As many of you have read by now, Cardinal O'Malley went to a Baptist Minister to have his baptism reaffirmed.
Let me ask this question (and I think we all know the answer).
Why doesn't he go to Anne Robertson to renew the vows of his ordination?
Would he not wish to leave Catholics (or the Protestants for that matter) with the impression that she has the power and authority to do such a thing?
Why then would he simulate a Sacrament of the Catholic Church that could (and most likely does) confuse Catholics?
Furthermore, why with this woman?
The minister, Anne Robertson, authored a book "God's Top 10: Blowing the Lid Off the Commandments" in which she describes blowing the lid off of prohibitions against contraception, legalized abortion, and same-sex marriage.
Even if one is willing to sink low enough to undermine the Sacraments with the Tom Foolery of letting our separated sister publicly anoint an Apostolic successor, wouldn't the advocacy of murder and immorality prevent one from participating in this farcical ritual?
How about if she advocated for apartheid or ethnic cleansing?
Or is it just the murder of children and spiritual mayhem upon our homosexual brothers and sisters he's willing to overlook.
This was my favorite part:
She paused with the priest at the cardinal’s pew, so they could receive the baptism water from Cardinal O’Malley. The next moment, the cardinal quietly asked the Rev. Robertson to administer the water for him.
“My heart immediately went to my throat,” she said. “To be asked that by the man who might be pope someday – I was stunned. I was choking back tears for hours.”
We are crying too baby.
We are crying too.
163 comments:
I do not want to be harsh in my thinking, but after reading the story in the newspaper, I am wondering: Has he “lost the faith” or has he just “abandoned faith?”
I tend to look at the situation similar to the parents who smoke pot with their kids to be popular with them.
They stop teaching right from wrong, doing all the hard work of parenting that keeps children physically and spiritually safe, so all the kids in town will think he's a cool cat.
At some point, you loose your desire to think about why and focus on the damage to the victims of it.
The Pope ought to call in this fool, and send him to a monastery in a hot, desert place to do penance!
Can't wait to read what Sean posts on his blog this week about this blasphemy ! So when did he invite Anne to his church? Ah, a picture is worth a 1000 words, printing this one for my scrapbook! Talk about showing his true colors? Somewhere over the rainbow.....all is lost appealing to him for anything, onward and upward!
As mad as a hatter.
Carole, you bring up an interesting point.
Has anyone asked whether he would renew his vows of ordination with her?
What's next for Cardinal Sean? Answering the call to prayer at a Mosque? Prostrating himself on a prayer rug as he "prays" facing Mecca? Perhaps a period in a Buddhist temple where he could extinguish "self" and stamp down that insistent ambition? He's clearly insensitive to the non-Christian religions.
He is clearly insensitive to the teachings of The Catholic Church! So many schisms and heresies here but what jumps out is modernism! read the Syllabus Condeming The errors of modernists, Pius X. And the Holy Sacrament of Baptism.. Then of course there is the Bible but Modernists don't believe that to be Inspired by God.
I bet Pope Francis isn't upset at all about what Cardinal O'Malley did in reaffirming his Baptismal vows to a Protestant pastor. Things have changed in Rome
I'm afraid we have a lot more modernist antics in store for us in the coming new year. The Bishop of Rome is of the same mindset as Cardinal O'Malley....we have to stop trying to ignore the elephant in the room ( the modernists are running the show) . We' ll be accused of being haters and lacking in charity because we hold true to Church Teaching .....so what else is new??
" the modernists are running the show"
they sure are.
Being popular is very important to Omalley...what a poor leader he is...
my jury is still out as to whether our Holy Father believes the path to converting separated brothers and sisters is undermining Sacraments with farcical and meaningless rituals with people who hold no power to confer Sacramental Grace of Sacraments.
I am thinking he isn't, in spite if all the hooey of the media.
If it turns out the execution of his agenda thwarts our children from being taught celibacy is the only viable action in response to desires to have sexual relations with same sex or opposite sex to a person whom one is not Sacramentally married, I will personally pronounce it as anathema and lead a crusade to direct families with small children into our Latin Rite Cimmunities. There are many, many, even on very high levels who will enjoin me in that crusade.
The best thing about pointing out the ape of Christ's Church is being operated within and lead families into a parish where a priest will teach them their religion and give them the tools to resist such urges, is knowing we are cutting off the oxygen they need to survive.
The Pope will have under his nose, a manifesto of apostasy and its ramifications, along with post it notes that explain to him that he best tread carefully as American mothers and fathers are finished with the church of Caligula, and it is his job to police it as the bishops are corrupt.
This blog post is in every way possible one of the most egregiously embarrassing things I have ever read as a devout Roman Catholic. Seeing people discouraging understanding and cooperation between fellow Christians this way makes me realize that our Church and some our parishioners have quite a long way to go. Much praise and thankfulness to Cardinal O'Malley for making a wonderful effort to exemplify the love of our Lord and Savior Christ.
Feigning sacramental power upon a woman who does not posses is not an effort to "encourage understanding". It is an effort to encourage misunderstandings to every singl person who witnesses it.
Nobody objects to efforts to work together and develop relationships. Promoting "understanding" Of Catholic Sacraments does not involve undermining them.
Let him "reaffirm" his ordination if he wishes. Leave Sacraments that belong to laity alone, particularly with a woman who promotes immorality and clean facilities to murder children. We have enough problems on our hands trying to convince our children that the Sacraments of the Catholic Church are different than rituals that simulate them
How about if this was just an act of spontaneous love.
Did he know that the woman supported abortion, etc.
Even if he did know every stance she took isn't an act of love always appropriate?
Didn't Christ surround himself with sinners?
"Didn't Christ surround himself with sinners?" It's so easy for people who are caught up in the theological semantics of our faith to forget this, but that could not be more true.
"Didn't Christ surround himself with sinners?" It's so easy for people who are caught up in the theological semantics of our faith to forget this, but that could not be more true.
"Didn't Christ surround himself with sinners?" It's so easy for people who are caught up in the theological semantics of our faith to forget this, but that could not be more true.
I know this is difficult to understand, but for the same reasons he would not share the sacramental ritual of Our Blessed Sacrament or Confession or Ordination, feeling spontaneous affection and love might call for a hug or peck on the check, not anointing a Catholic Cardinal.
My mistake, computer started bugging out as I submitted this comment.
The greater message of this is that a Catholic is acknowledging the validity of a fellow Evangelical Christian (we are, by definition, Evangelical Christians, after)as a member of the Kingdom of God. It's not enough to tolerate Protestant Christians when we should acknowledge that we are one body of believers, not multiple.
Christ did not give the power to confer Sacraments of the Catholic Church to the sinners he are and dined with for the purpose of converting them. That power is reserved for ordained men. In emergencies of impending death, any catholic can baptize. This ritual doesn't meet the standards.
This is not a picture of him sitting in a restaurant.
see the difference?
We are not one Body.
The Body we are speaking about when we talk of Sacraments is What we refer to as Mystical and limited to The One Catholic Holy and Apostolic Church.
We are united in our faith in Christ as believers. But we do not share Sacraments.
The point of this ritual is not to convert anybody. These people are both sinners, and both clergy, just as I'm a sinner, you're a sinner, the holy father Pope Francis is a sinner, etc. This is the two acknowledging each other as equals.
That's fine, I agree that we don't share sacraments. We do share Christ. Sharing all of the sacraments is honestly immaterial compared to sharing Christ.
Colin,
When a simulation takes place that we share Sacramental power, that is misunderstanding that needs to be addressed. This is not a discussion about our shared love for Christ or dining together as two sets of sinners seeking salvation.
It is a conversation about Catholic Sacraments.
Not to Catholics.
Catholic literally share Divine Properties of Christ in our Sacraments. We are protective of that understanding because we have to be for the sake of our own children.
In this instance, this is certainly not a Catholic-specific sacrament being performed. It is specific to our faith as a whole, but I totally agree that it isn't specific to our denomination of Evangelical Christianity.
The picture depicts a Catholic Sacrament being affirmed by a person who is not ordained.
Does that make sense?
I am protective of the Catholic sacraments as well and there is a reason I believe that all are important, and why I have taken part in or plan taking part in them all. The sanctity of our sacraments is not at stake here, and many seem to forget that.
Reaffirmation is not specific to Catholicism, only the original Sacrament of Holy Orders, the original ordination.
She is anointing him. She is affirming a Sacrament which can only be conferred by an ordained person, except in emergency.
