Pope Francis's Sacrilegious Nativity Scene
#71
(12-20-2017, 05:23 PM)cassini Wrote: The condemnations of the Father in the Old Testament are no longer binding. Roll on Sodom and Gomorrah, you have been liberated by Christ, your condemnation is no longer binding.

Are you serious?
First of all, you missed my statement that the moral law still binds, and even if the OT moral law didn't, the sin of Sodom is condemned in the New Testament, e.g.

Quote:1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers,

10 Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God.


1 Timothy 1:9

Knowing this, that the law is not made for the just man, but for the unjust and disobedient, for the ungodly, and for sinners, for the wicked and defiled, for murderers of fathers, and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
10 For fornicators, for them who defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and whatever other thing is contrary to sound doctrine,...

Jude 7
As Sodom and Gomorrha, and the neighbouring cities, in like manner, having given themselves to fornication, and going after other flesh, were made an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
Reply
#72
(12-20-2017, 03:10 PM)cassini Wrote:
(12-20-2017, 02:32 AM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote: I think this is a most productive and fruitful conversation, but can we please do without the snark?

We are brothers and sisters in Christ seeking the truth after all.

It's quite understandable to have questions about these things.

Let's continue to help each other discern the truth in love, okay?   :heart: :)

Well said Sacred Heart Lover. It seems I have opened a can of worms that many Catholics do not want to hear or know about. For that one must be punished with words. But I am well used to it, for the truth is not always welcome. Here are some of their comments:
 
'We have someone quoting a heretic website to 'prove' that the Church is in violation of Scripture, what are we supposed to do? Join the Church of Nice?'

 'So you have no problem with things which were consecrated to pagan gods being used for Christian purposes but if it resembles a penis then its devils work?'


'Sorry, but I don't suffer heretics gladly or people quoting from them in an attempt to prove the Church wrong.'

'Cassini, does that mean you don't have a Christmas tree up in your house now this Advent Season for Christmas?'
....................................................................................................................

I really don't appreciate my sincere question being used as an accusation of persecution.
[-] The following 1 user Likes austenbosten's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#73
And I repeat:

'We have someone quoting a heretic website to 'prove' that the Church is in violation of Scripture, what are we supposed to do? Join the Church of Nice?'

'Sorry, but I don't suffer heretics gladly or people quoting from them in an attempt to prove the Church wrong.'
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
[-] The following 1 user Likes jovan66102's post:
  • austenbosten
Reply
#74
Once again, what makes an obelisk dedicated to pagan gods different from a temple dedicated to pagan gods? Or how about a pillar taken from a temple dedicated to pagan gods? Is the moral issue with the fact that the object was devoted to pagan gods or is the issue that it vaguely resembles genetalia? By the way, pillars have been associated with phallic symbols in many cultures.

We are no longer bound to the mosaic law which commanded the destruction of objects, cities, etc. devoted to pagan gods because it was superseded by the new law. Otherwise we would have to destroy the temples as well. Not to mention Rome itself.

The author of that site is a heretic, thus he does not have the faith and has no business instructing others in the faith. Protestant interpretations of scripture hold no authority whatsoever. That's not an ad hominem, that's a fact. The only people who do have authority to interpret scripture have no problem with the obelisk.
Surréxit Dóminus vere, Alleluia!
[-] The following 2 users Like Dominicus's post:
  • austenbosten, jovan66102
Reply
#75
(12-21-2017, 01:05 AM)Dominicus Wrote: Once again, what makes an obelisk dedicated to pagan gods different from a temple dedicated to pagan gods? Or how about a pillar taken from a temple dedicated to pagan gods? Is the moral issue with the fact that the object was devoted to pagan gods or is the issue that it vaguely resembles genetalia? By the way, pillars have been associated with phallic symbols in many cultures.

The only people who do have authority to interpret scripture have no problem with the obelisk.

Sometimes an obelisk is just an obelisk.
[-] The following 4 users Like Paul's post:
  • austenbosten, jovan66102, Justin Alphonsus, VoxClamantis
Reply
#76
(12-21-2017, 01:05 AM)Dominicus Wrote: Once again, what makes an obelisk dedicated to pagan gods different from a temple dedicated to pagan gods? Or how about a pillar taken from a temple dedicated to pagan gods?

That was my thought process as well. In one instance a pagan object has been repurposed for use by the Church it's OK, in another instance it's not.

(12-20-2017, 05:14 PM)cassini Wrote:  The obelisk and heliocentric markings in St Peter's square now represent contempt for of the anti-heliocentric decree of Pope Paul V who defined its symbolism it as formal heresy contrary to the Scriptures and all the Fathers.

And if anyone thinks it ends there they are mistaken. The way popes and churchmen fell for the heliocentrism of the pagan gods depicted in St Peter's Square would bring shame on Catholicism, and the way they wormed their way out of that 1616 decree and into the Modernism that has destroyed the Catholic Church since 1835 would never have been believed had the records been kept hidden in the secret archives. But the truth outs, it always does.

   

Yet other popes have decreed heliocentrism to be valid, based off scientific evidence obtained by using our divinely gifted intellect. As the idea that the sun is the center of the universe contradicts none of the fundamental tenets of the Faith, i.e. one God, Christ is His Son, how does one choose which pope to listen to?
-sent by howitzer via the breech.

God's love is manifest in the landscape as in a face.  - John Muir

I want creation to penetrate you with so much admiration that wherever you go, the least plant may bring you clear remembrance of the Creator.  A single plant, a blade of grass, or one speck of dust is sufficient to occupy all your intelligence in beholding the art with which it has been made  - Saint Basil

Heaven is under our feet, as well as over our heads. - Thoreau, Walden
Reply
#77
(12-21-2017, 01:25 AM)Paul Wrote:
(12-21-2017, 01:05 AM)Dominicus Wrote: Once again, what makes an obelisk dedicated to pagan gods different from a temple dedicated to pagan gods? Or how about a pillar taken from a temple dedicated to pagan gods? Is the moral issue with the fact that the object was devoted to pagan gods or is the issue that it vaguely resembles genetalia? By the way, pillars have been associated with phallic symbols in many cultures.

The only people who do have authority to interpret scripture have no problem with the obelisk.

Sometimes an obelisk is just an obelisk.

Would that we could end our discussion, no argument now, on this note Dominicus, but I cannot, for the obelisk in St Peter's Square is not just an obelisk but is the very one that stood in the heart of Heliopolis.

The Egyptians were led by a pharaoh. His function was to maintain the order of the universe, established at creation and embracing not only the social and political structure of Egypt, but also the laws of nature, the movement of the heavenly bodies, the rotation of the seasons and the flood control of the River Nile. Two of the most prominent gods 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 Sun Temples ‘that once formed the sacred heart of ancient Egyptian spirituality.’ The architecture of these temples more often than not communicated a heliocentric system of six planets situated around a central fire to symbolise the sun. 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.

Another such story occurred during the reign of Pope Urban VIII. Two close acquaintances of the Pope’s were Galileo and Lorenzo Bernini. Then there was Bernini’s friend, Fr Athanasius Kircher; S.J. (1602-1680), described by Frances Yates as the ‘most notable descendant of the Hermetic-Cabalist tradition,’ a Jesuit who devoted his life to researching the origins of all things without distinction. A brilliant historian, mathematician and linguist (he is reputed to having known over 20 languages) Fr Kircher specialised in all things Egyptian and set up a museum for this purpose. Because of this he was invited to study and lecture at the Jesuit College in Rome in 1635, a mere two years after Galileo’s trial. One of the subjects Kircher devoted his time to was trying to interpret Egyptian hieroglyphs, an understanding he believed he mastered, reading into them profound mysteries and wisdom. It was not until two hundred years later, in the 1820s, that Jean Francois Champollion deciphered the true meaning of these hieroglyphs with the help of the ‘Rosetta Stone.’ Thus the obelisks were ‘seen to enshrine not “the highest mysteries of Divinity” as Kircher thought, but rather a dull record, for the most part, of the acts and attributes of [Egyptian] kings.’[1]

     It was Fr Kircher then, who said the ‘writings’ and signs on Egypt’s ancient obelisks referred to the Trinity of Christians and were worthy of preservation and display. For this reason then Roman churchmen ‘embraced these prophetic obelisks’ and had no problem erecting many of them in the squares of Rome.

[1] Joscelyn Godwin: Athanasius Kircher, Thames and Hudson, 1979.

In 1655, the then Pope Alexander VII (1655-1667) commissioned the now famous Bernini to redesign St Peter’s Square. This work was interrupted when King Louis XIV invited Bernini to Paris. On his return Bernini completed the work, marking out what looks like a circle with the obelisk at its centre point but in fact it is an ellipse, with the phallic obelisk as its focus or generating point as Kepler, Newton and others used it to accommodate their condemned heliocentrism. Bernini’s solution was to design a piazza in the form of an ellipse; the foci of the ellipse are indicated by marble and granite disks embedded within the pavement of the piazza. The elliptical shape also symbolizes the Church’s embrace of all of mankind, “the motherly arms of the church,” as Bernini described his Colonnade. But more than that for Bernini then filled 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.

For me then, that obelisk in St Peter's Square =- already consecrated to the sun god condemned in Scripture - represents paganism and heretical heliocentrism, a heresy that popes eventually allowed as an interpretation of the Scriptures. This in turn began a modernism of the Bible from the day in 1835 when Pope Gregory XVI finalised a new heliocentric interpretation of Scripture defined as formal heresy in 1616.

For me then, that obelisk is not just an obelisk. I have said my piece and have no more to add or explain about this obelisk..
Reply
#78
So in other words the real reason you are so vehemently attacking a piece of rock is because it offends your geocentric ideals. Good grief. 

What matters isn't the physical relation between sun and earth. Ultimately are you looking towards the earthly sun or the Sun of Justice?
Surréxit Dóminus vere, Alleluia!
[-] The following 1 user Likes Dominicus's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#79
I've never quite grasped why whether the earth orbits the sun or vice versa should have anything to do with the question of my salvation. Seems to me that arguing about it takes valuable time that could be devoted to prayer, Eucharistic Adoration, or good works.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
Reply
#80
(12-21-2017, 12:20 AM)jovan66102 Wrote: And I repeat:

'We have someone quoting a heretic website to 'prove' that the Church is in violation of Scripture, what are we supposed to do? Join the Church of Nice?'

'Sorry, but I don't suffer heretics gladly or people quoting from them in an attempt to prove the Church wrong.'

What's wrong with asking questions?

The Church has withstood accusations by heretics for two millennia.

I would like to be ready to give a defense for the Church's position on these things.

That's why I've followed this thread, but I'd rather read about facts and counter facts than personal accusations and counter-accusations.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Sacred Heart lover's post:
  • cassini
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)