Haunting message fron indigenous Amazonian.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I don't think you'll find too many people around here defending Brazilian evangelicalism.

It's worth being aware of even if none of us are going to defend it.

I don't know enough about Latin America to know how much truth there is to the idea that the spread of Evangelicalism in the region started with Nixon-era psyops, but I wouldn't be entirely surprised.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Can I get a tl;dr on this pachamama stuff?

It's complicated. When trying to find out more about it, what pained me is the online tradcaths actually reveling in it because;

OUR LADY THE VIRGIN MARY BLESSED QUEEN OF HEAVEN IS THE ONLY...

So I'm going to wait for other reporting.

I've been looking into the subject for a Catholic blogging site I write for. The tl;dr is that Pope Francis was presented with a pair of statues that according to the people who presented them were Marian representations. The anti-Francis sectors of Extremely Online Catholicism latched onto the idea that the statues were in fact of a hitherto obscure (outside South America) Incan earth goddess called Pachamama, which was difficult to disprove because "pachamama" is also the common term for "Mother Earth" in some of the relevant languages. The Vatican, because the Dicastery for Communications and everybody in it are incompetent duds for reasons best known to itself, keeps insisting that the statues are generic fertility and/or pro-life symbols that aren't supposed to be religious representations at all, and finally things got to the point where people from the Extremely Online trad constellation physically stole the statues and threw them into the River Tiber. Because evil actions can never be undertaken even to a good end, unless the actions are theft and vandalism and the end is taking a stand against FRANCISCHURCH BERGOGLIAN ANTICHRISTIC INDIFFERENTIST MODERNIST SYNCRETIST HERESY IDOLATRY

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

One of the great strengths of Christianity, and right from the beginning as well, has been its ability to absorb local spirituality and traditions into its overarching structure.

Yes, and to see someone who fancies himself as liberal-minded above all else side with the likes of Jair Bolsonaro, Athanasius Schneider, and Regina magazine over against this observation is deeply dismaying.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

By abolishing celibacy the Church has lost her last hope to be saved by faithful young priests in the first world.

This doesn't follow, unless you think Ordinariate and Eastern Catholic priests aren't "faithful".

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

By abolishing celibacy the Church has lost her last hope to be saved by faithful young priests in the first world.

This doesn't follow, unless you think Ordinariate and Eastern Catholic priests aren't "faithful".

Despite worshipping thankfully at the Byzantine heretics (when not being at FSSPX), i cannot regard them (or the Uniied) as full priests.

That's your problem.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

By abolishing celibacy the Church has lost her last hope to be saved by faithful young priests in the first world.

This doesn't follow, unless you think Ordinariate and Eastern Catholic priests aren't "faithful".

Despite worshipping thankfully at the Byzantine heretics (when not being at FSSPX), i cannot regard them (or the Uniied) as full priests.

That's your problem.

No, that's a problem for their salvation, not mine.

I suppose denying the validity of holy orders recognized by and in communion with Rome might not be a problem for your salvation, no, but it certainly seems like a problem in terms of inducing unnecessary, impotent rage and despair at the Church not being the way Don Colacho wanted it to be.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

By abolishing celibacy the Church has lost her last hope to be saved by faithful young priests in the first world.

This doesn't follow, unless you think Ordinariate and Eastern Catholic priests aren't "faithful".

Despite worshipping thankfully at the Byzantine heretics (when not being at FSSPX), i cannot regard them (or the Uniied) as full priests.

That's your problem.

No, that's a problem for their salvation, not mine.

I suppose denying the validity of holy orders recognized by and in communion with Rome might not be a problem for your salvation, no, but it certainly seems like a problem in terms of inducing unnecessary, impotent rage and despair at the Church not being the way Don Colacho wanted it to be.

Have i ever said, that the sacraments of those kind of "priests" are invalid?

Wouldn't them not really being priests mean that their sacraments are in fact invalid? You don't seem to be mounting an argument that they're personally immoral (in which case, yes, their sacraments would still be valid; you're many things but I have faith that you're not a Donatist). Instead, you seem to be saying that something is defective about their status as priests. Please do correct me if I'm misunderstanding.

What do You expect? That any of us Christians takes left-"Christians" like pope Francis or You serious? That anyone, who is a normal (=atheistic/agnostic) lefty, doesn't despise You and abuse You as a useful idiot?

I'd hope you'd take Pope Francis seriously because he's the Vicar of Christ, yes (my understanding is that even the SSPX recognizes him as Pope, they just think that he's a terrible one, along with his five most recent predecessors). I don't care if you take me seriously or not but please don't bring my status as a Christian into it. I'm aware that lots of irreligious leftists don't like me, and in many cases I don't like them either.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

By abolishing celibacy the Church has lost her last hope to be saved by faithful young priests in the first world.

This doesn't follow, unless you think Ordinariate and Eastern Catholic priests aren't "faithful".

Despite worshipping thankfully at the Byzantine heretics (when not being at FSSPX), i cannot regard them (or the Uniied) as full priests.

That's your problem.

No, that's a problem for their salvation, not mine.

I suppose denying the validity of holy orders recognized by and in communion with Rome might not be a problem for your salvation, no, but it certainly seems like a problem in terms of inducing unnecessary, impotent rage and despair at the Church not being the way Don Colacho wanted it to be.

Have i ever said, that the sacraments of those kind of "priests" are invalid?

Wouldn't them not really being priests mean that their sacraments are in fact invalid? You don't seem to be mounting an argument that they're personally immoral (in which case, yes, their sacraments would still be valid; you're many things but I have faith that you're not a Donatist). Instead, you seem to be saying that something is defective about their status as priests. Please do correct me if I'm misunderstanding.

What do You expect? That any of us Christians takes left-"Christians" like pope Francis or You serious? That anyone, who is a normal (=atheistic/agnostic) lefty, doesn't despise You and abuse You as a useful idiot?

I'd hope you'd take Pope Francis seriously because he's the Vicar of Christ, yes (my understanding is that even the SSPX recognizes him as Pope, they just think that he's a terrible one, along with his five most recent predecessors). I don't care if you take me seriously or not but please don't bring my status as a Christian into it. I'm aware that lots of irreligious leftists don't like me, and in many cases I don't like them either.

Married "priests" have been tolerated (tolerare = to suffer), but not accepted by the Church.

I'm afraid I just don't understand what the difference is or why it's relevant. Somebody either is a priest or isn't one. And I don't think the pastoral situation of a parish of middle-class ex-Anglicans in the suburban US or UK is so much worse than that of a parish of indigenous Amazonians in the middle of the rainforest that resorting to ordaining married men makes sense in the former case but not the latter.

I didn't write Bergoglio, thus i am clearly no SedisVacantist, instead i consider Francis to be pope; yet - as the statement as a whole made quite clear - i&we can really not take His Holeness with his pettybourgeois "Christianity", reduced to Eco/Social-ethics intellectually serious. (And there is no need to do so, there have been enough heretical popes in ChurchHistory - why not also an anthropotheistical antiChrist?)

I don't want to get into the "heretical popes" argument with you again, but it seems to me that there's a difference between believing that the Pope is in theological error and personally attacking him as an "anthropotheistical antiChrist". The former is a standard Traditionalist position these days; the latter is unbecoming of any man of goodwill, and still more unbecoming of a Catholic. If you would content yourself with arguing the former, I'd find it a lot easier to have productive conversations with you.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Okay, evidently you're simply not interested in bracketing out the personal attacks, so I'm not going to continue this conversation. Wishing you an early happy All Saints'.