Hug her, kiss her, love her, eat with her, work together, express our mutual love in other ways, would have been moving. But the picture and ritual is what it is and our differences are important to Catholics.
Catholics do not renew Catholic Sacraments at the Protestant Church. We do not do it.
The picture portrays her reaffirming his Baptism (which the Catholic Church's official stance says she has the right to do as a Methodist, with which I firmly agree).
When we reaffirm, we receive, literally, the Blood of Christ and its Divine Properties.
Hey, you're debating the Roman Catholic Church at this point, not me. Ask a Deacon or Priest at your parish why Baptism from Protestant denominations is acceptable.
Knowing what we know as substance differences, this is problematic for the propagation of understanding.
He ought not to have done it.
Whatever you choose to believe about it, he is within his rights according to the laws of our Church.
You misunderstand the circumstances in which we accept Baptism.
We so not conflate Baptisms in a Protestant Church with those done on A Catholic Church.
Baptisms done in a Protestant Church are not recorded as Baptized. The reasons for that explain the special circumstances when we accept and incorporate Baptism, and record its validity in the Catholic Church.
Please do not lead others into misunderstanding .
Wow, as a United Methodist pastor, the level of ignorance and vitriol in these comments is stunning for a supposedly Christian blog. Are many of the commenters here even aware of the Catholic Church's stance on ecumenism? First of all, it was not a Baptist minister, but a United Methodist. Secondly, the reaffirmation of the baptismal covenant in United Methodist churches is NOT a baptism or a sacrament. It is a time to remember one's baptism, similar to touching the water in a font and remembering one's baptism in any Catholic church. Since the Catholic Church recognizes Methodist baptisms as valid, there is no problem with this. Lighten up people!
Colin,
You seem to be giving people the impression that baptism in a Protestant Church are accepted by the Catholic Church. This is the exact kind off misunderstanding that will be spread by this ritual.
When a Catholic Baptizes a child in the Cathilic Church, the parents of that child and Godparents enter into a contract that states as the child's physical and spiritual guardian, we affirm our acceptance and unity to Church teaching for that child until the Sacrament if Confirmation when the child does it himself or herself. The Baptism is accepted and recorded.
Conversely, a Protestant Baptism does nine if these things. Therefore, it is not accepted until a person presents themselves seeking communion with the Carholic Church at which time, the person is Catechized and enters into a contract with the Catholic Church for another Sacrament. Then, the baptism is accepted with that contract. For the Sacrament of Marriage, the person does not have to convert, but they must agree to raise children as Catholics as part of their contract.
Cardinal OMalley may be benefitting from this confusing act, but people who will use it to say things like baptism is accepted by the Catholic Church is too high a price for us to pay.
"This blog post is in every way possible one of the most egregiously embarrassing things I have ever read as a devout Roman Catholic."
are you always this hyperbolic? or just when one of your sacred cows is questioned?
The RC Church recognizes a baptism if it is done with the proper intent by the pouring of water over the head of the person to be baptized (or the immersion of the person in water); and the words "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." The person baptizing must intend to baptize in the name of the Holy Trinity, as understood by the RC Church. The Church recognizes that Protestant baptism is valid because the necessary intent is present. On the other hand- a Mormon baptism is not recognized due to the lack of orthodox Trinitarianism. A lay person can baptize in an emergency. Personally I was baptized by a nun, which was completely valid in the circumstances.
The issue concerns Cardinal O'Malley's decision to "re-affirm his baptism" at the hands of a pro-abort, anti-marriage cleric. The Cardinal is an adept at the meaningless gesture which plays to the secular media. This was a prime example. Would Cardinal Sean "re-affirm" his baptism at the hands of a pro-life, pro-marriage, Bible Evangelical Christian? No, it would not promote his image amoung secularists and would be lambasted in the secular media.
Secondly is the question of shallow ecumenism. A Prince of the Church should not participate in non Catholic rituals. He may pray with non Catholics. This has been re-affirmed by the documents of Vatican II involving ecumenism.
Wow, where are all the judgemental people coming from? LOL.
Paul, as explained above, a baptismal promise of a Catholic is different than a baptismal promise of a Protestant.
Therefore, you can't "remember" it by having a non ordained person from a Church whose beliefs would lead a Catholic soul to eternal damnation perform the ritual.
In all the years I have been a Catholic, prelates renew the vows of Baptism at a Catholic Mass with a Catholic priest and we repeat our vows.
If anyone can cite the location in the GIRM where the ritual of recalling Catholic Baptism is done in the Protestant Church - I would appreciate it.
Wasn't Christ's message based on radical love? Did He get caught up in specific rituals? Didn't he call out the Pharisees for making the yoke of the people heavier. I don't see the love for the Cardinal as a fellow sinner. Why don't we just assume he was acting out of love?
Christ's message doesn't seem to be represented in these exchanges.
You're talking about the kind of radical love that a Man would deliver Himself unto execution so that His Body and Blood could be delivered to His sheep in His One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church?
Why the rash judgment?
Nobody knows his intention or motives.
Plenty of parents smoke pot with their kids to demonstrate their love for them. Suffice it to say, though they love their child, what they do damages them.
One is expected to kick love up a few notches as a parent - and especially as a priest, bishop or Cardinal or Pope of the Roman Catholic Church.
Furthermore, why is it you just don't assume I and others expressing concern are acting out of love?
Let us cut to the chase.
I love Christ. I love His One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. I love the Sacraments. I love the salvation His Church purchased for everyone.
The most important thing in this world is ensuring the people I know and love (and even those I don't),get the teachings that unite them to the above.
Let's cut the tired old rhetoric that Catholics who refuse to accept what is obviously harmful to understanding Catholic Sacraments are not acting in love.
We are children whose spiritual parents are on a toot. Taking care of themselves, draining the rivers they do not own. For decades, obstructing their children from drinking the water they have rights to inherit.
They've brought you into our family feud, expecting his starving children to drink the poison they offer.
Drink of it if you wish. Those of us educated in the faith intend on preserving it and passing it onto our children intact.
n.b.
You better believe He was 'caught up in rituals". He laid down His Life for them. That was what the entire thing was and is all about!
http://cms.bistum-trier.de/bistum-trier/Integrale?SID=CRAWLER&ACTION=ViewPageView&MODULE=Frontend&PageView.PK=2&Filter.EvaluationMode=standard&Document.CI.Stichwort=Bischof+Dr.+Stephan+Ackermann+
contagion
"Wasn't Christ's message based on radical love? Did He get caught up in specific rituals?"
So you would like the Roman Catholic Church to adopt syncretism and indifferentism in the name of your conception of "muskrat love"? Will you be calling upon Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Jews to "not get caught up in rituals"?
re: anonymous post citing contagion.
Can anyone read German?
I'd like to know if what transpired here in Boston came from the fracture in Germany?
Also - if anyone is in touch with our German brothers and sisters, I'd like to know what the laity did as their bishops were leading them all into the pit.
Was there any kind of resistance in the public square or did they just sit quietly as their bishops instituted a formal schism of the entire country full of Catholics.
Very important to know. Please reach out to your networks. You can email me the info if you wish. Follow my profile and a link to my email is there.
Thanks.
I think I could use some of this:
http://www.katu.com/news/local/Woman-to-expand-Portland-cuddle-business-hire-staff-240376711.html
LOL.
(just kidding. If you have to pay somebody to make you feel loved, tis time to take an inventory of what's broken inside and fix it so you can have real relationships)
Well, I've spent an hour trolling the internet looking for the citation of Catholic ritual of 'recalling' our baptism in a protestant Church.
I could not find a single source - not one - that referenced it.
Every source that spoke about renewing the Vows of Baptism - is in the context of Catholic Masses, Funerals and Baptisms done in the Roman Catholic Rite.
II. How Is the Sacrament of Baptism Celebrated?
Christian Initiation
1229 From the time of the apostles, becoming a Christian has been accomplished by a journey and initiation in several stages. This journey can be covered rapidly or slowly, but certain essential elements will always have to be present: proclamation of the Word, acceptance of the Gospel entailing conversion, profession of faith, Baptism itself, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and admission to Eucharistic communion.
Anyone who can find anything in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the General Instruction of the Roman Missal -or any other document of the Church that gives instructions on recalling the baptism of a Baptized Catholic in a ritual performed in a Protestant Church -- please enlighten us as to where this elusive Rite is accepted by the Catholic Church.
The theology of it stinks to the high heavens.
Just doesn't gel theologically or in common sense ramifications to the witnesses to it.
Wouldn't be the first thing I learned at 57 years old. But as a matter of following the instruction of our faith on the Sacraments - show us the goods!
Carole, the blog is linked at HuffPo. I assume the judgmental people are coming from there?
Do you suppose the Pope reads HuffPo? It would be right up his alley. Better take your phone off the hook?
I was directed to this site from a link on another site.
We haven't heard from the Cardinal himself, and yet you all have already tried, found guilty, and sentenced the man. With a blog that attracts readers like those posting here, I think this is one Catholic blog that I won't be adding to my list.
Way to go guys - nice way to jump to judgment. Calling him a fool, likening his actions to a parent smoking pot with kids. Are you for real? Now go stand in the corner and think about what you said...
And go ahead and tell me how wrong I am. I really don't care since I'm not coming back.
I'm going to go say a rosary now and pray for you all...
Are you listening to your rash judgments?
If you think the Catholic Church does not defend Her own Sacraments from error and Her own people from Confusion coming from that error, you have been misguided and probably will find no comfort here.
God Bless.
Just to clarify about the validity of Methodist baptism:
So long as proper matter and form and intention (which would be presumed from using proper matter and form) are present, the Catholic Church would recognize baptism as valid. Even an atheist can perform a valid baptism recognized by the Catholic Church, to hearken back to a classic chestnut of sacramental validity from Sacraments 101, as it were.
Carol, stop looking you'll never find it. But do find and read the Encyclical of Pope Pius X on The Doctrine of the Modernists and the Syllabus Condemning the Errors of the Modernists, a lot of responses here reek of it! All Christians recognize the Protestant Baptism as being valid, valid in the Protestant Church not the Catholic Church. That is why when a person converts to Catholicism they receive the Sacrament of Baptism in the Catholic Church and receive sanctifying Grace. The only time I am aware Catholics renew or reaffirm their Baptism is during the Easter Vigil or Mass. As for Blessing one self with Holy Water from the font, that practice is to receive a Sacramental and Grace. As for people calling others judgmental, hmm, who are we to judge? Yes we are all sinners, that does not mean the sin should continue or be allowed to flourish, the Cardinal implied incorrectly what division exists between the Catholic Church and Protestant churches, he is misleading his flock and causing confusion. Where confusion is so is the devil.
anonymous,
You misunderstand the teachings of the Catholic Church. We may accept that a Baptism of a Protestant procures their Christianity, but we do not accept the Baptism as an acceptable ritual for a Catholic.
The Baptism of a Catholic includes a contract and recitation of the Catholic Credo.
There is only One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church for Catholics. All others are Christian churches are separated from It.
The Rite involves a duty to bind the child to that One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
What name do you give your child? (or: have you given?)
Parents: N.
Celebrant: What do you ask of God's Church for N.?
Parents: Baptism.
The celebrant may choose other words for this dialogue. The first reply may be given by someone other than the parents if local custom gives him the right to name the child.
In the second response the parents may use other words, such as, "faith," "the grace of Christ," "entrance into the Church," "eternal life."
The celebrant speaks to the parents in these or similar words:
You have asked to have your child baptized. In doing so you are accepting the responsibility of training him (her) in the practice of the faith. It will be your duty to bring him (her) up to keep God's commandments as Christ taught us, by loving God and our neighbor. Do you clearly understand what you are undertaking?
An Exorcism is performed.
The celebrant questions the parents and godparents:
A. Celebrant: Do you reject Satan?
Parents and Godparents: I do.
Celebrant: And all his works?
Parents and Godparents: I do.
B. Celebrant: Do you reject sin, so as to live in the freedom of God's children?
Parents and Godparents: I do.
Celebrant: Do you reject the glamor of evil, and refuse to be mastered by sin?
Parents and Godparents: I do.
Celebrant:Do you reject Satan, father of sin and prince of darkness?
Parents and Godparents: I do.
According to circumstances, this second form may be expressed with greater precision by the conferences of bishops, especially in places where it is necessary for the parents and godparents to reject superstitious and magical practices used with children.
Next the celebrant asks for the threefold profession of faith from the parents and godparents:
Celebrant: Do you believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth?
Parents and Godparents: I do.
Celebrant: Do you believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was born of the Virgin Mary, was crucified, died, and was buried, rose from the dead, and is now seated at the right hand of the Father?
Parents and Godparents: I do.
Celebrant: Do you believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting?
Parents and Godparents: I do.
The celebrant and the congregation give their assent to this profession of faith:
Celebrant: This is our faith. This is the faith of the Church. We are proud to profess it, in Christ Jesus our Lord.
All: Amen.
A Baptism in a Protestant Church is NOT RECORDED as a Sacrament of the Catholic Church. Nor is it incorporated into unity with the Catholic Church.
A Catholic Bapstism unites the soul to EUCHARISTIC COMMUNION with the Roman Catholic Church.
It is a contract between a Roman Catholic and the Roman Catholic Church and is entered and recorded as such.
To leave the Catholic Church, one actually has to go through the Canonical exercise of disavowing your Baptism and formally having that Baptism as rejected. Such an action is blasphemic in nature and condemns that soul into perdition.
There is much confusion about the matter - which is compounded by the foolishness of simulation of recalling a Catholic Rite of Baptism at the hands of a separated person who has no authority to do so.
KD, I have given up. I did give it the college try.
I duly note that those who claim to cite Church teaching on this matter have moseyed on down the road without posting it!
Who is kidding whom?
I'm only this hyperbolic when fellow Catholics act like this. It makes me sad that there are still people like you but people like our Pope and like Cardinal O'Malley give me hope. The only "sacred calf" I worship is Christ. Maybe you should all take an example from Protestants, stop worshipping our Catholic Theology instead of the Christ who it is supposed to honor, and do likewise.
I guess Colin I would respectfully ask that you do some introspection on your own unwillingness to acknowledge that you reject the Catholic Church and lash out against those who preserve It's teachings and defend Her against error.
But there is right and wrong in that equation.
I am truly sorry for your state and will keep you in my prayers. Americans are not going to let apostates lead an entire nation into the abyss like the laity did in Germany. We are going to stand up and fight. We owe that to Christ.
I also saw a post that spitefully referred to this woman as a "Bible Evangelical Christian." I may be Catholic, but I value the Bible infinitely more than my Roman Catholic theology, I do have my priorities straight.
I will keep you in my prayers that you will one day realize the true mission of Christ and the Church. My heart aches for you and all like you, it's a detriment to the Roman Catholic Church.
Colin,
I believe you mean my posting as "spitefully referring" to the Methodist minister as a Bible Evangelical Christian. You need to read and understand before doing the accusation thing. I specifically stated that Cardinal O'malley would avoid this kind of ritual presided over by a "Bible Evangelical Christian" who was a firm pro-lifer etc. It didn't refer to this minister nor was it spiteful, it was respectful.
I am grateful for your prayers my brother and will put them to good use.
But the Bible and Christ's One Holy Apostolic Church and Her Sacraments are inseparable. They are one and the same. Your inability to connect the two to draw your conclusions makes it impossible for us to have common ground on the Sacraments of the Catholic Church.
We have to teach and preserve what is written, obey it and teach others the beauty in it. The distinctions that make His One Holy Church the only course to salvation for Catholics.
I (and all here) hold no delusions about the Mercy of Christ. Mercy releases sinners from the vice of sin. Through the Sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church.
That ritual wasn't it. That is irrefutable. Whatever that makes Cardinal O'Malley's actions is not a condemnation from the people explaining Church teaching to those who are confused by his actions.
Like every dumb thing each of us does, against Church teaching, our actions condemn ourselves.
I would say Mike Huckabee is a Biblical Evangelical Christian and I love Mike, respect him - as I do others who share our love for Christ Himself. I'd work for Mike, I'd work on common initiatives with Mike, I'd eat with Mike and I pray he would eat with this Catholic and sinner.
But participate in a public ritual that appears to simulate a Catholic Sacrament? No way. As much as I love Mike - I love what Christ is and what He did and does in the Sacraments much more.
That's the way it should be.
Actually, baptism is a sacrament, period. The recording of the sacrament has nothing to do with its validity.
Btw, this is particularly important about baptism because it was why the Church asserted jurisdiction (in the Holy Office, for example) over any validly baptised Christian, even if they were not baptised according to Catholic ritual. The Holy Office had no jurisdiction as such over people who were not validly baptised (like Jews, Muslims or pagans).
In your effort to complain about the Cardinal here, you yourself have gone off the reservation on your understanding of the sacrament. Frankly, you should just erase that part of your discussion and responses to it (mine included at that point). Don't dig your heels in on that.
n.b.
It is absolutely absurd to draw the conclusion that a woman misleading Christians into sins of immorality and murdering children - and simulating Sacraments is virtue and those pointing out it isn't the correct path for Roman Catholics in accordance with Roman Catholic Church teaching - is a 'detriment' to the Roman Catholic Church.
It doesn't get any weirder than that!
I apologize for misinterpreting that comment, I was being overly-defensive.
By virtue baptisms performed outside of Christ's Church that follow the formula that make them a valid sacrament for as it pertains to initiation into the Protestant Church - that situation does not make that a ritual which Roman Catholics may participate in.
It is not a Roman Catholic Sacrament as it does not have the substance to admit that person into Eucharistic Communion - essential substance for Roman Catholic unity with the Roman Catholic Church.
Colin,
no problem. Cheers!
Carol,
the validity of Protestant baptism in this discussion is a red herring.
The shallow ecumenism of a Cardinal participating in a Protestant ritual is the heart of the matter.
Excellent discussion of this at:
http://catholicstand.com/cardinal-omalleys-ecumenism-false-fruitful/#comment-1206531395
I have cited Church teaching which explains Eucharistic Communion (the substance lacking in Protestant Baptism)
The Cardinal is causing much damage here and he ought not dig his heels in on this one and I would not lead him there. Those who have before have led him into a big fugatz in which he was tarred and feathered.
Thanks Colin for your gracious discussion. It is very emotional - we get that. But I would ask you give prayerful consideration to what why we are so upset about what he did.
He is pitting the truth against his own foolishness. He should man up. Instead, he is making truth of the Sacraments look like hate. We are tired of this kind of parenting. Our children have a right to their religion. He is not going to rob us of it without a big huge ugly donnybrook.
breathnatch - nice post from David Gray!
Thanks for linking
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10lamen.htm
Vital reading to understand context of situation.
see how ill advised the media hungry
'cardinal sean' was to do this.
It shows an indifference to the goodness of true ecumenism and it is dividing and causing
disagreement with our Christian brothers.
Omalley should apologize.
The nastiness here reminds me of the catholic church I long ago left behind, full of meanness, abuse and nastiness toward anyone except those with money. Full of self righteousness, who knwo every legality and nothing of the spirit. Sepulchres whitened with hyssop.
People who hate Church teaching are nasty little snakes who bite at the heel of the Catholic Church. The Blessed Mother shall crush its head as it strikes at Her heel.
I regret to say that posts contradicting Church teaching on this matter will be removed.
Church teaching on Baptism is what it is.
This is a wonderful example of the simple, accessible gestures taken up by the Pope, and which other leaders of the church have felt moved to emulate.
Reading this blog and the subsequent comments, you would think that Cardinal O'Malley asked to be baptized by the devil himself.
I appreciate everyone's fervor for the Sacraments (really I do!). I don't believe they, or the church, are so fragile that we need to defend them against such raging acts of love as exhibited by O'Malley.
In terms of any official documents that affirms this simple blessing from one pastor to another, read this:
http://tinyurl.com/SpiritOfTheLaw
In the spirit of encouraging one another to prayer and introspection (how humble of us all!) might I suggest re-reading Mark, chapters 2 and 3?
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, Have Mercy on Me, a sinner.
I assume Cardinal Sean would have no problem having his baptism publicly reaffirmed by Cardinal Richard Williamson?
Richard, I assume you haven't read comments here where people convey the misunderstanding that Catholics can receive the Sacrament of Baptism at a Protestant Church, or if you did read them, you simply do not care how young Catholic parents may be led out of the Church by the fruit of this egregious and irresponsible act of spiritual malpractice.
I also presume you have not read stories in secular newspapers , or dissident Catholic sources, where thousands of Catholics are expressing how this all means the Catholic Church is moving toward accepting what that woman and her separated Church teaches - and celebrating it.
Or if you did read it, you don't care how many people the Cardinal threw into the pit to receive his praises.
This Catholic and the readers here care more about these things than the Cardinal's publicity stunts to be the object of people's praises.
This is not the place for Catholics who shoot the messenger.
There are many Catholics out there who put defending prelates from the harm they are doing by shooting the messenger.
We all know how that works out for their victims.
This is serious.
I must apologize for saying this but I do not have the bandwidth for Catholics who shoot whistleblowers. Try Patheos.
Pharisaical to the extreme.
Yeah, sure. Throw a robe on Kim Jong Un and arrange on the Catholic Feast Commemorating the Baptism of Our Lord, for him renew Cardinal O'Malley's Sacrament of Baptism by anointing him.
And then call the people outraged by it Pharisee.
Scram.
I'm with you anonymous regarding qmpatco's remark, just another example of the Modernists and heresies being spread. Begone Satan!
Am I wrong, or doesn't the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults allow those baptized in the Methodist Church to enter into full communion with the Roman Catholic Church by making a profession of faith and receiving the sacrament of confirmation (only)? (Paragraphs 400-504.)
Yes, I agree that this is all about the evils of modernizing the Catholic Church....said the Catholic blogger via his Catholic twitter account.
Sorry, but the fact that the substance of the minister involves advocacy of clean facilities to execute children matters. Equally sorry to say, her advocacy of immorality matters.
Baptism is a Sacrament of the Catholic Church which cannot be separated from the contract we make to teach and abide by Church teaching.
There is no room to make up your own rituals that simulate Catholic Sacraments or renew them in religious ceremonies using Protestant ministers.
Period.
Since the Chancery is incapable of addressing wrongdoing, when they do it, they leave Catholics who want them to witness to our own religion to be mauled and assaulted when speaking the truth.
We are so sick and tired of it it isn't even funny.
We now have a Pope that is leaving the impression in the public square that faithful Catholics and Church teaching are the enemy if his Papacy and he is going to dismantle the Roman Catholic Church.
You will beg our pardon as we enter the public square and enlighten him of what will happen if he proceeds on the advice on the luminaries in power in Boston.
I guess most of you were all in support of ignoring & hiding the pedophile priests in an effort to SAVE the defenders of "faith & doctrine" the embarrassment of scandal. If you dont like the way the Church as a community of people is evolving, leave. I hear Russia has laws inline with your thinking.
Is it me, or does the comment above this post demonstrate the same old invitations for faithful Catholics to get the hell out of our own Church which we have all been experiencing for the last 40 years, ad nauseum?
Permit me to explain to you, Ms. Congeniality, how the 'evolution' of Church doctrine works.
If the Pope wishes the doctrine to reflect that Catholics can renew their Sacraments in the Protestant Church, he's got to announce that particular religion as in union with Rome and clarify, doctrinally change Church teaching on the prohibitions against killing and demoralizing people in the pews.
If he wishes to manifest the holy family as an evolution into two mommies or two daddies that the Church doesn't make a judgment upon - he's got to make those changes in the Catechism and publicly repudiate and redact 2000 years of doctrine.
Then, it is an evolution of Church teaching which we can - and in fact must - accept quietly. Though we may, and will, instruct our own children the reasons not to do so.
For him to stand in the public square and contradict Church teaching as it stands at this moment - that is not going to work for Catholics.
Let me tell you why.
Parents teaching children in their homes that Fr Screwball has misled them on Church teaching, read and teach them Church teaching to reset their moral compass. We instruct them to abide by by the moral compass of the Church, in spite of Fr. Screwball.
In the face of a Pope witnessing that what their parents are telling them as Church teaching is actually small minded and meaningless rules which the Church no longer makes judgments upon - he is leading our own families into the pit where you are.
You don't come out - you see - you lead our children into it. You threaten, denounce, bully and tell us to get out of our own Church.
The Pope now appears to be saying (and demonstrating), the Holy See is not going to police what priests have done to our families, friends, loved ones and the culture.
I hope he is kidding us.
Two countries of Bishops are leading an entire country full of Catholics into the pit. Every soul in the countries of England and Germany.
You know that this Pope is policing while they are doing it?
A faithful blooming order of Catholic priests, nuns who got out of the church of caligula which they have been operating and failed to police.
The Pope is spending time and energy policing, insulting and making enemies out of faithful Catholic mothers and fathers who have tried to teach their own children their faith - and when they realized it was impossible, sought the refuge of the Latin Rite Community to get away from it.
I've got children, a grandchild on the way - a blog and an unlisted phone number.
