Skip to comments.
A New Papal Ferula
Rorate Caeli ^
| 11/01/13
| Augustinus
Posted on 11/01/2013 8:05:10 PM PDT by ebb tide
![](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Rv18JuO7iIA/UnRXLA4SR9I/AAAAAAAAOkA/yUqbfULP6X8/s1600/ferula+nuova+papa.jpg")
(Excerpt) Read more at rorate-caeli.blogspot.com ...
TOPICS: Catholic
KEYWORDS: catholic; ferula
1
posted on
11/01/2013 8:05:10 PM PDT
by
ebb tide
Piero Marini is in the house! Again!
2
posted on
11/01/2013 8:15:31 PM PDT
by
ebb tide
To: ebb tide
John Paul II would not be pleased.
3
posted on
11/01/2013 8:15:48 PM PDT
by
laplata
(Liberals don't get it .... their minds are diseased.)
To: ebb tide
4
posted on
11/01/2013 8:17:16 PM PDT
by
jtal
(Runnin' a World in Need with White Folks' Greed - since 1492)
To: ebb tide
That is just nasty. I never would have thought I would want to return to the ferula of JPII.
5
posted on
11/01/2013 8:46:15 PM PDT
by
cothrige
To: cothrige
6
posted on
11/01/2013 9:05:00 PM PDT
by
savagesusie
(Right Reason According to Nature = Just Law)
To: ebb tide
Who designed that monstrosity and why are they still walking?
It looks like Christ is being attacked by stibnite crystals!
7
posted on
11/01/2013 9:07:58 PM PDT
by
Darksheare
(Try my coffee, first one's free..... Even robots will kill for it!)
To: ebb tide
Ugh. Death to modern art!
8
posted on
11/01/2013 9:10:36 PM PDT
by
St_Thomas_Aquinas
( Isaiah 22:22, Matthew 16:19, Revelation 3:7)
To: ebb tide
It looks like a different version of the Cross.
9
posted on
11/02/2013 3:31:36 AM PDT
by
Biggirl
(“Go, do not be afraid, and serve”-Pope Francis)
To: ebb tide
Whatever happened to a “simple” crucifix?
10
posted on
11/02/2013 5:25:57 AM PDT
by
piusv
To: cothrige
At least that was a crucifix.
11
posted on
11/02/2013 5:33:44 AM PDT
by
piusv
To: piusv
Yes it was, and this is certainly nothing like that. What amazes me about these horrid insipid images is that they are so theologically and scripturally wrong. Christ was not resurrected off the Cross. You would think that modern Catholics, so in love with playing Protestant, would at least be scripturally sound. If you are using a cross then Christ should be crucified on it, as we see from the scriptures. And if you want a resurrection image, then there should be a cave or some such. Mixing the two is just dumb, IMHO.
12
posted on
11/02/2013 8:53:03 PM PDT
by
cothrige
To: cothrige
Yes, theologically and scripturally wrong, modern.....and Francis is using it.
13
posted on
11/03/2013 5:28:56 AM PST
by
piusv
To: Biggirl; piusv
First of all: If it has a corpus, it's called a crucifix, not a cross.
Secondly:
"[One] would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive table form; were he to want black excluded as a color for liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Church; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the Divine Redeemer's Body shows no trace of his cruel sufferings."
Pope Venerable Pius XII, Mediator Dei
14
posted on
11/03/2013 5:42:15 PM PST
by
ebb tide
To: ebb tide
"[One] would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive table form; were he to want black excluded as a color for liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Church; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the Divine Redeemer's Body shows no trace of his cruel sufferings." Pope Venerable Pius XII, Mediator De
Another Traditional Church teaching violated by the Vatican II Church.
15
posted on
11/04/2013 2:32:21 AM PST
by
piusv
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson