Pope Francis's Sacrilegious Nativity Scene
#31
(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.

Don't freak out about the "pagan," which simply means "of the country people." All those who weren't of Israel (the Church and Her spiritual ancestors) were "pagan," and they are our ancestors as well. Besides which, the obelisk has been Christianized. From https://www.fisheaters.com/stanthonysbrief.html :


Quote:As an aside, part of these words from the Apocalypse are also inscribed at the top of the obelisk that sits in St. Peter's Square. The obelisk had been in Rome since A.D. 37, set up in what is believed by many to have been the site of the divisional wall (spina) of Caligula's Circus, where Nero's massacre of Christians took place in A.D. 67. Pope Sixtus V moved the obelisk to its present position in a move that


Quote:...celebrated the triumph of the Faith of Christ, St Peter and the apostles over pagan superstition. The proximity of the obelisk to the old basilica had always been resented as something of a provocation, almost as a slight to the Christian religion. It had stood there like a false idol, as it were vaingloriously, on what was believed to be the center of the accursed circus where the early Christians and St Peter had been put to death. Its sides, then as now, were graven with dedications to Augustus and Tiberius. On its summit was a bronze sphere believed to contain the ashes of Julius Caesar. When taken down, the sphere proved to be solid. Nevertheless, Sixtus had a bronze cross put in its place (in 1740, after repairs, a piece of the True Cross was inserted in one of the arms). Solemnly the pope had the heathen spirit of the obelisk exorcised. 'Impio cultu dicatum' he carved upon the base as a reminder of what the needle once represented, and 'Ecce Crux Domini fugite partes adverase' in proud defiance of Luther and the reformed Churches. 2  
T h e   D u d e t t e   A b i d e s
Reply
#32
(12-17-2017, 01:33 PM)Florus Wrote: 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]

The icon shows scenes from the life of Christ, including the Nativity at the center.
T h e   D u d e t t e   A b i d e s
Reply
#33
(12-18-2017, 12:18 AM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote: Yes, a crucifix seems more fitting.

There is nothing untoward about the Zodiac, made by God: https://www.fisheaters.com/zodiac.html
T h e   D u d e t t e   A b i d e s
Reply
#34
(12-18-2017, 12:42 AM)VoxClamantis Wrote:
(12-17-2017, 01:33 PM)Florus Wrote: 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]

The icon shows scenes from the life of Christ, including the Nativity at the center.

It's lovely and educational.  There is certainly a time and place for this.

The nativity of the Vatican at Christmastime is a different context, however.  It's the central place Christians the world over look to find the baby Jesus at the center of the Holy Family.

Many little children look forward to viewing the creche at Christmastime and this type of artwork would not provide the emotional appeal which creates a lasting memory for them.
Reply
#35
That icon is not of the life of Christ including the Nativity, it is the standard icon of the Nativity. Although some have more or less details.

I'm not saying the Vatican's current Nativity scene is ideal, but I'm just pointing out that its nudity (which I disagree with) is honestly tame when compared to ALOT of the baroque stuff in Rome. And the fact that it portrays many things other than the Nativity is not unprecedented in tradition, and it's certainly not sacrilegious.
Reply
#36
(12-18-2017, 01:40 AM)Florus Wrote: That icon is not of the life of Christ including the Nativity, it is the standard icon of the Nativity. Although some have more or less details.

I'm not saying the Vatican's current Nativity scene is ideal, but I'm just pointing out that its nudity (which I disagree with) is honestly tame when compared to ALOT of the baroque stuff in Rome. And the fact that it portrays many things other than the Nativity is not unprecedented in tradition, and it's certainly not sacrilegious.

See my original post about the nudity.

Re. your having said the following in response to my having said after you posted the icon graphic, "The icon shows scenes from the life of Christ, including the Nativity at the center":


Quote:That icon is not of the life of Christ including the Nativity, it is the standard icon of the Nativity. Although some have more or less details.

I'm not saying the Vatican's current Nativity scene is ideal, but I'm just pointing out that its nudity (which I disagree with) is honestly tame when compared to ALOT of the baroque stuff in Rome. And the fact that it portrays many things other than the Nativity is not unprecedented in tradition, and it's certainly not sacrilegious.
 
I was responding to your having earlier written:

Quote: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.
 
My take is that creches should be Christ-centered and, specifically, Nativity-centered. The icon is both; what's going on at the Vatican is neither.

It isn't sacrilegious to include St. Francises, kneeling Santas, or village people, depending on what those figures are shown to be doing (e.g., Santa and Francis are typically shown kneeling before the Christ Child, not shopping for Christmas presents or burying the dead while He lies a few feet away from them); it is sacrilegious and not very catechetical or traditional to not have the birth of Christ at the center of it, as the focus. That's the entire point of a creche, the very reason St. Francis came up with the idea.
T h e   D u d e t t e   A b i d e s
Reply
#37
(12-18-2017, 12:41 AM)VoxClamantis Wrote:
(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.

