Is Cardinal O’Malley’s Baptismal “Reaffirmation” Blasphemous?editor
Cardinal O’Malley has baptism “reaffirmed” by Methodist minister
This past Sunday, Cardinal O’Malley preached at a Methodist church in Sudbury. This Boston Globe article gives many of the details, making it seem like a glamorous event. What the Globe neglected to mention was that Cardinal O’Malley proactively asked the female Methodist minister to “reaffirm” his baptism with an “anointing” at the Protestant church. Click on photo to read the entire report.
Lest anyone think that Cardinal O’Malley is just any old cardinal – think again. He’s one of the select group of eight cardinals, hand-picked by Pope Francis to help him reform the Curia. He’s described as a Vatican insider who has the ear of Pope Francis
Has he done anything out of the ordinary in ecumenical terms? Certainly, the female minister seems to think so, judging by her statement when questioned later: “I’m still blown away by it.” She was “blown away” by the thought that she had been asked to anoint a man who may one day be Pope. So are many Catholics. It seems a very strange thing for any Catholic to do, never mind a cardinal. But is it blasphemous?
My very first thought on reading about this “reaffirmation” is, if this isn’t blasphemous, what is?
It beggars belief that any cardinal would do that, but one who is so close to the pope, words fail me.
With due respect to your good self, your surprise amazes me!!!! Of course he has the ear of the Pope!!!! This is a Pope who says Jewish prayers with Rabbis and eats a kosher dinner with 15 Argentinean Rabbis. Gimme strength, or as the Pope might say, oy vey!!!!
I know I can be very simplistic at times. I keep thinking things will get better but instead they get worse so I’m always surprised or shocked when, your right, I shouldn’t. I’d forgotten all about the Pope with the Rabbi. It’s hard to remember everything!
I can be simple too- just ask Ed!!!! I agree it’s hard to keep track of all the heresies etc. Maybe we should keep a log?
‘Pope and the Rabbi’? Now, c’mon, there’s got to be a joke in there somewhere.
I’ve already told the joke at the time of it happening Here it is again
although it is a bit stale now.
Two men went into the temple to pray; one was a Pope, the other a Rabbi.
Now, what bigger joke could you get?
What an unusual individual Cardinal O’Malley is. Does he not realise that Protestants do not have valid ministers or orders? Also, by asking this woman to ‘reaffirm’ his Baptism, does he not realise that he is endangering the faith of Catholics across the USA and the World, by encouraging the sin of relativism and indifferentism? It is all a direct consequence of the poor formation of Priests since Vatican II, and I wonder ( and worry ) at what the Seminaries are teaching and churning out these days.
As for this whole sorry episode being ‘blasphemous’, I’m not sure. Is he saying in a way that his Catholic Baptism needs re-validating, and that the gifts of the Holy Spirit were somehow wanting? If so then he is committing an unforgivable sin by blaspheming against the Holy Spirit. He renews his Baptismal promises every Easter, so I fail to see why he needed to make a spectacle of himself in such a misguided way.
A woman priest!!!! No wonder Catholics support female ordination. It really does beggar belief.
I’m not sure “blasphemy” is the right word either, CC, but I don’t know what a better one might be. As for this incident, we know that the Church set her foot on the slippery slope of false ecumenism (aka “Christian Unity”) at VII, and now we can see that she has slid most of the way to the bottom. I think we will see more and more of this horror with this present Pope, and that under him, the Church truly will hit bottom before Our Lady’s victory occurs.
The example given here is deadly to the Catholic Church.Perceptions are so important.We must not encourage error,lest it be seen as acceptable.Even the gulls and crows are crying out.
Catholics have been receiving Protestant pseudo-sacraments for decades, namely through the Charismatic renewal movement. For example, in these groups lay persons frequently anoint those who desire healing with ‘oil of gladness’. There is the frequent practice of laying on of hands, which is an imitation of the sacrament of Confirmation. And of course, the so called ‘baptism in the spirit’. They even have their own penitential services which mimic the Confession. And everyone gets the chance to play priest in leading prays at their private worship outside of Mass. And yes, believe it not, they even have their own psuedo-Eucharistic celebration. I have been to one, in Munich. It was celebrated on a Saturday evening and at least half, if not most of the participants were Charismatic Catholics. The event was called the ‘Lords Day’ if I remember rightly. I was told it wasn’t Eucharistic, and I believed them. When it began we were sat in a circle. Set prayers were said from a book which included a blessing of bread and wine, and this was led by a Catholic from Glasgow (he was nice enough, later he prayed healing tongues over me, which included frequent ‘r’ trilling). The bread and wine was passed around.
