Tuesday, December 26, 2017

Francis knows better than St. Luke




“And she brought forth her first-born son, and wrapped him up in swaddling-clothes, and laid him in a manger: because there was no room for them in the inn.” (Luke 2, 7)

“And this shall be a sign unto you: You shall find the infant wrapped in swaddling-clothes, and laid in a manger.” (Luke 2, 12)



Of course, Francis knows better than St. Luke...






For more information on this year’s complete mockery of a Nativity Scene which Francis approved before it went up, see:  



A handy meme to share:

19 comments:

  1. There are many artists who defend nudity in art, and they use Renaissance art as an example of how "the church" has always had nude figures in its own art. This is a terrible lie. The nudity of Renaissance art was a 'recapturing' of the pagan nudity Rome and Greece - which was a terrible idea. It has nothing to do with Christianity or The Catholic Church. The REAL Catholic Church has always taught modesty and decorum. We can see the compromises and lapses into unbelief of popes in history who allowed this pagan nudity into Catholic art. Why do we continue to worship these false artistic examples? Shame on US.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For what it's worth, the Sistine Chapel is one of the ugliest things I have ever seen. It is a suffocating oppressive pagan milieu of the flesh worthy of the Novus Ordo's latest St Peter's square Nativity travesty (only the latter was slightly more modest). Michael Angelo was a master of craft, but he was also randy fag. His paintings are dripping with his unrepentant sins (plus his proclivities stunted his abilities with his female subjects - notice a Michael Angelo female looks like a man with dumplings in the right place and long hair). Sixtus IV and Julius II appear to have had more than a soft spot for the Renaissance paganisation of the arts (indeed under Sixtus the first non-Christian art was rising up and being praised - witness Botticelli). Turn of the 1400s/1500s = Perfect storm.

      Delete
  2. Well, to be fair, it looks like Mary is about to wrap him in swaddling clothes. *eye roll*

    ReplyDelete
  3. Wonder trannie frannie pedophile pervert didn't consult one of his Rabbi friends about it..."There are many misunderstandings today about the events surrounding the first Christmas. For one thing Jesus was not born in an out building behind a motel in Bethlehem as many Christmas cards seem to suggest. The truth is this: Jesus was born in a cave used for the birthing of sacrificial lambs. The male lambs born in that cave, and others like it in the Bethlehem area, were to be used exclusively in the Temple. They were set-aside to be the TAMIL, or the morning sacrifices which began each day. They were also used for the burnt offerings. The female lambs were used in the Temple for peace offerings.

    "However, the most common usage for these lambs that were born in Bethlehem was this: they were destined to become Passover lambs. Therefore, the shepherds that attended them were actually shepherd-priests. These men had been designated from the time they were very young to be the ones who would be assigned the task of "keeping watch” over the Temple’s flocks. One of their tasks was to make certain that none of these lambs were blemished while being birthed.

    "According to the Mishnah, these lambs were immediately wrapped in "swaddling cloths" after their births to protect them from injury, since baby lambs tend to thrash about and harm themselves in their first couple of hours of their lives. The shepherds who attended these lambs, being under special rabbinical care, were also required to keep their birthing caves ritually clean.

    "Since there was no room for Mary and Joseph at the local caravansary, these young people were allowed to occupy one of these birthing caves in the hillside. That birthing cave is now found beneath the ancient Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. According to the Gospel account, as soon as Jesus was born, Joseph wrapped him in swaddling cloths."
    http://www.arielministries.org/ariel/roar_main_december2012.html

    This is the same church that caught on fire after trannie frannie pedophile pervert's visit: "The fire came two days after Pope Francis visited the site during a trip to the region."
    https://www.timesofisrael.com/fire-breaks-out-in-church-of-the-nativity/

    http://wtov9.com/news/local/former-columbus-seminarian-sentenced-for-trying-to-buy-babies

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sounds pretty far-fetched!

      More like the contrivance of the rabbis:

      "According to the Mishnah, these lambs" [...] "being under special rabbinical care, were also required to keep their birthing caves ritually clean."

