Author Topic: Obelisk (Read 4972 times)

Viva Cristo Rey · « **Reply #30 on:** January 04, 2023, 06:53:30 AM »

Quote from: Seraphina on January 03, 2023, 10:24:55 AM

Obelisks indicate paganism? Some, yes, probably if dedicated to pagan idols and used as such. Someone else said they’re phallic symbols? Time to get your minds on better things!
In the early 1920’s a country road was built in my area that had approx. three foot high concrete obelisks as mile markers indicating the distance from northern and southern ends of the road carved into them. I’ve never once seen anyone worship one, nor do I think of a phallus as I drive by! (But now the thought is going to occur to me.)
There’s also am obelisk shaped monument in a town about 40 miles from my home. It has the names of those from the town who made the ultimate sacrifice in WWI. So if I stop to read it, that makes me a phallus worshipping pagan? Sorry, guys and gals, but that’s the last thing on my mind!
I also (gulp) own a short, squat obelisk shaped glass paper weight. It has some sort of gel liquid inside of it with various sea creature shaped sequins. When you shake it, the sea creatures move around until they slowly settle on the bottom. I’ve never worshipped it or had impure thoughts while idly playing with it!

Please stop the rash judgments. Viva, do you really think significant numbers of people on CI are into paganism and pornography? Look up the Epistle of St. Paul to Titus, chapter one, verse 15!

I see you only mention me. I’m not the one who mention phallus but it is true about construction of the obelisks. You seem to be twisting things. Rash. judgments?

I am not the one who travelled to Kentucky. Maybe something demonic travelled back home with you.

You have zero business accusing me of making rash judgements against me.

The novus Ordo is fully in a state of diabolical disorientation.

For the one calling me the resident puritan, you are making rash judgements against me because I don’t smoke pot, have tattoos and piercings.

satan can quote scripture. We see scripture everyday twisted by the demonic! Lol. Everyone goes along instead of fighting it.

There are “Catholics” who support abortion and sodomite marriage. There are “Catholics” who have Buddhism statues and yoga. Why do you think about obsession about King tut, Greek gods & goddesses, super heroes???

Viva Cristo Rey · « **Reply #31 on:** January 04, 2023, 07:10:41 AM »

Actually, you side along with novus Ordo Catholics who defended the obelisk.

Viva Cristo Rey · « **Reply #32 on:** January 04, 2023, 07:19:06 AM »

“Stay away from people who are not followers of the Lord! Can someone who is good get along with someone who is evil? Are light and darkness the same? Is Christ a friend of Satan? Can people who follow the Lord have anything in common with those who don't? Do idols belong in the temple of God? We are the temple of the living God.

Viva Cristo Rey · « **Reply #33 on:** January 04, 2023, 07:24:49 AM »

Seraphina, your post against me was really mean and rotten. You are the one who visited the impure who was involved with demons and witchcraft.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #34 on:** January 04, 2023, 09:14:53 AM »

Quote from: Seraphina on January 03, 2023, 10:24:55 AM

Someone else said they’re phallic symbols?

Well, they are in their original pagan sense. As I said, you don't have to interpret them the pagan way, but I don't particularly care for obelisks myself. But then I don't care for Michaelangelo's stuff either.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #35 on:** January 04, 2023, 09:17:44 AM »

Quote from: Viva Cristo Rey on January 04, 2023, 07:10:41 AM

Actually, you side along with novus Ordo Catholics who defended the obelisk.

I can see Traditional Catholics defending obelisks. Throughout history, the Church has appropriated various other pagan symbols (for which the Church has been excoriated by the Prots). I just don't care for putting a cross on top of something that used to be regarded in a phallic sense.

Cornelius · « **Reply #36 on:** January 04, 2023, 09:34:19 AM »

Why is it that nobody ever seems to agree on anything? People are always fighting, within the same nation, the same family, the same religion. People will always find faults and reasons for condemnations. I fall into it as well.

Meg · « **Reply #37 on:** January 04, 2023, 09:38:44 AM »

Quote from: Viva Cristo Rey on January 04, 2023, 07:10:41 AM

Actually, you side along with novus Ordo Catholics who defended the obelisk.

Where did you get the information in the OP from?

moneil · « **Reply #38 on:** January 04, 2023, 09:46:36 AM »

Quote

I'm not a big fan of obelisks … they definitely have a phallic aspect to them.

I for one would sand-blast Michelangelo’s homoerotic stuff out of the Sistine chapel.

The obelisk in St. Peter’s Square came after Pope St. Pius V (1566-1572), but it was defiantly there during the reign of Pope St. Pius X (1903-1914). It was moved to its current location in 1586 under the directive of Pope Sixtus V.

The Sistine Chapel was built between 1477 and 1480 by the directive of Pope Sixtus IV. The ceiling of the chapel was painted in fresco by Michelangelo between 1508 and 1512 at the commission of Pope Julius II. The Last Judgment fresco behind the chapel’s altar was painted by him between 1536 and 1541. The original commission was from Pope Clement VII (1523-1534) and was finished during the reign of Pope Paul III (1534-1549).

