Pope Francis's Sacrilegious Nativity Scene
#21
(12-15-2017, 09:56 PM)gmzhok Wrote: Vox, the scene has the three kings focused on Jesus. The camera  angle is deceptive and we are not shown the crib. Ok, it's ultra-realistic but remember they could move figurines and change it when Jesus arrives lol.

Glad that this comment was made. However, if even the Baby Jesus is not the true center of the nativity display, this should not be too shocking to anyone who has been paying attention. After all, the statue is only, let it be said, a statue; however, Jesus is truly present in the Blessed Sacrament, yet how often do we have to play Blue's Clues concerning the tabernacle when we walk into a church? 

While people's response to this is understandable, it does seem more sentimentally-based than anything else. Then again, this may be a good opportunity to remind Catholics that something much more objectionably outrageous occurs in parishes all over the world every single day.
Reply
#22
(12-14-2017, 07:39 PM)In His Love Wrote: When the Christ Child, the Blessed Mother, and St. Joseph get lost in the crowd, it's a good idea to redo your Nativity scene.
Peace.....in my view, it's not the Nativity Scene. :blush:
[-] The following 2 users Like angeltime's post:
  • jovan66102, Pulvis
Reply
#23
Yeah I also disagree with this, but it ain't the first time. This is not nearly as bawdy and muscular as Michelangelo's Last Judgement on the wall of the Sistine Chapel. Nothing new to see here, in fact it's relatively tame when compared to the alot of the other art in the Vatican.
Reply
#24
http://thecatholictraveler.com/christmas...ity-scene/

                                       More pictures and commentary
Reply
#25
Pax et Bonum! It was St Francis of Assisi who started the Creche and it certainly did not look like this! I wonder what other Franciscans think of this Creche? The Nativity Scene is minimizing the baby Jesus and emphasizing the other Bible stories. If the meaning of Christmas is the birth of Jesus, then that is what should be depicted and visible in the art. To me, this is not art - but a piece of deplorable junk and I am happy I can have my own nativity scene in my home - and Jesus wont be placed there until Dec 24th late at night. God bless, angeltime
[-] The following 1 user Likes angeltime's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#26
Also, while it may not be constructed in a very pleasing or ordered way. It's not like every nativity scene has to only portray the nativity itself. In fact there is a long tradition of icons of the nativity showing a multitude of simultaneous events and people. Is this "sacrilegious" because it contains many things which could distract one from the birth of the Lord?? Of course not.
 [Image: Icon_Nativity_Kargopol.jpg]
Reply
#27
This is a real 'francis' Nativity scene.

For me, the real contradiction is the symbol under which the scene is placed, the pagan phallic obelisk.

Two of the most prominent gods of ancient Egypt were Re and Anu, the sun gods. Cities such as Heliopolis ‘the City of the Sun,’ to the Greeks, were built in his image. These cities regularly contained temples, most noted of all the magnificent Sun Temples ‘that once formed the sacred heart of ancient Egyptian spirituality.’ Then there were the pyramids, built as a stairway to the gods of the sky, their ‘towers of Bable.’ Finally the phallic obelisks [bel], built ten times higher than their width, were consecrated to the sun-god, which, according to the historian Pliny, is the meaning of the word in Egyptian.

   In view of the divine command “Increase and multiply, and fill the Earth” (Gen.1:28), the generation of human life became a most solemn privilege, a pure and holy function. The Mystery of it must have impressed most profoundly the first human pair, and doubtless the first religious act on the part of Adam and Eve was an appreciation to the Source and Author of life for the power to procreate it. In the course of time this Author and Source became [to the pagans] associated with the organs and factors of its reproduction, and then supplanted by them as an object of veneration and worship. The mysterious rite of connubial love became perverted, the imagination of man’s senseless heart became corrupt; the power of procreating life became deified and worshipped under phallic emblems, which in turn became the deities. The perversion continued until it culminated in many places and in diverse ages, in sacred prostitution. The phallic emblems [like obelisks] became objects of adoration.’ --- M. L Wagner: Freemasonry: An Interpretation

As a sign of its power in the world, pagan Rome transported many Egyptian monuments and artefacts for display throughout their city, more than any other conquering powers in the world. Obelisks were deemed ideal for this purpose. One such obelisk was the giant made out of solid granite, climbing 25 metres high and weighing in at over 320 tons and whose history showed it was made for ancient Egypt’s most sacred city Anu, known to the Greeks as Heliopolis, meaning ‘The City of the Sun,’ a city that had at its centre this heliocentric Sun Temple. This pillar however, was unusual in that no hieroglyphics were written on it. The story goes that in 37AD, the tyrant pagan Emperor Caligula (12-41AD) ordered this obelisk be brought to Rome and placed in the Vatican circus, a site used for chariot racing. St Peter was martyred on this very spot thus giving the place eternal notoriety.

