Pope Francis's Sacrilegious Nativity Scene
#69
(12-20-2017, 03:25 PM)Jeeter Wrote:
(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: :)

Interesting thread here.  I have a couple questions, which I hope don't come across as snarky. :)  It's a character flaw I'm trying to work on.

1) I can't help but notice that in one post you mention that the obelisks should be destroyed as former objects of pagan worship, yet you say you have no issue with pillars.  Why?

2) You quote scripture passages calling for the destruction of pagan objects of worship, yet have no objection to the Roman pantheon, a former temple, being converted into a church.  Why the distinction?

3) Where do you think the line should be drawn regarding destruction of pagan artifacts?  The Vatican museum has several Roman statues, including Apollo.  Obviously these items weren't worshipped or used during Mass, and several renaissance artists were able to study and learn from them.

1) A pillar is not a condemned pagan symbol. As I reasoned above, the term pillar obviously refered to pagan symbols and not simpler pillars. If pillars were condemned then St John Bosco's two pillars would hardly have represented the following:
'On the top of one, there is the statue of the Immaculate Virgin, from whose feet hangs a large placard with this inscription: Auxilium Christianorum—“Help of Christians”; on the other, which is much higher and bigger, stands a Host of great size proportionate to the column and beneath is another placard with the words: Salus Credentium—Salvation of the Faithful.'

2) 'In the year AD 312 something very important happened, something which should change Roman religion forever. The emperor Constantine the Great said he had had a sign from the god of the Christians in a dream in the night before he had an important battle. Emperor Constantine won this battle and thereafter showed his gratitude to the Christian God by turning his entire empire over to this new religion.' The Roman Pantheon made a converson so to speak. No doubt all the pagan artefacts were removed leaving just the building that was turned into a church. I have no problem with this, nor with Protestant churches being consecrated to Catholic churches.

3) Pagan artefacts in Vatican museum? No doubt these were the pagans abandoned after Rome became Christian, so as museum pieces they symbolise nothing but abandoned pagan pieces. No such abandoning happened with the obelisk paganism, indeed it still exists under the guise of 'science.' 

 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.

   
Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: Pope Francis's Sacrilegious Nativity Scene - by cassini - 12-20-2017, 05:14 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)