Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Matthew on October 07, 2012, 10:32:07 PM
-
This is still relevant today, I think.
Wither Goest Thou, Angelus Press?
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
By E. J. G. Jones
Several days ago, I received an email from Angelus Press.
Now, this is not a particularly unusual thing, as these emails come once every month or so, and I normally enjoy them, as they acquaint me, as is their purpose, with the newest products of that fine publisher, and occasionally provide news of tempting sales and discounts as well.
However, this time was different. As I read through the offerings, I came to one called "Holding the Stirrup." It sounded lovely, at first glance... a true story of heroic action on the part of Catholic nobility in the earlier 20th century, full of chivalry and the like. As a writer on a blog called Durendal, and a convinced monarchist and supporter of the old ways, in politics as in almost everything else, by rights I ought to be very attached to this book. I ought to be possessed of a strong desire to buy it, and I ought to be happy that Angelus Press is carrying it, and "getting the message out" to all those Traditionalists in the English-speaking world who still labor under the modern propaganda, and have an axe to grind against aristocracy, submission to one's superiors, the Catholic social order which arose in what we like to call the 'middle ages,' etc. But, I don't. I do not believe that this book sounds like edifying reading material for a Catholic.
"Why not?" I hear you ask.
As soon as the third sentence in the description, he who wrote it is already playing up "the evils of Hitler and Communism." Notice, if you will, the order in which these evils are mentioned. In right thought, one addresses the major point prior to the minor, the greater before the lesser. In this case, it is reversed. Communism, one of the "errors of Russia" spoken of by Our Lady in 1917, is, from every Catholic standpoint, vastly more evil than the nαzιsm of Herr Hitler. (Which was quite evil enough, thank-you.) Communism killed more people, (even, most likely, more Jews) and is a godless and avowedly materialistic system, whereas 'national socialism' was "merely" neo-pagan. The ad continues with rather vivid language, which I find unbalanced. The author refers to "The tragic aftermath of the Third Reich" and "the last bulwark of Christianity in Hitler's Germany," and, even more dramatically, to "the last organized defender of the human rights and dignity which Hitler brought to such a terrifying end."
A few questions can't help but present themselves, upon reading this rhetoric. Firstly, in the last quotation, the ad spoke of 'human rights.' Since when, I'd like to know, do Traditional Catholics make it a practice and a habit to conjure up this very progressive idea of the enlightenment? Only when it suits them, perhaps? "Human rights are a modern concept, except when we want to embrace them to show we condemn a certain evil?" Secondly, given the tone of my writing, it may come as a surprise, but I really do not disagree with the general thrust: "Hitler was really bad." That said, from a Catholic perspective, we know that the soul-rotting, materialistic "democracy" of the "Allies" or the "West" or the "victorious powers" was just as evil, if not more so, due to its insidiousness, than the neopaganism of nαzι Germany. This being the case, why do we not hear balanced rhetoric in other works praising those nobles in England who heroically fought against the liberal warmongering of Winston Churchill, or the veiled communism of Franklin Roosevelt? It simply does not exist in our society, even in traditionalist circles, and I think this is a very sad state of affairs. We're happy to condemn one evil, but we refuse to acknowledge the more dire and perhaps greater one which has been systematically turning the world into a godless 'paradise' of materialist secularism since 1945.
You doubtless think that I am splitting hairs, here, and that my strong words are quite unjustified. "After all, this is just ad copy, do you expect it to be historically and philosophically perfect?"
No, I do not. Nevertheless, I am disturbed by the trend which I have discerned, of late, in The Angelus, and Angelus Press, of covering nαzιsm and the German cσncєnтrαтισn cαмρs virtually ad nauseam. One could almost extrapolate, from their constant articles, publications, book reviews, interviews, etc., that they were very eager to "prove" to the world, and to anglophonic Traditional Catholics, that they fully believe in the WWII Jєωιѕн h0Ɩ0cαųst, and are very eager to distance themselves from Mgr. Williamson's very publicized questioning of these events, which became fodder for public discussion at the beginning of this year. This "trend" at Angelus Press began around that time, and seems to have scarcely abated since. It may seem a petty personal gripe, but when I subscribed (to the magazine and the emails) I expected to be subscribing to a Traditionalist magazine, not to a WWII history magazine. (One article, even two, would have been quite sufficient for their purposes, if they felt a need to distance themselves from the very notion of a politically incorrect questioning of the precise historical details.)
Returning, however, to this new book offered by Angelus Press, we find yet more problems, as we continue reading. I said above that I did not expect the ad to be perfect historically, because a humble catalogue-compiler need not necessarily know history in order to do his job. I do, however, expect that in a Catholic publishing house, Catholic morality will be followed. If we continue reading the ad, we see that even this benchmark is not met.
"It was this nobility" (which nobility he has been waxing poetic about the goodness and virtue thereof throughout his writing, and clearly believes them to be in the right) "which implemented the famous plot to αssαssιnαtҽ Hitler, a plot in which Elisabeth's cousin, Claus Stauffenberg, and many good friends lost their lives. The drama of this great conspiracy, together with the personalities and secret machinery which almost made it work, is the high point of the book."
This is very, very sad, and I did not think I would see the day when a traditionalist publication suggested that murder or vigilante justice is a legitimate or justifiable thing. In the liberal west today, where the devil himself has been forgotten and written off as superstitious myth, while Hitler has taken center-stage as the world's most vicious villain ever, it is now quite fashionable to praise the "heroic" Count von Stauffenberg, for his attempt to instigate a coup and αssαssιnαtҽ Adolf Hitler. Not only was the count's action cowardly (a bomb) and treasonous (because he, a military man, had sworn an oath to the nαzι government, just as U.S. servicemen today swear an oath to the constitution) but it was attempted murder, plain and simple. It is true that Hitler was an evil man, and it is true that his death could perhaps be rationalized as "the greater good," but one cannot, according to Catholic moral theology, do evil that good may come of it, and one cannot act as a vigilante, which is precisely what Count von Stauffenberg did.
An example very relevant to today will prove my point. Count von Stauffenberg undertook to kill one high-placed man, in the hope that this would prevent the future death of many other men in the war. He may have hoped to save a million men. Yet, in the United States, since the decision of Roe v. Wade in the 1970s, it is estimated that upwards of 44,000,000 babies have been murdered through abortion. If von Stauffenberg acted rightly to save a million, could we not say that any men with decency ought to emulate his actions to save another 44,000,000? Was not the vigilante who gunned down the abortionist George Tiller in the right? To say this would be an absurdity, as everyone readily recognizes. Society cannot function save when law and order prevails, which it does not when men take it into their minds to kill, not on the state's authority (sanctioned by God) but on their own, those whom they deem, from their perspective, to be evildoers who should not be longer tolerated by society. Modern men are hypocrites, when on the one hand, they lambast the killing of Dr. Tiller as an injustice, and on the other, they praise Count von Stauffenberg as a glorious hero.