     With the advent of Constantine the Great (272-337) and his concessions to Christianity throughout his empire and especially in the liberated city of Rome, the Emperor decided to allow this site to become the home of Catholicism, a special place to start its own spiritual and institutional empire. The great Basilica of St Peter rose up here from the ground over the years and other marvellous buildings were created for the business of running the Church. As for the obelisk of Heliopolis, well, while still on the site, providentially, it became redundant and faded into obscurity on some waste ground.
     In the 15th century however, Pope Nicolas V (1447-1455), ‘whose plans were of embellishing the city with new monuments worthy of the capital of the Christian world,’ decided to do something with this obelisk, not to destroy the pagan symbol or have it taken out of the holy city, but to move it in front of the Basilica itself. To ‘Christianise’ the object, if such a vulgar symbolic thing could ever be Christianised, the Pope thought of placing the four Evangelists in bronze at its base and Jesus with a golden cross on the top. Providence stepped in however, Pope Nicolaus V died in 1544 and the obelisk remained in the ditch where it surely belonged. Nearly fifty years later, Pope Sixtus V (1585-90), nicknamed ‘the last of the Renaissance Popes,’ was motivated to do what Pope Nicolaus V was prevented by death from doing, move the obelisk to the square in front of St Peter’s. His reasons for doing this were not Catholic either, but seem to have been based on human pride. His intention, we are told, was similar to that of the pagan Roman emperors who brought them to Rome in the first place – as a sign or display of the temporal power that the Church had in the world at the time. In this case, the Pope decided to place horses around its base rather than the intended four Evangelists that Pope Nicolas V wanted. Thankfully he omitted the Christ figure on top envisaged by his predecessor, leaving instead what were regarded as remnants of the true cross in the bronze sphere already at the top of the pedestal. To this he added a star over three mountains, his own personal family crest, and finally on top of both, a golden cross. Strange that neither pope thought of creating a worthy monument in St Peter’s Square, the greatest of all reminders, a crucifix depicting the crucified Christ on the cross. After the installation of the obelisk in 1586, a scandalous exercise we are led to believe, people being evicted out of their homes and properties to accommodate the new location (see Talisman), Pope Sixtus V decided it best to exorcise it and this was done with great liturgical aplomb. But all the blessings Rome gave the thing could not undo its original pagan phallic symbolism. The irony of it all was that by placing a cross on the top of the pillar, they actually turned it back into a more definitive representation of what it was in the ‘City of the Sun,’ Anu-Heliopolis, the very place the symbolic phallic cut rock originally came from, for it too had a cross on top of it. All that was missing of the original site was a circle around its base with divisions of eight marked within it, ‘the standard hieroglyphic indicator of a city.’

In 1655, the then Pope Alexander VII (1655-1667) commissioned the now famous Bernini to redesign St Peter’s Square. Bernini completed the job, filling the space with a large eight-rayed sun wheel design - symbol of Ishtar. At the very centre of the larger wheel there was then created an inner four-pointed sun-wheel, the same symbol as found on the altar-stone in the temple of Baal.

Towering over the crib of 2017 is a pagan symbol known only to the Devil and his people.
Reply
#28
Pax et Bonum!  It seems we are all talking more about the Works of Mercy now and I do agree they are important with all kinds of works, which makes me think there could be separate scenes for public viewing perhaps at the time of Lent and Easter. 

The Nativity Scene is the time for us to individually take home in our hearts what and who Christ is for us and consider conversion and new life being part of His message of salvation.  Following our conversion of heart, comes the various works of compassion.

Every day is something with this guy!  angeltime - God bless....
Reply
#29
(12-15-2017, 11:17 PM)Bourbon Apocalypse Wrote:
(12-15-2017, 09:56 PM)gmzhok Wrote: Vox, the scene has the three kings focused on Jesus. The camera  angle is deceptive and we are not shown the crib. Ok, it's ultra-realistic but remember they could move figurines and change it when Jesus arrives lol.

Glad that this comment was made. However, if even the Baby Jesus is not the true center of the nativity display, this should not be too shocking to anyone who has been paying attention. After all, the statue is only, let it be said, a statue; however, Jesus is truly present in the Blessed Sacrament, yet how often do we have to play Blue's Clues concerning the tabernacle when we walk into a church? 

While people's response to this is understandable, it does seem more sentimentally-based than anything else. Then again, this may be a good opportunity to remind Catholics that something much more objectionably outrageous occurs in parishes all over the world every single day.
Peace.....perhaps what is happening in Parishes needs to be addressed also - we cant excuse something we see wrong, distasteful or done in a harsh manner to teach children just because it is also done elsewhere.  I see that this Nativity Scene is another questionable issue on many that are building and building each day.....God bless, angeltime
Reply
#30
(12-17-2017, 02:07 PM)cassini Wrote: This is a real 'francis' Nativity scene.

For me, the real contradiction is the symbol under which the scene is placed, the pagan phallic obelisk.

Two of the most prominent gods of ancient Egypt were Re and Anu, the sun gods. Cities such as Heliopolis ‘the City of the Sun,’ to the Greeks, were built in his image. These cities regularly contained temples, most noted of all the magnificent Sun Temples ‘that once formed the sacred heart of ancient Egyptian spirituality.’ Then there were the pyramids, built as a stairway to the gods of the sky, their ‘towers of Bable.’ Finally the phallic obelisks [bel], built ten times higher than their width, were consecrated to the sun-god, which, according to the historian Pliny, is the meaning of the word in Egyptian.