He's got a problem on his hands. LOL.
Just to be clear - had Cardinal Sean went to the Methodist service on the Feast of Our Lord's Baptism and left out the part where he scandalized Catholic Sacraments - there would be very little controversy.
One might ask why he wasn't in his own Church celebrating and commemorating the Sacrament of Baptism that binds to Eucharistic Communion - but just the same - had he chosen to give her a hug, take her to dinner, pray with her and her people - for the purpose of inviting conversion -- that is within his discretion of his role. Catholics can support that outreach and invitation.
Catholics who've been asking him to stop his priests and teachers from teaching error, to teach and convert our own children -- and he has refused to do so -- still don't take a shine to that priority. But the controversy would not be scorching the earth.
If that makes sense.
As far as Catholics 'leaving' their own religion - Before we flee the scene and take refuge in our Latin Rite Community - I think we'll shoot some flares across Our Holy Father's bow first.
Thanks for demonstrating what you do to faithful Catholics when they ask to have their own religion witnessed and taught in the public square.
You have not let faithful Catholic families survive in their own Church. You've driven them out with your 'love' and 'charity' demonstrated above.
We are at the crossroads and have girded our loins. Let the games begin.
Right ON Carol! I too as a faithful Catholic NEVER intend or even think of leaving my church. AS long as Jesus Christ is truly present in the tabernacle no one will make me leave! I participate with the Latin Rite but also fulfill my Sunday Obligation in my local parish and will continue, someone has to watch out for the false teachers and protect the innocent. Anon. Has shown their true colors and intentions and should flee to whence they came...
It is funny how so many of us are scandalized by this event yet when was the last time any of us commented about the abuses of the founder of the legionaries of Christ?
It is funny how terrible it is to fraternize with other children of God, but when was the last time we called out those bishops and cardinals who fraternized with priests who abused children repeatedly?
It is funny how terrible it is to open ourselves to the movement of the Spirit of God.
Given that Cdl. O'Malley is on the new pope's committee to reform the Curia, I think he believes the pope would approve of this action -- or, at least, not criticize him publicly. Why? Because if bishops and archbishops are good at anything, they're good at applying their lips to the pope's anatomical seat cushion when doing so serves their personal, careerist interests. If the pope does nothing about this, we will know for sure where his papacy is headed.
Carol,
The back and forth in this posting has been useful. We clearly see that most of those defending syncretism and indifferentism are not concerned with the RC Church as a supernatural reality or even as a religion. They see the RC Church as just one more obstacle to be transformed in their quest for their worldly dystopia. The gent who would like faithful Catholics to pack up and move on to Russia (how ironic this is, considering who was calling for folks to do the same before 1989)is in for a very sour disappointment. Cardinal O'Malley can fill his schedule with attendance at Protestant, Muslim, Buddhist and Jewish ceremonies to his heart's content. Catholic dogma on sexual morality will not change. The natural law will not change. Our friends need to do some reading in the history of the Arian heresy. Almost the entire Western world, and especially bishops, fell under the spell of Arianism. The elites and the military establishment were completely corrupted by it. It promised a less supernatural religion of complacency and adaption to the world. However, supernatural reality reasserted itself by a return to orthodoxy-largely by the example of one man from the Eastern Church, Athanasius. The emptiness of secularism will not satisfy for very long. A new Athanasius will appear on the horizon.
Dear Madam or Sir - if you blown in on the HuffPo redeye thinking this is a blog that doesn't criticize bishops, you might want to take a tour of my archives.
The Legionarres of Christ is an example of an apostolate intended to be a refuge from the internal operating and schism that has been protected by the presbyteral mafia in Rome.
They set out to teach Catholic families their religion - in the face of the obstructions and corruption that has blown the whole thing to smitherines. Sadly, they let a few kooks turn it into a mean and malicious Mark Shea type of cult.
Catholics who protect the misdeeds of bishops and priest is indeed a cult. I assure you, no regular reader here is part of it. We are faithful Catholics who are finished with obstructions to teaching our religion faithfully and correcting errors.
There's no toleration of a cult that protects bishops or the cult that protects the presbyteral apostate mafia.
We are few but strong. And rising. Grab yourself some popcorn and lemonade.
Breathnach - you are so right.
All it takes is one faithful Bishop, Cardinal or priest and the whole poop show goes down like dominoes.
Cardinal Burke perhaps - who knows who.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2014/01/18/cardinal-malley-show-friendship-methodist-minister-sparks-unpleasant-row/Q3HGIxurEP3vyalhQKtGQK/story.html
But conservative Catholics, some of whom feel increasingly besieged as Pope Francis shifts the church’s focus...away from the enforcement of doctrine,
http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2014/01/new_role_shows_pope_s_high_praise_for_cardinal_sean_o_malley
“I wouldn’t use the term ‘power broker,’ because I think that’s the wrong nuance. In terms of trying to develop a pastoral vision, as well as a strategic plan,
errance McKiernan, president of BishopAccountability.org, said O’Malley ignores the “culture warrior” rhetoric of past prelates in favor of finding common ground with all believers. That resonates with Francis, who has already benched cardinals who courted controversy in public fights over church doctrine.
Sadly, the "faith and doctrine' were not defended and that is why we got a whole slew of priests who were not correctly formed
theological.
The Church by lowering its standard
allowed those afflicted by pathic compulsion to enter seminaries and become priests This was what Vat II wrought!
Benedict defrocked over 400 of these priests.
That's genuine reformation and new rules
not allowing those suffering from the compulsion of homosexuality into seminaries.
Now if only public schools would have such reformation because it is there that the major
incidents of homosexual abuse take place.
Galatians 3:28, "There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus."
Yes, that exortation is directed at the converted into the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Those inside of the Church.
The purpose of Christ's Incarnation, suffering and Death was to leave One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Body of Christ and It's Sacraments.
The doctrine of Christ's Church about people who are outside of clarifies the status of those who do not drink of His Body and Blood and their status in the theology of salvation.
The Body of Christ is the River described throughout the Bible. The Throne of God and His Mystical Body on earth sparkles like a crystal and its life-giving water flows from the Blood of the Lamb.
hen he said to me, “Do not seal up the prophetic words of this book, for the appointed time* is near.
11
Let the wicked still act wickedly, and the filthy still be filthy. The righteous must still do right, and the holy still be holy.”
12
“Behold, I am coming soon. I bring with me the recompense I will give to each according to his deeds.f
13
I am the Alpha and the Omega,g the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”*
14
Blessed are they who wash their robes so as to have the right to the tree of life and enter the city* through its gates.h
15
Outside are the dogs, the sorcerers, the unchaste, the murderers, the idol-worshipers, and all who love and practice deceit.i
16
“I, Jesus, sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the root and offspring of David,* the bright morning star.”j
17
The Spirit and the bride* say, “Come.” Let the hearer say, “Come.” Let the one who thirsts come forward, and the one who wants it receive the gift of life-giving water.k
18
I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book,
19
and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city described in this book.l
20
A stark warning to those adding and subtracting.
Let us be crystal clear. Inviting a sorcerer inside, instructing the world that that the teachings on sorcery are small-minded rules which the Church no longer makes judgments upon, and then obstructing, diluting, confusing, conflating and contradicting Church teaching on sorcery - said sorcerer can sit in our building. But sitting in our buildings makes the sorcerer as Catholic as sitting in their garage makes them a car.
Practicing Catholics are at the end of the spiritual malpractice of deceiving the elect.
http://www.usccb.org/bible/john/6
The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat?”
53
Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54
Whoever eats* my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
57
Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.b
58
This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”
59
Baby, nobody around this place is leaving THAT!
So sad as I read these comments. I pray that you all find peace. You may say you have. In my opinion it does not seem to be so.
Thanks to all the faithful Catholics for their thoughtful and charitable comments questioning our wayward Cardinal. And to all those who hope Catholicism is abandoned and is replaced by a secularized "religion of humanity" akin to that of the French Revolution, I continously pray for your release from the despair of wordliness.
TTC, I sincerely admire your passion and writing style.
I was raised a strict Catholic and am still a daily communicant(well, almost).
This "muskrat love" path I am on feels like my first real relationship with Christ in my 61 years.
I truly and sincerely feel the Holy Spirit working through Pope Francis.
Imagine Cardinal O'Malley and Rev. Robertson performing a duet of "muskrat love" at their next con-celebration...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgCk3bnvO5Y
and for a closing hymn:
"Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today...and no religion too.."
