Saturday, February 01, 2014

Cardinal O'Malley's "anoiting" revisited

I'm sure you remember Cardinal O'Malley being "anointed" by that Methodist "ministerette." The only comment from his archdiocese was, as I recall, that there was nothing canonically irregular about his having himself thus anointed in "affirmation" of his baptism. Such "ecumenical gestures," however, are far from benign in terms of what they signify to the public, and apparently part of a pattern that increasingly edges toward brazen disregard for the welfare of the Catholic faithful.

Like him or hate him, Michael Voris expresses the problem bluntly and plainly below in his bracingly "offensive" manner:


6 comments:








bill bannon

said...

Conservative National Review Online has a different view because it doesn't take every detail of a physical event as emblematic of a position on every theological issue under the sun...

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/368615/cardinal-omalley-doing-ecumenism-right-michael-potemra

And Deacon Kandra of patheos seems to agree...

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/deaconsbench/2014/01/omalley-and-the-minister-a-shot-that-shocked/





JM

said...

Quite seriously, does anyone think O'Malley doesn't hold beliefs quite similar to this Methodist, or in terms of emotional orientation to the issues is't close to her? Vorris is talking like it is a matter of judgment. I think it is a matter of belief. O'Malley and she are liberals and probably Modernists to one degree or another. Officially they are quite a distance apart, but not at heart. That would be the obvious way to read the incident. And given the silence from Rome on this and all sorts of similar instances...





Sheldon

said...

There are some issues that canon law has not competence to address, and the impression people take away from watching such a gesture is one of them. It may be canonically licit, but it is abysmally imprudent and misleading. It is fatally "nice" in the way that it is "not nice" to assert that you belong to the one true Church.





JM

said...

Bill,

Seriously? Despite being in NRO, Potema's take is thoroughly the liberal one, on this and many other questions. Gay marriage, for example. Sure, he praises the Ignatius Study Bible. And Rowan Williams. And he also considers a liberal Methodist minister just another "baptized Christian" we need to squeeze and hold hands with... "Blessings!" ... regardless of her sincerely held moral compromises. Having grown up in the Methodist Church, I can tell you orthodox Catholics have more in common with Mormons than they do with United Methodists.

Coulter's comments are ones most pew catholics not narcotized by political correctness and L'OSSERVATORE ROMANO's cultural reviews will appreciate for common sense. Meanwhile, Ratzinger and Francis may crave photo opps with the Archbishop of Canterbury, but that just belies the fact that the Popes now have very liberal orientations. Does that make me more Catholic than the Pope? I don't know, but the proposition is far from outrageous now, even as it was in the Renaissance.

As for Kandra, again, seriously? "Just a gesture," just like Vatican II "just" encouraged the vernacular, but didn't prohibit Latin. Five minutes later...

Our leaders are busy decrying clericalism, but if they are sincere in their "What's the Big Deal?!" than it is apparent in these cases they are the ones living in a clerical bubble. Gestures, just like tweets, travel fast and leave lasting impressions. And O'Malley and Co. have to know that, whether subconsciously or not. Those Silly Conservatives so frequently tut-tutted have for the last few decades consistently been right. Meanwhile the Anglican Church, and Potemra, find their audiences decreasing.





Brian Corrigan

said...

O'Malley is only following in the footsteps of "Pope St." John Paul II who received blessings even from the pagans. Voris and other so-called Catholics will rightly condemn the nonsense when it's everybody but their pope. The fact is none of them are Catholic. It's high time to realize that Rome is not Catholic anymore. Vatican II garbage about encouraging prayer and worship with non-Catholics is an abomination, not mention that it does so while denying the dogma that the Church of Christ is one in faith.





Brian Corrigan

said...

By the way, I'm also a pertinacious papist. Only problem, I don't have a truly Catholic pope to listen to at the moment. I'll have to wait until one of the apostates pretending to be popes converts to the Catholic Faith before he actually assumes office. As of now, I have to go around explaining why a claimant to the papal throne can't be pope as long as he rejects the Divine law on communicatio in sacris while denying dogmas such as the unity and oneness of the Church of Christ.