Therefore, the Sistine Chapel ceiling and altar wall fresco were there during the reigns of both Pope Saint Pius V and Pope Saint Pius X. Pope Saint Pius V may have been elected under its frescos (the conclave of December 20, 1565 – January 7, 1566, was held in the Apostolic Palace but I don’t know which rooms). The conclave of 1903, which elected Pope St. Pius X, was held in the Sistine Chapel.

As to the appropriateness of maintaining the obelisk, the Sistine Chapel frescos, and many other things along those lines, I’ll trust the judgement of SAINTS Pius V and Pius X over that of anyone on this forum.

I have seen the obelisk in St. Peter’s Square. I thought of neither a phallus nor of paganism, I thought of the Cross of Christ on top of it. I have been in the Sistine Chapel, and I have admired pictures of its frescos. I never experienced “homoerotic” thoughts. One source describes them as: “… the scenes show the creation of humanity, its fall from grace, and ultimate redemption”. Another source says: “The chapel’s decoration illustrates much of the doctrine of the Catholic Church”. I’m sorry if some have trouble keeping their minds “out of the gutter”, and I certainly have my own temptations and challenges to deal with.

The call to destroy the obelisk and to paint over Michelangelo’s frescos reminds me of certain extremist Muslim groups that go around destroying art they don’t approve of. I’ll trust the judgement of SAINTS Pius V and Pius X in these matters.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #39 on:** January 04, 2023, 10:18:22 AM »

Quote from: DigitalLogos on January 03, 2023, 01:12:29 PM

It can be, I overall was not impressed with it. But I think he takes far too many Protestant-esque angles on things to the point where he "un-saints" the likes of St. Alphonsus and St. Pius X. It reminds me of those "truther" compilations made by Bitchute users that mixes a lot of truths with falsehoods about the Church.

He also pushes this same exact stupid Prot talking point about the Roman obelisk as this thread.

I understand your point, DL. As for me, I have no hesitation in identifying him as a fellow Catholic, a brother in Christ. Not many are familiar with his work, but I think a healthy debate about that work would be good for those who are familiar with him. Maybe I'll start a thread for that purpose.

Many recognize there was substantial rot in the Church's hierarchy before V2, especially those favorable to Fr. Feeney. Some draw the lines at the pope; the popes before John XXIII are surrounded by a wall, though the wall is conceded to have some cracks around Pius XII. I think Hoffman has made a strong case about some of the pontiffs going back to the 15th century and the Renaissance, which, let us recall, happened when there was no Protestantism.

Hoffman harkens back to a medieval Catholicism that is the apogee of the Church, for him and many others:

Quote

In the name of the expansion of knowledge the Renaissance contracted it. God’s light is all expansive, never ending and unlimited. The Renaissance spirit is the embodiment of fraud: the exploration of the bogus “freedom” the serpent offered in the Garden. The “freedom” of the serpent is not a limitless universe, but a hermetically sealed prison, the claustrophobia and blindness of human subjectivity, the theater of our mirrored ego mistaken for the cosmos. The enemies of this gnosis were Augustine and Aquinas, orthodox Catholic guides to the cosmic mind of God, and God’s unfettered Creation. “We see the things you created because they exist. But they exist only because you created them” (The Confessions of St. Augustine, XII). Reality exists within and is generated by the mind of God, the limitless expanse. During and after the Renaissance this reality was eclipsed and falsified by the doctrine of the Kabbalah: Man, the Measure of All Things. This found its expression in Pico della Mirandola’s On The Dignity of Man, a treatise which Pope “Saint” John Paul II regarded as blessed and seminal. The project of “liberation” was in actuality an occluding, self-referential construct which limited humanity to one severely crippled and warped corner of experience, giving rise to the techno-nihilist hell today, predicated upon, paradoxically, mystical superstitions tempting us to play god. Succuмbing to these temptations leads to the death of nature, not its enhancement. The great contest in our time is between medieval-Catholic fidelity to nature and Renaissance neo-Catholic consent for the god-man who will “improve” and “perfect” it.

Hoffman, Michael. The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome (pp. 41-42). Independent History and Research. Kindle Edition.

I think Hoffman makes a strong case in the book that some of the Renaissance popes opened themselves up to the spirit of the Renaissance, an opening that foreshadowed the aggiornamento of John XXIII I'm afraid.

I realize that's against the strict Trad Catholic line, but so be it.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #40 on:** January 04, 2023, 11:01:33 AM »

Quote from: moneil on January 04, 2023, 09:46:36 AM

As to the appropriateness of maintaining the obelisk, the Sistine Chapel frescos, and many other things along those lines, I’ll trust the judgement of SAINTS Pius V and Pius X over that of anyone on this forum.

There's no record of any judgment on their part, and their silence could just very well be due to the fact that they had much better things to do than to worry about an obelisk or some paintings. Of their top 1,000 priorities when they were pope, those were probably down in the 900s and were never addresssed. By the time of St. Pius X, most of the Sistine Chapel had been fig-leafed. This is the same type of faulty reasoning I see from some dogmatic SV types who claim that if something was not actively or explicitly condemned by the Church, then it must be considered acceptable.