Don’t ask me why I ended up spending a weekend with these people, it’s a long story. Fortunately nobody was slain in the spirit, but there was a little bit of spiritual dancing from the boy next to me which included clapping. He was sort of skipping on the spot, a bit like river dance. His face was very solemn and he was singing “Hallelujah!, Hallelujah!”.
That account of what you just gave sounds awfully similar to the Neocatechumenal Way. I do believe they sit around the altar. I’m glad that I wasn’t there. I would have needed sectioning.
If anyone needed sectioning, it was everyone else. Although it was a psychological ideal. Thankfully there was one sane person there, who I eventually assisted at the traditional Mass with, in Glasgow. He is a traditionally minded seminarian in the USA now.
Yes Tirrey. And this woman’s triumphant account of it (see Boston Globe article link) indicates just how deadly will be the perception to any souls who are still Catholic:
Cardinal O’Malley looked me in the eye and asked me to anoint him. I did. The divorced, Scottish Protestant clergywoman anointed the Irish Catholic Cardinal in front of a pew of Catholic clergy and a Catholic Bishop, any one of whom would probably have given their (sic) eye teeth to have the honor. I choked back sobs all the way to the overflow room. Ahh, bless.
Pass me a sick bowl. Well she knows that this action will be seen, for starters, as the Catholic Church’s rethinking the validity of any old null and void orders, an acceptance or tolerance of divorce, and an approval of female ordination.
I was shocked, too, to learn that Cardinal O’Malley is merely following in the footsteps of Cardinal Cushing who jumped on the Vatican II ecumenical bandwaggon as early as 1964.
I’m not sure about ‘blasphemy’, but I am sure that, without presuming to judge the Cardinal’s culpability (he may, after all, be insane), I know that such an action is objectively most evil, as it is a taking part in the services and prayers of a false religion and thus contrary to the first commandment. It also gives grave scandal, and Our Lord’s has told us vividly what will be the fate of those who give scandal to ‘little ones’ – and a cardinal has many, many little ones
‘Sickbowl’? I think you mean shotgun, or have I been watching too much John Wayne?
Don’t be too surprised about what is happening in Boston. It is the epicentre of liberal Catholicism and yep, you guessed it (you win a speedboat in Glasgow) the epicentre of the sex abuse scandal.
They should dig up Cardinal O’Connell, an earlier Archbishop of Boston. His dead body of some 70 years could do a better job than O’Malley.
And to think St Padre Pio of Pietrelcina was a Capuchin, his holy corpse must be spinning.
I believe the preferred term is ‘mortal remains’. He is incorrupt after-all. Corpse seems to evoke ‘decomposition’.
Ordinary innocent Catholics in the workplaces, especially in Scotland, have to listen daily about the child abuses in the Catholic church while these people, who have actually never left school, sit in their ivory towers protected from the secular world.
They will never ever know, or care, that some of these workers can be physically sick at the thought of going to work and listening to their bigoted workmates harping on every day about what is obviously the truth. They are the victims of the child abuse that never gets thought of or even mentioned and yet the perpetrators are never ever condemned.
Pope Benedict was crucified for not taking a firm grip despite getting rid of over 600 priests in the past couple of years and yet our present Pope is let off the hook.
You are so right to highlight the problems this crisis in the Church is causing for people in the workplace. I remember my own struggles trying to explain away scandals to colleagues in the non-denomination school sector. How many possible converts are turning away from the Church due to the shenanigans of churchmen in the highest places? There will be a terrible judgment for these priests and prelates if they fail to repent and make amends.
As Christina put it: “Our Lord has told us vividly what will be the fate of those who give scandal to ‘little ones’ – and a cardinal has many, many little ones”.
I tell you what struck me about the fact that Pope Benedict XVI and his removal of circa 600 Priests (the BBC said 400) over the last couple of years, is that it did not make the 6 o’clock news, whereas a case of abuse does, as does a case where the secular sewer press slags off the Pope for not doing enough. It was on the last page of teletext, right at the bottom.
There were around 400 last year and almost 200 the year before. I agree with you about not making the 6 o’clock news (or the 9, 10 or 11 o’clock either).
You see, the media policy is to destroy the Church rather than spread the good news about it, although their task is made a lot easier by people like Cardinal O’Malley.
