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

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.

I'm not quite sure what you're asking and a little confused. Post 190 doesn't really demonstrate "spiritual" discernment.
The Ananias and Saphira episode in the Acts is closer to that by far. 190 looks more like a poorly written detective story where the suspect is nabbed on facts not in evidence prior to the point of arrest. While it's interesting and mildly humorous, even useful, it doesn't display "spiritual" discernment.

If I were to look at a man in a store who had one earring in his right ear, spoke with a lisp and sauntered rather than merely walking.. Deductive reasoning might tell me that person is gay. On the other hand, they could also be "naive" and slothful and reach the same display. So the wrong conclusion can be reached by reasoning, even though it might appear "reasonable". That is not discernment, that is reason or 'judgement'.

If I were walking in a crowd and something within directed me to note that the guy walking behind me is really a woman in disguise for whatever reason, that would be spiritual. This is something distinctive from instinct. And it might be more illustrative to clarify that I may not have seen the person walking behind me to know if it is man or woman in the first place. The problem here is, that it is spiritual discernment; but, what spirit is providing the information?

I've been in the company of ministers as well as their opposites, who could discern things they could not otherwise know. The usefulness of this is specific and limited; but, the impact can be substantial. For instance, if I were going to pray for someone's healing and didn't know the ailment, Discerning it could serve to better direct my effort at praying. It can also mean the difference between praying amiss in looking for a healing when deliverance is really the issue. And I have seen that before. People who cannot sleep are not always "insomniacs". I sat in a service one night some years back and a guy who was having problems seeing was "healed" by deliverence from oppression.
The spiritual causality was producing physical symptoms.. primarily of problems with eyesight. That is discernment. How and to what extent it is employed by anyone is a matter of their faith and obedience and God's discression.

Do I employ it? Yes. Do I always verbalize it? No. It is useful; but, in the right context only. And that is not a matter of my own judgement. If the spirit points something out, it isn't always with the intent to have you blab. Sometimes it's merely to make you aware of what you're dealing with so that you can approach a situation in the right frame of mind, with the right measure of restraint, etc.

You can bring an object into your home as simple as a button to be sewed onto a blouse. That item could be a "familiar" item. And the only way you'd ever know it most of the time is through discernment. In the mean time, you may experience some strange ocurrances that you'd rather not.

I've mentioned several forms and functions of discernment at this point. And you can see that each brings it's own lessons. Each is different and with different impact. None of them can necessarily be known via reason.

Now, as it applies to the discussion at hand, discernment can come into play; but, in most circumstances, verbalization turns into a one-upmanship contest or worse.
The spiritually dead pharisees couldn't heal the sick, lame or raise the dead. Being spiritually dead, God wasn't working through them in that manner. They were literally an impediment to the moving of God. When Christ then came along healing, repairing and raising the dead, the pharisees were unhinged and considered it the work of the devil.. afterall, they couldn't do it and they were high and mighty.. so how could this lowly one of ill repute (to them) be capable of it when they were in better (carnal) positions.. they were priests and judges afterall..

See how fast the rub becomes apparent and modern? One can also then imagine (as opposed to discerning) how such a group might act today. If they can't heal or raise the dead, they can imagine that some object can, then without saying as such, give well worded legalistic statements that can be read anyway you wish in claiming and at once denying both the incidences and the power involved or not.. They'll "let *you* decide" (wink). We like to keep an open mind about these things.. especially when we can't do what Christ said we would be able to.. (and greater). Doesn't take discernment to see that at play in Roman Catholicism. Discernment, on the other hand, can tell you the spirits that are really involved in these things.

That leads me to another concept.. that of "he's spiritual, so what is happening to him must be of God". People have a really screwy way of looking at things and rationalizing them. A good "for instance" would be the stigmata. God torturing people to increase their faith. Absurd on any level; but, if one is an indoctrinate, one will rationalize this because the alternative is unthinkable or undesirable.
So rather than deal with the truth, question the happenstance, etc., they rationalize as a form of self-deception. The interesting thing here is that by attributing to God that which is spiritual but not of God, they blaspheme The spirit of God even if inadvertently. It is an unavoidable product of the situation.