      Delete
  4. http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/afp.com/e5c4486969dc765a9cc7d0df7ce29134cb269301.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  5. I've read this and that the "Swaddling Clothes" were made from retired priestly vestments from the Temple.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Can you back up these claims with some footnotes or facts? I’m inclined to believe this but sometimes this belief leads to error.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The Vatican is full of nudity(primarily male) in both statues and paintings. Parts of the Sistine chapel look like a big gay bathhouse with even God's naked big white buttocks in parade.


    https://www.google.com/amp/s/botticellismars.wordpress.com/2013/01/02/gods-butt/amp/

    Some pope from the 19th century thought he could make it all better by having figleafs painted over the hoohoo's and plaster ones placed on the statues.

    Michaelangelo was as gay as Mardi Gras and his artwork reflects it. The one nude woman in the Sistine looks like a man with boobs. There is even a gay art tour of the Vatican now:


    https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2015/jan/06/vatican-sexuality-themed-tours-gay-artists-michelangelo-da-vinci-caravaggio


    That no popes ever seriously addressed this is troubling to me. I am considering Eastern Orthodoxy now. Have yet to discover a nude or lewd icon.

    Seattle kim

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Seattle Kim

      Made similar comment upstairs. M Angelo, famously in the Art History, was known to use male models for his female subjects and, indeed, simply placed the dumplings and the long hair.

      Delete
    2. PS. 20/21st century media go on and on about the Sistine Chapel, but if you ever visited it, it seems a relatively small, unappealing space, with a mess of pictures on the ceiling that one would need two hours alone in the quiet with full light and possibly some opera spectacles in order to 'appreciate' them.

      Delete
  8. "We can see the compromises and lapses into unbelief of popes in history who allowed this pagan nudity into Catholic art."

    Hello A Daughter of Mary,

    Please explain why the popes subsequent to Pope Julius II (which, of course, included Pope St. Pius V, Pope St. Pius X, Pope Leo XIII, to name but three of the many exemplary popes that followed Julius II)
    didn't order the removal of the painting of the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel (by Michelangelo) which contains copious amounts of nudity?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Sistine Chapel was restored in the 20th century. Before hand the lighting would have been dim - day or night; the sources of natural light covered with film, the ceiling had become discoloured, covered with soot, city fumes and water seepage. How often did the Holy Father bother to look up during such times of a full-on Freemasonic attack? It is my understanding that the frescoes were restored under the Novus Ordo 'popes'.

      Delete
  9. Seattle kim,

    So, you're thinking of swapping novus ordoism for eastern orthodoxy? Please explain? So, you're worried about the nudity in Renaissance art but the schism in eastern orthodoxy concerns you not? You seem like an anti-Catholic troll.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've been a sedevacantist traditional Catholic for the last year, but have have become disillusioned. After visiting the Vatican the disillusion increased. Who really schismed back in 1054? Both sides have very valid arguments.

      Seattle kim

      Delete
    2. No, Seattle kim, schismatics NEVER have valid arguments. You need to speak to your sede priest and put your concerns to him.

      Delete
    3. The Eastern Orthodox are just as ecumenical and full of infiltration ála the Novus Ordo.
      East Europe Orthodoxy is full of former USSR officials.
      Their patriarchs assist at Assisi gatherings.
      The average Orthodox Church in America is an divine liturgy version of the Novus Ordo.

      Delete
  10. Correct.
    Michelangelo was a homosexual.
    Not only that - he was a paedophile.

    His paintings needed models and he used boys in the 10-15 year age group to act as his nude models.

    I have researched this.
    He had a committed sodomite-paedophile relationship with at least one of them. His paintings act as a cipher (and an invitation card hidden in plain view) for the real history of the vatican.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "His paintings act as a cipher (and an invitation card hidden in plain view) for the real history of the vatican."

    The real history of the Vatican, eh? You are yet another anti-Catholic troll.

    ReplyDelete