Share on facebook
Share on pinterest
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on whatsapp
Share on email

Languages

Menu
LOGOTIPO8
Share on facebook
Share on pinterest
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on whatsapp
Share on email

Languages

Menu
LOGOTIPO8

Synod: With such Guests, You Can Imagine How the Party Will Be…

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on whatsapp
Share on linkedin
Share on pinterest
Share on email
Share on print
Bishop McElroy

As a homeowner cannot fail to invite relatives to a wedding or family party, his true preferences show in the list of personal guests. The same happens in a Synod.

There are some mandatory participants, such as the heads of Roman dicasteries and the bishops of the region concerned. The Pope – the host – may or may not like them he is obliged to invite them. Then you have optional participants whom the Pope invites because he wants to show closeness to them (e.g., Cardinals Marx and Schönborn, or Bishop McElroy, of San Diego), because he needs their money (directors of Caritas and Adveniat, German agencies that finance the Pan-Amazonian Ecclesial Network and Synod-related activities), or because he sympathizes with their ideas (secretariat “experts” and assistants). Finally, because they are his partners (or bosses?) in the construction of a biocentric and green “new humanism” (the fateful UN troika: Ki-Moon, Sachs, and Schellnhuber).

Judging by the list of participants in the coming Special Assembly of the Synod of Bishops for the Pan Amazon Region, the party will be lively even though only one song will be heard. It will not be the sacred rhythm of Gregorian chant or popular religious songs of Latin America, but the tam-tam and raucous whistling of tribal dances and shamanic rituals, which the Instrumentum laboris has praised as “creators of harmony with the cosmos.”

Surely one of the cover boys of the Amazon festival in Rome will be Father Eleazar López Hernández. This indigenous priest of the Zapotec ethnic group was not invited because of his missionary experience in the Amazon, because his original tribe is in the Mesoamerican region of Mexico with a climate, biome, and sociological reality very different from the one lived by the populations addressed by the Synod. He is the leading exponent of Indigenous Theology, a discipline that the Instrumentum laboris wishes to see taught in all academic circles. Father Lopez considers himself the “midwife” of Indigenous Theology. He humbly states, “I do not consider myself the father of Indigenous Theology because this theology is preexisting and belongs to our peoples.” “It has fallen to some of us to be the ones who help open doors so you can enter and exit to open up space inside the church. … We have done this service to create conditions for the indigenous emergency in society and the church. That fills us with pride. You can call us midwives, spokesmen, or whatever. ”[1]

In short, Eleazar López is for Indian Theology what Gustavo Gutierrez is for Liberation Theology.

Like his “liberationist” mentor, Father López will be officially rehabilitated. Although he was never sanctioned (like the Sandinista priests of Nicaragua, to whom Pope Francis restored all priestly faculties), Lopez was “monitored” since 1990 by a little known Jesuit, Luis Ladaria Ferrer, and later by his own bishop at the request of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (read Joseph Ratzinger), and finally, by Cardinal Levada. Why? Because of his syncretist positions regarding indigenous mythologies.

On a visit to Mexico, the Panzerkardinal, in a veiled reference to Eleazar López, lambasted the doctrinal deviations of “those movements seeking an Indian theology and trying to use these peoples to propose particular points of view, and especially to regress, leaving Christianity aside.” According to Ratzinger, the proponents of that current “want to resurrect the rites, beliefs, and religions of the natives as they were before the Conquest as if the Gospel had been oppressive.” [2]

The shot was accurate because it summarizes in a few words the main theses of the Indigenous Theology of Eleazar López that we reproduce here.

Referring to relations with the Church, the Zapotec priest says that the heart of the natives is a battlefield: “We are children of the peoples who, to survive, have had to dig very deep strains where they keep their treasures or have had to wear masks hiding their primary identity. We are also children of Churches whose missionary practices have been extremely intolerant vis-a-vis the beliefs of our people, calling them diabolical or simply infantile.”[3]

To resolve the conflict between such beliefs and the Catholic faith, López says, “Important sectors of the indigenous people have set out to rescue or innovate theological schemes that allow the peaceful coexistence of both religious and theological forms and, where possible, lay the foundations for the elaboration of theological syntheses that enrich everyone.” In his opinion, “there is no insurmountable contradiction between the fundamental approaches of the Church, which are the same as those of Christ, and the theological approaches of our peoples. The differences are superficial, in form, not content.”[4]

Is it perhaps superficial and purely formal the prohibition by Christian faith of the human sacrifices practiced by Lopez’s Zapotec ancestors? He approves them by saying, “Sacrifices are justified because if God dies daily to give us life, we must be willing to die with Him to give life to the people.”[5]

Is our Creed’s profession of faith in God, who created everything ex nihilo and ad extram (out of nothing and outside of Himself) merely formal and superficial? Lopez acknowledges that in indigenous myths of nomadic origin “God it is everything, and everything has to do with God,”[6]  so that nature appears as “the sacrament of his presence” and that is why it is “Mother Earth, the New Fire, the Hurricane Wind, the Water Spring or Cascade, the Hill Provider of life or Protector of the Community”[7]? Or, in the most evolved indigenous mythologies, that God is just “the Original Energy of life”[8]  or, focusing on the centrality of dialectics (life-death; night-day; cold-hot), that God is creator only “as long as he has the power to organize these opposing elements for life”[9]?

