Pope Francis's Sacrilegious Nativity Scene
#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


Messages In This Thread
RE: Pope Francis's Sacrilegious Nativity Scene - by cassini - 12-22-2017, 07:12 AM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)