No, the Pope didn’t wear Prada! – Misty White Sidell

Benedict's shoes were not Prada!

The Pope’s Red Shoes

Say it ain’t so! Along with Pope Benedict XVI’s retirement comes another surprise: it turns out that the pontiff never actually wore shoes by Prada, as it was widely reported throughout his eight-year papacy. CNN’s Christiane Amanpour explained on-air: “We have said for years ever since we watched this Pope be elected in 2005, that he was wearing red Prada shoes. I’m afraid we’ve been wrong.”

Amounpour’s guest Monsignor Kevin Irwin concurred, explaining “They are red shoes given to him because Contantine gave him the privileges of being an emperor and he allowed him to wear red shoes and a red cape, but frankly the papal shoemaker is up the block. And it’s not Prada.”

On a brighter note, the Prada/Pope misunderstanding only led to good things. Esquire magazine even named Pope Benedict “Accessorizer of the Year” in 2007. But all the while, Vatican experts had doubts about the high fashion hoopla: “He wouldn’t know Gucci from Smoochi,” Marjorie Weeke, a former official at the Vatican’s Social Communications office told the Washington Post in 2005.

Unfortunately, Weeke’s opinion only materialized on the final day of Benedict’s papacy. As Irwin expressively stated: “The devil may have worn Prada, but not this Pope.” – The Daily Beast, 1 March 2013

Advertisements

6 Responses

  1. IS , in few lines you have described the evil RC empire so well, Excellente , keep it up.

    • Red shoes were only worn by the Emperor of Rome.

      In 325 CE or thereabouts, Emperor Constantine gave the Bishop of Rome Sylvester I red shoes to wear and the Lateran Palace in Rome to live in. After his death, the Bishop of Rome also adopted the Emperor’s title as chief priest of the Empire, Pontifex Maximus (later to be modified to “Papa” or “Pope”).

      So it can be rightly said that the Pope is the spiritual successor of Constantine the Great—and not of any Galilean fisherman called Peter who never made it to Rome in the first place.

  2. null
    Ralph Napierski (L) a fake bishop poses with Cardinal Sergio Sebiastiana as the cardinal arrives for talks ahead of a conclave to elect a new pope on March 4, 2013 at the Vatican.

    Fake Cardinal Crashes Secret Vatican Meeting Ahead Of Conclave To Elect New Pope – The Huffington Post UK – 04/03/2013

    Fakery can now be added to the list of untoward and inappropriate things that cardinals have been accused of lately.

    A man, reported to be an Italian, attempted to sneak into a highly secret meeting at the Vatican on Monday, dressed in what appeared to be ecclesiastical robes, reports AFP.

    He told reporters he was called “Basilius” and that he was a member of the (non-existent) “Italian Orthodox Church”, mingling with the other (real) cardinals.

    The fake cardinal, left, passed himself off as real for some time
    According to the Gazzettadelsud, he was rumbled as his “cassock was shorter than standard”, “his crucifix unusual”, and most blatant of all, his sash turned out to be a purple scarf.

    The general congregation of cardinals was meeting ahead of the Conclave to elect a new Pope next month.

    Fr. Federico Lombardy, the Vatican spokesman said: “All I can say is that everyone seated for the congregation is a real cardinal.”

  3. Constantine the Great

    Orthodox Christian icon of Emperor Constantine the Great. This most evil of Roman emperors is considered a saint in the Orthodox Church along with his fanatical mother Helena (who “discovered” the birthplace of Jesus in Bethlehem in a dream (she then had the existing Roman temple there destroyed and replaced with the Church of the Nativity)).

    Quote “…Monsignor Kevin Irwin concurred, explaining “They are red shoes given to him because Contantine gave him the privileges of being an emperor and he allowed him to wear red shoes and a red cape…”

    This is the most interesting line!

    The papacy was created by Emperor Constantine “the Great” in the 4th century. He raised the Bishop of Rome over other Christian bishops by giving him the Lateran Palace in Rome and allowing him to wear red shoes.

    Though the popes claim to be the successors of Apostle Peter, they are really the successors of the emperors of Rome.

    Every historian knows that Apostle Peter never came to Rome and that the so-called apostolic succession of the popes from Peter is a fiction.

    Emperor Constantine, father of European Christian civilization and perhaps the most wicked and cruel of Roman emperors, was chief priest of the Roman state religion of Sol Invictus. He carried the title Pontifex Maximus. This title was passed on to the Bishop of Rome after Constantine’s death.

    The popes are therefore successors of of Constantine “the Great” and the Catholic Church is the manifest psychic extension of the Roman Empire in the world today.

    None of this has anything to do with religion and spirituality as Hindus understand it. It is about international politics and world empire–nothing else.

