actions determine if we go to Heaven or Hell.

God is looking at you right now.

Your actions or non-actions may determine not just rather you fail to do God's will in this ultimate crisis of the Church, but rather you may spend eternity with the all-loving God or spend eternity with the all-hating Satan and his demons one of whom is Pachamama.

"For all the gods of the Gentiles [heathens] are devils."
- Douay-Rheims, Psalms 96:5

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Bishops of Colorado gave an apparent Vaxx "Exemption" Letter & Stated: "Vaccination is Not Morally Obligatory and so Must Be Voluntary"

Today, the bishops of Colorado gave an apparent Vaxx " exemption" letter (21_8_Vaccine_Exemption_CCC_Fin...docx(20KB)) and stated that "Vaccination is Not Morally Obligatory and so Must Be Voluntary":  COLORADO CATHOLIC CONFERENCE 1535 Logan Street | Denver, CO 80203-1913 303-894-8808 | cocatholicconference.org   [Date]   To Whom It May Concern, [Name] is a baptized Catholic seeking a religious exemption from an immunization requirement. This letter explains how the Catholic Church’s teachings may lead individual Catholics, including [name], to decline certain vaccines. The Catholic Church teaches that a person may be required to refuse a medical intervention, including a vaccination, if his or her conscience comes to this judgment. While the Catholic Church does not prohibit the use of most vaccines, and generally encourages them to safeguard personal and public health, the following authoritative Church teachings demonstrate the principled religious

Does Francis's "Right-hand Man" Parra have a "Sexual Predation against Seminarians, Adultery, and even a Deadly Sex Game...[that] 'might even be a Scandal Surpassing that of McCarrick'"?

  Archbishop Edgar Peña Parra with Francis Today, the Call Me Jorge website asked "What could be so important that Francis interrupted his weekly adulation [Audience] session?": Pope gets a phone call during the Audience. Haven’t seen this before. Then he quickly leaves and says he will be back. pic.twitter.com/npCuPzdnxP — The Catholic Traveler (@MountainButorac) August 11, 2021 It was Abp. Mons. Edgar Robinson Peña Parra, Substitute for the Secretariat of State, who was involved in the recent scandal of mismanagement during the acquisition of a € 300 million building in London. Still no word on what the phone call was about . [http://callmejorgebergoglio.blogspot.com/2021/08/what-could-be-so-important-that-francis.html] Who is Archbishop Edgar Robinson Peña Parra ? Parra according to the Catholic Herald is Francis's "right-hand man"[https://catholicherald.co.uk/roman-curia-the-popes-new-right-hand-man/] In 2019, Life Site News reported that Parra alleged

Might it be Good for all of us & for Francis to Read about the "Gruesome Death of Arius"?

  I have read the letters of your piety , in which you have requested me to make known to you the events of my times relating to myself, and to give an account of that most impious heresy of the Arians , in consequence of which I have endured these sufferings, and also of the manner of the death of Arius . With two out of your three demands I have readily undertaken to comply, and have sent to your Godliness what I wrote to the Monks; from which you will be able to learn my own history as well as that of the heresy . But with respect to the other matter, I mean the death, I debated with myself for a long time, fearing lest any one should suppose that I was exulting in the death of that man. But yet, since a disputation which has taken place among you concerning the heresy , has issued in this question, whether Arius died after previously communicating with the Church ; I therefore was necessarily desirous of giving an account of his death, as thinking that the question woul