I am sometimes struck by people’s passion for rules and think that among the Pantheon of False Idols, must be the Worship of Rules. I wonder how those who love the little rules cope with a Bible full of contradiction and ambiguity. Do they dream of a better Bible? One far less susceptible or open to the dangers of interpretation. I wonder, do they look longingly at the U.S. Tax Code or the descending indentations of sections and subsections that fill the pages of International Maritime Law. But that’s just me.
To be honest, or maybe just less sarcastic, I understand that people find comfort and clarity in different ways, or by different degrees, and realize some might need a sense of certainty as a central support to their faith. That certainty, for some, no doubt is found in the structure, the strictness or specificity offered by a Church rules and rituals, by sharp lines and clear distinctions, narrow, unambiguous definitions, etc.
I have no problem with this. Whatever brings someone closer to God is what matters most, I would think. Whatever ways or vehicles provide the means for this to occur are varied and many and highly individual. Unfortunately, the variability that exists outside the individual is too often seen as irreconcilable with the certainty that lives within an individual, and too often taken to be a threat. I don’t believe this needs to be, nor that such reactions are necessarily the inalterable and inevitable consequence of someone’s certainty.
However, the nature of certainty sure seems to carry with it an inherent risk of projection or transference of truth, from a personal belief to a universal truth. I suppose that’s my objection to those who wrap themselves for warmth, in what the pope sees as “small-minded rules.” Again, I don’t think the procedural rules of the Catholic Church are necessarily or innately “small minded.”
For many of us, “freedom is feeling easy in the harness,” and some may find the rules help in this way. It’s when the “small rules” supplant, or are placed before the “big rules” that they become “small-minded.” It’s when rules meant to guide the practice of rites and rituals are given a greater importance, more emphasis and meaning than they can possibly carry or contain, that they become absurdities devoid of meaning. The more power such rules are given, the more they are emphasized as a test of faith and a means for culling the herd ... the more empty and pointless they become, and the more glaring they stand out in stark contradiction to the clear, enduring imperatives upon which the Church was built (i.e. the “big rules”)---love, mercy, kindness, care, compassion, forgiveness, understanding and acceptance toward others … all others.
breathnatch - now that you mention it ... it is Yoko Ono!
qmpat - thanks for your kind words. I do feel and see the Holy Spirit in our Holy Father too. Every time I see the man give out kisses and hugs, I want one myself! Many times, his love for Christ's people has moved me to tears.
It's moving to hear he's brought you into a loving relationship with Our Beloved. I think of how delighted Christ is after waiting 61 years. :)
Some of the things he's saying and doing is off of the reservation. The Pope needs to be on the reservation 24/7 - or as close to it as possible. Otherwise, there is theological pandemonium like we are seeing here in Boston. Good parenting and love have to go together. One without the other doesn't work.
Andrew, are you under the delusion that Christ went from town to town showing people kindness and compassion and mercy?
You know they hunted him down and killed him right?
We are the people who are so in love with Christ that every micromillimiter of Him consumes our zeal.
Let me calibrate what you're saying -
A man that cheats on his wife or robs his employer who talks about his or her desire to have the freedom in the saddle to do so - and he minimizes the pain he is causing others by caricaturing his wife and employer as being a stickler for rules.
You see the problem with that?
You missed the point. We are not baptized Catholic. We are baptized Christian, as are all denominations. And sorry, but I seem to have missed the memo from God saying that you would be the one to pass judgement.
Back to square one, what the cardinal did was wrong I hope he realizes that by now, some evidence of that is that he did not mention on his blog that when he went to this ecumenical service he went out of his way to ask a pro-abortion, pro-man with man, woman with woman female minister to administer his re-affirmation of his Sacramental baptism. Not as part of the service but intentionally sought her out for this, unless this woman is making this up which does not seem the case since a picture is worth a million words and that's what was plastered in the media from Boston to Germany and beyond. We must pray for him, yes. Because he has a millstone around his neck and causing scandal. It is what it is.
Hey, anon. 2 above, no one is judging, who are we to judge but you are wrong, in the Catholic Church you are Baptised a catholic. Perhaps the cardinal was hoping the minister would pull a Mary Magdeline and fall to her knees and confess..or maybe invite her to the pro-life rally in DC this week? Nah, won't get any 'Media coverage there.
Anon 606,
You missed two points. LOL.
We are united in our Christianity, but Catholics are baptized Roman Catholics. It is way different in nature.
A Roman Catholic Baptism unites us with the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist and all the Sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church AND Its teachings.
We don't 're-affirm' them, except in a Sacrament of Confirmation, which is done by a Bishop.
All the information about important distinctions in the Sacrament are written in comments above.
I am happy to tell you who we are to judge.
Baptized Catholics are the actual owners of the Sacraments and temporal goods of the Church. Our hierarchy is merely preserving it for the generations of Christ's heirs.
The priests, bishops, cardinals have custody of it for the purpose of preservation.
Everything the Cardinal does, including our rituals, is guided by Church laws. He's gone outside of them to create his own ritual.
Church law gives us the right to judge that actions and take actions to tuck him and the people confused by his gesture, back in.
I'm amazed at the lack of intelligence and willful ignorance of church teaching about the sacraments. It's absolutely shocking to see that so many 'Catholics' are willing to defend O'Malley's inexcusable action, but if they were never taught properly that Catholic sacraments were for Catholics only and to be given only by a Catholic priest, not by a heretic, then I can see why they would defend this foolishness. But these folks need to awake, and realize we were called to obey Christ on his terms, not ours.
In one post I read the following: "That is why when a person converts to Catholicism they receive the Sacrament of Baptism in the Catholic Church and receive sanctifying Grace."
I was received into the Catholic Church in 2008. I had been baptized as an adult in May of 1973 in a Baptist church. It was determined that my baptism in 1973 was proper. It was proper as regards form - "in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit" and matter - I was immersed in water.
Cardinal O'Malley has apparently learned something that Pope Francis clearly knows - the power of the visual. If Pope Francis had written a treatise on foot washing, five people would have read it and it would have been forgotten. As it is, people are still talking about what he did. Perhaps the same will be true with this act of Cardinal O'Malley, which was not in any case a sacrament, and might - we can hope - stir the faithful toward fruitful action with other Christians, many of whom refuse to work with us even on matters where the views we hold are consonant with one another.
Or, we can avail ourselves of forums like this and throw spitballs at each other.
I'm always amazed that many people have a need to make the RC Church a reflection of their own ideologies.
There is an ongoing compulsion to take every off the cuff utterance of Pope Francis and make of it an ex cathedra statement of dogma. Not surprisingly these statements are always conducive, when interpreted in bad faith, to an ideological obsession of the Left.
The first catch-all phrase is "who am I to judge?", which was a statement to the press concerning a particular papal appointment. This statement has now been converted by the popular and ideologized mind into a papal veto of the Magisterium. Of course, no educated Catholic of good will suffers under this delusion.
Appallingly, no such status is given to papal statements such as in last week's address to the Vatican diplomatic corps, Francis stated: "it is frightful even to think there are children, victims of abortion, who will never see the light of day". Or when the Pope spoke of the reality of evil and Satan: “The presence of the devil is on the first page of the Bible, and the Bible ends as well with the presence of the devil, with the victory of God over the devil.”Observing that the Lord has given many criteria in order to “discern” the presence of evil in our lives, the Pope stressed that “we should not be naive” and that one of the criteria that has been given is “not to follow the victory of Jesus” just “halfway.”“Either you are with me, says the Lord, or you are against me,” he said, noting that Jesus came to conquer the devil and “to give us the freedom” from “the enslavement the devil has over us,” which, he cautioned, is not “exaggerating.”“On this point, there are no nuances. There is a battle, and a battle where salvation is at play, eternal salvation; eternal salvation.”
These uncomfortable, hard teachings of the Holy Father are given no status and do not compete with "who am I to judge?", instead they are glossed over with an appeal to the "big rules" i.e. "love, mercy, kindness, care, compassion, forgiveness, understanding and acceptance toward others … all others, (hopefully including the unborn).
The second catch all phrase is the Pope's admonition concerning "small minded rules". Again, to the ideologue this can be used to drive a truck (filled with all the agenda items of secularism) through. Since rules are ecclesiastical precepts of the Church and are not dogmas such as the teaching on contraception, marriage, sexuality etc. the bad faith secularist is once again hawking an agenda.
