As expected you simply dig your hole deeper. Your ignorance of the subject is simply not helping you.
“And I don’t think YOU have thought this through. Those elaborate hoopla and regalia clothing and headgear aren’t the threadbare and worn stuff from centuries ago, are they?”
Centuries old, yes. Threadbare, no. The Vatican properly maintains the vestments. “On Good Friday he donned a “fiddleback” vestment dating to the Counter-Reformation era of the 16th century, and he has used a tall gilded papal throne not seen in years.” http://www.chron.com/life/article/Pope-Benedict-XVI-s-threads-of-history-1567238.php
If you weren’t ignorant you would have known about this.
“Perhaps a few crowns and scepters, but the robes and shoes? Not plausible!”
Except you’re wrong and I’m right. And the shoes are probably given to him for little or nothing by the way. And it isn’t like Benedict doesn’t give away shoes to the poor: “Three of Wilson’s four boys were among 100 or so recipients of expensive brand-name Italian shoes as a gift from Pope Benedict XVI.” http://catholic.net/index.php?size=menos&id=2306&option=dedestaca
“You are fine with your guy continuing to use the “traditional” clothing from back when the Papacy WAS viewed as possessing spiritual AND temporal power and unmatched by kings and princes? Fine, good, like I said, keep sending in your mites! I STILL have a right to my own opinion, don’t I. That’s not something I can be tortured over anymore, right?”
No, you clearly can be tortured over your opinion - just not by me nor would I be interested in doing so. But why have an opinion based on ignorance when you could simply avoid the ignorance instead.
“No “frills”? Don’t make me laugh! So your guy flies a “commercial jet” that is chartered? Gee, I wonder how much that costs to rent a big jet for yourself and your entourage to take you anywhere in the world you need to go any time you need it outfitted according to your own personal style?”
It costs nothing. The plane is provided for free by the airline. You really seem to have no idea about anything about the pope.
“And yours seems to be grounded in an extremely sensitive bias - the kind that allows not a wit of negativity about the Catholic Church no matter what the subject.”
No. I am simply right and you are simply wrong. You make one error after the other. And I don’t think you care about getting things right either. That’s not sensitivity on my part. That’s ignorance on yours.
“If you ask most people what they think about the Vatican and the Roman Catholic Church, one of the first things they mention is its vast wealth and holdings.”
Actually no it isn’t - unless you’re talking to people who are bigots and obsess on those issues. I just spoke to 15 people tonight about the Vatican, for instance. None of them mentioned “its vast wealth and holdings.” Neither did any of the 29 people I talked to about the Vatican last week either. They talked about the beauty of it. But none of them talked about “its vast wealth and holdings.”
“Billy Graham, on the other hand, is known for conducting his soul-winning crusades all over the world. Now which way do you imagine Jesus, or Peter, would prefer his representative to be known by?”
Jesus and Peter would prefer the Church they sent. They never sent Billy Graham. He’s a good man, but he was not sent by Christ or St. Peter.
“That’s really all I’m trying to say here. You can prefer to view that as “hateful” or biased or “bigotry”, but it’s not any of those things.”
Yeah, actually it is - because you can’t even get the facts straight. And I see nothing in your posts that suggest you actually CARE about the facts.
“Sometimes, a little taste of honesty helps. Your church wants to make a fresh start with a new, younger Pope.”
According to whom? First of all, any man elected will be younger than Ratzinger because all the Cardinals are under 81 years of age. Second, do not assume that there will be a “fresh start”. Oh, there might be, but there’s also plenty of reason to believe a protege of John Paul II and Benedict will follow them into office. They chose all the current cardinals after all.
“Addressing what the world sees as extravagant excess is sure a start!”
The world does not see it as “extravagant excess” - but bigots do.
Much of the world does look at it as extravagant. Tourists pay money for the opportunity to line up just to gawk at all the "finery". Are all whom do so "bigots"? Even historians (other than yourself) can recognize it as expression of wealth and projection of power, in the architecture itself. When we get around to the widened embroidered hems, and the gold encrusted headgear, how can the same recognition (of projection of their own claims to power and authority) not be fair view, but only bigotry?
The gold itself came much from earthly "empire", with those whom obtained it subjugating other human beings (sometimes murdering them for the gold) before laying portions at the feet of the kings whom had been granted permission by RC religious authorities to send others out to do those very things.
The finery (excessive amounts wherever one turns) may not be directly translatable to being "wealth" for it not being fungible, but all of it taken together is still echo of Rome's once vast empire as previously wedded to earthly kings own empires.
She is probably right in assuming the Apostle Peter, if returning to earth today, say after a long sleep but waking up in the square named after him, could scarcely be imagined to shout approval "yes! this is precisely what the Gospel was all about!" but rather would not a first impression of his be more as "wow...this joint reminds me of Imperial Rome"...?
But then again you didn't say anything but that he would have "no choice" (but to go along with it all presumedly without complaint?) while offering up Ratingers choice toward quiet solitude in his own retirement in comparison. Realistically, the Apostle Peter would know no constraint which you placed upon him, while the good Mr. Ratinger, all things considered, must do as indicated he will.
And as expected, in your seeming giddiness to call me ignorant a half dozen more times, you failed to properly read your own source. According to it:
On Good Friday he donned a "fiddleback" vestment dating to the Counter-Reformation era of the 16th century, and he has used a tall gilded papal throne not seen in years. And that's not to mention the ermine-trimmed red velvet mozzetta, a shoulder cape, or the matching camauro, a Santa Claus-like cap that art students will recognize from Renaissance portraiture.
So what's going on here? Church conservatives are of course ecstatic, filling the blogosphere with the kind of gushing chatter that only liturgical couture, especially of the haute variety, can inspire. <
Critics will note that placing the past 40 years in the context of a 2,000-year span can be a way of diminishing the import of recent changes that Benedict doesn't like, and that the pope tends to make his counterpoint by drawing on styles from the most sumptuous eras of church history.
Moreover, Benedict's emphasis on continuity over change is undercut by the fact that there are some longstanding traditions that even he avoids. For example, the sedia gestatoria, a litter that bore popes aloft like Roman emperors, has likely been definitively supplanted by the popemobile. And pontiffs used to be crowned with a tall, three-ringed tiara of precious metals known as the triregnum. But Paul VI was the last pope to be crowned, in 1963, and he donated his tiara to the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, where Benedict will preside at two events.
It seems as though I am not alone in my bemusement over your Popes' histories of presuming monarchical status over their "sheep" with their extravagant excesses. Are you one of those ecstatic Church conservatives filling the blogosphere with the kind of gushing chatter that only liturgical couture, especially of the haute variety, can inspire?
The more you berate me and others who voice our opinions about what we see, the more you demonstrate the reflexive hyper-defensive attitude I mentioned. Someone comments on the past debauchery that ran rampant in the Vatican and we get the excuse "the church is for sinners and no one is perfect, even popes are not sinless". But dare someone opine about what appears as excessive pomposity and "This will not be ALLOWED! You are all ignorant! He GIVES his shoes away and airlines donate their services!". Can you see the disconnect? No, you probably don't.
Jesus said the shepherd gives his life for the sheep. Sounds like those who presume to BE the chief shepherds could use some lessons in humility. Living as a king surrounded with billions in riches does not appear humble. Rant and rave all you want, it only proves how sensitive some can be about what they treasure.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.