FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Regarding the Pope's pectoral cross...
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4
I am curious to know more about the figure in the centre of the Holy Father's pectoral cross because there has already been some silliness about it.

[Image: 600px-Pope_Francis_in_March_2013.jpg]

[Image: p22057251.jpg]

Instead of being a indication that the Holy Father is a member of a quasi-Masonic pseudo-Egyptian vampiric conspiratorial order, is it (by any chance) an symbol of significance in South America? Or is it a figure that was once perfectly common, even in Europe, but has since fallen into obscurity during modern times?
It's a traditional symbol: Christ as the Good Shepherd, carrying a lamb on His shoulders.  It looks like on that cross their is a flock of sheep behind Him too. 
(03-20-2013, 11:28 AM)SaintSebastian Wrote: [ -> ]It's a traditional symbol: Christ as the Good Shepherd, carrying a lamb on His shoulders.  It looks like on that cross their is a flock of sheep behind Him too.

Thank you. I noticed the flock of sheep but the lamb on His shoulders wasn't entirely clear until you pointed it out.
I have to admit that I'm not a big fan of this pectoral cross.  It has a very 1970's feel to it - like it would fit in very well with giant felt banners proclaiming "joy" "peace" "love".  I'd rather see a cross with Christ crucified. 
A pope has never worn a pectoral Crufix like that in the last 200 plus years.

It is ugly and even Pope Paul VI Pectoral crucifix was much more traditional and attractive.
Pius X wore a cross made of tin.

John Paul II wore an elaborate gold cross.

If we're going to judge Popes on the crosses they wear then clearly John Paul II > Pius X.
The material is one thing the style is another.

Pope St Pius X crucifix was beautiful even though made of a base metal.
1. It is ugly.
2. It is Catholic, not masonic, Egyptian, Ra-worshipping or any such foolishness. The aesthetics seem to be tangential to the OP. Where are all of these weird, absurd, non-Catholic attacks on the man's (admittedly ugly) crucifix coming from? This is a smear campaign. The originators of this must be sedes or something.
(03-20-2013, 01:28 PM)maldon Wrote: [ -> ]1. It is ugly.
2. It is Catholic, not masonic, Egyptian, Ra-worshipping or any such foolishness. The aesthetics seem to be tangential to the OP. Where are all of these weird, absurd, non-Catholic attacks on the man's (admittedly ugly) crucifix coming from? This is a smear campaign. The originators of this must be sedes or something.

That's the impression I got as well.
(03-20-2013, 03:52 PM)Breakspear Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-20-2013, 01:28 PM)maldon Wrote: [ -> ]1. It is ugly.
2. It is Catholic, not masonic, Egyptian, Ra-worshipping or any such foolishness. The aesthetics seem to be tangential to the OP. Where are all of these weird, absurd, non-Catholic attacks on the man's (admittedly ugly) crucifix coming from? This is a smear campaign. The originators of this must be sedes or something.

That's the impression I got as well.

Doubtful. There is a whole industry of Protestants attacking the Church as the Whore of Babylon and calling the Pope the antichrist. Heck, the majority of Protestant denominations still identify the Papacy with the Antichrist in their confessional documents. I think their are alot more of them than their are sedes.
Pages: 1 2 3 4