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.

[SoothingDave]

He doesn't apologize to Catholics.

I know. It's just fun to see the self-proclaimed master debater reduced to "No" as the sum total of his reply.

And we all know that simple gainsaying does not constitute an argument.

SD

[Havoc]

Nice mop up. Seriously, you two should go into theatre with that act. But you never seem to stop to think about motivation.. What do you guys do when you're proven wrong?

See, I have the choice here to apologize for acting on bad information supplied in the thread. I have the choice of thinking ubout it, understanding it, and adopting the truth instead of the misunderstanding when I find that there was an error. What do you have? Anathema..

Perhaps I should clarify? :) I seem to remember that Judaism is the source of terms used by Rome today. Unfortunately, Rome didn't seem to think anyone knew that before they ran off and redefined those terms.. Like, say, "Binding and loosing" - which is strictly a judicial clarification of the law as it exists - not an authority to
write new law... Yet binding and loosing has been the source blamed or rather, invoked, when Rome decides to add whatever they will. And they never had such authority. Just like they had no authority to add to the old covenant.
Just like...

This causes no small problem for you. They claim infalibility, binding and loosing, the keys, etc.. Infalibility doesn't exist (remember Unum Sanctum), Binding and loosing was redefined and doesn't mean what they've used it to mean. Correcting that means hacking a great deal of doctrine away that they've added via their misconstruction.
And the keys are held by All Christians. 'Kingdom of priests' from Revelation, Christ charging the Apostles to hand on all they were commanded to all their disciples, etc.

Amazing how argumentation can provide tools to rope-a-dope the situation and use it for example.. just not the one you were hoping for with your theatre. Yeah, I can apologize for acting on bad information. I as much noted to you that is what I had done earlier.. didn't check it out for myself. How was I to know. But, you don't have that choice. If you act on what you know is the truth, your club there will anathematize you and you lose your friends, family, etc.. Remember, we've been down this road before.. Remember pseudo-isidore and the moment to moment changing story on it.. (you don't have to answer, it's still catalogued here on the site.) It affected doctrine, canon law, etc. When do you suppose you will own up on any of these things? When do you suppose Catholics will be apologized to for the lies told them by Rome and yourself?

As for Petronski.. You and I and many of the people here know Petronski and know this is his passion - adhom. What's surprising is not that he comes in and offers adhom, it's that he came alone and didn't turn the thread into a circus with his usual cast of suspects.

Apology, given. Where is ours?

[Petronski]

What do you guys do when you're proven wrong?

When I'm proven wrong, I admit it and apologize. It hasn't happened in any exchange with you though.

[Havoc]

Liar, no. But as adhom is your buddy, nobody here is really suprised that you're here, again, slinging mud for lack of anything useful to say. Christ had the Pharisees, Free Republic has you and yours. Nothing is new under the sun.

[Petronski]

...Petronski and know this is his passion - adhom.

If "adhom" is supposed to mean ad hominem, and you are saying ad hominem is my passion, I will point out again that you have proven yourself a liar.

[SoothingDave]

What do you guys do when you're proven wrong?

We'll cross that bridge if we ever come to it. You delivering your tirades and picking facts and Scripture bits out will nilly to attempt to weave a conspiratorial narrative is certainly amusing, but it is not an argument. Assuming bad faith and evil motives from Catholics (like you did with the white/black clothing thing) and then regurgitating half-digested thoughts isn't either.

You wiggle and waggle and refuse to stay on one topic because you know that, when pinned down, there is no logic there, only your pre-judged spin.

SD

[Petronski]

The passage you wrote which I quoted is not true, and since you knew it was not true but posted it anyway, you are a liar.

You're constantly bearing false witness against the Roman Catholic Church and openly lying about it because of your hateful attitude toward it. This thread is just your latest example.