They are experts at the brainwashing. When the time comes to roll out the child abuse stories, every three weeks or so, the footage is mostly showing crucifixes, statues, candles or Sacred Heart pictures just visible within the incense cloud.. This ensures that any young people watching will automatically think of child abuse in even fifty or sixty years time as soon as they see a holy picture or a photograph of the Pope, or even when they meet a Catholic.
Mind you, you wouldn’t need to worry about it if you were stuck in a bishop’s palace well away from the real world.
It is only the poor Joe Soaps who will suffer.
Cardinal O’Malley’s so-called “reaffirmation” of Baptism by allowing himself to be anointed by a heretical minister is not blasphemous. Rather, it is sacrilegious to attempt to repeat or “improve” on Baptism, a sacrament which imprints an indelible mark on the soul. Apparently the cardinal no longer cares about the Traditional doctrine of the sacrament. We can certainly repeat our baptismal promises, which we do at each Easter Vigil. But we cannot repeat all or part of the ceremony unless something was missing which puts the original baptism in doubt. I hardly think this the case for the cardinal or he would never have been admitted to seminary let alone Holy Orders. And he certainly would not have a doubtful baptism rectified in this manner—this would only make it more doubtful. In addition to sacrilege, there is the ubiquitous sin of scandal which the cardinal is giving in spades. This type of scandal, of course, is the spear-point of religious indifferentism, the cancer more commonly known as ecumenism. Let us pray that we are spared this one being elected pope when Pope Francis dies. We must implore Our Lady during the Rosary Crusade for an end to these scandals for for a return to Tradition throughout the Church. Gandalf
I voted YES that cardinal O’Malley’s reaffirmation was blasphemous in the website poll because I can’t help thinking that the whole ecumenical movement is a blasphemy because it’s not about bringing people back into the Church but just accepting their false religions. That’s surely a blasphemy when God gave us the Church as the only means of salvation? Then on top of that to ask a Protestant to anoint him to reaffirm his baptism, whatever that means, is a further insult to God and the Church. I agree it’s sacrilege but if it’s not blasphemy as well, it’s pretty close.
I agree we should pray for an end to these scandals. They are very testing to anyone’s faith.
You are right about it being blasphemous. He is somehow saying that Catholic Sacraments which originate from the Catholic God (don’t tell Pope Francis that), are incomplete or need reaffirming. I’m patiently waiting for Assisi gathering, which are blasphemy 2.0, as they portray all religions as equals. In 1954, Cardinal Stritch banned Catholics from attending the meeting of the World Council of Churches in Evanston saying: “The Catholic Church does not…enter into any organization in which the delegates of many sects sit down in council or conference as equals…She does not allow her children to engage in any activity…based on the false assumption that […] Catholics, too, are still searching for the truth of Christ.” It’s a shame that faithful Priests like this don’t get a fair hearing.
What is it that these empty gestures, like this one from O’Malley, are supposed to demonstrate?
There is a complete lack of credibility inherent in O’Malley’s action. Another example of incoherent actions from those who are supposed to be leaders in the Church. He is, of course, apeing Jorge Beroglios own actions from his time in Argentina.
It is disappointing that they are never taken to task over these attention seeking stunts. O’Malley should be asked:
– do you not feel two-faced, indulging in such meaningless theatre with someone you know is going to hell?
– given this individual is not a Christian Clergyman, what exactly did this episode represent, other than a careerist, saccharine photo-op?
Of course, as you know, we can’t say for sure who is going to Hell – just as well – because if we were allowed, my list would be more likely to include Cardinal O’Malley than the daft woman who thinks she’s a clergyman!
Your concluding point is the crucial one: what is the POINT of these fiasco events? Do the ecumaniacs really think they’re fooling anyone? They are desperately trying to demonstrate that “there’s more unites us than divides us” – which is patent poppycock.
Jews don’t believe that Christ is God. Catholics believe that only Christ can save. Where’s the unity of belief there?
Protestants, whatever their denomination, absolutely reject the papal office. What’s to “unite” us there?
The whole ecumenical shenanigan is a scam. It’s giving (to the ignorant) the appearance of progress in Christian unity, purely because everyone is being “nice” to one another, but the fact is, not only is it not working in theological terms (the only terms that matter), but the chances of organic unity are marching away from us with every piece of novel legislation – such as, ironically, female “ordinations” – that the Protestant communities introduce.
There is a spiritual blindness preventing these churchmen from seeing the damage they are doing, not to mention preventing them seeing what fools they are making of themselves. The average atheist can see it; what they can’t see is why they should take the Church’s claims to be the sole means of salvation seriously, when senior churchmen like Cardinal O’Malley clearly don’t take it seriously at all. Numpty. The cardinal, that is, not the atheist 🙂
I can’t stand all this “more unites us than divides us” rubbish.
