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.
You wrote:
“Much of the world does look at it as extravagant.”
No, they do not regard it as “extravagant excess”.
“Tourists pay money for the opportunity to line up just to gawk at all the “finery”.”
St. Peter’s is free. It doesn’t cost a dime to visit it. The museum costs money. I would hardly call great works of art “extravagant excess”.
“Are all whom do so “bigots”?”
Many, yes. Others are just stupid.
“Even historians (other than yourself) can recognize it as expression of wealth and projection of power, in the architecture itself.”
That still doesn’t make is an “extravagant excess”.
“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?”
Because that’s what it is. There are no “widened embroidered hems”. Even the words you use show you’re likening it to Matthew 23:5. Mark 6:56 would be more appropriate!
“The gold itself came much from earthly “empire”,”
No, it came from donations.
“... with those whom obtained it subjugating other human beings (sometimes murdering them for the gold)”
No, it came from donations.
“... 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.”
Except no such thing happened.
“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.”
Nope. All of it is sign of the tremendous love and devotion of Catholic people for the Church of Christ. Remember, it’s all donations from the faithful.
“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”...?”
No, not at all. St. Peter would say, “Glory to God, the heart of Christ conquered pagan Rome and threw down its gods. Christians then built a house worthy of Christ’s Mass.”
“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?)”
No pope would have a choice. Popes will not destroy what people have donated to create such beauty for the the honoring of Christ and His Church.
“...while offering up Ratingers choice toward quiet solitude in his own retirement in comparison.”
And don’t you think Peter sometimes longed to live quietly in prayer? Did he have a choice? No, he knew what awaited him in any case (John 21:18-19).
“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.”
Duty to Christ and the Church both place constraints on Peter - even to his death (again John 21:18-19).