I have an occasional feature called, "The Quotable Sippo." It's very simple, I just let Catholic apologist Art Sippo speak for himself. Recently, Dr. Sippo provided some of his insights, and well... let's just let the good doctor speak for himself.Dr. Sippo answered this question: "I seem to remember a semi-famous quote by a visitor to St. Peter's Basilica when, asked whether he thought it was beautiful, answered by saying something like "yes, but was it worth schism?" Anybody recall the circumstances here?"
What the interlocator meant was that the indulgence to raise funds for the building of St.Peter's Basilica was the proximate cause of Luther's revolt.
In answer to the question, the answer is "Yes, it was worth it." Doing something beautiful for God is always superior than the self-righteousness of those who prefer their own will to that of the will of God. Man made religion tickles men's ears and never offends them. I think every Protestant should look at St.Peter's and regret his loss.
These same people took over Westminster Abbey in London and turned it into an ugly puritanical dump. They got rid of all the frescoes and the statues of the saints and replaced them with pictures and statues of English Protestants who were PATRONS of the sovereigns, not saintly people. There is a FULL SIZED efigy [sic] of Queen Elizabeth, the bastard daughter of Henry VIII, but not a single statue of Jesus. And both Charles Darwin and Benedict Armold [sic] are buried in state there. I think that says it all. [source]
Posts
8 comments:
I think it is safe to say that Catholics of a particular bent will find much common ground with Dr. Sippo.
I went to St Peter's 10 yrs ago and there was not a single cross on the inside.
"I went to St Peter's 10 yrs ago and there was not a single cross on the inside."
Seriously? Any statues of Mary?
Rho,
I went to St Peter's 10 yrs ago and there was not a single cross on the inside.
Unless they've seriously changed things, I don't see how that could be. I was there just a few summers ago, I can think of several off the top of my head. There is one at the top of the canopy, the one St. Andrew carries, the one at the top of the obelisk, the cross St. Helena carries, at least one in the Matthew 16 quote around the inside of the dome, plus the shape of the church itself. I'm sure there are others.
Perhaps there aren't as many as one might think, and they aren't the most prominent images. However, there certainly are a decent number. I'm surprised you missed them. Maybe you should go back :)
Peace,
BJ
I think it is safe to say that Catholics of a particular bent will find much common ground with Dr. Sippo.
I think it speaks to the fact that there are some who don't really care about the indulgence abuse scandal during that time period. Sippo's comments demonstrate a particular mindset.
"I think it speaks to the fact that there are some who don't really care about the indulgence abuse scandal during that time period. Sippo's comments demonstrate a particular mindset."
Catholics that tend to ignore, deny or defend the abuse of Indulgences during Luther's era strike me as being the same ones who downplay or defend the RCC's role with respect to the priest sex abuse scandal. Both abuses are fruit from the same tree.
EA said:
"Catholics that tend to ignore, deny or defend the abuse of Indulgences during Luther's era strike me as being the same ones who downplay or defend the RCC's role with respect to the priest sex abuse scandal. Both abuses are fruit from the same tree."
In the past I have thought it wise, and fair to try and separate the actions of the priests from the arguments between the RCs and ourselves. Upon further reflection (spurred by the recent re-explosion of the abuse scandal) it does seem to me that the whole thing is intimately connected to the nature of the RCC's view of itself. I don't mean the abuse itself. It has been rightly pointed out that this sort of thing happens within all institutions and groups that deal with children (sad as that may be). What I have realized is that, given Rome's view of herself, the hierarchy's response was just about the only possible response. They have painted themselves into an infallible corner. Therefore it should come as no surprise that certain decent men within the RC priesthood were ignored when they tried to sound a warning. Before any RCs respond to this let me anticipate and answer one of your objections. I realize that not all RC priests (indeed not most) are child abusers. That isn't the point. Your church is claiming to be guided infallibly by the Holy spirit and yet your infallible shepherd(s) don't have the sense to just kick these guys out. Instead, time after time, they have resorted to self-preservation, and secrecy. This problem has been known about within the RC Church for sometime, and wasn't even acknowledged until they could no longer hide it. Since then it has been toothless apologies and victim blaming. This is all as a result of the RCC's self-deluded view of herself. I am off topic and rambling now so I will shut-up.
BJ,
Very possibly they've changed things, and bully for them if they have.
But I am 99% sure there was not one cross/crucifix inside. I looked, hard, stayed in there for more than 2 hours during a papal address to the crowd on a Wed morning. Looked all around, looked on top of the mini-tabernacle at the intersection of the cruciform building. Looked on all the walls. Looked near the dove in the stained glass up top above the altar, looked on the sculptures of the 4 men carrying St Peter's chair.
Didn't see one. It struck me so clearly at the time, so I remember it well. This was March 2000.
Post a Comment