I saw something interesting in an XTweet about the demon idol Pachamama and its being venerated in the Vatican Gardens and scandalously carried into St. Peter’s and an associated demon cult bowl being placed on the main altar.
The X Tweet indicated that there was a document from the ghastly World Council of Churches in 2011 which recommended the integration of cults of indigenous peoples.
Want to know more about the World Council of Churches?
Disinformation: Former Spy Chief Reveals Secret Strategies for Undermining Freedom, Attacking Religion, and Promoting Terrorism by Ronald Rychlak and Lt. Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa.
Loading ...
Among forms of indigenous worship we have the Mayan practice of human sacrifice in which up to hundreds of victims per day were sacrificed to their gods usually by cutting their hearts out while still alive. Certainly one can say that Christianity was a vast improvement (only one sacrifice was needed and it had already been done for us).
Providentially (maybe?), my catechism reading over breakfast this morning was 1200-1209. Seems to me that — the demonic* dimension, not to be ignored, aside — there’s an emphasis on #1202: “The Church is catholic, capable of integrating into her unity, while purifying them, all the authentic riches of cultures” and #1204: “The celebration of the liturgy, therefore, should correspond to the genius and culture of the different peoples,” while deprecating or possibly flat ignoring #1205: “In the liturgy, above all that of the sacraments, there is an immutable part, a part that is divinely instituted and of which the Church is the guardian….” as well as the warning in #1206: “Liturgical diversity can be a source of enrichment, but it can also provoke tensions, mutual misunderstandings, and even schisms. In this matter it is clear that diversity must not damage unity….”
*As Father reminds us frequently, the Devil is a lawyer, so perhaps even the Catechism can be misused this way unless one is vigilant. I am a simple unfrozen caveman rookie amateur apologist, though, and any errors of logic or judgment I have committed here are my own fault.
Show me where the Apostles carried out their mission from Christ by modifying the faith with “the indigenous wisdom” of the people they were converting, please?
To the extent that cultural adaption was done by the Apostles and the other ancient missionaries, so also was it done as well by the medieval and modern missionaries, i.e. there was no period when this was NOT practiced. And so an insistence on some NEW form of “respecting” the indigenous culture is, explicitly, a departure from the proven and proper approach, to have the Church change her liturgy and doctrine in essentials rather than in accidentals. Just to that extent that the modernists insist on a new way of doing it, they are demanding something we should not do, and we should not apologize for that.
In effect, they are asking to have non-Christians become so-called Christians by NOT changing, by NOT adapting to the culture of Christ himself. Sorry, we don’t want more “members” of the Church on that basis.
And what of all the hundreds of millions of in-name-only Catholics in 1st world countries who have lost practicing their indigenous culture – that of Catholic Christendom – with the active connivance of these self-same Church leaders who wouldn’t be caught dead suggesting that they pay more attention to their Latin Church roots. Are we to blithely assume that these very same leaders who have caused the internal (unspoken) departure of 3/4 of the Church’s members are to be trusted in how to mission to those who are visibly non-Christian? Why?