[Havoc]

Um, actually it has happened. And no, you don't apologize or adopt the truth. Binding and loosing.. etc. You don't have a problem reading, you just read what you want and selectively forget what you would rather not deal with. Otherwise, Rome would anathematize you for saying publicly or privately that the Church is in error.

We understand. Some people just don't have the moral courage of their convictions to stand up for the truth when they stand to lose in the doing. They'd rather ignore the truth for the sake of the club and their standing in it.

[Petronski]

I deal with your own personal interpretaton of scripture just fine. I reject it.

[Petronski]

We understand.

Who's "we?"

You got a squirrel in your pocket?

[Havoc]

Your posting history speaks for itself. As does your initial words here.. not anything useful, just run charge in with an accusation.. Pure, normal Petronski. But, hey, if we were discussing how we all feel today, you'd do that. What would be different.

[Petronski]

As does your initial words here...not anything useful, just run charge in with an accusation.

A true accusation, of course, and a very useful one, because record must be corrected. It's a big job following you around correcting your lies. Sometimes I need help.

[SoothingDave]

Some people just don't have the moral courage of their convictions to stand up for the truth when they stand to lose in the doing. They'd rather ignore the truth for the sake of the club and their standing in it.

See, Havoc, this is why you are ineffective. You assume everyone knows your version of events is "the truth."

Naturally, you then have to assign evil motives to everyone who doesn't agree with you, figuring we know what is true, but refuse for other reasons to acknowledge it.

See, here's the difference. I know you don't share my understanding of truth. I know you sincerely believe the stuff you spout. Any attempts I made in the past to debate with you were based upon a respect for the genuineness of your position. Until you can deal with the sincerity of those who disagree with you, you will remain abrasive and ineffective.

You reveal way more about yourself than you attempt to do about what you "know" about Catholicism.

SD

[Havoc]

Bearing false witness. No. One can point to the facts of what "Binding and Loosing" meant for more than a millenia before Rome got hold of it and misconstrued it into something it is not. All one needs to do is go to Judaism. It isn't tough. It merely requires thinking and checking out what Rome says instead of blindly swallowing it. To you, that is false witness - you know, looking into it and finding out the truth then upholding the truth.

As for what I wrote, that ground has been covered. You're digging for an excuse. Keep digging, that too is illustrative.

[Petronski]

It steams you because you told a lie and got caught. Of course it was bearing false witness. You've done it before and you'll do it again.

[Havoc]

No, Dave, it isn't about your "sincerity". Sorry. We've been over the ground on things like "Binding and loosing" specifically. There is no defense on 'sincerity' to be had.
It means what it means. It just happens that Rome didn't know what they were talking about in offering their version of it and are busted on the facts. That isn't your fault or a matter of your sincerity. It is a fact to be acknowleged by you and which you choose not to for your own reasons. Many of these issues are identical in nature. Begging 'sincerity' while understandable, is understandable as a matter of human nature and a person wanting something to blame. It isn't, however, an excuse.

[Havoc]

Keep nursing your appearances.

[SoothingDave]

It's possible Havoc was not lying.

He could either:

1) Be spouting off on a subject he does not understand, letting his prejudice substitute for information.

or

2) Not know how to understand a simple newspaper article.

Neither alternate explanation gives much confidence that he is to be trusted as the final arbiter of complicated historical and Scriptural texts. And that's what really sticks in his craw.

SD

[SoothingDave]

No, Dave, it isn't about your "sincerity". Sorry.

Of course it is. You need to put aside your condescension.

We've been over the ground on things like "Binding and loosing" specifically. There is no defense on 'sincerity' to be had.

You only prove my point. There is no possible sincere disagreement with Havoc. That's ridiculous. If you have an argument to make, make it. Your bombast is not a substitute.

SD

[Petronski]

That's an interesting theory. As you suppose, he's unable to parse a simple news article, yet his reading of scripture is to be the final authority, setting aside centuries and centuries of scholarship by thousands (or tens of thousands) of men who spent their entire lives studying those same scriptures?

"Things that make you go hmmmmm."