Laura Bush's Comments After Papal Audience

  • Thread starter Thread starter yinekka
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Huguenot:
So then, if you met the Queen of England, would you call her Mrs. Windsor…or Betty…?
Click to expand...
 
40.png
Brain:
not everything everyone says is critical or an insult. you have to admit that “his holy father” is odd in even the grammatical sense. and the humor is that she was making an effort to use his title but confused 2 of them.
I if i met the Dalai Lama, I’d call him his holiness becuase that a title people use for him. it has nothing to do with whether or not I actually THINK he is holy, that is what you call him. I meet a jewish leader, I call him rabbi. he is not my teacher or master but that is his title. see the pattern? the first lady was trying to do this but made a mistake in her attempt.
Click to expand...
Well, I think I’d have a problem calling the Dalai Lama “his holiness” too …
I agree that “His holy father” sounds strange, but at least she made the effort …but the immediate question that comes to mind is probably : Whose holy father is she talking about ? :confused:
 
40.png
Aurelia:
So then, if you met the Queen of England, would you call her Mrs. Windsor…or Betty…?
Click to expand...
Well, at first, I’d call her Mrs Windsor, I’m too shy to call her Betty or Lizzy from the start …but well, after a few minutes, why not ? 😃 🙂

More seriously : since I don’t call anyone “her majesty” or “your majesty” ( I don’t even know what the correct words are … ), I think the problem is different ; but I call God “holy father” in my prayers, if I used the same words when speaking to the Pope ( don’t worry, it’s very unlikely to happen … ), I would have the feeling I’m talking to God, well well, wouldn’t that be idolatry inclusive by Catholic standards ???
The President of the French Protestant Federation has met him recently or will meet him, I’d be curious to know how he addresses him … ( maybe he’ll tell us … ) 😃 😃 😃 😃 😃
 
The Queen called JPII “Your Holiness”, so I would guess that would be correct. Proptocol is very important to the British Monarchy, but I don’t know what JPII called her. 🙂

I doubt he called her Betty. 😃

Queen meets the Pope

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

BBC said:
1980: Pope welcomes Queen to the VaticanThe Queen has made history after becoming the first British monarch to make a state visit to the Vatican.

“We support the growing movement of unity between the Christian Churches throughout the world and we pray that your Holiness’s visit to Britain may enable us all to see more clearly those truths which both unite and divide us in a new and constructive light.”
Click to expand...
 
mary bobo:
The White House has a director of protocol and I am sure that Mrs. Bush’s attire was the protocol when a woman meets the Holy Father.
Click to expand...
I’m a cradle Catholic and I wouldn’t be inclined to wear a black veil unless I was going to a funeral Mass in a very traditional Church. Maybe the White House should Update their protocol for Vatican visits. Just a thought.
 
40.png
seabird3579:
I’m a cradle Catholic and I wouldn’t be inclined to wear a black veil unless I was going to a funeral Mass in a very traditional Church. Maybe the White House should Update their protocol for Vatican visits. Just a thought.
Click to expand...
Has the protocol changed then ? 😛
 
It would be interesting if someone from the White House could weigh in on **what ** exactly is the protocol, and why is it the protocol for Vatican visits? For all I know, that could be the current White House protocol for First Ladies visiting with the Pope. But would their reasoning be based on American tradition or on Vatican protocol?

What seems to be happening is the First Lady is immitating Jackie Kennedy, or she thinks she is… But Jackie Kennedy lived in the 1960s and was a Catholic dressing for her times.

Mrs. Bush, is not Catholic. She as a dignified First Lady could wear whatever she would wear going to Church on Sunday, or of that nature. I don’t believe the Pope or Vatican would expect her to dress like a Catholic First Lady of the 1960s. But…I could be wrong…it has happened** onc**e before. 😛
 
Mrs. Bush is a very gracious lady and I’m certain she meant no disrespect to the Holy Father. On the contrary, even though she is a Methodist, I imagine that she appreciates the honor of meeting the Pope. She doesn’t need to “drop names”.
 
40.png
Cactus:
Mrs. Bush is a very gracious lady and I’m certain she meant no disrespect to the Holy Father. On the contrary, even though she is a Methodist, I imagine that she appreciates the honor of meeting the Pope. She doesn’t need to “drop names”.
Click to expand...
If your comment is in reference to my comment just above yours, this is a good example of how people can completely misinterpret someone’s point!

I never said Mrs Bush was not a gracious lady, in fact, I believe I said just the opposite. And, I never said she disrespected the Holy Father, I don’t even know how you come up with that conclusion… :rolleyes:

All I’ve ever said is that the White House should Update their protocol as to how First Ladies present to the Vatican because it “appears” the protocol is from the 1960s and it seems a little “outdated.” The purpose for the Update would be so that First Ladies (particularly those *as dignified as * Laura Bush) don’t have to be embarassed by what others might think of her presentation.

