Call me ignorant about this, call me a flogger of dead horses, call me anything you like. I wasn’t intending to run anything more on the Pope.
There’ve been quite a few images which have been, frankly, disturbing about the Papacy. I don’t take the general Protestant position, Protestant that I am, of seeing the Pope as necessarily the devil incarnate but at the same time, something seems wrong in that place.
The huge sculpture behind him when he gave the speech has as much to do with Christianity as a Damian Hirst sculpture – just what they were thinking is beyond me:
Then there is his close minder:
I’d say the supporters in the crowd are quite devoted in a biblical way and that’s the anomaly – the greater part of Catholic Christendom are the real thing and a lot of comfort has been had there:
It’s those at the top and the Vatican itself which is a worry:
You know when you’re told you’re imagining something and you know you’re not? It’s been used in films for a long time. Well I know this image above here is wrong if it purports to be Christian. This is clearly the sun image and that cross is not Christian either – it’s a dagger as far as I can see. Where is it aimed?
Now, a quiet word before I go on. I’m not into symbology, I don’t have any dotted about my home, but these people at the top are clearly into symbology in a big way. This symbol above is just wrong for its purpose. So is the weird pyramid and eye on the US bank note. I’m not going to get into it being the Eye of Horus or whatever but what I do know, as I’m not an idiot, is that it is not a good symbol.
Whichever way you cut it, it is troublesome in the context in which it is found. Around the obelisk, at the center of the huge eight-point sun wheel, is a smaller four-pointed sun wheel, the same symbol as found on the altar stone in the temple of Baal in Hatzor and in other places.
If you reject the phallic explanation, then you’re still left with the sun god or at a minimum, Ancient Egypt. It is not anything to do with the Christian cross and has no logical place where it is found. And that particular obelisk came out of Egypt where it was an Ashoreh pole which the Old Testament specifically says is not to be worshipped.
This is a statue of Peter. It was removed from the pantheon in Rome and turned into Peter but the symbol above the head was retained:
The following is a grainy photo of Easter being commemorated at the Vatican and the pope is there. Note the grove of trees and the shrubbery around the pole. In your rush to accuse me of wild imaginings on this, the real question is passed over which really should be asked:
What on earth has a grove and obelisk to do with the Christian death and resurrection?
This and many other anomalies are quite disturbing to someone who basically accepts the gospels as more or less carrying weight, i.e. Christians. The irreligious, the majority, might well pass this over, might well miss the significance but a Christian implicitly knows all this is very wrong in the context of what he is about.
This is not arguing one way or the other about Christianity to the irreligious. It’s simply pointing out that for those who do actually subscribe, the Vatican is so obviously riddled with symbolism which has zero to do with the cross and according to the rules of that faith, the symbols shown above simply shouldn’t be there.
Anyone who knows the general thrust of the gospels knows the concept of One Way, the One, the Logos and of the Trinity. So where does talk of a Queen of Heaven fit into this?
Mary is meant to be revered as the mother of Jesus, not made into a Queen of Heaven and Co-Redemptrix. Whatever spin the Vatican puts on it, if you know the English language, then you know what “co”,”redempt” and “trix” mean. There’s no “co” in Christianity except in the Trinity.
So again I ask – where does this leave the Vatican, scripturally? And where else does one find a mother and son cult, with the mother as some sort of semi-godlike figure?