   In view of the divine command “Increase and multiply, and fill the Earth” (Gen.1:28), the generation of human life became a most solemn privilege, a pure and holy function. The Mystery of it must have impressed most profoundly the first human pair, and doubtless the first religious act on the part of Adam and Eve was an appreciation to the Source and Author of life for the power to procreate it. In the course of time this Author and Source became [to the pagans] associated with the organs and factors of its reproduction, and then supplanted by them as an object of veneration and worship. The mysterious rite of connubial love became perverted, the imagination of man’s senseless heart became corrupt; the power of procreating life became deified and worshipped under phallic emblems, which in turn became the deities. The perversion continued until it culminated in many places and in diverse ages, in sacred prostitution. The phallic emblems [like obelisks] became objects of adoration.’ --- M. L Wagner: Freemasonry: An Interpretation

As a sign of its power in the world, pagan Rome transported many Egyptian monuments and artefacts for display throughout their city, more than any other conquering powers in the world. Obelisks were deemed ideal for this purpose. One such obelisk was the giant made out of solid granite, climbing 25 metres high and weighing in at over 320 tons and whose history showed it was made for ancient Egypt’s most sacred city Anu, known to the Greeks as Heliopolis, meaning ‘The City of the Sun,’ a city that had at its centre this heliocentric Sun Temple. This pillar however, was unusual in that no hieroglyphics were written on it. The story goes that in 37AD, the tyrant pagan Emperor Caligula (12-41AD) ordered this obelisk be brought to Rome and placed in the Vatican circus, a site used for chariot racing. St Peter was martyred on this very spot thus giving the place eternal notoriety.

     With the advent of Constantine the Great (272-337) and his concessions to Christianity throughout his empire and especially in the liberated city of Rome, the Emperor decided to allow this site to become the home of Catholicism, a special place to start its own spiritual and institutional empire. The great Basilica of St Peter rose up here from the ground over the years and other marvellous buildings were created for the business of running the Church. As for the obelisk of Heliopolis, well, while still on the site, providentially, it became redundant and faded into obscurity on some waste ground.
     In the 15th century however, Pope Nicolas V (1447-1455), ‘whose plans were of embellishing the city with new monuments worthy of the capital of the Christian world,’ decided to do something with this obelisk, not to destroy the pagan symbol or have it taken out of the holy city, but to move it in front of the Basilica itself. To ‘Christianise’ the object, if such a vulgar symbolic thing could ever be Christianised, the Pope thought of placing the four Evangelists in bronze at its base and Jesus with a golden cross on the top. Providence stepped in however, Pope Nicolaus V died in 1544 and the obelisk remained in the ditch where it surely belonged. Nearly fifty years later, Pope Sixtus V (1585-90), nicknamed ‘the last of the Renaissance Popes,’ was motivated to do what Pope Nicolaus V was prevented by death from doing, move the obelisk to the square in front of St Peter’s. His reasons for doing this were not Catholic either, but seem to have been based on human pride. His intention, we are told, was similar to that of the pagan Roman emperors who brought them to Rome in the first place – as a sign or display of the temporal power that the Church had in the world at the time. In this case, the Pope decided to place horses around its base rather than the intended four Evangelists that Pope Nicolas V wanted. Thankfully he omitted the Christ figure on top envisaged by his predecessor, leaving instead what were regarded as remnants of the true cross in the bronze sphere already at the top of the pedestal. To this he added a star over three mountains, his own personal family crest, and finally on top of both, a golden cross. Strange that neither pope thought of creating a worthy monument in St Peter’s Square, the greatest of all reminders, a crucifix depicting the crucified Christ on the cross. After the installation of the obelisk in 1586, a scandalous exercise we are led to believe, people being evicted out of their homes and properties to accommodate the new location (see Talisman), Pope Sixtus V decided it best to exorcise it and this was done with great liturgical aplomb. But all the blessings Rome gave the thing could not undo its original pagan phallic symbolism. The irony of it all was that by placing a cross on the top of the pillar, they actually turned it back into a more definitive representation of what it was in the ‘City of the Sun,’ Anu-Heliopolis, the very place the symbolic phallic cut rock originally came from, for it too had a cross on top of it. All that was missing of the original site was a circle around its base with divisions of eight marked within it, ‘the standard hieroglyphic indicator of a city.’

In 1655, the then Pope Alexander VII (1655-1667) commissioned the now famous Bernini to redesign St Peter’s Square. Bernini completed the job, filling the space with a large eight-rayed sun wheel design - symbol of Ishtar. At the very centre of the larger wheel there was then created an inner four-pointed sun-wheel, the same symbol as found on the altar-stone in the temple of Baal.

Towering over the crib of 2017 is a pagan symbol known only to the Devil and his people.


Thanks for pointing this out.  I've often wondered about these symbols in St. Peter's Square, including the zodiac signs.

Yes, a crucifix seems more fitting.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)