According to the “midwife” of Indigenous Theology, upon the arrival of Europeans in America, “the meeting possibilities were propitious” because natives were aware that “there were many ways to understand life and understand God that could be added in polysynthetic sets.” However, “there was not the same dialogue attitude” on the part of missionaries, because they were certain that “their God was the only true God.” Then, the natives accepted Christianity but made a “juxtaposition, overlapping and substitution of contents” and resisted attempts by subsequent generations of evangelizers to purify the Catholic faith. Today, the inculturation of the Gospel “entails overcoming colonialist evangelizing schemes to fully implement permanent attitudes of respectful dialogue.” This change in attitude led to the fact that indigenous communities “no longer have the concern of masking or hiding,” while, in turn, the Church went from being “the main aggressor of the religious interiority of indigenous people to become the main ally of their recomposition.”[10]

Since the human mind abhors contradiction, such recomposition of inner religious life will undoubtedly consist of abandoning Christianity and ostensively return to paganism. This runs counter to the statement of Pope Benedict XVI at the opening session of the Fifth General.

Fifth General Conference of CELAM

Conference of CELAM in Aparecida on May 13, 2007: “The Utopia of going back to breathe life into the pre-Columbian religions, separating them from Christ and from the universal Church, would not be a step forward: indeed, it would be a step back. In reality, it would be a retreat towards a stage in history anchored in the past. ”[11]

Given the list of its guests, there are well-founded reasons to fear that this is precisely the setback that the Synod for the Amazon region is preparing.

Indeed, statements by the Bolivian indigenous theologian Juan E. Gorski imply that another poster boy of Indigenous Theology will accompany Father López. Says Father Gorski, “The two institutions that have exercised the most prominence in the development of Indigenous Theology proper are CENAMI (National Center for Assistance to Indigenous Missions) of Mexico, and CIMI (Conselho Indigenista Missionário) of Brazil,” as well as “the Department of Missiology of the University of Assunção of São Paulo, in Brazil.”[12] It so happens that the main animator of these two Brazilian organizations is the German priest Paulo Suess, another special guest of the Synod, eminent member of the preparatory committee, and one of the editors of the Lineamenta.

Father Suess (right) with Bishop Kräutler

If Eleazar López speaks as indigenous, Paulo Suess speaks as a European ashamed for the cultural genocide the Church supposedly committed and eager for “interculturality.” Based on an existentialist, subjectivist and relativistic philosophical matrix, Suess considers that each people have “irreducible alterity” and a “historical life project” codified in their respective culture. Therefore, “the culture that occasionally conveys the Gospel” cannot be normative for other people since “there is no revelation or salvation outside the culture.” In this perspective, “evangelizing a people means collaborating with the strengthening of their identity,” including religious identity: “Belonging to the Guaraní people means not only having a kinship with the Guaraní people but also belonging to the religion, worldview, and social order of the Guarani.”[13]

Is it worth it, then, to present the Bible to them?  “Any intent to replace indigenous religious memory with the memory of Israel would be a new attempt at colonization” so that “it is clear that this story, paradigmatic as a ‘history of salvation,’ cannot seek to replace the history of any people, nor can the historical culture of Jesus be imposed as a model culture by prevailing over other cultures.” The missionary must limit himself to “accompanying the struggle” against cultural imperialism and incite the indigenous people to be faithful “to their own life projects.” In short, the “evangelizer is evangelized, and the evangelized becomes an evangelizer” because the process of evangelization consists “in a dialectical relationship.”[14]

With such premises, Fathers Eleazar López and Paulo Suess will undoubtedly give the Synod Fathers an “intercultural” bath. They may even animate the party and draw inspiration from “spirits,” propose rituals of “indigenous mysticism,” or call a shaman to bless them, as happened in the preparatory meetings in Brasilia and Bogotá.

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on whatsapp
Share on linkedin
Share on pinterest
Share on email
Share on print

5 thoughts on “Synod: With such Guests, You Can Imagine How the Party Will Be…

  1. This is madness, directed chaos, and 100% apostasy from Catholicism.
    Talk should be over.
    It is time for Catholics everywhere to give their Bishops an earful, and completely close their wallets to the church, because we would be funding APOSTASY.

    Catholic friend, do you want to fund apostasy from Jesus Christ? Give money to a church that is using it to spit in God’s face by rejecting the Gospel to turn to pagan rituals and practices? Witch doctors? Fertility gods and goddesses? Santeria?
    This pope is E-V-I-L. Have nothing to do with him. This is not Catholicism by any stretch!!
    May Our Lord Jesus Christ bring all safely to harbor and deliver us from the hands of the evil men who control Rome and our churches.

  2. Although I have traveled on a painful, difficult road in order to retain my Catholic faith, my path has converged with more and more Catholics who have tried in desperation to stay Catholic and at the same time, not stand up to the Pope, an impossibility in theological terms. I have become a Sedevacantist like a growing number of Catholic faithful, not out of choice (because otherwise it would be heresy), but out of pure reasoning, years of study and reading, and out of a burning wish to find a way out of this satanic madness of duplicity and split reality. A pope can never be a heretic, so empirically, a heretic can never be a pope. The Jesuit heretic and apostate priest Jorge Bergoglio is therefore not a valid pope, but an excommunicated Catholic. Standing up to him and shout opposition in his face is therefore permitted, because this man is NOT the pope, he cannot be the Pope, technically he is a layman and therefore an impostor. I think we can open and shut this horrific case with a short word. Read Revelations 18:1-3 and especially verse 4. It’s all coming to truth.

  3. If Francis is not a Pope, then why was Benedict or John Paul II? Both were heretics just like Francis.

  4. Whatever happened to Reason and logic? When you accept anything, you believe in nothing. These priests and prelates are remnants of the “know nothings”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Enter Captcha Here : *

Reload Image