So, "who am I to judge?" and an admonition concerning "small minded rules" are carte blanche for ignoring ex cathedra pronouncements of dogma and the binding Tradition of the Church of two thousand years? To be replaced by what? Pietism, subjectivism, syncretism, indifferntism? That is very thin gruel to offer those seeking salvation, which is a supernatural yearning. Blessed John Henry Newman said it best:
“Liberalism in religion is the doctrine that there is no positive truth in religion, but that one creed is as good as another, and this is the teaching which is gaining substance and force daily... Revealed religion is not a truth, but a sentiment and a taste; not an objective fact, not miraculous; and it is the right of each individual to make it say just what strikes his fancy..Men may go to Protestant Churches and to Catholic, may get good from both and belong to neither. They may fraternize together in spiritual thoughts and feelings, without having any views at all of doctrine in common, or seeing the need of them. Since, then, religion is so personal a peculiarity and so private a possession..If a man puts on a new religion every morning, what is that to you? It is as impertinent to think about a man's religion as about his sources of income or his management of his family. Religion is in no sense the bond of society.”
Look - we, and by me I mean rational Catholics who love their brothers and sisters, are in agreement with Pope Francis about attracting people with love.
He is absolutely correct that the culture has twisted the Church into a police enforcement unit of laws and have forgotten the love.
Love is the reason why we do not cheat on our spouses. If you love a person, you do not violate their trust. You do things they ask you to do even if you don't want to. If they ask you not to do something, you don't do it because you want them to be happy and you are so in love with them that you're wiling to let go of habits or things you want to do.
This is not true, but rather a delusion of the media and enemies of the substance of Church law.
We are in a unique position in that we even wish to attract the enemies of Church law for the purposes of conversion.
In the scheme of things, when we are attracting lovers, to come out of the gate saying the Church is no longer going to make judgments on how the violation of commandments of adultery affect love within a family, and the Church is going to withhold Church teaching - we've got a problem that needs to be addressed.
How love and fidelity is defined by the Church affects how it is defined in each family, each family defines the culture of love and fidelity. The culture defines a country and universe.
While attracting lovers, we do not go to the prisons to look for a mate and say I am lifting prohibitions on crimes to attract and find love, hug each inmate and pass out my telephone number.
There is a problem with the soundbyte which needs to be corrected.
Baptism is a Sacrament. We do not renew them except in the Sacrament of Confirmation. We never recall them in rituals outside of Christ's Church. That is a fact.
What he did was confuse the Sacrament and that confusion has ramifications. We would like to see those corrected. This is our religion.
It belongs to us and we have the right to pass it onto the next generation preserved from error and confusion.
ps - for those who are called into Christ's Church by the magnificent love our our Holy Father - please bear with us as we work out minor adjustments.
We welcome all and we love all. Those of us around for some time are deeply and passionately in love with Christ - our fidelity and love is an important character of the sanctifying grace of the Sacraments - which is the food for salvation. The outcome we want everyone to have.
We have to iron out a few glitches!
Pope Francis should relocate Cardinal oMalley
to Rome where he can keep an eye on him.
He is doing discredit to the Holy Father and his mission to help the poor and prevent the holocaust against children in what the Holy Father says is a throwaway society that discards people.
Omalley should have brought this teaching to John Presber.
We have all made mistakes in this mess. As mentioned above, our precious Blessed John Paul II kissed the koran to affirm the teachings in it.
But let me throw this out there - he may have had a different reason for doing it. He was a very mystical man. In the koran is our crucifixion. The koran is a book of instructions to kill us for our religious beliefs. We always kiss and embrace that Crucifix.
It is my fervent hope that our Holy Father will attract with his magnificent gift of affection and love - and we use this time to secure the substance of sanctifying grace in the Sacraments. We have a few problems to work on. More on that in the coming days.
yes but the followers of Islam also are
horrified and vocal against abortion.
The personage Omalley met with for
his pr promo shot and not to further cooperation
between religions is all for abortion
and the unnatural unions of human beings of the same sex which the good mussleman also opposes
I thought of this example which may be helpful.
A movie came out in the 70s - just a 'bout the time people were smoking a lot of pot - wherein Ali McGraw defined a new kind of love in relationships.
"Love means never having to say you're sorry."
Sounds really insightful when your brain is fried from drugs in the bong.
The media and culture went gaga over it. Many incorporated it into their relationships.
People who want to live in love 'easy in the saddle' are violating the laws of love and trust and insisting that those in relationships accept violations as a condition of love.
Love doesn't work that way.
If you are living in a relationship with your lover and you expect that she accept you're down at the house of prostitution tonight to get into somebody else's saddle -- and she or he must accept that you feed this is a rightly ordered manifestation of love that does not require your remorse, sorrow and firm purpose of amendment to never do it again -- you're lying to yourself and everyone around you.
I would suggest that the conditions you impose upon love have not been very fruitful for you.
Love means having to say you are sorry when you harm your lover. It means changing your conduct so that the manifestation of your love is united, on track, going in the same direction in a bond.
The same is true with our relationship of love with and in Christ.
He is our lover. We are his lover. He has given us the manifesto of the things that harm us and harm Him and our relationship with Him and in Him. Church teaching. When we use human sexuality in any other way but in union of a Sacramental Marriage where HE is present - it is a violation of the Fifth Commandment and the sin of adultery.
It is what it is for everyone attracted to anything or anyone outside of the condition of Sacramental Marriage.
How we approach our Lover and ask Him to accept conditions that we will love Him but not say sorry - that is a matter that needs to be addressed by prelates. It is their duty to address it. Most have abandoned their duties. This is not something we intend to accept in the future. We want our religion taught to the people we care about and love.
The conditions we impose upon loving Christ affect the sanctifying grace we can draw from His Sacraments when we go to visit Him and Eat of His Body and Blood.
In a state of complete rebellion - if we eat and drink in that condition - it does very serious harm to our intellect and soul. It changes the actual properties of our intellect and soul. Clouds and shrouds truth, affects judgment.
And so those of us talking about Ali McGraw show at the Holy See or Chancery - what we are thinking about is far more complex than the law. We are talking bout the theological laws of love and how it manifests itself when certain things are said, done or not said and done.
Theological laws of love in our relationship with Christ and the substance of Sanctifying Grace in Catholic Sacraments are going to handed off to the next generation intact. That is the baptismal duty we intend to carry through. Not out of love of the law - but out of love for our Beloved - and all seeking it.
We are extremely dissatisfied with the past conduct of bishops, cardinal and the romans - and we are in a fight for the soul of the Church as the corrupt still have seats of power.
I hope this has been helpful to understand the substance of our grievances - and our absolute crusade to put an end to the last 40 years of their larceny of salvation and Sacramental sacrilege.
Joseph, Thanks for your thoughts. I think all are in agreement the importance of the substance of Ms. Robertson's harmful teachings and the ritual that gave the impression our the Sacrament of Baptism at a Protestant Church is interchangeable with the Roman Catholic Sacrament of Baptism. I share your concerns.
The cardinal is too concerned with his own image instead of with the truth of our faith.
His actions were ill advised and he showed poor judgement.
He should consider a denomination that has
not been leveled by the secular conformist who have emptied out any meaning from our waning civilization.
there are many faithful churches open to the ecumenical movement.
Andrew, are you under the delusion that Christ went from town to town showing people kindness and compassion and mercy?
Hey, thanks for helping me out with my self-delusion issues. I didn’t realize that Jesus was NOT going around “showing people kindness and compassion and mercy.” My bad. (By the way, you may want to shoot an email to the pope … I’m afraid he’s got the same kind of fantasies going) Anyway, now that I’ve been shown the light, I know I need to go back and read everything again.
Hindsight’s 20/20, but I’m still not quite sure how I got it all so wrong. I am totally embarrassed to think of it now, but I actually thought the story of “let he who is without sin, cast the first stone”, was along the lines of “judge not, lest ye be judged.” (I know, I know! Talk about clueless!) It’s so obvious now that Jesus was making sure that the folks who were the most worthy would have enough time to gather the best throwing stones, position themselves at the front of the crowd, have good spacing for a proper wind-up and enjoy the close access and an unimpeded line of sight to the sinner, to do some real damage. Hadn’t they earned that right by living virtuous lives? Why live like that if you can’t condemn and punish others … people who deserve it?
Clearly, I was overthinking and overinterpreting the main statement of” he who is without sin … ” gets the first crack at the rotten whore, and infusing it with my own naive, positive, Pollyanna misconceptions. Looking for what we want beneath such a clear directive---that makes complete sense at face value--is how we find ourselves on the slippery slope of own self-delusions. We hear what we want to hear and see what we want to see, don’t we?
