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.

[wagglebee]

Don't seem to be much speculation here about Cherie's attempt to convert Tony ...I guess nobody cares that much.

Nah, the anti-Catholic bigots showed up and decided that this was the perfect forum to debate whether or not there really even is a Pope.

[wagglebee]

Whether I enjoy debate or not is irrelevant. I'm good at it

Well, at least you have a sense of humor. Unless, of course, it's crass hubris.

But let me ask one question, what do you suppose happened to all of the souls who died prior to the Reformation?

[guinnessman]

Speaking of the Bible, I'd be interested to hear your answer to this particular question:

How do you know that the books of the New Testament are truly inspired by God? (other than your own personal feelings)

As a Catholic, I have a very simple answer to that question.

But I'm wondering how somebody who doesn't believe in the teaching authority of the Church would answer that question.

Thanks for indulging me here.

[SoothingDave]

Excuse' Dave. Your set of facts differ from the discussion proffered by others early on. I responded to their remarks about the happenstance, not your latcoming 'facts'. If you wish to try and convict me on facts not in evidence till the moment you cuff me, then have at it.. it's a hollow arrest. But thanks for clarifying. It doesn't change my opinion with regard to elitist dress codes.

It's always amusing how your skills at studying a subject shine through your commentary.

Now, about those facts I brought in "lat" to the argument, those things you couldn't possibly have known, I direct your attention to the article posted to begin this thread.

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.

Is that clear enough? Was there some confusion about what this means? That white is reserved only for Catholic queens?

It continues:

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

Well, that certainly adds more information. And it's only the second sentence! So the convention is for females to wear black, unless they are Catholic queens. I learned this from the first two sentences in the article at the top of this thread.

So, tell us all again how brilliant you are at reading difficult texts and determining the meaning of them, a talent you have that has escaped scholars and theologians for two millennia before you arrived on the scene.

Oh, two more questions, and you can take your time thinking about the answer.

Will you now apologize for your ridiculous comments that the Pope makes Protestants dress in black cause it's sinful and allows Catholics to wear white cause it's pure and good? Seeing as how your comments are grounded in no fact except your own projected bigotry?

Secondly, why should anyone believe your ability to read and synthesize Biblical and historical texts to derive your Unified Theory of "Catholic-Bad, "Havoc-Good" when you fail miserably in understanding a simple article from the British press?

SD

[Jaded]

mark

[Full Court]

I thought it was an interesting thread nonetheless. :-)

[Havoc]

You're right. I didn't answer your question. And I think I told you why.

[Havoc]

It's funny, the democrats do the same thing you apologists do.. wonder why that is..

[Havoc]

But let me ask one question, what do you suppose happened to all of the souls who died prior to the Reformation?

What do you think happened to all the souls that died before Unum Sanctum?

[Havoc]

How do you know that the books of the New Testament are truly inspired by God? (other than your own personal feelings)

Simple, and I'll give you a biblical answer. The apostles taught us that when we are saved, we put on the mind of Christ. We are also told we are indwelt by the holy spirit when baptised in the spirit. Now, either those words are nonsense - which they are not - or, the spirit and mind of God recognizes His own. The question I would have for you is how do you not know absent the church?

[Havoc]

No; but, once again, nice try at misconstruing the situation as an attempted jab at me. Eloquent; but, hollow.

[Havoc]

.. Oh, and btw, Christ represented Himself in court. Guess it isn't that the saying has any worth.. it's just an occasion for you to grab something seemingly useful as an excuse to throw yet another adhom. So, in sum, you can't defend your religion. Catholicism and Christianity are seperate and distinctive - as I demonstrated without answer. What you can do is say 'your momma' because you're less worried about whether lurkers have the truth than with your own ego. Yep, that bout sums it up.

further, what case are you resting.. you never bothered arguing one. Apparently, to you, proper jurisprudence is attacking the other lawyer in hopes he'll ..what, give up?
No further comment needed. The crowd gets it. Sometime, you might.

[Schwaeky]

The British law merely excludes Catholics, hence the "Exclusionary Act" it doesn't preclude other denominations or religions from being PM.. heck that muslim admiral could one day even be PM.... it merely blocks the office from being attained by Catholics...

[Schwaeky]

The Catholic Church gets its legitimacy from Apostolic succession. Something a Church of Christ member (which you obviously are) couldn't possibly understand...

[Havoc]

No, the Catholic Church gets its legitimacy the same way any other religion claiming to be "christian" gets it.. by living up to Scripture. If it fails to do so, then all the malarky about "apostolic succession" is seen for what it truly is - an attempt to make their own rule to be measured by because they don't live up to the one they are supposed to if indeed they are Christian - and they are not.

At the end of the day, the scriptures were given to us as a measure by which we could judge who is genuine and who is trying to pull the wool. If Rome had any legitimate claim, it would be discernable by comparing their doctrine to that of the scriptures. That is where we are. And the two look nothing alike.

[Schwaeky]

an obvious blunder, as a Catholic and wife of head of state who was likewise Catholic (in a nation that has no royalty) she would have been within her rights under protocol to wear white...

[Brit1]

Most of the 'anti-catholics bigots' reside in Northern Ireland with a few scattered around Scotland .Down here in England most of us are a bit more circumspect and mostly take people as we find them

Me I'm just waiting for someone to explain to me how 'God' made the world in six days,the earth is only 4 thousand years old and Mary was a virgin.

Still as I have a physics degree I may have to wait a long time.(pun intended)

[SoothingDave]

No; but, once again, nice try at misconstruing the situation as an attempted jab at me. Eloquent; but, hollow.

There is no substance to your post. It's apparent you have lost the argument. I showed very clearly how your assertion that the Vatican makes non-Catholic women wear black and allows Catholic women to wear white because black is sin and dirty and white is pure and clean, is complete bigoted hogwash.

That you have no answer is to be understood. The only possible answer will never escape from your lips: "I was a prejudiced fool who had no command of the facts of the situation."

You may apologize at any time now.

SD

[Petronski]

...it's interesting that it's your decorum that says only Catholics can wear white (symbolically pure/righteous) where non-Catholics would have to wear - other than the pure/righteous garb.

You're such a shabby liar.

[Petronski]

You may apologize at any time now.

He doesn't apologize to Catholics.