I am very sad to see that Angelus Press has apparently succuмbed to this hypocrisy, at least in a material way. I hope they correct their ad and stop selling a book which appears to perpetuate this myth of Col. Stauffenberg's heroism -having even the chutzpah to suggest it is exemplary Catholic behavior. Since Angelus Press has publicly released this ad, and is selling this book, I believe it is a man's Catholic duty to call them on it, publicly.
http://rencesvals.blogspot.com/
-
When Father Bolduc started The Angelus, he didn't want it to be a lofty publication. He wanted it to be geared towards talking about issues and teaching the faith to common people. It's a shame what it's turned into, especially that last picture on the front depicting Jesus making that devil horn sign with his hand. Surely they could have found a better picture of the Sacred Heart than that one.
-
When Father Bolduc started The Angelus, he didn't want it to be a lofty publication. He wanted it to be geared towards talking about issues and teaching the faith to common people. It's a shame what it's turned into, especially that last picture on the front depicting Jesus making that devil horn sign with his hand. Surely they could have found a better picture of the Sacred Heart than that one.
Can you scan the pic and share it with us here? I doubt many people understand what picture you are referring to.
-
So, what's the title of the book? It's not common practice to put the title of a
book merely in quotation marks, so "Holding the Stirrup" might not be it. If the
article had had Holding the Stirrup or Holding the Stirrup, I would not be left
wondering, as italics or underline IS common proper editorial practice for titles
of books.
Also, what is the author's name? Any reputable commentator referring to a
specific book will include the name of the author, so anyone reading the article
will not be left confused or possibly misled. There could be periodical articles
or issues by the same title. There could be poetry or Internet blogs by the same
title. How many newspapers and magazines are there, with articles? And over
the course of a few years (since this comes from 2009) it becomes quite possible
that there are more than one items headed by the same few words.
This is still relevant today, I think.
Wither Goest Thou, Angelus Press?
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
By E. J. G. Jones
Several days ago, I received an email from Angelus Press.
Now, this is not a particularly unusual thing,...
...
... Since Angelus Press has publicly released this ad, and is selling this book, I believe it is a man's Catholic duty to call them on it, publicly.
http://rencesvals.blogspot.com/
"...it is a man's Catholic duty to call them on it, publicly." -- What is he talking
about? Catholics should call Angelus on the phone and complain about something?
What? If you're going to encourage people to complain, it should be very clear
what you are asking them to do, otherwise you could get people responding to
your urgings by complaining about the wrong thing. Does he mean it is a Catholic
duty to post Internet blog messages that make a vague reference to the
perceived inappropriateness of a book store's ad for a particular offering? I'm
having a bit of a difficulty with that, because I've never heard of any Catholic
"duty" to post Internet blog messages of any kind. Does he mean it is a Catholic
duty to take out commercial ad space to complain about how "Angelus Press is
selling this book?" Well, that doesn't seem quite right either: is it ever a "Catholic
duty" to make demands that a book store stop selling a book because the
complaining Catholic doesn't approve of the way the book store advertized the
book?
Following the link rencesvals... I found this today:
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Taking Another Look at "Holding the Stirrup" (http://rencesvals.blogspot.com/2012/09/taking-another-look-at-holding-stirrup.html)
(http://www.angeluspress.biz/uploads/catalog1833.jpg)
Link to article from 2009: Whither Goest Thou, Angelus Press? (http://rencesvals.blogspot.ca/2009/10/whither-goest-thou-angelus-press.html)
By: M.D. Amesse
Readers will recall a post some years back featured on Durendal where Mr. Jones commented on the Angelus Press' advertisement of the book Holding the Stirrup. Last Christmas, my aunt bought me the book. I only recently found time to read it. I actually found it quite good, and thus the Durendal staff felt that in justice my thoughts on it should be posted here.
I know that there are objections to the assassination attempt by Count von Stauffenberg, due to his oath and the questionable morality of tyrannicide itself (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15108a.htm) (cf. the Council of Cosntance which condemned the proposition that "[a]ny vassal or subject can lawfully and meritoriously kill, and ought to kill, any tyrant. He may even, for this purpose, avail himself of ambushes, and wily expressions of affection or of adulation, notwithstanding any oath or pact imposed upon him by the tyrant, and without waiting for the sentence or order of any judge."). Indeed, the authoress, Baroness Elisabeth von Gutenberg, does present Stauffenberg as a hero, but it is more nuanced than the advertisements for the book make out.
She admits that she is too close to the matter to trust her own judgment, and the difficulties arising with the oath to Hitler is touched on. Of course, the Catholic Bavarian aristocracy had good luck with assassination up to that point. Her husband, Baron Enoch von Gutenberg, led the navy against President Kurt Eisner, a Jєωιѕн, socialist, who drove the King and Queen of Bavaria out and declared the nation a republic. Gutenberg did not get him, but a relative, Count Anton von Arco, did shoot Eisner dead in Munich. At any rate, the matter of the oath with Hitler weighed on her husband’s mind, but when he was called up as a naval officer, Gutenberg was never required to take the oath. It freed him to work in the resistance. I find this acceptable.
The first half of the book deals with the lead up to the war and includes her husband and their extended family’s attempt to restore the monarchy of Bavaria. It starts when she was a young girl and ranges through the early years of their marriage. I found the beginning to be more interesting than the latter half, which deals with the nαzι reaction against the Catholic nobility after the bomb failed.
It was interesting having a firsthand account of life in a Catholic German aristocratic family struggling with modernity and revolution. At points it is quite moving, and I liked how the nobility was shown as having a true concern for the tenants on their estates and the love that the peasants showed their lords. It was so very different than the type of thing you see in film and print today, where the nobility are always haughty and treat the lower classes as inhuman beast of burden.
The authoress does see the nαzιs as evil (as she should) but see{s} Russia as the source of that evil. I have only two complaints: 1) I think the personal memoir (was it edited?) did not focus enough on the role which Jєωιѕн revolutionaries played and 2) she saw the British and Americans as liberators. In short: the good side. This, however, is rather light and comes in more at the very end.
All in all, I would recommend this book to readers.
----------------------------------------------------------
{"In short: the good side." This is not a sentence, and leaves whatever is
intended up for grabs: the book prortrays "the good side" of what, the Allied
liberation of Europe, the good that the Jєωιѕн revolutionaries played in the War,
that Russia was the real source of all the evil of WWII and everyone else was
therefore exonerated? What?}
Therefore, it is noteworthy that the OP links to a blog post from September 19th,
2012 (three weeks ago) and an article recommending the book, Holding the
Stirrup by Baroness Elisabeth von Gutenberg, while the OP makes no clear
mention of the book's title (quotation marks would indicate the title of an article or
a movie, or a poem, for example) and no mention whatsoever of the author's
name, while the OP seems to refer only to a blog post from 3 years ago (Oct. 28,
2009), and is principally focused on a critique of an ad in the Angelus,
where it appears whoever wrote the Angelus ad was somewhat "groping at
straws" to evoke an anti-Williamson-"h0Ɩ0cαųst-denial" theme from a book that
really doesn't have such a theme in the first place, according to the post in the
linked Durendal blog page.
