Author Topic: Resistance to Continuing Wreckovation of Italian Basilica (Read 1956 times)

Augstine Baker · « **on:** November 27, 2011, 03:00:42 PM »

Edit: It's not as if the laity are complaining. Who cares about them? Yet when the local Bishop is "attacked" in a full length book by a famous architect, Stephen Maccarini, and the local arts and academic community, that's another matter.

The northern Italian city of Reggio Emilia boasts a magnificent Basilica of St. Prospero, completed in the 10th Century which has undergone many felicitous transformations. Now the local Bishop wants to create an altar nave, have benches that don't facilitate kneeling and include an ugly Japanese cross commissioned by a Shinto practitioner, that doesn't even look like a cross.

http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2011/11/plans-to-destroy-cathedral-in-italy.html

Telesphorus · « **Reply #1 on:** November 27, 2011, 03:04:18 PM »

People who alter churches in this way are not Catholics. Real Catholic don't commit sacrilege in such a deliberate manner. Freemasons and their pathological liberal sympathizers do.

Augstine Baker · « **Reply #2 on:** November 28, 2011, 05:23:04 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

People who alter churches in this way are not Catholics. Real Catholic don't commit sacrilege in such a deliberate manner. Freemasons and their pathological liberal sympathizers do.

Maybe that works in your Archie Comics world of Canon Law, but I don't know how it works.

Throwing around accusations of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ is very serious and shouldn't be undertaken without careful proof.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #3 on:** November 28, 2011, 05:28:00 PM »

Quote from: Augstine Baker

Maybe that works in your Archie Comics world of Canon Law, but I don't know how it works.

Throwing around accusations of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ is very serious and shouldn't be undertaken without careful proof.

I don't think it's a coincidence that modern churches tend to have the aesthetics of a lodge more than the aesthetics of Christianity.

I never said the Bishop was a freemason. I'm talking about the bizarre influences on modern Church architecture and their ideological origins.

Bishops who teach religious indifferentism, put insane modern sculptures that have nothing to do with Christian iconography, those people are being influenced by a liberal masonic world view.

Bugnini was a Freemason, Cardinal Lienart was a Freemason, and now we have churches that look like those people are in charge.

Why would they want to do that, if they were really Catholic?

There isn't any doubt as to the real motivations.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #4 on:** November 28, 2011, 05:29:51 PM »

People who have things like this built have a different religion than the Catholic religion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathedral_of_Our_Lady_of_the_Angels

Augstine Baker · « **Reply #5 on:** November 28, 2011, 05:33:03 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: Augstine Baker
Maybe that works in your Archie Comics world of Canon Law, but I don't know how it works.

Throwing around accusations of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ is very serious and shouldn't be undertaken without careful proof.

I don't think it's a coincidence that modern churches tend to have the aesthetics of a lodge more than the aesthetics of Christianity.

I never said the Bishop was a freemason. I'm talking about the bizarre influences on modern Church architecture and their ideological origins.

Bishops who teach religious indifferentism, put insane modern sculptures that have nothing to do with Christian iconography, those people are being influenced by a liberal masonic world view.

Bugnini was a Freemason, Cardinal Lienart was a Freemason, and now we have churches that look like those people are in charge.

Why would they want to do that, if they were really Catholic?

There isn't any doubt as to the real motivations.

Naivete or ignorance, perhaps?

Telesphorus · « **Reply #6 on:** November 28, 2011, 05:37:31 PM »

Why would anyone put a bizarrely shaped cross in the place of one that truly shows reverence for the Crucifixion? That can't be ignorance or naivete.

Destroying something perfectly good to put something bizarre in its place - being done systematically. There's a point at which a person has to drop the blinders and recognize what's really going on.

http://padrepioandchiesaviva.com/Padre_Pio_s_New_Church_.html

http://traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/c002ht.htm

Telesphorus · « **Reply #7 on:** November 28, 2011, 05:41:23 PM »

The masonic influence on the Church is not a matter of hypothesis.

In this very diocese (and the adjacent one) Joseph Wicker, a master mason and rosicrucian, was in charge of screening applicants to the seminary, and he made sure to keep out anyone who was too traditional in his views.

I talked to a seminarian who was interviewed by him - he couldn't stand the guy.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #8 on:** November 28, 2011, 05:49:06 PM »

There's a recurring pattern in these changes - the figures of Christ and the saints tend to be distorted and misshapen - the crosses tend to be highly abstract. Iconography is seldom realistic, to the extent that it is, it tends to be stripped of all ornament, stripped of distinctively Catholic elements, and of historical context.

Augstine Baker · « **Reply #9 on:** November 28, 2011, 05:53:53 PM »

Stupidity, rashness, ignorance, pride? There are other plausible explanations.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #10 on:** November 28, 2011, 05:54:37 PM »

Quote from: Augstine Baker

Stupidity, rashness, ignorance, pride? There are other plausible explanations.

Maybe in individual cases, but not in the systematic changes that have occurred.

It's not stupidity, rashness, ignorance or pride that causes groups like the Campaign for Human Development to be funded by Catholic dioceses. There is a calculated malicious intention.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #11 on:** November 28, 2011, 05:58:13 PM »

I'll just repeat what I said at the beginning.

The people who do these things don't have a sense of the Catholic Faith. The art they endorse is sacrilegious - and I think it is undoubtedly true that sacrilege is their intention. The destruction of Catholic symbols, and their replacement.

When the Calvinists sacked churches it would be crazy to attribute what they did to ignorance, pride, rashness, stupidity. It was calculated desecration, and the new Church architecture and design works on the same principle.

Augstine Baker · « **Reply #12 on:** November 28, 2011, 05:58:29 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: Augstine Baker
Stupidity, rashness, ignorance, pride? There are other plausible explanations.

Maybe in individual cases, but not in the systematic changes that have occurred.

It's not stupidity, rashness, ignorance or pride that causes groups like the Campaign for Human Development to be funded by Catholic dioceses. There is a calculated malicious intention.

I think you'll find a correlation between the architecture and philosophic and theological Modernism. On all fronts, these are changes calculated to wither all transcendental foundations of Faith and the authority of the Church.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #13 on:** November 28, 2011, 06:00:35 PM »

Quote from: Augstine Baker

I think you'll find a correlation between the architecture and philosophic and theological Modernism. On all fronts, these are changes calculated to wither all transcendental foundations of Faith and the authority of the Church.

And theological modernism is about indifferentism and unbelief, while pretending to reverence the sacred. Which is what Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, to a large extent, is about.

Augstine Baker · « **Reply #14 on:** November 28, 2011, 06:05:30 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: Augstine Baker
I think you'll find a correlation between the architecture and philosophic and theological Modernism. On all fronts, these are changes calculated to wither all transcendental foundations of Faith and the authority of the Church.

And theological modernism is about indifferentism and unbelief, while pretending to reverence the sacred. Which is what Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, to a large extent, is about.

Yeah.