I need help with the Pope's audience hall looking like a snake

  • Thread starter Thread starter sadness99
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

sadness99

Guest
Hi everyone. A while ago I saw somewhere that the Pope’s Audience hall looks like a snake on the inside, outside and in Jesus’s hair in the statue. And I hate saying this but it’s literally affected me so much. I don’t if it’s my anxiety over reacting or what. And I hate that this is happening because I literally feel like a complete idiot believing this. And the worst part is that I’m having doubts about the faith over probably just a coincidence. I don’t know what this post is, I guess I just need some reassurance.
 
40.png
Pope Paul VI Audience Hall Moral Theology
If the Catholic Church really was secretly under the control of Satan, we’re doing a pretty poor job of it if we brazenly make our architecture modeled after our diabolic leader.
Click to expand...
 
I get that, but it seems a little weird how it looks like a snake on the outside, inside and in Jesus’s hair. Or maybe, and most likely, It’s just my ocd worrying for no reason. I don’t know but for some reason it’s been affecting my faith ☹️
 
This is just another in a long line in classic anti-Catholic Rorschach test-like claims. You can find similar stuff about miters, vestments, monstrances, statutes, more traditional architecture and symbolism, etc., etc. Catholic Answers used to have more activity on these kinds of things back at the beginning, but it seems to have become less prevalent (I can’t even find some of the old classic anti-Catholic sites anymore–they used have real hokey geocities-style production value).

This is just the latest and because it is paired with a rather dated and unappealing style of art from the 70s, this one seems to appeal to some conspiratorial-minded Catholics as well.
 
Last edited:
Hellothere said:
In a nutshell the church was overtaken by freemason in the 1960 , they changed the mass and watered down the faith

Listen to Dr Taylor Marshall
Click to expand...
I can foresee flags coming down the pike, on account of these comments, but I would simply look to the Church, and have her explain to us, why these objections are false.

I’m a big proponent of free speech, myself, taking to heart these words:

“According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which [the laity]
possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the
sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the
Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful,
without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward
their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.”
(Canon 212 §3)

Or as was once said by someone who was not at all favorable to the Catholic Faith, “let a thousand flowers bloom, and a thousand schools of thought contend”.
 
@sadness99

It doesn’t even look like a snake unless you angle the camera at exactly the right spot… in which case, so what? Not only does a bishop’s staff look like a snake but some of them are intentionally designed that way.

Find wholesome and rational and inspiring and stimulating material to read. This stuff is just silly.

Peace.
 
Last edited:
sadness99 said:
I totally get that, but why would it appear like a snake head, just a coincidence?
Click to expand...
It doesn’t appear like a snake head. What you see is two oval windows and a patterned wall. Hostile people look at it and find an excuse to say '“Look! Look! It’s really, secretly a sna-ake!”
Genesis315 said:
anti-Catholic Rorschach test-like claims.
Click to expand...
Thank you for that phrase, @Genesis315 That says exactly what I was trying to say.
 
Last edited:
I don’t think base accusations of Freemasonry are “without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.” And, for better or worse, I doubt Taylor Marshall has the “knowledge, competence, and prestige” to even have his accusation taken seriously by the sacred pastors.

In any event, using a Chairman Mao quote supporting unrestrained freedom of speech (a Masonic principle) within the Church is probably not the best approach to this issue lol.
 
Last edited:
No, actually, don’t. Since Catholics aren’t supposed to be Freemasons, I find that difficult to believe.
 
It is pretty ugly, but I don’t see anything particularly snakelike about it. To me it looks like tangled tree branches. Anyway, I actually like snakes.
 
Genesis315 said:
I don’t think base accusations of Freemasonry are “without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.” And, for better or worse, I doubt Taylor Marshall has the “knowledge, competence, and prestige” to even have his accusation taken seriously by the sacred pastors.

In any event, using a Chairman Mao quote supporting unrestrained freedom of speech (a Masonic principle) within the Church is probably not the best approach to this issue lol.
Click to expand...
I think (the formerly Episcopalian, seminary-educated Reverend Father) Taylor Marshall possesses no shortage of knowledge, competence, and prestige. If he were still a material heretic (sorry, we say “separated brethren” nowadays, sounds so much nicer) exercising invalid would-be orders, yet preaching the Gospel, the Church would hold him in the highest esteem and give him the utmost courtesy. Very possibly he could find a way to express the same reservations without having them called “base accusations” — quite often, it’s not what you say, it’s the way you put it. I’ve heard “tact” defined as “telling the other guy to go to perdition, and having him packing his bags and looking forward to the trip!”.
Genesis315 said:
In any event, using a Chairman Mao quote supporting unrestrained freedom of speech (a Masonic principle) within the Church is probably not the best approach to this issue lol.
Click to expand...
I was using the quote, not endorsing its utterer. “Unrestrained freedom of speech” resonates much better with the modern world we are seeking to evangelize, even unto “smelling like the sheep”, than simply saying “take the Church’s word for it that she has your best interests at heart, don’t ask uncomfortable questions, and only find arguments in favor of her actions, never against them”. That’s how cults operate. Just ask anyone who perished at Jonestown, the FLDS, or ex-Scientologists.

Incidentally, the Great [sic] Helmsman wouldn’t have liked freedom of speech if it ran counter to his objectives and ideology. Anyone can talk a good game.
 
HomeschoolDad said:
“Unrestrained freedom of speech” resonates much better with the modern world we are seeking to evangelize,
Click to expand...
But isn’t this adoption of masonic-sounding approaches to appeal to the modern world the very thing that those who make the accusations of masonic infiltration point to as evidence of it? That was basically my point with my comment at the end.

And there’s a difference between the kind of restrictions in the cults you mention and the necessary deference to the divinely instituted, yet human, hierarchy in the Church. It’s not one extreme or another. We are also not totally egalitarian. It’s like the difference between the Liberal/Masonic view of the freedom of speech and the Catholic view which is rooted in, and therefore limited by, the objective moral order and the common good with reference to duly constituted authority (especially in the Church herself).

There is a letter (#44) of St. Peter Damian addressing issues at his time with accusations of simony being tossed around. He warns a particular individual that was eager to accuse, that “even if he is zealous in practicing justice, at some times he will have to fall into the snares of slander.” The risk of being wrong has a high consequence. The canon we have allows us to make our needs, questions, and concerns known to our pastors for a good cause. It doesn’t address simply throwing accusations out to the world. An accusation based on nothing more than a conspiracy theory puts one in grave danger of falling into slander. There are times when it is appropriate, but a Catholic should be more careful in his speech and certain in the facts and have a proportionately good cause when it is not something that is already public. The re-hashed masonry theories repeated without additional evidence since the 70s don’t fit that bill. St. Peter then warns the individual about his “endless questions” noting that “[f]rom this and similar indecision heresies and schisms often emerge, cutting off people who are uncertain from Catholic unity.” Finally, he notes the hierarchical constitution of the Church where “all do not share the highest power in handing down decisions, nor does everyone in the Church receive the keys of the Church.”

My long rambling point is merely that accusatory youtube videos are not the manner of manifesting our needs and concerns to our pastors envisioned by canon law and can do more harm than good, to the accuser and his listeners. And suggesting that individuals should be able to throw out accusations in such a manner and our pastors should be morally bound to answer them is absurd.
 
Last edited:
Can you please explain why? I thought snakes were bad because a serpent tricked Eve into eating the forbidden fruit
 
Thanks for trying to help but that article doesn’t address the entire building. Maybe it’s just my mental health. Anyways, thanks for the article
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top