I think I get the gist of your intention, Matthew, in making this post, it's just that
I thought it might be worth mentioning that to some new viewer reading this
thread, someone not familiar with the whole attack scenario against +Williamson,
that there is more to your intention than what is clearly expressed in your opening
post for the thread, or for that matter, the thread's title.
I have several friends who are quite educated and well-read, who abhor reading
blogs and fora such as this present one, and they are entirely in agreement on
+Fellay's virtual campaign of suppression and ostracization of his own brother
bishop. It seems to me that under the prevailing circuмstances, something so
easily misunderstood as this should be better explained, lest it be entirely abused
by even underhanded efforts of the opposition, so to speak.
-
N.O.,
I read "Holding the Stirrup" and watched the movie "Valkyrie" at about the same time.
Considering the tribe's control of Hollywood, I thought the script and Tom Cruise's acting job were an excellent portrayal of the mechanics of Count Von Stauffenberg assassination attempt.
The topic of whether the Catholic Chuch would condone such an assassination, under certain conditions, is intriguing to me.
In "Holding the Stirrup", the countess indicated that Count von Staffenberg had undergone a transformation after his injuries.
He was oblvious to his disabling wounds and was determined to get Hitler. She said amazingly, sitting in his hospital bed missing seven fingers and his right eye, he "looked good".
I took it as his move towards sainthood. He was willing to sacrifice everything to stop Hilter. TIA did a thorough check of the Hitler literature and they've made a good argument for Adolf Hitler being demonically possessed.
http://www.traditioninaction.org/History/G_006_nαzιGnostic05.html
Considering the mass propaganda attack Hollywood pulled-off over the generations to demonize the German people, I see the assassination attempt as historically important. The jew Henry Morganthou actually tried to persuade the Allies to pass a peace-time law requiring all German men to be sterilized.
The fact that over 4,000 Germans gave up their lives trying to oust Hitler
violates the Morganthou/Hollywood stereotype.
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7jgd00lZB1qbjz0go2_250.jpg)
-
When Father Bolduc started The Angelus, he didn't want it to be a lofty publication. He wanted it to be geared towards talking about issues and teaching the faith to common people. It's a shame what it's turned into, especially that last picture on the front depicting Jesus making that devil horn sign with his hand. Surely they could have found a better picture of the Sacred Heart than that one.
Can you scan the pic and share it with us here? I doubt many people understand what picture you are referring to.
It wasn't actually on the Angelus, I found out. It was on the catalog, which was why I had a hard time finding it. And it wasn't a picture of the Sacred Heart.
(http://angeluspress.org/image/catalog-sm.jpg)
-
Pay close attention to this here. This is called "embed art."
(http://i824.photobucket.com/albums/zz162/freezing7/catalog.jpg)
-
Pay close attention to this here. This is called "embed art."
(http://i824.photobucket.com/albums/zz162/freezing7/catalog.jpg)
Please help this artistic amateur. What am I looking at?
-
Pay close attention to this here. This is called "embed art."
(http://i824.photobucket.com/albums/zz162/freezing7/catalog.jpg)
LOL. So that's your 'devil sign' huh? :facepalm:
That's actually a different angle of the blessing fingers for the typical Byzantine-style Christ Pantocrator images. From the side view, the fingers are supposed to be forming the Greek characters IC XC which are the abbreviations for the name Jesus Christ. Here are some samples:
(http://03varvara.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/unknown-artist-christ-pantocrator-new-roman-mid-12th-century-e1277682867321.jpg)
(http://lowres-picturecabinet.com.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/173/main/62/618321.jpg)
(http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2242/2017649407_0416aa0250.jpg)
-
Pay close attention to this here. This is called "embed art."
(http://i824.photobucket.com/albums/zz162/freezing7/catalog.jpg)
LOL. So that's your 'devil sign' huh? :facepalm:
That's actually a different angle of the blessing fingers for the typical Byzantine-style Christ Pantocrator images. From the side view, the fingers are supposed to be forming the Greek characters IC XC which are the abbreviations for the name Jesus Christ. Here are some samples:
When an 8 year old child has to ask about it, there's a problem. Why choose a picture like this one when it's well known that there is a significant occult meaning attached to it now?
-
A little over 1 month after that letter, the Angelus published the outrageous "Saint of the Sanhedrin" supporting the Pharisees' word over St. Paul.
-
Pay close attention to this here. This is called "embed art."
(http://i824.photobucket.com/albums/zz162/freezing7/catalog.jpg)
LOL. So that's your 'devil sign' huh? :facepalm:
That's actually a different angle of the blessing fingers for the typical Byzantine-style Christ Pantocrator images. From the side view, the fingers are supposed to be forming the Greek characters IC XC which are the abbreviations for the name Jesus Christ. Here are some samples:
When an 8 year old child has to ask about it, there's a problem. Why choose a picture like this one when it's well known that there is a significant occult meaning attached to it now?
Perhaps you should explain it to your child then. It seems only Americans have a problem with this picture. As Catholics we should be more aware about our Eastern Catholic brethren too, and no, I don't mean it in the same way for the the Eastern 'Orthodox'.
-
Pay close attention to this here. This is called "embed art."
(http://i824.photobucket.com/albums/zz162/freezing7/catalog.jpg)
LOL. So that's your 'devil sign' huh? :facepalm:
That's actually a different angle of the blessing fingers for the typical Byzantine-style Christ Pantocrator images. From the side view, the fingers are supposed to be forming the Greek characters IC XC which are the abbreviations for the name Jesus Christ. Here are some samples:
When an 8 year old child has to ask about it, there's a problem. Why choose a picture like this one when it's well known that there is a significant occult meaning attached to it now?
Are you kidding? Please tell me you are joking. An 8 year old asks about it and it is therefore a occult picture being promoted as such by the evil Angelus Press? That's rich.
-
The eight year old that asked about this picture was actually one of my nieces: A very innocent child that was told that this symbol was used by followers of the devil. Perhaps you haven't been paying attention to today's art, and the occult symbolism employed by the Illuminati and the Freemasons. This handsign can be likened by the brazen usage of the "All seeing eye" that actually was a highjacked sign for the Eye of Providence which was actually a Catholic symbol to begin with.
I wonder if I decided to make my avatar a symbol of the Eye of Providence, and how many people would say "LOOK! SHE HAS A SATANIC SIGN IN HER AVATAR!" I'm predicting very many. Perhaps you're more skeptical.
