Pope Francis's Sacrilegious Nativity Scene
#81
(12-21-2017, 06:00 PM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote:
(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.

Just wanted to add:

You don't win anything for being "right" and you don't lose anything for being "wrong".

We all win if we learn something new.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Sacred Heart lover's post:
  • cassini
Reply
#82
(12-21-2017, 04:26 PM)Dominicus Wrote: 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?

And I thought I had made myself clear and could rest the matter!

OK then, let me put it to you again. The idea of this particulart phallic emblem - and I can be more explicit if you like - of a biblical condemned paganism in the heart of the place Catholicism chose to operate its Church from, appalls me.

What matters is what it represents and no amount of 'christianising' changes that. If I was in charge I would do as the 'heretic's' scriptural reference said, knock the thing into pieces and replace it with Christ on the cross.
Reply
#83
(12-21-2017, 07:59 AM)Jeeter 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?

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?

This, as I said, is the hidden aspect of that obelisk.

‘In his Sunday blessing, Pope Benedict XVI noted that the Vatican itself has its own meridian — an obelisk in St. Peter’s Square — and that astronomy had long been used to signal prayer times for the faithful.’ --- NCBnews.com 28/12/2008

What you have said here Jeester opens up a bigger can of worms than the obelisk. If you want to continue let me know. I know of a pope who thinks it is all right to give Holy Communion to couples in adulterous unions. Popes have done and said a lot of things contrary to previous popes. In this case you say, as popes, philosophers and theologians have argued over the centuries, 'the idea that the sun is the center of the universe contradicts none of the fundamental tenets of the Faith.' I will let St Robert Bellarmine answer that:

Second. I say that, as you know, the Council of Trent prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the Earth, and that the Earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the centre of the universe. Now consider whether in all prudence the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators. Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter (ex parte objecti), it is a matter of faith on the part of the ones who have spoken (ex parte dicentis). It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the prophets and apostles.’

That obelisk in St Peter's Square further represents the heresy above.
Reply
#84
(12-22-2017, 07:12 AM)cassini Wrote: This, as I said, is the hidden aspect of that obelisk.

You did say that. And while I disagree, I appreciate the discussion.

Quote:What you have said here Jeester opens up a bigger can of worms than the obelisk. If you want to continue let me know. I know of a pope who thinks it is all right to give Holy Communion to couples in adulterous unions.

Which pope would that be? ;) :rolleyes:

Quote: Popes have done and said a lot of things contrary to previous popes. In this case you say, as popes, philosophers and theologians have argued over the centuries, 'the idea that the sun is the center of the universe contradicts none of the fundamental tenets of the Faith.' I will let St Robert Bellarmine answer that:

Second. I say that, as you know, the Council of Trent prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the Earth, and that the Earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the centre of the universe. Now consider whether in all prudence the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators. Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter (ex parte objecti), it is a matter of faith on the part of the ones who have spoken (ex parte dicentis). It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the prophets and apostles.’

That obelisk in St Peter's Square further represents the heresy above.

St. Robert Bellarmine died almost 400 years ago. Think of all the advances that have been made in that time; antibiotics, not leeches, are used to treat illness, the internal combustion engine, flight, been to the moon, more advance telescopes and instruments. If it can be demonstrably proven that the sun is not the center of our galaxy, which may not be the center of the universe, this in no way contradicts God's existence, the Virgin Birth of Christ, or any other central matters of the Faith. No disrespect intended here, but I'd argue that continuing to insist on a geocentric universe in the presence of solid data is a bit conceited, almost like us humans are trying to tell God how He created things, when he gave us the intellect to learn some of how it happened.

I think we're gonna have to agree to disagree on this one.
-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
#85
We're not going to do the geocentrism vs. heliocentrism debate, or any flat earth stuff, in this thread. We've got one for that already.
T h e   D u d e t t e   A b i d e s
[-] The following 2 users Like VoxClamantis's post:
  • Dominicus, Justin Alphonsus
Reply
#86
(12-23-2017, 12:49 AM)For Petes Sake Wrote:  Vatican Christmas tree contains new age symbols and garbage


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
   
Reply
#87
(12-23-2017, 12:51 AM)For Petes Sake Wrote:
(12-23-2017, 12:49 AM)For Petes Sake Wrote:  Vatican Christmas tree contains new age symbols and garbage

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cathol...an-symbols



[Image: Vatican_Christmas_tree_(entire)_2017_810...5_s_c1.jpg]The 2017 Vatican Christmas tree in St. Peter's Square.Diane Montagna / LifeSiteNews.com
NEWSCATHOLIC CHURCHFri Dec 22, 2017 - 2:22 pm EST
Catholics shocked that Vatican Christmas tree has no Christian symbols

[size=undefined]ROME, Italy, December 22, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – The decorations on the Vatican Christmas tree in St. Peter's Square this year are devoid of Christian religious symbols, a veteran Vaticanist reports. 
"Look," a friend of Dr. Robert Moynihan pointed out to him. "There are peace signs, and the oriental yin-yang signs, but no angels, no depictions of the Magi, no images of Mary, nothing but universal symbols.” 
"We have not seen a single religious symbol, not a single Christian symbol, on the tree."
[Image: Vatican_Christmas_tree_2017_400_533_55.jpg]Close up of the 2017 Vatican Christmas tree showing a yin-yang symbol.Dr. Robert Moynihan
Continued Moynihan: “And I too saw that there seemed not to be a single Christian symbol on the tree, unless the star on the top of the tree could be considered a sign of the star that led the Magi to the Christ-child.”
The report came in Moynihan’s December 20 eLetter, which recounted his running into two friends recently while walking through St. Peter's Square. Moynihan is the founder and editor-in-chiefof Inside the Vatican magazine. 
Moynihan said his friends were alarmed about the tree decorations. 
Advertisement

“Many nuns in Rome say they are shocked and are very worried about the message these decorations are sending to the youngest,” Moynihan’s friend said. “I wish I knew the Pope's secretaries to tell them to tell the Pope what is on the Square, if really the Holy Father wants to go and to bless such things. The worst thing for all these sponsors would be for the Pope not to come to the Square on December 31.”
The tree is a gift to the Vatican from Poland. It was Pope St. John Paul II who established the tradition of Christmas trees in St. Peter’s Square decades ago.
Media reports by and large on the ornaments followed the Vatican report’s lead, mentioning that the ornaments were created by children receiving treatment at several Italian hospitals and children from the Italian Archdiocese of Spoleto-Norcia, which was rocked by earthquakes in 2016. 
News reports discussed the ornaments being made of synthetic materials to stand up to winter weather, but not the ornaments’ designs.
Moynihan’s friends told him that in past years, the Christmas tree had been decorated with brilliant white and yellow balls, denoting the Vatican colors.
The two said as well they had written a letter to the Government of Vatican City, protesting the decorations on the Christmas tree.
Controversy continues to swirl around the Vatican Nativity for its particular approach to using nudity. Facebook flagged the image of this year’s Nativity display for being “sexually suggestive or provocative.”
The tree and the Nativity scene are set to remain in St Peter’s Square until the evening of Sunday, January 7, 2018, when the Church celebrates the feast of the Lord’s Baptism. 
[/size]
Reply
#88
My goodness, I was reading on Ann Barnhardt blog and I had no idea how monstrous and evil this blasphemous garbage is.

I can't believe (well I can, but I just cannot fathom the depravity) Pope Francis would approve all of this.  I truly hope his wicked acts are wholeheartedly condemned and ostracized by the Church in my lifetime.
Reply
#89
                                             If this guy lives long enough, we're going to see alot worse, and the argument that "he's still the Pope" just sounds more and more ridiculous.
Reply
#90
Just read an interesting article on New Liturgical Movement about traditional Neapolitan nativity scenes, I think this new Vatican one was definitely inspired by this style. I fail to see how either are blasphemous.  http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/201...j7sBN-nFPY

Here's an image:
[Image: DSCN6360.JPG]

Sure makes the Vatican one look much less crazy and radical eh?
If the Vatican's is sacrilegious because the Lord is hard to spot, what would you all say about the above Nativity scene?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)