Don't know that I answered your question; but, I've no doubt that the response will be interesting :)

Marsh, chin up. This is not representative of all or "most" Catholics. Not by far.

I don't view Catholics in a negative light. I do view Catholicism in a negative light and will continue to do so. It is, afterall, the religion, not the people that is the matter at question. It is the belief system, not the person, that is harmful. The problem is that some are incapable of differentiating between themselves and the religion because of their own nature and because it serves their present purpose not to make the distinction. It is, for lack of a better term, "politics".

They don't care if they gain converts. They don't care what others think of them. If they can 'control' the floor and distract from the facts, that, to them, is a win. It's damage control. And if they can cause a huge uproar and get people looking at their own ill behavior or arguing over their adhom attacks, it is better than people dwelling on facts that would tend to lead people away from Rome. Damage control.. ie politics. Very simple.

They aren't much worried about the slash and burn campaign they wage, because you will come along and apologize and reassure people that they are not the face of Roman Catholicism. In fact, they are - just as much as you are. The people are not the religion. The religion is itself. The people follow it or do not. The religion is right or wrong on it's own merits or failings. Catholic people are not the religion. But they do not want the merits and failings brought into serious scrutiny by any Catholic that deems themselves capable of thinking for themselves and yet disagreeing with Rome. You are only capable of thinking clearly long enough to turn the authority for your critical thinking over to Rome. If you Question, you're in trouble. In fact if you question, Rome is in trouble. They anathematize you because they can't afford for anyone else to think clearly too.. It is the pattern of every cult. Interesting; but, not unexpected.

As a Catholic, you are a subject of your Church. As a Christian, I am a subject of God and God alone. The Lord God through his Apostles gave us the Scriptures as a gaurd against error. That fact seems forgotten by some, and an uncomfortable happenstance to others. But it is central, relevant and undeniable. Protestants would argue from scripture that their philosophy is better because... While Catholics will do the same. Ultimately, regardless of the philosophy, the scripture is the judge because it is the measure we were given for that very purpose. Any attempt to
diminish the role of that rule is merely an attempt to inject a different rule for measurement- the reason for which is obvious. It is the same reason the cults do it - because they cannot, do not and will not live up to the rule they were given. And the only way to keep that from being seen is to measure yourself by another standard.

The mormons accomplish this by claiming the Bible is flawed, ruined and wrong; but, it can be right - to the extent that Joseph Smith has reinterpreted it.. They use Joseph Smith's Rule. Scripture, as it happens, defines what a Christian is - not in name, but in action and deed. John 10 says the sheep here and follow. Elsewhere we are told the outward signs of the gifts of the spirit and that they will follow the true Christians. We are also told that each will have their gift(s) - so they won't necessarily all have the same one. From Catholics, I hear that "Charity" is a gift and that Catholics donate to Charities. Marylin Manson has donated to charities and he's the head of the worldwide Church of Satan, so that would seem to be a faulty reading, else Manson is Christian and at once satanist. Gotta love paradoxes. But we're now searching for the point, so I'll furnish it. Given that The Scriptures define the Christian, Catholicism has it's own definition and it looks nothing like the scriptural one. They, instead, define the church: One, holy, Catholic... etc. None of which really tells you anything. Islam can say they themselves are "One, Holy and universal, etc.." Doesn't really mean much, does it. Islam cannot, however, say that they follow Christ and obey Him. They can't say that they have the gifts of the spirit following them about. They can't say they are saved through and by Christ's work on the Cross because they deny Him as anything more than 'just another prophet'. Prophet losing any worth by way of meaning due to the fact that the mark of a true prophet is to be right. If wrong, they are not a prophet.

Bottom line is that the Catholic religion cannot withstand scrutiny by way of living up to the Biblical defines. The religion therefor has to define it's own measure and invoke it instead. Every heathen is "good enough" by their own measure. Interestingly, they also think they'll go to heaven and be with God if they're "good enough" or weren't "terribly bad". This is strictly unbiblical; but, ironically, not much different than the bottom line for Catholics. Heathens can't define "good enough" any more than the average Catholic or Catholic priest. Thus, no Catholic is certain at death where they are going. They're merely "hopeful". And to be of help, if you do become certain, you are anathema. If you approach it biblically, you're anathema according to Trent and Vatican II which upheld Trent. You make your own rule and then make the Biblical rule illegal to even consider.. that's crowd control++.

So, To again beg difference, it is not the Catholic people that I have even a hint of a problem with. It is the religion itself which I have a problem with and precisely because it masquerades as Christian while abusing the people mistaking it for Christian. These people are looking for Christianity in many cases, and they get a fraud instead.

For me, it is no more clear a statement of who Rome is than in looking at beginnings. Paul preached and stated clearly that the authority over the Oracles of God was given to the Israel - the Jews as it were. The oracles are the scriptures - specifically the Old testament. Now, Judaism never canonized the "deuterocanonicals". This is without question - they never did and will state it plainly and clearly to this very day. The LXX is not judaic canon and to the extent that any version of it ever was, it did not contain the "deuterocanon". Rome failed to gain approval for additions to the old Testament through the Jews and in the failing, usurped that authority and added it to their own canon. That presents a number of blatent and bold problems, not least of which is the fact that the Old covenant is for the Israelites, not Christians or Catholics.
Usurped authority, while it may be 'good enough' for heathens, is "ZERO" authority to the righteous and unlawful in the eyes of a court. It is fraud. And anything built upon that fraud is no less a fraud.

From there the problems, expectantly, become manifold. The simplist way to deal with that is to resort to the basic problem of following two masters. The usurpation in the canon is a means to merging philosophy with the new covenant scriptures and calling them one and the same. The scripture gives you the first master (Christ), the usurpation gives you the second (philosophy). From there, the rest is a given. You cannot serve two masters.. you will love one and hate the other... etc. Again, the religion, not the people - the followers, the Catholics. The worst thing anyone can say is true of Catholics is that they are misled and by that, betrayed. I had that happen to me in a relationship with a woman. So what. Funny how you never know it's the case until you find out that it is the case.. If you don't bother to investigate, you're misled, betrayed and purposefully ignorant. Perhaps that is worse. Perhaps that is sad. It is neither means nor motive to hate someone, only to help them see the truth and be better for it. If that's hateful, then black is truly white and good is truly evil - in your eyes. Mine are quite alright.

I think his point is the same as mine and would hover around the unsound doctrine end of things. We have common terminology, but, the terminology means substantially different things from a Christian perspective than it does from a Catholic perspective.

In Christianity, Sin is sin, no matter the label of the individual act. As the New testament notes in discussion over the Judaizers, to offend on one point of the law is to offend on all - literally because all sin is disobedience to God and no sin is different from any other sin because disobedience is not different from disobedience. It is a literal impossibility. Sin=disobedience. The end of sin, according to scripture, is death. No stipulations, no
handwringing. Disobedience=sin=death. That then means that all sin is mortal - it all kills the spirit. Doesn't matter if it is adultery or Blasphemy of the Holy spirit - it is all deadly. The one difference noted is not in the sin, it is in God's approach to dealing with it. And on two occasions in scripture, He notes that he will not forgive anyone for specific sins. The sin is no different - it kills. God just won't forgive.

But, Catholics, through philosophy, have decided that there are Mortal sins and venial sins. They redefined Sin. Just as they redefined salvation, justification, etc. There is no purgatory in scripture. But Catholicism, through philosophy, created it and added it. Ecclessiastes says that the dead (physical state, not spiritual) cannot interact with the living once they die. But here comes' Rome to rewrite that via philosophy, stand it on it's head and say the exact opposite. One can go on and on. Terms are the same; but, they mean quite different things on both sides because Catholicism has redefined everything from the ground up.

I have a handful of recorded debates with official representatives of Rome debating "protestants" in which the Catholic speaker dares say that Christ didn't pay for all our sins. And quite hostile in the stating of it I might add. Catholics have designed a works based system of salvation in which Grace is like a seed crop that the Church (read clergy) harvests and holds in store to be dolled out to the peasants a little at a time. And neither knows when or if they ever have enough to be saved, go to purgatory, etc. It does serve one purpose well, it keeps the serfs chained to the clergy and dutifully handing over their 10% plus their purgatory money, familiar items money (scapulars etc..) and so on. The great treasury of Grace that comes not merely from Christ; but from Mary, the saints and other Catholics who accumulated so many grace points that they had some to spare after saving themselves and so deposited the extra with the church to help in saving your hide... Find that in the scriptures - you can't. It doesn't exist. It exists only in the imagination of Catholic apologists and
the sad little men in the clergy that philosophized that mess up to burden you all with.

Christ said that the sacrifices of the old covenant priests could save no one because they had to be repeated over and over. That should have been a hint to Catholics who philosophized the way around this by giving you a perpetual sacrifice in the mass. The sacrifice that really isn't a sacrifice and yet really is - which isn't the real body and blood, and yet really is.. etc. Double talk, poor logic, bad philosophy, and let's not forget - paradox. The one mystery in all of it is how anyone believes it. And that really isn't a mystery because nobody really does. They believe something; but, they don't know what it is because the story changes into a circular argument consisting of about 4 forms, when one is shown to be contradictory and flawed, it is begged off in favor of the next until you run the gambit and end up back at square one. The choices exausted, save for the scriptural and correct one (as it happens) and debunked, the fallback position is - it just is.. (how imaginative). And let's not forget the co-paradox.. How you're supposed to be free of sin to partake in the Eucharist, and yet it forgives the sin you don't have in you.. That derives from Pseudo Isidore from a document called the decrees of Same. It is the oldest known citation for this concept and it's a known and proven fraud.
Amazing..

This and countless other examples can be cited. Unum Sanctum is my personal favorite. That one all by itself proves Rome a liar and in error at the same time.
Rome claims to have taught the same thing in all times
and that it has never taught error. Yet, it didn't teach the Principles espoused in Unum Sanctum for more than a millenia. Then, all of a sudden, Salvation changed. So, was it teaching error before or after it invoked Unum Sanctum? This is great because you get the Eastern Orthodox in on the act as well. If Catholicism in general is the one true church, then they have taught error for not teaching Unum Sanctum themselves. But, let's compound it shall we. Unum Sanctum was an official statement on morals and faith, issued in a Bull. It is, as such, irreformable. So, the church decided to reform it by adding the "escape clause" for "invincibile ignorance" which didn't accompany the original version. So, now, Rome has Erred at least twice on this matter alone. It has erred a third time for claiming falsely that it has taught the same to all in all time, and a fourth time in stating it has never erred. Anyway you cut it, the house of cards falls. No way out of it. That's why I like it. And that is the end of following philosophy instead of scripture.. and not just of one guy, you got so many cooks in the kitchen on that one that none of them knows what's for dinner and it all conflicts with the pallette so badly that even the authors swam in wine to get rid of the taste. It's probably why it's anathema to question it, they got such headaches creating the paradox that they didn't want anymore trying to dig their way out of it only to create more.

Salvation is clear cut and simple in Christianity. In Catholicism, it is a gamble, a mystery, a paradox, an uncertain mess.. etc. But just as it was with the Old covenant priests - Roman Catholic salvation is one heck of a profit maker. The guys at the top are just filthy rich and disgustingly powerful - at least to themselves. That should be your comfort. In the end, when you go to hell for following the wrong message of salvation, you can rest easy knowing that the vanity of a few men was served by your damnation. Or, you can throw caution to the wind, read your Bible and find the truth undoctored by their philosophy. You don't have to join a club, a church, etc, you can find it for yourself and then seek out a group that keeps to the truth of Scripture all on your own.. no profit racket to worry with and nobody's "power" and vanity to nurse.

The Catholic Church Preaches about a "Christ". They don't preach the Christ of the scriptures. They've philosphised up a whole other guy.. one that is angry and can't be approached directly so that you had to create a "co-redeamer" and go through momma instead.. Something also shot down by scripture. There is ONE mediator between God and men. ONE. That implicitly and explicitly rules out anyone else.. period. If there is ONLY one, there cannot be a second or a "co" which would be pluralistic. Another paradox. God isn't the author of confusion - or paradoxes.
Apparently, Rome is. And the day she can explain her way out of the first one, we'll all faint and wonder that she'll probably think she's done something..

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.