Whether you -want- to notice it or not, this is not the only time the SSPX lately has used "artistic license" and it's quietly been swept under the rug.
Have you seen the butcher block that is now at Menzingen? Maybe you didn't know what I meant by "butcher block." Let me help you.
At the Seminary in Econe, they just put in a "new altar." This "altar" has a very wide space behind it, so that you could theoretically have Mass facing in both directions. The stairs were completely redone as well, and the standing altar they had used to be closer to the wall, as far as I know, and they've moved it more to the center of the Church. Instead of moving the altar (as long as they were redoing the Church) why didn't they move it closer to the wall? Should we be concerned that this move is preparing them for the eventual use of the Novus Ordo? I'm told no.
It's the same "no" I'm hearing when I see a picture like this being used by the Angelus Press. It's in bad taste. You want some examples?
(http://www.lovethetruth.com/jis_images/bush_satan_5.jpg)
(http://www.whale.to/b/hand.h161.jpg)
I'll put more here if you're not convinced.
-
(http://www.cssr.com/common%20files/C.Ss.R.%20Seals/cssrseal01.jpg)
Yes, the all-seeing Eye is a Catholic symbol, hijacked by the Masons and Illuminati. But that doesn't mean we should just let them have it their way and stop using it.
More examples of 'controversial' images. I say 'controversial' because it is only controversial to modern sensibilities, just like how Bishop Williamson said modern sensibilities will be shocked to hear that women should not be in positions of authority:
(http://casaveneracion.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/all-seeing-eye1-600x337.jpg)
(http://media-cache0.pinterest.com/upload/163888873909860447_EN0kYvin_b.jpg)
(http://danielmitsui.tripod.com/blogpics/kremsmuenster_chasuble.jpg)
(http://web.stpeters.org.au/gallery/ornament/pics/vest11.jpg)
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3537/3672561969_8078da16f2_z.jpg?zz=1)
-
Yes, I-- think I did mention that these symbols have been hijacked by the freemasons.
Considering the situation the SSPX is in now with Rome, do you, or do you not agree, that the use of such things could be interpreted as something other than what it actually is?
Here's an example.
An organization is accused of some type of secret deals to merge with another giant conglomerate. The year that all these things that seem to indicate the merger, the company uses a logo on their yearly report, that looks to the skeptical person, like a combination of the corporate logos from both companies. The skeptic is going to say, "SEE THERE IS A DEAL!" even if management says, "It's all rumours and lies. Trust us, we know what's going on."
-
(http://www.cssr.com/common%20files/C.Ss.R.%20Seals/cssrseal01.jpg)
Yes, the all-seeing Eye is a Catholic symbol, hijacked by the Masons and Illuminati. But that doesn't mean we should just let them have it their way and stop using it.
More examples of 'controversial' images. I say 'controversial' because it is only controversial to modern sensibilities, just like how Bishop Williamson said modern sensibilities will be shocked to hear that women should not be in positions of authority:
(http://casaveneracion.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/all-seeing-eye1-600x337.jpg)
(http://media-cache0.pinterest.com/upload/163888873909860447_EN0kYvin_b.jpg)
(http://danielmitsui.tripod.com/blogpics/kremsmuenster_chasuble.jpg)
(http://web.stpeters.org.au/gallery/ornament/pics/vest11.jpg)
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3537/3672561969_8078da16f2_z.jpg?zz=1)
A pretty sick joke-- expecting Catholics to believe that the all seeing eye originates with the Church. The other occult symbols don't belong on any of our Churches either & will be removed when the v2 anti-church is destroyed.
Nefarious persons have been sneaking in these images for a long time. Rosslyn Chapel is a good example. I am not surprised that PFT is swallowing the idea that the eye is originally Catholic. .
-
Some people are willing to find (and imagine) scandal behind every door.
-
Roscoe, it's because it's true. The Eye of Providence was hijacked by the Freemasons. There are clear examples of this fact by looking at artwork where it's been used in the past.
Here's one from the Middle Ages.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2b/Pontormo_-_Cena_in_Emmaus_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg/442px-Pontormo_-_Cena_in_Emmaus_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg)
Here's one from an old stained glass window in a Catholic Church.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e1/Eye_of_Providence_Window.jpg/450px-Eye_of_Providence_Window.jpg)
The point I was making is, since we KNOW that these images now are used for nefarious means, and the Freemasons operate on symbolism, then why reference them in any current form? The use of such things are going to raise eyebrows, at the very least.
The SSPX should not be incorporating images like the one we're arguing about in the first place, because CURRENTLY, this hand sign is being used by the Freemasons. If they don't want people raising eyebrows over the things that they choose as artwork for their publications, perhaps they should choose OTHER artwork without symbols that have a double-meaning. In short, the vast majority of images don't contain nefarious symbolism. If you don't want to be accused with working with the Freemasons (read: Satanists), then you should avoid the use of their symbols in your literature. It's very unwise, especially with so many against what the SSPX is doing right now, to include things like this that can raise suspicions even more.
Basically, you're giving tons more ammunition to your "enemies" (if that's what you want to call them) by putting this kind of stuff on your publications. If you're really not doing anything nefarious, the worst thing you can do is give them "bullets" like this.
-
:rolleyes:
-
The symbols are not Catholic & should be removed.
Who painted those and when? What Church are they on?
Persons with nefarious motives have put occult symbols on Churches like Rosslyn Chapel b4. There are at least a few Churches in France and elsewhere that are now adorned with Gargoyles. This does not mean that they belong there.
-
The symbols are not Catholic & should be removed.
Who painted those and when? What Church are they on?
Persons with nefarious motives have put occult symbols on Churches like Rosslyn Chapel b4. There are at least a few Churches in France and elsewhere that are now adorned with Gargoyles. This does not mean that they belong there.
Giggity. Do you know what gargoyles were for? They were water spouts decorated to keep water of the roofs of the cathedrals. :facepalm:
It's not hard to find sources for this stuff, Roscoe.
The first picture I linked was painted in 1525 by a painter named Pontormo. It's now in an art gallery in Florence, Italy.
The other one is at a Church in Fifield, WI. I believe it's Saint Francis Church.
-
i recall a priest, on retreat , telling us, if a hundred years ago, the flag of hammer and sickle was local, but it was hyjacked by the communists...... and you find it in an attic now..... you do not use it as before, because it means something different now......
-
Yup. We need to get rid a centuries old image of Christ the Pantocrator because people might think Jesus is giving the devil horns/sign/gesture.
-
I am very disappointed to see such baseless charges against beautiful, historic Catholic imagery. That is not a "satanic symbol." Rather. it is how the Easterners bless. I have an icon on my desk. Our Lord is with His Blessed Mother, making the blessing, and on the other side, it is our Lord by Himself.
Look up any image of, say, St. John Chrysostom, on google. He'll be making the same gesture. Shall we place St. John, doctor of the Church, before an internet tribunal as well?
