White outfit, wrong occasion, Cherie (Cherie Blair didn't wear black to meet the Pope)

UK Telegraph ^ | 4/29/06 | Malcolm Moore and Jonathan Petre

[wagglebee]

Cherie Blair provoked surprise in the Vatican and the ire of a Roman Catholic MP yesterday by wearing all-white to meet the Pope, a privilege normally reserved for Catholic Queens.

The Vatican convention is that females meeting the Pontiff should wear black, preferably with a black veil, or mantilla.

	Cherie Blair with Pope Benedict

When the Queen met Pope John Paul II six years ago, she observed the code meticulously.

Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, wore black, but omitted the veil.

By contrast, Mrs Blair, a staunch Catholic, chose to exercise the "privilege du blanc", usually granted only to the wives of Catholic monarchs.

Her breach of the protocol was surprising, since she has kept closely to the Church's dress code in the past.

Mrs Blair may not have worn a hat to the funeral of Diana, Princess of Wales but she mourned the passing of John Paul II in a mantilla.

Technically, only three women should wear white in the presence of the Pope.

They are Queen Sofia of Spain, Queen Paola of Belgium and Josephine Charlotte, the wife of Grand Duke Jean of Luxembourg. Queen Sofia exercised her privilege in a meeting with the previous Pope in 2003.

Ann Widdecombe, the former Tory minister and a convert to Catholicism, was scathing about Mrs Blair.

"Even the Queen wore black to meet the Pope," she said. "This shows that she has a very grand idea of herself.

"She is a Catholic. She knows what the tradition is when meeting the Pope.

"She obviously thinks she is the first lady.

"My message to her is 'You are not a Catholic Queen, my dear, and you never will be.' "

Mrs Blair was in Rome for a Church-organised conference entitled "Vanishing Youth? Solidarity with Children and Young People in an Age of Turbulence".

She was invited as an expert and remained afterwards for a private meeting with the Pope. A spokesman for the Vatican declined to reveal what they had discussed.

[Peelod]

The Holy Roman Church's concern for tradition is part of its sublime majesty. An organized religion uses awesome theater to advance its message.

[Ladysmith]

Right there with you on this one! Talk about "whitewashed tombs"...

[Havoc]

Interested in learning - always. Interested in swallowing what you've been indoctrinated to believe - not on your life.

The office of "Vicar of Christ" aka Pope didn't exist in the first century, 2nd, 3rd, 4th.. Do you in fact even know who the first "Vicar of Christ" was, historically and factually speaking? I'm sure you do but will not admit it. It wasn't Peter, Linus, etc. The first one was "_________" (You fill in the blank). Hint, the title was retroactively applied to prior "Bishops" of Rome once the office gained official status through fraud (donation of Constantine, Pseudo-isidorian decretals, Decretals of Gratian - all frauds). Bishops of Rome had tried for a number of years to assert that they had some "primacy" over the entire Church. That met with guffaws and rebukes until the church and secular world were defrauded with documentary forgeries that were used to bolster that claim. Once the "primacy" was established via fraudulent means, the office of "Vicar of Christ" aka "Pope" aka "Supreme Pontif" came into official existance. The title was then backwardly applied as though it had always existed and the Roman Catholic Church has continued in perpetrating that fraud as though it were true.

Peter, Historically, Biblically, and technically, never was a "Pope". He wasn't even a "Bishop". He was an "Apostle", an office seperate from that of a Bishop and distinctive in it's role of preaching what the foundation of the Church is along with the other "Apostles." What's more, it cannot be
shown that he ever went to Rome to even so much as say "hi" to anyone, much less to preach or live there as Bishop. No historical footprint whatsoever, and no biblical footprint either. Digressing to the Apostles..
They were all co-equals. But being Co-equals got Rome's panties in a bunch - Rome had it's pride and dreams of power and would not be disuaded from using the most base means of accomplishing it's goals.

That is history. You will now give us your dogmatic fluff.
Before you do, your first citation in scripture should be the exact one that notes the existance of an office called "Vicar of Christ" - not Bishop, you've abused that into something it isn't. You are dealing with a covenant that you have no editorial rights over. So, if you're going to prove it exists in Christianity, you'll have to prove it in the founding documents of the institution. If it isn't there, you've added it. And as you have no editorial prerogative to do so, you've exceeded your authority and are into extra biblical = extra-covenental religiosity. You've made yourself another religion cause you couldn't abide the mandate of the Christian God. Plain and simple.

[dighton]

Regarding #s 13 and 65,

Another example is Neville Chamberlain, a Unitarian who “as such did not accept even nominally the basic trinitarian belief of the Church of England, the first Prime Minister to officially reject this doctrine since the Duke of Grafton.”

Now if I’m not mistaken, the Monarch, as Supreme Governor of the Church of England and Defender of the Faith, must be a member of the established church.

[Al Simmons]

Good Lord!! How did an Ostrich get into the Vatican??!!????

[maine-iac7]

Oh for crying out loud!

AMEN

[Al Simmons]

I SWEAR I posted that BEFORE I saw your tag line!! What a photo!!!

[Al Simmons]

"Pontifex Maximus" - The Pagan Roman Version....

[Havoc]

No, frauds use awesome theatre to advance their message. Sorry, God didn't need theatre. He let his actions speak for themselves. Christ and the Apostles raising the dead ain't theatre. When you can't raise the dead and people expect it, then you have to bring in "theatre" - you know, the teeth of agatha, the bones of an apostle, faces of dead saints in carpet patterns, rehydrating "dried blood" in a cannister before the dumb masses, etc.. sound familiar. That is theatre substituting itself for substance. There is nothing majestic about the "Church" in the terms you reference (the clergy). That is pomp and pretense. Majesty is owned by God and good true Christians are humble enough to respect that they have none in and of themselves save that which is Christ in them.. which is, again, not of themselves. Pride is what you're talking about and it's outer workings. And pride is hated by God because it is pride that caused the fall of Lucifer and of man.

[catholicfreeper]

First off the forgeries you mention are not the basis of authority of the Bishop of Rome. Second as to Peter being in Rome. There has been a constant Christian tradition that Peter was the Bishop of Rome and in fact died there.

"Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars[of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. "
Clement of Rome,The First Epistle of Clement,5(c.A.D. 96),in ANF,I:6

'You have thus by such an admonition bound together the plantings of Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth."
Dionysius of Corinth, Epistle to Pope Soter,fragment in Eusebius' Church History,II:25(c.A.D. 178),in NPNF2,I:130

I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you."
Ignatius of Antioch,Epistle to the Romans,4(c.A.D. 110),in ANF,I:75
"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome,and laying the foundations of the Church."
Irenaeus,Against Heresies,3:1:1(c.A.D. 180),in ANF,I:414


I could go and on. As to The Bishops of Romes authority

The church of God which sojourns at Rome to the church of God which sojourns at Corinth ... But if any disobey the words spoken by him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger."
Clement of Rome,Pope,1st Epistle to the Corinthians,1,59:1 (c.A.D. 96),in GILES,1-2

"Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Mast High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who farmed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love..."
Ignatius of Antioch,Epistle to the Romans, Prologue (A.D. 110), in ANF,I:73

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere."
Irenaeus,Against Heresies,3:3:2 (A.D. 180),in ANF,I:1415-416
Again I can on and on. To say this is some late invention is ludricous.

[Revenge of Sith]

Catholics can hold any office in the UK except for King, Queen, Regent or Lord Chancellor (an office I don't think exists anymore).

[narses]

Do tell Havoc, who are the Apostolic successors today, at least in your personal opinion?

[narses]

"The Islamic convention is that females should wear certain headdress too. I detect a pattern here."

Tell us, please, THE PATTERN. Go ahead, TELL US.

[lawgirl]

"My message to her is 'You are not a Catholic Queen, my dear, and you never will be.' "

ROFL!! MEOW!!!! That being said, such a misstep is a serious error in protocol and it suprises me.

[Verginius Rufus]

Thanks. I thought there was little or no Greek ancestry among the Greek royals.

I once heard that President Ford at a state dinner was sitting next to the Queen of Spain and made some comment to her to the effect that he had a hard time telling Greeks and Turks apart. (This would have been not more than a year or two after the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974.) I guess the point of the story was to make him appear clueless (not realizing that the Queen of Spain was really Greek)...but I can't vouch for the accuracy of the story.

[dighton]

The office of Lord Chancellor lives on, sometimes curiously.

[Salvation]

I know Laura Bush wore black because someone posted pictures of her.

[catholicfreeper]

You know whats so funny about this is that it was a Protestant and even evanglical tradition forever in many places that women cover their heads in Church. Except instead of a Catholic like head covering it was a hat. You can see that in the movies and old TV shows even.

[Larry Lucido]

That same Holy Spirit sent all of us down here in our birthday suits.

Well, now, I would advise against being quite that casual.