Mind you, I suppose it’s true. The Catholic church has veered towards them to the extent that almost nothing “divides us”. In fact, when you see the antics of this cardinal I would say that we have went on past them.
We (although not me) are more protestant than them now. At least they have never ever made any moves to change. That was left to the “gawkies”.
I hope nobody in the Church is speaking for me. I’ll manage fine in life with as big a division from these people as possible. The gap we had before Vatican 11 would suit me fine.
Even if the gap is only between me and THEM I will still be quite happy
All I can say to them is “mind the gap”.
Not to mention the majority of Protestants now support homosexual marriage and adopt a ‘nuanced opinion’ towards abortion.
A Catholic friend we must all move to Jesus, and see what unites us in Jesus. Well, Protestant Churches support things that are directly against God’s law, they reject the Christian Sacraments, and Christ’s Church and Successor on Earth.
It is tenuous to say Protestants worship the same God as us. Didn’t Cyprian say: “He cannot have God for his Father who has not the Church for his mother.”
I do recall seeing a photograph of Bergoglio knelt on the floor receiving a ‘blessing’ from an evangelical minister. Monkey see monkey do, I’m afraid, is the order of the day.
I don’t know what they are supposed to demonstrate, but what they actually demonstrate is that “Cardinal Sean” has lost the Faith – if he ever had it to begin with.
I think one reason this Bergoglio was elected was to provide cover for the O’Malleys of the hierarchy. They knew he would create, by his idiotic public statements, a veritable “anything goes” environment, a massive confusion, which would allow such scandals as this to become not only more commonplace, but go unpunished….and even to be publicly approved and imitated. The shepherds have become wolves, so hold on to the Faith for dear life.
Sorry, my comment of 5:08 was intended as a reply to Gabriel Syme’s of 10:36
One of Frankier’s posts reminded me.
A priest, a vicar, and a rabbi walked into a bar.
The barman says: “Hey, is this some kind of joke.”
This performance in Boston really is just the latest item on the accelerating conveyor belt of novus ordo outrages. Barely a week goes by without the faith of Catholics being seriously undermined by one of the shepherds, somewhere. Fewer and fewer appear to even notice, or care. And this is not the first cause of very, very serious disturbance to have issued from Pope Francis’ “kitchen cabinet” of eight cardinals.
The last twelve months can in fact be described as some sort of scandal fest. So much so that the horror of a papal abdication has become little more than a memory. Significant harbingers as they were of course, and so described at the time, the abandonment of the mozetta and red shoes by Pope Francis have now disappeared miles back on the path of the runaway kenosis- directed Conciliar train.
Let’s not make the mistake of believing that the Cardinal has gone maverick here. I’m sure he could quote plenty of instances of encouragement from the last five decades.
“The increase of fellowship in a reform which is continuous…is certainly one the distinctive and most important aspects of ecumenism”. – Pope John Paul II, Ut unum Sint, #17
“Taking up an idea expressed by Pope John XXIII at the opening of the Council, the Decree on Ecumenism mentions the way of formulating doctrine as one of the elements of a continuing reform”. – ibid, #18
“The ecumenical movement is a somewhat complex process, and it would be an error to wait, from the Catholic side, that everything be done by Rome…The intuitions, the challenges must also come from the local Churches, and much must be done on a local level before the universal Church makes it her own.” Cardinal Walter Kasper, Pope John Paul II’s point man on ecumenism, in The Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification: A Reason for Hope.
Not much ambiguity there.
Meanwhile those faithful pastors and laity who stood or continue to stand in front of the tanks are accused of lacking “full communion”.
“We wish to be in perfect unity with the Holy Father, but in the unity of the Catholic faith, because it is only this unity that can unite us, and not a sort of ecumenical union, a sort of liberal ecumenism; because I believe that the crisis in the Church is best defined by this liberal ecumenical spirit. I say liberal ecumenism, because there does exist a certain ecumenism that, if it is well defined, could be acceptable. But liberal ecumenism, such as it is practiced by the present Church and especially since the Second Vatican Council, includes veritable heresies.” – Archbishop Lefebvre, Conference of April 14, 1978.
When was the last time anyone heard a bishop in “full communion” or “good standing” speak thus, and in the process do no more than remain faithful to constant pre-Conciliar papal teaching?
The above quotes came from pages 42 and 43 of “From Ecumenism to Silent Apostasy” compiled by the Society and sent to every Cardinal in January 2004.