-
i recall a priest, on retreat , telling us, if a hundred years ago, the flag of hammer and sickle was local, but it was hyjacked by the communists...... and you find it in an attic now..... you do not use it as before, because it means something different now......
Pretty much this. This was my entire argument to begin with.
-
(http://sonofthefathers.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/john-chrysostom.jpg)
-
(http://sonofthefathers.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/john-chrysostom.jpg)
This picture is not the same as the one I linked. This picture is not the "devil horn sign." This is the ring finger joining with the thumb, not the thumb joining with both the ring and the middle finger.
-
The symbols are not Catholic & should be removed.
Who painted those and when? What Church are they on?
Persons with nefarious motives have put occult symbols on Churches like Rosslyn Chapel b4. There are at least a few Churches in France and elsewhere that are now adorned with Gargoyles. This does not mean that they belong there.
Giggity. Do you know what gargoyles were for? They were water spouts decorated to keep water of the roofs of the cathedrals. :facepalm:
I do not believe that. There are numerous ways to keep water off a roof w/o using a reptilian/serpentine symbol. :detective:
-
The symbols are not Catholic & should be removed.
Who painted those and when? What Church are they on?
Persons with nefarious motives have put occult symbols on Churches like Rosslyn Chapel b4. There are at least a few Churches in France and elsewhere that are now adorned with Gargoyles. This does not mean that they belong there.
Giggity. Do you know what gargoyles were for? They were water spouts decorated to keep water of the roofs of the cathedrals. :facepalm:
I do not believe that. There are numerous ways to keep water off a roof w/o using a reptilian/serpentine symbol. :detective:
What a load of nonsense!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gargoyle
-
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_xa9i01wpwqI/TBw-XHd1nqI/AAAAAAAADgI/Ljv7XcYQFks/s1600-h/Holy+Family+-+Turgis+1040+cropped.jpg)
-
(http://i824.photobucket.com/albums/zz162/freezing7/Holyfamilyeyeofprovidence_zpse70a8ccf.jpg)
That's a gorgeous picture. But I would never put it on the front of Angelus magazine, because people read into it the wrong way, because the Luciferians use that same eye symbol.
-
This is a very interesting topic, and I agree completely with parentsfortruth. We must be very careful in modern times about using images with symbols and words that have been highjacked.
I will use and example. I grew up in the South. The Confederate flag never, ever represented slavery or racism. The flag represented, for Southerners, independence from tyranny of the federal government. We were proud to have them in our homes as a representation of what our ancestors fought and died for. And whether anyone wants to believe it or not, it had little to do with slavery and/or racism.
However, the civil rights movement which was overrun with the Communists knew exactly how this flag thing worked. They eventually associated the flag with racism and hate. Now, Southern states have to remove Confederate flags from their capitol buildings. People who have rebel flags in their homes are accused of being members of the KKK or worse. So today, displaying a rebel flag is cause for trouble. Almost everyone will misinterpret it.
The nαzιs highjacked the swastika. The list of nations and religious sects that used the swastika as a symbol of good and good luck would be exhaustive. But if someone of Asian descent were to paint swastikas on the side of their garage for good luck in the U.S, what do you think might happen?
So in spite of what may or may not be true regarding ancient Catholic religious art and symbols, we do have to use our common sense about us, lest we present the wrong image. Who are we going to convert if the symbol on our magazine or hanging on our wall is one of Our Lord making the "devil sign"? My Protestant family would be highly alarmed and totally convinced that they are right in thinking that the Catholic church is from Satan!
We MUST use right reason, these days, and meet people where they are! However, this is exactly why we must not allow these organizations to highjack any more of our sacred symbols!
Just think about the Rosary. We must not allow the Rosary to be highjacked by the gang members, Hollywood, and the runway models! Every chance we get, we should remind the public that OUR Rosary is not jewelry or a gang symbol but a sacred symbol by which we pray. We must do this because Heaven knows most of the Nervous Orders won't!
-
That's a gorgeous picture. But I would never put it on the front of Angelus magazine, because people read into it the wrong way, because the Luciferians use that same eye symbol.
This is a very interesting topic, and I agree completely with parentsfortruth. We must be very careful in modern times about using images with symbols and words that have been highjacked.
... The nαzιs highjacked the swastika. The list of nations and religious sects that used the swastika as a symbol of good and good luck would be exhaustive. But if someone of Asian descent were to paint swastikas on the side of their garage for good luck in the U.S, what do you think might happen?
So in spite of what may or may not be true regarding ancient Catholic religious art and symbols, we do have to use our common sense about us, lest we present the wrong image. Who are we going to convert if the symbol on our magazine or hanging on our wall is one of Our Lord making the "devil sign"? My Protestant family would be highly alarmed and totally convinced that they are right in thinking that the Catholic church is from Satan!
We MUST use right reason, these days, and meet people where they are!
Exactly.
Besides, I am still not convinced that hand symbol was ever really a truly Traditional Catholic one. (Meaning, I could be convinced with the right evidence, but a few pictures posted on a thread on an internet forum haven't done it for me yet.)
(http://i824.photobucket.com/albums/zz162/freezing7/catalog.jpg)
LOL. So that's your 'devil sign' huh? :facepalm:
That's actually a different angle of the blessing fingers for the typical Byzantine-style Christ Pantocrator images. From the side view, the fingers are supposed to be forming the Greek characters IC XC which are the abbreviations for the name Jesus Christ.
Searching for images of Christ Pantocrator, I saw these:
(http://frame.artprintimages.com/frameimagehandler/universal/frameimage.jpg?frame=[FAP:0+PRT:[PAP=8654337|PRW=18|PRH=24|PIP=%5c61%5c6162%5cDCVG100Z.jpg|LFN=CORPOD42-20244004.jpg|PWL=338|PHL=450|PWO=1500|PHO=2000]+MLD:[MID=5092331|MDW=2.25|MDH=1.25]+NMM:1+MT1:[MTD=1153644|MTP=|MTC=f5f1ee|MTL=2.5|MTT=2.5|MTR=2.5|MTB=2.5|MDP=0.2|MBV=0.08]+MXD:1000+MXW:350+MXH:350+QLT:90+OVH:[TOH=0.125|ROH=0.125|BOH=0.125|LOH=0.125]])
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/66/Christ_Pantokrator%2C_Cathedral_of_Cefal%C3%B9%2C_Sicily.jpg/270px-Christ_Pantokrator%2C_Cathedral_of_Cefal%C3%B9%2C_Sicily.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4a/Spas_vsederzhitel_sinay.jpg/220px-Spas_vsederzhitel_sinay.jpg)
(http://www.printeryhouse.org/imm/c07.jpg)
In all the images I've ever seen of Christ (except for the few in this thread), His hands never do the devil horn position. All the images I've found for Christ Pantocrator have the hands more or less in the position shown in these pictures: the forefinger and middle finger are together, as in a blessing, and it's more like the ring finger and pinky that are touching the thumb - or close to the thumb (to form the "C"?) - , not the middle & ring fingers. Also, the hand is raised, not sideways.
