“And I have little reason to believe you would read it should I post it.”
Fine, but more realistically it is unlikely that there is anyone who fits the criteria. Thus, whether or not I would read it is immaterial.
“How many times have the nihil obstat and Imprimatured writings of Alphonsus Maria de’ Liguori and his over-the-top exaltation of the Virgin Mary been dismissed as “only his personal opinions” here?”
I don’t know. Perhaps a number of times. But how does that help you in any case? What Catholic is bound by the Catholic faith to hold to the writings of Ligouri that are his own? I like the Presbyterians Peter Leithart and Alister Begg. What Presbyterian is bound by their particular beliefs or writings? Exactly none.
“Would YOU consider him “orthodox”?”
Absolutely.
“Yet, here you are defending some architect who happened to be “Protestant” (actually High-Anglican, which is as close to Roman Catholic as one can get) who voiced his own biased opinion about architectural preferences.”
No. It amazes me how you can repeatedly misstate things. The quote was not about architecture alone by any means. He specifically mentions “formularies, services, and structures.” Do you think for even a single second he means only architecture when he mentions that “Protestantism, with its derivative materialistic rationalism, divested religion of its essential elements of mystery and wonder, and worship of its equally essential elements of beauty.”
“When you find his religious views published somewhere, then I might care to discuss him further.”
I PUBLISHED some of his religious views right here at FR. That’s what the quote was about. The quote certainly didn’t cover everything he believed but it most certainly included some of what he believed. How could you possibly miss that?
“It’s actually humorous that you fight tooth and nail over the most minute details discussed here.”
I fight for all truth no matter how large or small. What I have noticed is that Protestant anti-Catholics by-and-large don’t seem to care whether or not they have their facts straight. They just post whatever they like about the Catholic faith whether it is true or obviously false. Then when you point out what they got wrong - which is usually many things - they complain that the “minute details” don’t matter.
“I’m actually surprised how furiously you try to defend your “rightness” and everyone else’s “wrongness”.”
There’s nothing furious about it. If I’m right, and I know it, I’ll say so. When Protestant anti-Catholics make error after error - such as suggest that Cram was only talking about architecture - why should I not point that out? Am I really to believe you are not saying it to try and discredit him? But if you are wrong - and clearly you are (yet again) - aren’t you the one who is further discredited?
“I can only sympathize with your spouse as this character trait is rarely confined to Internet sites.”
And perhaps Protestant anti-Catholics only lie when online, or are only ignorant online. Maybe.
How does quoting Cram "help" you? You just HAD to slip that in there to further disparage "Protestants"? The biography I posted from Wiki says about him that, "At age 18, Cram moved to Boston in 1881 and worked for five years in the architectural office of Rotch & Tilden, after which he left for Rome to study classical architecture. During an 1887 Christmas Eve mass in Rome, he had a dramatic conversion experience. For the rest of his life, he practiced as a fervent Anglo-Catholic who identified as High Church Anglican." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Adams_Cram)
I happen to think he was WAY off base about how he described "Protestant" appreciation of beauty and can opine that his was a biased view based on a preconceived deference for the mystery and wonder he saw in Rome and Roman Catholicism with what he had experienced as a "Protestant" before his "conversion experience" and his love of Gothic Revival architecture. He's entitled to his opinion, but so am I to disagree with his "religious" views about what he thought Protestantism neglected.
That you cannot discuss much of anything on this thread, or others, without labeling opponents as "Protestant anti-Catholics" who lie and are dishonest and asserting anyone who isn't a Catholic is by default a "Protestant", demonstrates an inability to address points respectfully OR honestly. You may view these exchanges as mere sport, but it's better to envision a mission field with readers we may never know are out there and our witness for Christ is what gets communicated way past the minute details of our disagreements. Spiritual pride isn't a positive attribute.