It appears that wither the postal service in Boston isn’t up to scratch, or Cardinal O’Malley needs to re-read his copy.
For some reason I am unable to access the link you have provided. But, I wondered if this is the book you are meaning. It seems to be on the Angelus Press.
Spot on, Theresa Rose.
That’s the one.
So while all the modernists, operating under the cover of their “full communion,” continue to wreak havoc in the Church at will, the SSPX, holding steadfast to the Faith as always, is pronounced in a state of “sacramental excommunication” (whatever that is) by that party line martinet +Muller. What better sign of the Freemasonic occupation of the Church: not only are her sacraments paralyzed, her theology distorted, her doctrines ignored or contradicted, her liturgies disfigured, but even her justice is perverted.
I think, though, that thanks to the “Francis Factor” people are beginning to wake up who otherwise would continue the papolatry line. Only today I had a phone call from a lady who wants to go onto our mailing list, having just seen the newsletter for the first time, thanks to a friend. She wondered why Catholic Truth isn’t being given out in the parishes! Such is the innocence of so many well meaning Catholics who have gone along with everything thinking they were doing the right thing.
So, maybe more and more Catholics will notice the “occupation” of which you speak and begin to pay closer attention. Another caller – a parent – also told me only today that her daughter looked puzzled at something the priest said during Mass on Sunday – something heretical, needless to say. That girl’s very bright and asks questions when she hears such things, so I think more and more pennies are dropping these days than perhaps we realise.
A Capuchin whose name was O’Malley
With a Methodist gal was so pally
He asked for her blessing
And had us all guessing
If he maybe was going doolally
It’s a bit too close to Rabbie Burns’ Day for you to launch your first poem 🙄
However, it did make me smile… a hollow smile, but a smile just the same!
I note your comments. You are right, maybe my Limerick was in bad taste for which I apologise.
Feel free to eliminate with no ill feeling.
You’ve misunderstood – I can’t see anything wrong with your poem. It made me smile. At least it rhymes, unlike my attempts 🙂
I was only joking about Rabbie Burns: his poems are nowhere near your league!
On the topic of false ecumenism are any readers aware that The prayer circle in St Mary’s Cathedral in Edinburgh uses an Anglican prayer book called the SPCK book of Christian prayer. This book is displayed at the back of the church along with a notebook in which visitors can write the intentions which they wish the group to pray for! How deceptive this is for visitors or even unknowing parishioners who think they are joining a Catholic prayer group and are not aware that they are praying from an Anglican book.
St Margaret Clitherow pray for us!
It is shocking, but, paradoxically perhaps, not surprising that an Anglican prayer book is used in St Mary’s Catholic cathedral prayer circle, in Edinburgh.
One thing that always surprises me, though, when I visit that cathedral during Mass, is that the people kneel to receive Holy Communion, at the altar rails.
Maybe you – or one of the other Edinburgh bloggers – can tell us how this shockingly outdated and pre-conciliar custom has been allowed to continue in St Mary’s.
I wonder if it’s because so many Anglican (and I suppose Episcopalian) churches still kneel at their “Eucharist” services?
Or am I being cynical?
I must be getting immune or something because I’m not reacting with shock to your news about the use of an Anglican prayer book. I suppose when cardinals are being anointed by Protestant vicars (female at that!) and so on, you get immune to it all, eventually.
We absolutely mustn’t become immune to these scandals – that’s one of the purposes of the newsletter and this blog: to keep us informed and alert and make us think about what we can do to contribute to ending the crisis (in addition to praying, it should go without saying.)
We must never allow ourselves to accept these scandalous actions of those who should know better, as “normal”.
I think I am not immune because I wasn’t aware of the crisis in the Church until recently. I could have easily been in that prayer group using that book totally unquestioningly. It may seem like a small thing compared to what that Cardinal is doing but i know how much such things as errant prayer books can undermine your faith without you even being aware of it because that had happened to me before I got a wake up call and began to question the ‘church of nice’.
i started attending the TLM and learning about the Catholic faith through orthodox websites such as this one and pro ecclesia and now thanks be to God, I have back the faith that I had in my youth.
When I think about martyrs such as Margaret Clitherow who chose to die rather than use an Anglican prayer book, it makes me sad, angry and completely confounded that the Cathedral priests allow this.