But of course, most Catholics would never voice their opinion about such superficial matters, they probably would think that it was par for the course for the White House protocol. Afterall, when was the last time a Catholic was in Office?..hmmmnnn 1960s. So I suppose that those that are there are doing the best they can.

A “C” for their efforts.

No reflection on Mrs. Bush, I’m sure she trust their judgment.
 
I’m not sure that the protocol for meeting with The Holy Father is a White House one. I believe it is protocol set out by the Vatican, no? Either way, this all sounds a lot like nit-picking to me.
 
40.png
seabird3579:
. . . All I’ve ever said is that the White House should Update their protocol as to how First Ladies present to the Vatican because it “appears” the protocol is from the 1960s and it seems a little “outdated.” The purpose for the Update would be so that First Ladies (particularly those *as dignified as *Laura Bush) don’t have to be embarassed by what others might think of her presentation. . . .
Click to expand...
Has the Vatican changed protocol since the 1960s? I don’t recall hearing of it.
 
I believe that women are supposed to wear black when meeting the Holy Father. As to the veil, I think they are supposed to wear one, I do know that they are customarily worn if attending a Papal Mass
 
40.png
palmas85:
I believe that women are supposed to wear black when meeting the Holy Father. As to the veil, I think they are supposed to wear one, I do know that they are customarily worn if attending a Papal Mass
Click to expand...
Yeah, I really don’t know what the Vatican’s policy is, or even if they have one other than modesty, but I’ve emailed them to ask if they do have one regarding attire. This is really no big deal, I’m just curious. I thought Mrs. Bush looked very nice, but then she always does.
 
40.png
seabird3579:
Yeah, I really don’t know what the Vatican’s policy is, or even if they have one other than modesty, but I’ve emailed them to ask if they do have one regarding attire. This is really no big deal, I’m just curious. I thought Mrs. Bush looked very nice, but then she always does.
Click to expand...
In the past strict dress codes had to be followed by those granted an Audience. Men were required to wear a morning coat or white tie and tails, while women when meeting popes were required to wear full length black dresses and mantillas (black veils) unless they were a Catholic King, (they could wear white.) Formal dress is now normally reserved for diplomatic Audiences. In the 1990s, a Roman Catholic priest in Ireland provoked a controversy by claiming that then President of Ireland Mary Robinson had breached Vatican protocol by not wearing black, by wearing jewellery and by not wearing a mantilla, for an Audience with Pope John Paul II. The Vatican immediately rubbished the claims, pointing out that the traditional form of dress worn for Papal Audiences was no longer obligatory but now optional, and no offence was meant or caused by Robinson’s decision to wear a dark green unveiled outfit. It was also noted how no-one commented when her predecessor, Patrick Hillery, wore a lounge suit rather than a morning coat when attending Papal Audiences.

Modern popes grant large Papal Audiences to crowds in St. Peter’s Square or the Pope Paul VI Hall.
 
Sir Knight:
I think that this is more of an unwritten rule. When Bruno Sammartino was champion of the world, he and his family had a private audience with Pope Paul VI. That information wasn’t made public until MANY years after his retirement and disappearance from public site.
Click to expand...
Ok, that rules! Sorry to hijack the thread…

I didn’t start watching until WMIII, so I only knew Bruno as a color commentator back then. He’s sure soured on the business now, though. Could you imagine any of the current WWE starts meeting with Pope Benedict today? Okay maybe Kurt Angle. I’d kill for a picture of Hulk Hogan with John Paul II 🙂
 
40.png
seabird3579:
Not to change the exact issue of this thread, but did anyone else think it strange that she wore a veil to meet the Pope. She and her daughter dressed in all black, like a funeral or something. Is there some kind of “ettiquette” behind this that most Catholics have never heard of? Do visitors receive a “to do” list when meeting the Pope, or is this just Mrs. Bush’s best guess?
Click to expand...
Heck! I knew that you wear a black dress or suit with long sleeves, a skirt below the knee, and a black mantilla or veil to meet the Pope more than 30 years ago – before I ever CONSIDERED becoming Catholic.

How could anybody not know that? Really. How could you **not **know that?
 
40.png
gelsbern:
Maybe this will help.

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0501qq.asp (the 2nd question)

jimmyakin.org/2006/02/in_the_news.html
Click to expand...
So, in 1976, it was still required to wear a veil when meeting the Pope.

Does anyone have a more recent document addressing the issue?
I noticed that it referred to “these matters” as minor issues. That’s all the more reason they may have done away with that requirement altogether. It sounded like they were trying to tune into what was “normative” for the day.

Thanks for the article, gelsbern.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top