If Christ making the "devil horn" sign was ever a a truly Catholic image, as already pointed out, given what it means today (and it's immense popularity with Christ's enemies), it seems at the very least an unwise choice for the Angelus catalog.
-
Pat, although those are similar as they are iconography, not one of them has that same hand symbol. Those other ones clearly represent the Holy Trinity, and are not using the devil horn sign like in the one I linked. In the one I linked, there's a circle in the middle of his hand with his thumb touching both middle fingers. The other ones you posted, He's not doing that. His pinky and ring finger are coming to the middle of his hand in the ones you linked.
-
Pat, although those are similar as they are iconography, not one of them has that same hand symbol. Those other ones clearly represent the Holy Trinity, and are not using the devil horn sign like in the one I linked. In the one I linked, there's a circle in the middle of his hand with his thumb touching both middle fingers. The other ones you posted, He's not doing that. His pinky and ring finger are coming to the middle of his hand in the ones you linked.
Yes, I'm sorry I must not have been clear. That is the same thing I was pointing out.
I'll repost just my words here:
That's a gorgeous picture. But I would never put it on the front of Angelus magazine, because people read into it the wrong way, because the Luciferians use that same eye symbol.
This is a very interesting topic, and I agree completely with parentsfortruth. We must be very careful in modern times about using images with symbols and words that have been highjacked.
... The nαzιs highjacked the swastika. The list of nations and religious sects that used the swastika as a symbol of good and good luck would be exhaustive. But if someone of Asian descent were to paint swastikas on the side of their garage for good luck in the U.S, what do you think might happen?
So in spite of what may or may not be true regarding ancient Catholic religious art and symbols, we do have to use our common sense about us, lest we present the wrong image. Who are we going to convert if the symbol on our magazine or hanging on our wall is one of Our Lord making the "devil sign"? My Protestant family would be highly alarmed and totally convinced that they are right in thinking that the Catholic church is from Satan!
We MUST use right reason, these days, and meet people where they are!
Exactly.
Besides, I am still not convinced that hand symbol was ever really a truly Traditional Catholic one. (Meaning, I could be convinced with the right evidence, but a few pictures posted on a thread on an internet forum haven't done it for me yet.)
Searching for images of Christ Pantocrator, I saw these:
[various images of Christ Pantocrator]
In all the images I've ever seen of Christ (except for the few in this thread), His hands never do the devil horn position. All the images I've found for Christ Pantocrator have the hands more or less in the position shown in these pictures: the forefinger and middle finger are together, as in a blessing, and it's more like the ring finger and pinky that are touching the thumb - or close to the thumb (to form the "C"?) - , not the middle & ring fingers. Also, the hand is raised, not sideways.
If Christ making the "devil horn" sign was ever a a truly Catholic image, as already pointed out, given what it means today (and it's immense popularity with Christ's enemies), it seems at the very least an unwise choice for the Angelus catalog.
-
Sorry, must have missed the last part of your post. Yes, I agree.
-
The symbols are not Catholic & should be removed.
Who painted those and when? What Church are they on?
Persons with nefarious motives have put occult symbols on Churches like Rosslyn Chapel b4. There are at least a few Churches in France and elsewhere that are now adorned with Gargoyles. This does not mean that they belong there.
Giggity. Do you know what gargoyles were for? They were water spouts decorated to keep water of the roofs of the cathedrals. :facepalm:
I do not believe that. There are numerous ways to keep water off a roof w/o using a reptilian/serpentine symbol. :detective:
What a load of nonsense!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gargoyle
Anyone who wants to believe Wiki & Chip Berlet-- be my guest. Common sense tells us that a water spout doesn't have to be designed like a demon. A simple pipe would accomplish the task of draining water.
-
That's a gorgeous picture. But I would never put it on the front of Angelus magazine, because people read into it the wrong way, because the Luciferians use that same eye symbol.
This is a very interesting topic, and I agree completely with parentsfortruth. We must be very careful in modern times about using images with symbols and words that have been highjacked.
... The nαzιs highjacked the swastika. The list of nations and religious sects that used the swastika as a symbol of good and good luck would be exhaustive. But if someone of Asian descent were to paint swastikas on the side of their garage for good luck in the U.S, what do you think might happen?
So in spite of what may or may not be true regarding ancient Catholic religious art and symbols, we do have to use our common sense about us, lest we present the wrong image. Who are we going to convert if the symbol on our magazine or hanging on our wall is one of Our Lord making the "devil sign"? My Protestant family would be highly alarmed and totally convinced that they are right in thinking that the Catholic church is from Satan!
We MUST use right reason, these days, and meet people where they are!
Exactly.
Besides, I am still not convinced that hand symbol was ever really a truly Traditional Catholic one. (Meaning, I could be convinced with the right evidence, but a few pictures posted on a thread on an internet forum haven't done it for me yet.)
(http://i824.photobucket.com/albums/zz162/freezing7/catalog.jpg)
LOL. So that's your 'devil sign' huh? :facepalm:
That's actually a different angle of the blessing fingers for the typical Byzantine-style Christ Pantocrator images. From the side view, the fingers are supposed to be forming the Greek characters IC XC which are the abbreviations for the name Jesus Christ.
Searching for images of Christ Pantocrator, I saw these:
(http://frame.artprintimages.com/frameimagehandler/universal/frameimage.jpg?frame=[FAP:0+PRT:[PAP=8654337|PRW=18|PRH=24|PIP=%5c61%5c6162%5cDCVG100Z.jpg|LFN=CORPOD42-20244004.jpg|PWL=338|PHL=450|PWO=1500|PHO=2000]+MLD:[MID=5092331|MDW=2.25|MDH=1.25]+NMM:1+MT1:[MTD=1153644|MTP=|MTC=f5f1ee|MTL=2.5|MTT=2.5|MTR=2.5|MTB=2.5|MDP=0.2|MBV=0.08]+MXD:1000+MXW:350+MXH:350+QLT:90+OVH:[TOH=0.125|ROH=0.125|BOH=0.125|LOH=0.125]])
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/66/Christ_Pantokrator%2C_Cathedral_of_Cefal%C3%B9%2C_Sicily.jpg/270px-Christ_Pantokrator%2C_Cathedral_of_Cefal%C3%B9%2C_Sicily.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4a/Spas_vsederzhitel_sinay.jpg/220px-Spas_vsederzhitel_sinay.jpg)
(http://www.printeryhouse.org/imm/c07.jpg)
In all the images I've ever seen of Christ (except for the few in this thread), His hands never do the devil horn position. All the images I've found for Christ Pantocrator have the hands more or less in the position shown in these pictures: the forefinger and middle finger are together, as in a blessing, and it's more like the ring finger and pinky that are touching the thumb - or close to the thumb (to form the "C"?) - , not the middle & ring fingers. Also, the hand is raised, not sideways.
