Dr. Peters on the Pope Francis/Cardinal O'Malley Reformations

Dr. Peters has some excellent observations relative to the 'reformation' of the Catholic Church at hand.

I'm not sure I agree with everything Dr. Peter's says, but his overall observations about ramifications to souls are very good.

The most important point, and one that I have echoed here, the bulk of the damage that Catholics are concerned about are how the peculiar ritual of "reaffirming" a Catholic Sacrament in a Protestant Church is understood by the people watching it, and then used to confuse or attack faithful Catholics.

After all is said and done, people who may find the teachings of the Catholic Church offensive to their personal taste in lifestyle, will go to the Protestant Church as the soundbyte is, bringing your child to a Protestant Church for Baptism is the same thing!

All you have to do, is take a look at the comments section here, to see the contortions of understanding Catholic Sacraments being circulated among the uncatechized.

I do not agree that renewing a Catholic Sacrament at the hands of Protestant minister is canonically licit under the circumstances relating to Cardinal O'Malley's Sacramental anointing in Sudbury.

The word 'licit' means canonically lawful.

If it were canonically lawful, we would be able to find the permission of renewing sacraments in a Protestant Church within the law.

The Sacrament of Baptism is 'reaffirmed' at the Sacrament of Confirmation. The ritual performed by Cardinal O'Malley cannot be found in Church law.

Anyway, this discussion is about the theological law of love and about the damage being done to the understanding of our Sacraments.

Note Dr. Peter's comments:

For example: “It is not a blessing or a sacrament,” archdiocesan spokesman Terrence C. Donilon said in an e-mail. “It is a recalling of the grace of Baptism. Catholics do it every time they enter a church, by dipping their finger into the holy water font and making the sign of the cross.”

Notice, Donilon denies the Protestant minister’s action was a “blessing” but then says it was like Catholics “making the sign of the cross”—which is a blessing!

Blessings are sacramentals. Perhaps the most common Christian sacramental is the Sign of the Cross, augmented or not by the use of Holy Water, and performed by millions of Catholics every day. No canon or liturgical law prohibits baptized non-Catholics from making the Sign of the Cross nor from using Holy Water in accord with its character. Thus, one Christian making the Sign of the Cross on another Christian’s forehead (in explicit commemoration of one’s baptism or not) is simply something to be explained to those not used to seeing it performed by a female Protestant minister on a Catholic cardinal—it is not something whose character should be denied by a Church spokesman, only to be admitted by an analogy that was intended to distinguish the two acts! That is to pile confusion on top of confusion.

Mr Donilon has repeatedly demonstrated his willingness to - and I hate to use this word but it's a fit - lie to Catholics about the precepts of their religion in a crusade to defend the errors of prelates and bishops.

This manifestation of the good ole boys has been a major contributor to the donnybrooks with the Cardinal. Nobody benefits from the necessity to then point out that not only is the bishop committing error, the Cardinal's public relations team is deliberately misleading Catholics to cover that error. The more we correct their errors, the further Mr. Donilon digs the Cardinal into a hole.

It has been a gross disruption of trust in the relationship with our Cardinal.

Changes need to be made to this dynamic.