Pope Julius II, who commissioned Michaelangelo in the first place, tried to make him cover up some of the nudity, and Popes Innocent X and Pius IX launched additional fig-leafing campaigns.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #41 on:** January 04, 2023, 11:19:27 AM »

Quote from: moneil on January 04, 2023, 09:46:36 AM

The call to destroy the obelisk and to paint over Michelangelo’s frescos reminds me of certain extremist Muslim groups that go around destroying art they don’t approve of. I’ll trust the judgement of SAINTS Pius V and Pius X in these matters.

Uhm, no. You exaggerate the case for nudity. Reportedly the Council of Trent commissioned fig-leafing campaigns. Some of Julius II's Cardinals were appalled, calling Michaelangelo's trash fit for a tavern but not for a chapel, at which pope Juilius was pressured into trying to force Michaelangelo to rework them. Innocent X not only fig-leafed stuff, but even had the genitalia of various statues chiseled off. Pius IX also commissioned some fig-leafing. Pope Paul IV also joined in.

It's not a "Muslim" thing to detest gross nudity, especially genital nudity, especially the obviously homoerotic garbage from Michaelangelo.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #42 on:** January 04, 2023, 11:22:16 AM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on January 04, 2023, 10:18:22 AM

I understand your point, DL. As for me, I have no hesitation in identifying him as a fellow Catholic, a brother in Christ. Not many are familiar with his work, but I think a healthy debate about that work would be good for those who are familiar with him. Maybe I'll start a thread for that purpose.

Many recognize there was substantial rot in the Church's hierarchy before V2, especially those favorable to Fr. Feeney. Some draw the lines at the pope; the popes before John XXIII are surrounded by a wall, though the wall is conceded to have some cracks around Pius XII. I think Hoffman has made a strong case about some of the pontiffs going back to the 15th century and the Renaissance, which, let us recall, happened when there was no Protestantism.

Hoffman harkens back to a medieval Catholicism that is the apogee of the Church, for him and many others:

I think Hoffman makes a strong case in the book that some of the Renaissance popes opened themselves up to the spirit of the Renaissance, an opening that foreshadowed the aggiornamento of John XXIII I'm afraid.

I realize that's against the strict Trad Catholic line, but so be it.

I think that there's no doubt that there was a significant "corruption" since the Renaissance, but to apply this to a St. Pius X is beyond absurd. Nor is there any comparison between the moral depravity of many popes since the Renaissance and the direct corruption of the Magisterium and Church's public worship by the V2 papal claimants.

Drolo · « **Reply #43 on:** January 04, 2023, 11:24:53 AM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on January 04, 2023, 10:18:22 AM

I understand your point, DL. As for me, I have no hesitation in identifying him as a fellow Catholic, a brother in Christ. Not many are familiar with his work, but I think a healthy debate about that work would be good for those who are familiar with him. Maybe I'll start a thread for that purpose.

Many recognize there was substantial rot in the Church's hierarchy before V2, especially those favorable to Fr. Feeney. Some draw the lines at the pope; the popes before John XXIII are surrounded by a wall, though the wall is conceded to have some cracks around Pius XII. I think Hoffman has made a strong case about some of the pontiffs going back to the 15th century and the Renaissance, which, let us recall, happened when there was no Protestantism.

Hoffman harkens back to a medieval Catholicism that is the apogee of the Church, for him and many others:

I think Hoffman makes a strong case in the book that some of the Renaissance popes opened themselves up to the spirit of the Renaissance, an opening that foreshadowed the aggiornamento of John XXIII I'm afraid.

I realize that's against the strict Trad Catholic line, but so be it.

But medieval Christianity also Christianized pagan things, for example the theatre, originally in honor to the god Dionysius and condemned by early christians, was recovered in the Middle Ages de-paganized.

Giovanni Berto · « **Reply #44 on:** January 04, 2023, 11:37:35 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on January 04, 2023, 11:22:16 AM

I think that there's no doubt that there was a significant "corruption" since the Renaissance, but to apply this to a St. Pius X is beyond absurd. Nor is there any comparison between the moral depravity of many popes since the Renaissance and the direct corruption of the Magisterium and Church's public worship by the V2 papal claimants.

Exactly.

The difference between the bad pre-Vatican 2 Popes and the revolutionary Vatican 2 Popes is that some of the former led immoral lives, promoted immoral things, but left the faith untouched. The latter, sometimes led apparently moral lives, but did all they could to destroy the faith.

Author Topic: Obelisk (Read 4972 times)

Viva Cristo Rey

Re: Obelisk

Viva Cristo Rey

Re: Obelisk

Viva Cristo Rey

Re: Obelisk

Viva Cristo Rey

Re: Obelisk

Ladislaus

Re: Obelisk

Ladislaus

Re: Obelisk

Cornelius

Re: Obelisk

Meg

Re: Obelisk

moneil

Re: Obelisk

DecemRationis

Re: Obelisk

Ladislaus

Re: Obelisk

Ladislaus

Re: Obelisk

Ladislaus

Re: Obelisk

Drolo

Re: Obelisk

Giovanni Berto

Re: Obelisk