If Christ making the "devil horn" sign was ever a a truly Catholic image, as already pointed out, given what it means today (and it's immense popularity with Christ's enemies), it seems at the very least an unwise choice for the Angelus catalog.
I've said it before that it is not the devil horn sign but a different angle of the Greek way of blessing. The icons of Christ Pantocrator you showed above are thumb touching the ring and pinky finger which is the Russian Old Believers way of blessing. This picture explains it better for the IC XC symbolism:
(http://www.saintelias.com/foto/big/blessgicxc_illu.jpg)
-
Here's another website which explains it better:
http://www.stone.poplarheightsfarm.org/symbolism_pictures.HTM (http://www.stone.poplarheightsfarm.org/symbolism_pictures.HTM)
(http://www.stone.poplarheightsfarm.org/SYMBOL%7E1/img026.jpg)
The Hand of God – Greek form. This position of the Hand simulates the letters IC XC which are contractions of the name Jesus Christ in Greek.
-
This picture explains it better for the IC XC symbolism:
(http://www.saintelias.com/foto/big/blessgicxc_illu.jpg)
Thank you for this picture, because it is the best explanation I've seen of the IC XC symbolism. But it is still not the two middle fingers in touching the thumb, forefinger and pinky out straight. (In the first picture, only the forefinger is straight, to form the letter "I".) In the above picture, I can see how it could be seen as IC XC (more or less), but I do not see how this:
(http://03varvara.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/unknown-artist-christ-pantocrator-new-roman-mid-12th-century-e1277682867321.jpg)
represents IC XC, and it still does not look like the example you gave, above, that does. (Why are both ring & middle finger touching the thumb? That does not form a "C". And the pinky completely straight (at least, as straight as the forefinger) does not form an "X" with the other finger, nor a "C".
In any case, as has been pointed out often enough in this thread, given what that finger position means today, I agree with those who see it as a poor choice for the Angelus Press catalog, given the countless pictures of Our Lord they could have used.
-
This picture explains it better for the IC XC symbolism:
(http://www.saintelias.com/foto/big/blessgicxc_illu.jpg)
Thank you for this picture, because it is the best explanation I've seen of the IC XC symbolism. But it is still not the two middle fingers in touching the thumb, forefinger and pinky out straight. (In the first picture, only the forefinger is straight, to form the letter "I".) In the above picture, I can see how it could be seen as IC XC (more or less), but I do not see how this:
(http://03varvara.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/unknown-artist-christ-pantocrator-new-roman-mid-12th-century-e1277682867321.jpg)
represents IC XC, and it still does not look like the example you gave, above, that does. (Why are both ring & middle finger touching the thumb? That does not form a "C". And the pinky completely straight (at least, as straight as the forefinger) does not form an "X" with the other finger, nor a "C".
In any case, as has been pointed out often enough in this thread, given what that finger position means today, I agree with those who see it as a poor choice for the Angelus Press catalog, given the countless pictures of Our Lord they could have used.
If I'm not mistaken, the 'devil horn' sign is supposed to have straight index and pinky finger, but the icons you considered problematic above does not show that.
-
If I'm not mistaken, the 'devil horn' sign is supposed to have straight index and pinky finger, but the icons you considered problematic above does not show that.
Not everyone always has those 2 fingers perfectly straight:
(http://rense.com/1.imagesH/31E1AA67B840479185FEC47EAA.jpeg)
(http://rense.com/1.imagesH/D7AEE82D5E1F4BD08C3B032BFF.jpeg)
(http://www.whale.to/b/nkzjk13s.jpg)
(http://www.indianinthemachine.com/michelle-obama-ebony-magazine-september-2008-cover-thumb-500x646.jpg)
(http://www.whale.to/b/satan_sign-sarah_palin.jpg)
(http://rense.com/1.imagesH/9279610EFCEF42FC9C0082D25C.jpeg)
Anyway, I think we're beating a dead horse here.
-
Grief....even Michelle Obama's photos? I don't see the 'devil horn' sign there.
-
Yes, the all-seeing Eye is a Catholic symbol, hijacked by the Masons and Illuminati. But that doesn't mean we should just let them have it their way and stop using it.
I don't think continuing to use it would be a good idea.
-
Yes, the all-seeing Eye is a Catholic symbol, hijacked by the Masons and Illuminati. But that doesn't mean we should just let them have it their way and stop using it.
I don't think continuing to use it would be a good idea.
Are you saying we should then purge such symbols from churches, vestments, banners, holy cards where it has already existed for centuries?
-
Catholic Churches don't use the "all-seeing eye" anymore.
-
Catholic Churches don't use the "all-seeing eye" anymore.
I'm not referring to new church buildings. I'm talking about older churches which still have the all seeing eye. Should we remove them too?
(http://www.vaticanassassins.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/All-Seeing-Eye-Church-of-Mission-San-Miguel-Arcangel-San-Miguel-California.jpg)
(http://www.vaticanassassins.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/All-Seeing-Eye_Jesuit-Church-at-Landsberg-am-Lech_2_Bavaria.jpg)
(http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y78/lovuian/St%20Genevieve/9_25_20084_44PM_0042.jpg)
(http://i637.photobucket.com/albums/uu94/Cacadore2/Cold%20War/Family/IMG_0313.jpg)
(http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Mormons/satans_religion-triangle.jpg)
(http://www.virtualbucharest.com/images/church_eye_w.jpg)
(http://www.sacred-destinations.com/poland/images/krakow/st-stanislaw/resized/kazimierz-church2-cc-soylentgreen23.jpg)
(http://cache.virtualtourist.com/4/3178894-Symbols_Lithuania.jpg)
(http://mission.liguori.org/images/r_seal.jpg)
-
Trento, no one's arguing that.
Using hijacked symbolism in traditional Catholic circles on widely spread publications is what is at issue here. The Freemasons that use these symbols blatantly, are the ones that are destroying the Faith, and traditional Catholics should avoid using these until the perpetrators are completely uncovered and are unable to use them anymore, so there is no confusion, or eyebrow raising when they're used in the present situation.
-
Like with everything else, the only reason Freemasons are able to get away with
it is because Catholics abandon the territory. If Catholics would keep using their
symbols then the Freemasons would have to be content with promoting Catholic
symbols.
Most people at random today think that "Christian" means Protestant. And, they
think that it specifically means "not Catholic." How could that be?
Sometime in the early 20th century, Catholics stopped using the term Christian
for whatever reason, and the pentecostal Protestants filled the vacuum. Now, if
Catholics had not walked off the property in the first place, then the Prots would
have had no claim on it.
Same goes for images.
