The only intelligent UK protest sign I have seen

Some protesters with their signs have been flashed across the world by the conflict driven mainstream media.

My friend Greg Burke of FoxNews (Rome correspondent) sent me a shot of the only intelligent protest sign I have seen so far.

This fellow, a young man named Toby Guise, is advocating his position by means of a pizza box and black sharpie:

Greg Burke promised a story, and delivered.   CLICK.

Technorati Tags: ,

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Lighter fare and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to The only intelligent UK protest sign I have seen

  1. Mariana says:

    A most refreshing protester. Looks like he has his doggie with him, too!

  2. THE DONKEY says:

    And then there’s the story of Catholic priests wandering into the local Orthodox Church, with one wearing a t-shirt over his clericals which said:

    “FILIOQUE STAYS… JUST GET OVER IT!”

    At any rate, no one knew what it meant.

    I suppose this is the way some of the more violent Church brawls over doctrine in the earlier centuries began. Not too sure if this is all what will work for an intelligent push to a greater unity.

  3. Mashenka says:

    Many years, Toby Guise!

    On thinking more deeply about it, hmmm….

    I wonder whether the “filioque” controversy is enough to offer as the sole reason why anyone would leave their Church to become Orthodox. And isn’t it omitted in the “Byzantine Rite” of the Catholic Church anyway? And perhaps “made optional” in other areas?

    We had a bit of a joke when I was still an Episcopalian, in a church that was so “high” that one might have needed to come to church in a fire truck equipped with a cherry-picker…. those who leaned more toward Orthodoxy at the time just sang, when they got to the 3 notes in the English “Credo” Gregorian chant they sang at that church, “Tiddlypum” instead of “and the Son”.

    Brick by brick, though, till Unum Sint!

  4. KevinSymonds says:

    If he was really smart, he would have realized that the Filioque is a non-issue now that it was resolved years ago.

    I could be mistaken, however, someone correct me if I am.

  5. Mashenka says:

    Kevin, among the Orthodox there are varying shades of opinion on whether the “filioque” is an “issue” or not…it depends on whom you ask. Some people growl that “The Catholics didn’t ask -us- first before they did that!” Other ones say, “If the Holy Ghost is God, He can proceed however He pleases to proceed”.

    Others, Roman Catholics of my acqaintance several decades ago, used to say “We needed it to prevent the Arian Visigoths from subordinating the Holy Ghost in their belief about the Trinity”. To that remark, some Orthodox muttered that some old Byzantine emperor felt that since he couldn’t defeat the Visigoths by his own military efforts, he’d just send them Arian bishops to convert them to Christianity, and they’d ultimately lose because they’d then be heretics.

    Me, I don’t worry too much about it, but I’m not a theologian. What I love is ecumenical councils, though, and it’ll be a great day when the Orthodox can actually come and contribute more than just being “observers”.

  6. This doesn’t have to become a discussion of the Filioque clause. It could actually be a discussion about how this fellow seems to be not at all publicly nasty or weird. Refreshing!

  7. Mashenka says:

    Thanks, Father! I apologise! I agree, it was refreshing to see somebody with an intelligent “protest sign” and a wonderful smile on his face!

    The whole visit by the Pope to England, Scotland, and to talk to the Welsh people and so many others, was refreshing in endless ways, and it’s given many people great joy and hope.

  8. Desertfalcon says:

    Maybe my Orthodox friends are the exception, but the ‘filioque’ is very much an issue with their opposition to Rome. Then again, so is the West’s method of baptism, means of distribution of Holy Eucharist, theology behind the Sacrament of Penance, divorce and remarriage, etc. I used to be hopeful about the relationship between the Church and our separated eastern brothers, but that has significantly waned. The differences between us are far more significant than most Catholics generally believe in my opinion. I tend to think we have a dysfunctional relationship with them as our love for them is definitely NOT reciprocal. They generally view us as not much different than the Protestants.

  9. Athelstan says:

    If only all the Pope’s protesters were like this.

  10. Jack Hughes says:

    I needed my friend to restrain me from yelling at the Protestant ‘truth’ society protesters after the Mass

  11. sejoga says:

    I love the expression on his face. It’s the look of a very rascally five-year-old. I half expect him to live next door to an old couple named George and Martha Wilson.

  12. PaterAugustinus says:

    To Mr. Guise: “Good on yer, mate!”

    You can tell that he was quite amused, standing amidst all the pinheads and their fantastic (in the literal sense) grievances, with such a tongue-in-cheek protest on some obscure point of historic rancour. Do you suppose he was hinting that the modern Protests were also obscure and unintelligible, doomed eventually to be an historical footnote? That they are also a non-issue, the fruit of misunderstanding and lack of dialogue? I don’t think he was really “protesting” (though I don’t doubt he meant what he wrote, on some level); but, most of all, I think he was having a bit of a laugh at all the sillier protests around him. Leastways, that’s my opinion as a fellow member of the pernicious Greek schism! …That is, as an Orthodoxus, atque Apostolicae Fidei Cultor.