Don't freak out about the "pagan," which simply means "of the country people." All those who weren't of Israel (the Church and Her spiritual ancestors) were "pagan," and they are our ancestors as well. Besides which, the obelisk has been Christianized. From https://www.fisheaters.com/stanthonysbrief.html :


Quote:As an aside, part of these words from the Apocalypse are also inscribed at the top of the obelisk that sits in St. Peter's Square. The obelisk had been in Rome since A.D. 37, set up in what is believed by many to have been the site of the divisional wall (spina) of Caligula's Circus, where Nero's massacre of Christians took place in A.D. 67. Pope Sixtus V moved the obelisk to its present position in a move that


Quote:...celebrated the triumph of the Faith of Christ, St Peter and the apostles over pagan superstition. The proximity of the obelisk to the old basilica had always been resented as something of a provocation, almost as a slight to the Christian religion. It had stood there like a false idol, as it were vaingloriously, on what was believed to be the center of the accursed circus where the early Christians and St Peter had been put to death. Its sides, then as now, were graven with dedications to Augustus and Tiberius. On its summit was a bronze sphere believed to contain the ashes of Julius Caesar. When taken down, the sphere proved to be solid. Nevertheless, Sixtus had a bronze cross put in its place (in 1740, after repairs, a piece of the True Cross was inserted in one of the arms). Solemnly the pope had the heathen spirit of the obelisk exorcised. 'Impio cultu dicatum' he carved upon the base as a reminder of what the needle once represented, and 'Ecce Crux Domini fugite partes adverase' in proud defiance of Luther and the reformed Churches. 2  

To lump all 'pagans' into one belief system is like saying all Christians today belong to the same grouping. There were of course pagans open to Christianity when it arrived, but there were pagans who remained pagan and anti Christian.

The phallic obelisks like the one now in St Peter's Square, belonged to a paganism condemned in the Scriptures. It arose within the religion of Phallicism, the bond that united all forms of idolatry into one great system. It stems directly from sun worship, heliolatry or light worship - for example, Mithraism.

The word Helios for the sun comes from Helios the sun god as he was called, the son of Hyperion and Theia, thus the terms heliocentricism and heliolatry. In the Holy Scriptures (3 Kings 16:31-33) we are told of Baal, Bal or Bel, the sun god of the Phoenicians, characterised by the most scandalously impure rites. Then there were the sun gods of the Canaanites and Mithraists of Persia. Sun worshipping is also condemned in 4 Kings: 23:5-11 and Wisdom: 13:2, the latter lesson repeated by St Paul where he writes ‘the circle of the stars, or the great water, or the sun and moon’ were created as witness to their Creator and not ‘to be the gods that rule the world.’(Romans 1:20)

Now if the greatest historical symbol of a paganism that is condemned in the Scriptures, a paganism that had its main belief of heliocentrism, itself condemned as formal heresy by the Church in 1616 and 1633, a phallic symbol that can be 'christianised,' then why complain about a few things in that nativity scene in the same Square.

The paganism condemned in the Scriptures is alive and well in the world today. Just as that symbol made its way into St Peter's Square, the same heliocentrism made its way into the Church and State. It began the assault on the very first dogma of the Catholic Church and mankind. It laid the foundation stone for Atheism and Modernism, the reason why Catholicism is a dying religion on Earth today.

Why on earth do you think cribs like the one on display under that same 'christianised' phallic heliocemntric symbol can hide Christ among all the other symbols.
Reply
#38
(12-18-2017, 12:43 AM)VoxClamantis Wrote:
(12-18-2017, 12:18 AM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote: Yes, a crucifix seems more fitting.

There is nothing untoward about the Zodiac, made by God: https://www.fisheaters.com/zodiac.html

The original Zodiac that is, not the zodiac of the heliocentrists:

The story which the Zodiac unfolds in the course of the year lies in the meanings of these names given by God to each of the star-clusters [‘Praise the lord: He tells the number of the stars; he calls each by name.' (Psalms 146)] in its forty-eight constellations when He set them in order in the beginning, making of them, as the Psalmist says: “faithful witnesses in heaven” (Ps. 88:38) of His plan for the world… Put in proper order, beginning not with Aries as now deployed, [Aries, Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Leo, Virgo, Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius, Capricorn, Aquarius, and Pisces] but with Virgo and ending with Leo rather than with Pisces, the Zodiac foretold in the stars the story of the Incarnation, the Redemption and the world to come long before the Bible was written. Virgo is of course the Blessed Virgin and Leo is Jesus Christ, the Lion of Judah, universal Lord of Creation. (This incidentally, provides the answer to the mystery of the Sphinx which, having the head of a woman and the body and tail of a lion is therefore simply a representation in stone of the ancient Zodiac).[1]


[1] Solange Hertz: The Sixth Trumpet, Remnant Press, Minnesota, 2002, p.11.