-
I haven't read the whole topic but anyone say that all-seeing eye/ pyramid symbolism is originally Catholic has it All Wrong. :roll-laugh1: :whistleblower:
-
So says someone without a shred of proof.
-
Like with everything else, the only reason Freemasons are able to get away with
it is because Catholics abandon the territory. If Catholics would keep using their
symbols then the Freemasons would have to be content with promoting Catholic
symbols.
Most people at random today think that "Christian" means Protestant. And, they
think that it specifically means "not Catholic." How could that be?
Sometime in the early 20th century, Catholics stopped using the term Christian
for whatever reason, and the pentecostal Protestants filled the vacuum. Now, if
Catholics had not walked off the property in the first place, then the Prots would
have had no claim on it.
Same goes for images.
I absolutely agree with you on this, Neil!
-
If you have time you should read the topic, roscoe.
The pyramid mark was a Catholic symbol of the eye of God who sees everything in Heaven and on Earth.
Some catechisms for children have illustrations with the all-seeing eye to teach
children that they cannot hide sin from God.
-
that is true.... it is in my daughters catechism papers.... it made me uneasy, so i reverted to an older book.........
-
All seeing eye/pyramid symbolism is antithetical to the Roman Catholic faith.
Could one of u who is claiming that it is part of the Catholic religion pls cite a saint, father, doctor, or pope of the Church who will tell us it is.
I wouldn't be surprised if it is in a NO, anti-church catechism.
-
All seeing eye/pyramid symbolism is antithetical to the Roman Catholic faith.
Could one of u who is claiming that it is part of the Catholic religion pls cite a saint, father, doctor, or pope of the Church who will tell us it is.
I wouldn't be surprised if it is in a NO, anti-church catechism.
I suggest you start a new thread, which probably belongs in a different sub-forum, on this question. This thread is supposed to be about the Angelus Press. The digression started when someone posted an Angelus Press catalog with an icon with that hand position. This all-seeing eye is only tangentially related to that.
-
So says someone without a shred of proof.
I am not surprised to see QVP asking for proof of a negative assertion. Anyone who is not mentally impaired knows that this is impossible.
U are the one who needs to provide proof that there is a saint, doctor, father or pope of the Church who tells us we are to adore a demonic symbol.
-
So says someone without a shred of proof.
I am not surprised to see QVP asking for proof of a negative assertion. Anyone who is not mentally impaired knows that this is impossible.
U are the one who needs to provide proof that there is a saint, doctor, father or pope of the Church who tells us we are to adore a demonic symbol.
Flawed argumentation yourself, here. You're the accuser of calling the all-seeing eye originally a demonic symbol. You're the one who needs to furnish rpoof, not I, since trento already showed proof of ancient Catholic churches having the all-seeing eye in images, sculpture, etc.
-
None of those symbols were on the churches in the beginning. They were put there later by occultic cabalists like u.
If the all-seeing eye pyramid is Catholic then some saint, father. doctor, pope or even layman would have written something somewhere about it. There is zero.
It is the same thing with the alleged sede --vacantism. NO saint, doctor, father, pope or Dante or anybody has ever even mentioned this illusion. Ciao :smoke-pot:
-
None of those symbols were on the churches in the beginning. They were put there later by occultic cabalists like u.
If the all-seeing eye pyramid is Catholic then some saint, father. doctor, pope or even layman would have written something somewhere about it. There is zero.
It is the same thing with the alleged sede --vacantism. NO saint, doctor, father, pope or Dante or anybody has ever even mentioned this illusion. Ciao :smoke-pot:
Wow, such an accusation from you! This is equivalent to calumny you know. You don't even know me, and you dare make such an outrageous accusation?!! One who likes the Beatles, and is shameless of it?!!
You haven't shown me one saint condemning the all-seeing eye symbolism on medieval churches. St. Bernard of Clairvaux, who condemned gargoygles on medieval churches, would certainly have condemned this if your accusation were true. But he didn't. It is also shown on ancient Byzantine churches. You have an appalling use of logic here as well.
BTW, I accidentally liked your post when I should have put it a thumbs down.
-
Swallow it if u want-- you'll never convince moi that eyes, pyramids & gargoyles are Roman Catholic. I would imagine that the lack of any saint condemning these imported symbols was because they didn't exist at the time.
If these symbols are Catholic then there would be commentaries from various Catholic sources describing what they are, why they are there & what they mean & also who put them there. Can u provide even one source writing anything about what u allege to be Catholic? There are millions of words & thousands of books written about artists like Michelangelo & Raphael whose work adorns Catholic Churches.
No source will be provided from any Church Authority or even layman will be provided.
BTW-- thanks for your info re: St Bernard condemning gargoyles.
-
Swallow it if u want-- you'll never convince moi that eyes, pyramids & gargoyles are Roman Catholic. I would imagine that the lack of any saint condemning these imported symbols was because they didn't exist at the time.
If these symbols are Catholic then there would be commentaries from various Catholic sources describing what they are, why they are there & what they mean & also who put them there. Can u provide even one source writing anything about what u allege to be Catholic? There are millions of words & thousands of books written about artists like Michelangelo & Raphael whose work adorns Catholic Churches.
No source will be provided from any Church Authority or even layman will be provided.
BTW-- thanks for your info re: St Bernard condemning gargoyles.
As usual, your lack of logic shows through. The all-seeing eye was used in 800 AD already in Catholic architecture, both Western and Eastern. They all described it as a symbol of God, who sees all things. Nothing un-Catholic about that. Only when Masons hijacked it has it become the symbol of the "Architect of the Universe."
-
The only source u have given for this so far is u. Who specifically is the 'they all' that u are talking about?
-
The only source u have given for this so far is u. Who specifically is the 'they all' that u are talking about?
trento has shown medieval churches having such symbols; are you going to call them occultist cabalists for putting in the churches as far back as 800 AD to the Middle Ages?
-
None of those symbols were on the churches in the beginning. They were put there later by occultic cabalists.
If the all-seeing eye pyramid is Catholic then some saint, father. doctor, pope or even layman would have written something somewhere about it. There is zero.
It is the same thing with the alleged sede --vacantism. NO saint, doctor, father, pope or Dante or anybody has ever even mentioned this illusion. Ciao :smoke-pot:
roscoe, QuoVadisPetre is *not* a cabalist of any stripe. Please refrain from making such ridiculous charges.
Do you even know what the Kabbalah is?
-
One of my posts accusing QVP of not answering the question has been censored.....
Do u know who rabbi Berg is at the Kaballah Center in LA?--- I do.
-
First Commandment of a cabalist--- mix truth with lies.
QVP has made an assertion that there are sources ( described as 'they') who 'all' say that pyramid/ eye symbols are Catholic. As far as i can tell, no actual source other than QVP has been cited. I am just asking...... :detective:
-
Just saw this picture today, from the Basilica of St John Lateran, Rome.
(http://sphotos-h.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/17096_571191456225796_148156935_n.jpg)