    The general admission of most faithful Orthodox theologians, is that the Filioque has an Orthodox interpretation and was so used by the Latin Orthodox Fathers. St. Maximus the Confessor clarifies that there is an “hypostatic” procession of the Spirit, which is from the Father alone. Yet, there is also an “essential” procession of the Holy Spirit, whereby the Divine Essence is transmitted to the Spirit for manifestation, from the Father via the Son. This is a weighty theologoumenon, but is yet far from a Patristic consensus; many Orthodox theologians frankly admit that the full complexities of these intra-Trinitarian relationships are just not a clearly and unambiguously defined element of the Faith, and are too fraught with peril for the casual speculator. So, we confess that there is an Orthodox Filioque, probably involving the transmission and manifestation of the Divine Essence (and certainly involving the temporal mission of the Spirit) but we do categorically deny that the Spirit’s Hypostasis proceeds from the Father and the Son in any case. That we believe to be heresy, and we do object to the unilateral and anti-canonical addition of the Filioque to the Creed… though, not with the same horror, as in the past.

  13. The-Monk says:

    This is all wonderful fare, of course. More power to the protester!

    However, I do believe (and do not believe I am mistaken), that Pope John Paul II issued a statement (document) in which the entire matter of the filioque was resolved…in the favor or the Orthodox.

    Again, I certainly could be in error (but do not believe that I am).

    Better minds than mine might be able to shed light on my error?

  14. JonM says:

    Father Augustinus,

    Yes, I agree with your analysis that this guy was having a little fun and not particularly up in arms over the issue of the Filoque. Rather, his intention was effortlessly polevault above the masses of furious godless.

    Your discussion of, as you put it, ‘intra-Trinitarian relationship’ is fascinating. It would seem right that this area does have room for fuller doctrinal understanding; indeed whether we ever get there on this side is another question.

    I feel a bit boorish, almost as if I ought to slap on chainmail and a Viking helmet while grumpling about in some poor shoot of Latin as I prepare to say this next piece, when compared with your erudite analysis…I guess I just do what the Catholic Church does and accept Filoque, now and forever!

    Again though, there is a certain comfort seeing this tongue in cheek ‘protest’ amid the bulk of anti-Papal demonstrators (not least of which this alleged terror plot.)

  15. DominiSumus says:

    I love it!

  16. Oh wow, that’s awesome! :D I strongly suspect that the young man’s protest was more against all the angry and less-enlightened protesters than against the Holy Father or the Church. Good job!

  17. AnAmericanMother says:

    Oh, he’s clearly putting everybody on, one in the eye for all the rather dense secular protesters who haven’t the slightest idea what he’s talking about.

    I love it and wish I’d thought of it.

  18. LawrenceK says:

    One other intelligent UK protest sign:

    ROMANI ITE DOMUM

    Props for Latin, and for the Python reference.

    You can see it in the crowd photo here.

  19. tobyguise says:

    Thank you Father for posting this. There was a serious intention behind the light-hearted placard: Putting the Filioque up for discussion would create a momentous appeal for Christian unity – summoning the memory of the conciliar age, yet doing so without necessarily sacrificing a point upon which many Catholics are very impassioned. Rolling back the clock to the last Council in 787 would, or should, then place the onus on all denominations to begin looking for ways to reenter commununion with each other (in the broadest terms, perhaps, by the Protestants ceasing to ordain women, the Catholics allowing their clergy to marry, and an Orthodox-style compromise being reached on transubstantiation). I am talking about a Second Conciliar Age. The drive for unity in the early church was rooted in a belief in the imminent return of Christ. And yet the more time that has passed – so, it would seem, the closer it gets – the less fit the church has become to recieve Him. To anyone who even faintly believes in the Second Coming, the calling of a Ecumenical Council is an urgent, urgent issue – and so, I’m afraid, is failing to.

  20. tobyguise says:

    Thank you Father for posting this. There was a serious intention behind the light-hearted placard: Putting the Filioque up for discussion would create a momentous appeal for Christian unity – summoning the memory of the conciliar age, yet doing so without necessarily sacrificing a point upon which many Catholics are very impassioned. Rolling back the clock to the last Council in 787 would, or should, place the onus on all denominations to begin looking for ways to reenter commununion with each other. I am talking about a Second Ecumenical Age. The drive for unity in the early church was rooted in a belief in the imminent return of Christ. And yet the more time that has passed – so, it would seem, the closer it gets – the less fit the church has become to receive Him. To anyone who even faintly believes in the Second Coming, the calling of a Ecumenical Council is an urgent, urgent issue – and so, I’m afraid, is failing to.

  21. tobyguise says:

    oh dear… I have been repeating myself!