I am very glad to hear that you are not “immune”. Me, too. That’s because I made up my mind, way back I n 1978, when I could see that people around me at the time appeared to think nothing of changes in society that have led to the amoral culture engulfing us today. TV, theatre, various attitudes were massively changing and I was amazed at how most people seemed to think nothing of it. I resolved then that I would never allow myself not to be “shocked” – it seemed to be the fashion for most people to say that nothing shocked them. Well, plenty shocked me and I said so and have continued to say so.
I’m very glad indeed that you include our humble website among those which helped you when you began learning about the Catholic Faith. It’s stories like yours that make it all worthwhile!
I do not believe you Ed. Did I not send you a 21st birthday card for your last birthday???
I should have said 1998. It was 1978 but I should have said 1998 🙄
Great post Perpetuafelicitas.
I am similar to you, in that I have only been woken up to the state of affairs in the Catholic Church quite recently.
I too now attend the TLM and only use Tradition-orientated media outlets and internet sites. It all feels “so right”, as opposed to the Nu-Church of my youth, which all felt “so wrong / cheesy / half-hearted / vague”.
So I too owe Editor and this site a great debt!
The problem is that the TLM isn’t available outside the main cities and there’s not much chance of that changing under Pope Francis, so I guess we can only do the best we can in our own situation.
I think an awful lot of us didn’t wake up to the crisis for a very long time, I know I didn’t. I agree with you and PerpetuaFelicitas that It’s really helpful to have good traditional internet resources to help us become more informed. Without them I’d be really confused.
I was given a prayer book by my PP, entitled, ‘a Catholic prayer book’. Unbeknown to me at the time, it contained Muslim, Jewish and Hindu prayers at the back.
Some years ago I was in a hospital chapel where a Catholic Ash Wednesday service was to take place. There was a lady there who was a Church of Scotland minister ‘ presiding’ with the priest. She, with the priest, administered the ashes to the Catholics who went towards her, presumably in a spirit of ecumenism. I know this is not so serious as what is highlighted in the topic of the thread but it demonstrates the creeping erosion that has been going on for many years.
I’ve just posted a comment on the General Discussion thread about Ash Wednesday in a Catholic school in which I once did my best to teach, despite the wholly “liberal” ethos, wholly intolerant of anything remote resembling orthodox Catholicism. You are right – the creeping erosion of the Faith has been going on for many years. God help those responsible for it when they are asked to explain themselves in due course.
Maybe it’s a mark of the present crisis that a story that would have been regarded as completely unexceptional up to fifty years ago can now be taken as welcome bit of good news. So let’s make the most of it when one of the successors of the apostles actually says something edifying and instructive, for the glory of God and His Church.
The following is taken from the linked story at the end.
Cardinal Eijk, the Archbishop of Utrecht said in a recent newspaper interview that “the doctrine and the condemnations of the Council of Trent are still in full force. The newspaper wrote: ‘Cardinal Eijk is explicit in this respect: The Council of Trent’s teachings are still perfectly valid. This also applies to convictions which were adopted against those who reject the Council’s teachings. Like the Protestants.”
“Finally, Cardinal Eijk rejected the desired Lutherans’ ‘rehabilitation’ of Martin Luther: ‘For major issues he had deviated from Church doctrine. And this doctrine remains as it is.’ For this reason, the differences are given unchanged, which makes a ‘rehabilitation’ impossible.”
So all is not completely lost in liberal Holland.Enjoy this little ray of clarity amongst all the modernist fog.
Thank you, Cardinal Eijk.
Many thanks for that, Leo. We still have at least one Catholic cardinal! And in Holland, of all places! Alleluia!
Er..well…you may be wrong, Ed. He didn’t reply to my darn letter. Y’know, the one where I asked if he would consider handing over churches threatened with closure to the FSSP or such other traditionalist groups.
I think I’m correct in saying that you wrote to Archbishop Nichols, not to Cardinal Eijk,
Read Leo’s comment of January 29th at 11.53 – that is the comment to which I was replying.
You will NEVER catch me describing Archbishop Nichols as “a Catholic cardinal”. Never.
I did write to Nichols concerning his appointment and other issues, but I also wrote to Cardinal Eijk concerning the church closures.
I remember now – I’d forgotten that, Catholic Convert. It’s disappointing that Cardinal Eijk didn’t reply to your letter about the Society but I suppose it’s one thing to speak positively about Trent, as he did, and quite another to support the arch-enemy SSPX, at least in public. Maybe he’s a Nicodemus who will speak out a bit more in due course. One lives in hope, in the context that one knows next to nothing about Cardinal Eijk.
This is incredible!
C’est vraiment scandaleux.
Comments are closed.