It will come as no surprise then, in the context of that great battle of principalities and powers resulting from that martial decree of Genesis 3:15, to find occult agents commandeering the Zodiac phenomena and signs for their own needs and to blind humanity to their original purpose of creation. First the sun replaced the Earth at the centre of the Zodiac. The heliocentrists then turned astronomy into astrology, insisting the positions of the sun, moon, stars (and planets) were Earthly spirits, ghosts and other agents who joined the heavenly angels and all began to influence planetary formations in a manner that, they said, had a direct effect on human behaviour and our destiny depending on where these cosmic bodies are within the Zodiac belt. This way the astrology ‘signs’ became the object of fraud, superstition and the occult, with men and women claiming to read personal prophesies and messages from the ‘gods’ in them. So, just as the signs in the stars were hijacked for diabolical purposes, an astrology that became a useless occult belief system for vast numbers of people throughout the last few thousand years even to this day, so too would God’s astronomy be hijacked and replaced by a heliocentrism that would also be used to serve the occult forces on Earth. The Catholic Church of course, absolutely rejects the idea that the sun, moon or planets could actually influence or predict one’s personal present or future behaviour. The Church teaches that men have free will and that God alone knows the future.
Reply
#39
(12-18-2017, 02:06 AM)VoxClamantis Wrote:
(12-18-2017, 01:40 AM)Florus Wrote: That icon is not of the life of Christ including the Nativity, it is the standard icon of the Nativity. Although some have more or less details.

I'm not saying the Vatican's current Nativity scene is ideal, but I'm just pointing out that its nudity (which I disagree with) is honestly tame when compared to ALOT of the baroque stuff in Rome. And the fact that it portrays many things other than the Nativity is not unprecedented in tradition, and it's certainly not sacrilegious.

See my original post about the nudity.

Re. your having said the following in response to my having said after you posted the icon graphic, "The icon shows scenes from the life of Christ, including the Nativity at the center":


Quote:That icon is not of the life of Christ including the Nativity, it is the standard icon of the Nativity. Although some have more or less details.

I'm not saying the Vatican's current Nativity scene is ideal, but I'm just pointing out that its nudity (which I disagree with) is honestly tame when compared to ALOT of the baroque stuff in Rome. And the fact that it portrays many things other than the Nativity is not unprecedented in tradition, and it's certainly not sacrilegious.
 
I was responding to your having earlier written:

Quote: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.
 
My take is that creches should be Christ-centered and, specifically, Nativity-centered. The icon is both; what's going on at the Vatican is neither.

It isn't sacrilegious to include St. Francises, kneeling Santas, or village people, depending on what those figures are shown to be doing (e.g., Santa and Francis are typically shown kneeling before the Christ Child, not shopping for Christmas presents or burying the dead while He lies a few feet away from them); it is sacrilegious and not very catechetical or traditional to not have the birth of Christ at the center of it, as the focus. That's the entire point of a creche, the very reason St. Francis came up with the idea.
Peace.....the first thing I noticed was the SIZE of the statues and this does overpower the baby Jesus who should be staring us in the face, not the other Bible stories.  Depending on one's etiquette too and how they want children to learn about the Birth of Christ (Nativity Scene) will play a large part in how one views this - this is similar to moving tabernacles to the side or out of sight from the Sanctuary. HE is supposed to be front and center; HE is the point and purpose at this time of year - nothing and nobody else!  Other than Joseph and Mary of course.....also, this has just started a rude trend of others making mockery Nativity Scenes (Illinois) - do you know how many parents and grandparents are praying fervently EVERY DAY for their children to dress modestly and live with morals?  This (in Illinois) is a slap in the face.  God bless, angeltime
Reply
#40
The obelisk was brought to saint peters basilica because it is the very same obelisk that St peter was crucified before. It contains a relic of the True Cross. Its shadow acts as a giant sundial hence the zodic pattern around the square.

I see no reason why we shouldn't proudly display the obelisk which was sanctified by the blood of St Peter. It once was used to worship the Egyptian god of the sun, now it is used to worship the Sun of Justice, creator of the earth and stars. Its a symbol of Christ's conquest over the pagan world, hence why it is crowned with a relic of the True Cross.
Surréxit Dóminus vere, Alleluia!
[-] The following 2 users Like Dominicus's post:
  • Florus, jovan66102
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)