Although I first found the bulk of your response to me confused and disjointed, a bit like a long non sequitur, I’m starting to really get it now, little by little (e.g. Jesus, in fact, wasn’t going around showing and expressing love and compassion). I’ll keep plugging away at it and get back to you when I have a better grasp of what you’ve written. Thanks again, I could have gone on and spent the rest of my life thinking of Jesus as loving and compassionate. (Whew! what a close call … that’s what one gets, heeding the lies of Satan)
Andrew - what a childish screed to avoid admitting error. You must be a prelate.
I'm not one for straw men and you're not going to use my blog to post them here. I don't have time for it.
Try Patheos. They specialize in them - or get your own blog!
My point was if Christ were only showing kindness and mercy, people would not have chased Him out of town with rocks and then killed him.
Christ isn't just about showing kindness and mercy. He freed people from their demons. Freeing them, meant instructing them about sin and driving it out. Teaching.
So the principle of withholding Church teaching from those who have a right to it and intend on freeing it from its imprisonment - circles the toilet.
You do not know the man.
It’s an absurd dichotomy to think one can live with Jesus, but without the Church, to follow Jesus outside the Church, to love Jesus and not the Church”
“Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it."
"It’s an absurd dichotomy to think one can live with Jesus, but without the Church, to follow Jesus outside the Church, to love Jesus and not the Church” - POPE FRANCIS
“Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it." CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
Here is the excerpt from catholic.com which references the Catholic Catechism:
Why does the Church recognize Protestant baptism if Protestantism has no valid priesthood?
Full Question
As I understand it, Protestants do not have a valid priesthood, and only priests can baptize unless there is a danger of death. Why, then, does the Catholic Church recognize Protestant baptism?
Answer
Since baptism is necessary for salvation and God wills the salvation of all, the Church recognizes all validly administered baptisms, even if Protestant. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
The ordinary ministers of baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon. In case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of baptism for salvation. (CCC 1256)
When considering the validity of non-Catholic baptism, the Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism instructs:
Baptism by immersion, or by pouring, together with the Trinitarian formula is, of itself, valid. Therefore, if the rituals, liturgical books, or established customs of a church or ecclesial community prescribe either of these ways of baptism, the sacrament is to be considered valid unless there are serious reasons for doubting that the minister has observed the regulations of his/her own community or church. (DE 95.a)
The pertinent languages that forecloses Catholics can seek Sacraments in the Protestant Church is the following:
"In case of necessity"
This means, impending death or other serious circumstances where 'necessity' would come into play.
Cardinal O'Malley's confirmation of his baptism on the Feast of Our Lord's Baptism - doesn't come within a football field of proscribed rituals for a Roman Catholic.
n.b.
As mentioned above, 'recognizes' does not intend to convey that a Roman Catholic Baptism and a Baptism done in a Protestant Church are the same thing.
It does not intend to convey that a Roman Catholic can be Baptized at a Protestant Church.
Our teaching on the Sacraments and salvation are very convoluted.
It isn't very politically correct to say, and priests have abandoned their duty of it - but it needs to be said - the teaching of the Church is, there is no salvation outside of the Roman Catholic Church.
It is a scandal that the Cardinal's participation in this ritual has confused so many.
The misrepresentations of Catholic Church teaching to defend his actions compound damage.
The teaching of the Roman Catholic Church does not hold the conviction that a Baptism in a Protestant Church, attendance and worship in a Protestant Church and the teachings that contradict the Truth, is a path of salvation.
The teaching of the Roman Catholic Church holds the conviction that She is the single source for salvation of souls.
You'd never know it, but the role of a Catholic shepherd is to bring those outside of the Roman Catholic Church into It.
It is one scandal to abandon this duty. Another scandal to take actions give veracity to what the Church considers to be worship of false idols or religions. The most egregious scandal is taking an action that conflates a ritual in a Protestant Church as in communion with the Roman Catholic Church and its teachings.
A fourth scandal - those who do not wish to leave this legacy for their children and grandchildren who are forced to straighten out the crooked are subject to mobs who wish to maul them - ironically - for not 'loving' enough.
This world sure is a crazy place!
I don't know whose bright idea it was to suddenly emulate Cardinal Cushing's actions as his legacy is that of a 10 watt light bulb.
I think it was a wonderful moment that our Lord would celebrate.
Bob,
There's only two problems with way you think and feel about our Lord feels.
1. You're not Him.
2. It does not comport with Christ's three years of ministry.
He excluded Gentiles, whom He repeatedly referred to as serpents, brood of vipers, liars, swine and dogs. LOL. Remember?
Christ said - 'do not cast pearls before the swine'.
He repeatedly said very harsh things, like... your father is the devil, the truth is not in you.
The conclusions we have to draw about how Christ felt and acted have to be based upon what He said and did. It's all written down.
Conjecture about how you feel that He feels which conflicts with the words He used and the things He did doesn't gel for us here at TTC!
Each & everyone of you espouses to be "CHRISTIAN " -- I see you epople as selfish , self centered , Hypocrites . --Christianity IS NOT ONLY for ROMAN CATHOLICS -- Jesus served EVERYBODY , REGARDLESS OF RACE CREED , COLOR , PLACE OF ORIGIN , REGARDLESS OF THEIR FAITH --HE SAT WITH SINNERS , ATE WITH THE POOR , THE LONELY , THE WIDOWED AND HE HUMBLED HIMSELF ---NOT ONE OF YOU SHOWS ANY HUMILITY --HYPOCRITES !!!!
I think you may be mucking the Catholuc religion up with Santa Claus.
This isn't your fault.
Rather than invite you into the Body of Christ, the "ecumenicusm" of affirming separation has been the misfeasance and malfeasance of a generation of ordained men.
It is a tragedy.
I am terribly sorry, but as a general rule, I don't publish comments that conflict with Church law and teaching. I do let a few comments through at first, to attempt to correct error or ask questions to get citation to Chirch teaching when somebody claims something is approved and Church teaching, as I want to be sure there isn't something out there I haven't heard in 50 years of studying.
Since I have asked and bupkis has been produced, and we have addressed substance of harm done to understanding the distinction of the One and only religion that can bring salvation, and our Sacraments, I don't see how regurgitating the same substance over and over is productive.
We have an internal problem with our fathers which need to and will be addressed.
God Bless us one and all.
Carol,
Agenda mongers (usually of the GLBT variety)busily troll faithful Catholic blogs seeking a boost to their self-esteem by mocking Roman Catholicism.They fancy themselves great ironists. An insistence that faithful Catholicism has been tossed into the old "dustbin of history" is belied by their fervor in denouncing their nemesis. It's a great mystery why they obsess over something they hate and the people who proclaim it. You're wise not to allow this blog to turn into a three ring circus of dissent, denunciation and duplicity. Let them entertain themselves with Cardinal Sean's blog.
@breathnach, thanks for the update from the gay community. You seem to have your finger on the pulse of GLBT issues. You must spend a lot of your spare time reflecting on the issue. I'm eagerly Looking forward to your next homosexual pronouncement!
Irishman.
No problemo anon omadaun. I'll be sure my next pronouncement is in Gaylic just for you!
Irish language is called Gaeilge. A fool is an amadan. Probably best to stick to nastering English before attempting a second language!
Irishman
omadhaun
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/omadhaun
An Irish word that appears in English literature and political speech.
Noun[edit]
omadhaun (plural omadhauns)
1.(Ireland) A fool, someone who is out of their senses, simpleton. "No, you omadhaun. It bites your shoulder, rips it right off." --Frank McCourt, Angela's Ashes, 1996."...an Omadhaun is a man who began life with some sense, but lost most of it on his journey." --Andrew Barton ‘Banjo’ Paterson, A Story of Outback Life, 1906."Tin trumpets some of the omadhauns had brought along to bray with...." --Hugh Kenner, A Colder Eye, 1983.
Omadaun Anon,
I keep away from "nastering" sounds kind of unpleasant. I'll leave that to you.
"Gaylic" has nothing to do with the Irish language. It's my own form of Esperanto. It helps me communicate with those who believe their sexual agendas require smearing of the RC Church.
Now run along and Google: Esperanto.
Roman Catholics don't use the GLBT term.
Our catechism says that our sexuality is a gift from God which we are thankful for and treasure.
It's all natural man!
Going against nature is evil and pollutes the environment.
Post a Comment