Author Topic: Looking forward to Recognition by Rome (Read 4723 times)

1st Mansion Tenant · « **Reply #30 on:** January 09, 2013, 10:17:00 PM »

Child pornography? that's a bit of a leap, I think.

1st Mansion Tenant · « **Reply #31 on:** January 09, 2013, 10:38:38 PM »

CAUTION PORNOGRAPHY

If you think this is actually pornography, you have got real problems. A picture of a football cleat could be porn to someone with a shoe-fetish.

parentsfortruth · « **Reply #32 on:** January 09, 2013, 10:44:45 PM »

No. And I wasn't even saying it was. The Catechist said that no pictures of naked infants are pornographic, and I say that there are surely some, and labeled the ones that are, child pornography. I didn't even say that the one she linked was one. I did say, though, that the totally obscene photograph that she linked was invasive, and not labeled in a way that people would be warned not to look at it. THAT was the real issue.

I'm not going to belabor the point though.

Elizabeth · « **Reply #33 on:** January 10, 2013, 10:35:54 PM »

Quote from: curioustrad

Not wishing to judge you but shouldn't you attend to to your children (as Bishop Williamson would have a Mother do) than post incessantly on this forum ?

I do agree that the photograph could easily pass for child pornography and for that sake alone it isn't wise to download it or post it in the forum.

Oh, Curious. I never saw the photo, but trying to subtly imply that PFT is somehow not caring for his children is just plain icky, and then guilt-tripping with Bp. Williamson as her sole authority when it's her husband who's the boss...it's all not so bad. :cheers: People multi task all the time.

Francisco · « **Reply #34 on:** January 10, 2013, 10:50:33 PM »

Quote from: Catechist99

......

But rather than be scandalized that I brought attention to this abomination people need to be scandalized that traditionalists are pursuing recognition by these wicked men. It's not just guitars and altar girls.....it's pure Satanic worship.

You are correct. And the Accordistas want Canonical Recognition from this crowd!
A certain Laura Yantos published An Open E-mail To Bishop Fellay sometime back. Some would find it to be rather strong meat. But this lady obviously thought it the right thing to do, even some would be scandalized. Perhaps she would send interested parties a copy. (yantsos@optonline.net)

AveMarisStella · « **Reply #35 on:** January 11, 2013, 10:14:25 AM »

Images of Our Lord and His Blessed Mother from Early Christian art through the Middle Ages shows them clothed with no exposure of private parts (see examples below).

By the Renaissance, a moral shift had occurred, with a return ("rebirth") of ancient classical Greek/Roman culture which glorified/deified Man and his naked body. Sadly, this seeped into sacred art.

Michelangelo, who was by all accounts a disordered man with sodomite tendencies, brought this immodest (and downright blasphemous in the case of Our Lord and Our Lady) nudity to it's height with the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. They officials in Rome were rightly outraged and ordered the "parts" to be covered up.

This persisted through the Renaissance period, through the Baroque. I need not post examples here. Many images of Our Lady and other female saints were painted from models who were in fact the artists' concubines.

I believe that this art, showing Our Lord naked, or Our Lady with Her breasts exposed/cleavage, is a moral outrage.

PLEASE, my friends, do not think that because the art is "old", that it is right.