    • could you provide more info about papacy by constantine so that like thomas this can be formed into book.

      • I have no reference library any longer and will not be writing any more history. But here is one of the footnotes from the St. Thomas legend book about Emperor Constantine:

        Note 18: Nobody knows whether Emperor Constantine formally converted to Christianity or not. Some say that he declared himself Christian in Gaul, and others that he was forcefully baptized on his deathbed. What is certain is that he patronized the new cult for political reasons and became its saviour when he called the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE, where Christianity was officially recognised in the Empire. He retained the title and position of pontifex maximus during his lifetime and therefore can be called Christianity’s first pope, as the bishop of Rome, whom he elevated, would assume this office after him. Joseph McCabe, telling the horrific story of how Christianity was imposed on the Empire, in The Testament of Christian Civilization, writes, “Constantine, natural son of a rural tavern-girl and a Roman officer, waded through rivers of blood to the throne, and he was driven from Rome to Constantinople by the scorn of the Romans because he ‘put to death, first his excellent … son, and then the son of his sister, a boy of promising character, then his wife and a number of friends.’ This summary statement of a terrible crime, which Eutropius makes … is confirmed by St. Jerome … and not now disputed.” Mgr. Duchesne, describing the character of the second Christian emperor, Constantine’s son Constantius, in History of the Arians, writes, “He slew his uncles and his cousins. He had no mercy on the father-in-law whose daughter he had married, or on his relatives in their affliction. He treated his brother infamously … and he delivered his wife to the barbarians.” McCabe continues, “Thus the rule was made safe for the three Christian princes and the bishops. Then the eldest son fell into civil war with the youngest and was slain; Constans, the youngest, proved a monster of vice and tyranny and was assassinated; Constantius, now sole ruler, adopted what some still call the vile heresy of the Arians … and he turned the Era of Religious Peace which his father was supposed to have inaugurated into an era of such red-hot passion, murder, and torture on religious grounds as the world had never seen before…. It is ironic that the repulsive struggle that fills the first half of the fourth century should have turned upon the question whether Jesus was God or was merely so beautiful a character that he was ‘like’ God. Still more ironic that the first emperor upon whom the bishops prevailed to adopt the policy of coercion should have adopted also the Arian heresy and applied in its favour the principles of violence, which was, they assured him, consecrated by the interest of religious truth. However that may be, Constantius, surrounded by the vile and unscrupulous eunuchs with whom Constantine had filled his court, made ten times as many Christian martyrs in twenty years as the Pagan emperors had made in two hundred and fifty, and introduced methods of savagery which even the Goths and Vandals would not emulate”.

        And here is a note on how Constantine edited and rewrote the Bible after the First Council of Nicaea:

        Note 5: The traditional dates and authors of all the New Testament books, whether they are accepted in the canon or not, are pure conjecture as there are no extant early manuscript versions pre-dating the fourth century CE (Common Era). Emperor Diocletian destroyed all Christian writings in 303 CE, and in 326 CE, a year after the Council of Nicaea raised Jesus from the position of mortal prophet to that of immortal God by an ecclesiastical vote of 218 for, 2 against (the bishops who said nay were from Libya), Emperor Constantine sanctioned the confiscation and destruction of all works that challenged “orthodox” Christian teaching. Five years later Constantine commissioned and financed new copies of the Bible, and as there were no longer any original documents to work from, the bishops, intent on promoting the Pauline salvation cult in their own interest, were free to revise, edit and rewrite the Bible in accordance with their own tenets. Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln, in The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, show that the Bible, and accepted Christian tradition, is an arbitrary collection of borrowed and often fabulous tales, the historical truth of which has never been established by the best biblical scholars.

        Note 1: St. Peter’s Basilica, begun in 326 CE by Emperor Constantine over a small Pagan shrine, was built outside the walls of Rome on Vatican Hill, on an extensive and elaborate necropolis or city of the dead. This consisted of a number of pre-Christian cemeteries used at different times over a long period. Rupert Furneau, in The Other Side of the Story, says that this complex was also the site of a cave-shrine for Mithra, the Persian deity whose popular cult was the chief rival of early Christianity.

        Note 3: India Christians argue that we have given no proof that St. Thomas did not come to India. Of course we have not given any proof. We cannot prove a negative; we cannot prove something that did not happen. But we will give strong evidence against the possibility that St. Thomas did come to India (India being the subcontinent that we know by that name today).

        Read the book at http://ishwarsharan.wordpress.com

        And a recommended, fascinating book about early Christian history, Julian’s Gods by Rowland Smith, is available at https://www.box.com/s/d7c37ed4eef0ecf471a1

Comments are moderated

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: