Now if someone is claiming that the title has given her some hevenly powers beyond which all lay people may possess, then we have a problem.
BTW, you also said the following:
But to raise the hue and cry that this is evidence of how "the Great Apostacy starting at the top" is taking place in the Church is utter silliness.To which I first answer that if this isn't, given the dilution of the truth we've pointed out, then what is? What do you take for evidence, Paul?
Allow me to contrast O'Malley with the response of another Prince of the Church, namely Willem Jacobus Cardinal Eijk, archbishop of Utrecht in the Netherlands.
Among his responses, include the following:
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.The Cardinal took advantage of the interview for a positive evaluation of the Church's renewal by the Counter-Reformation, which the Holy Spirit knitted performed by the self-cleaning of the Church thorough the Council of Trent and its decrees, the complete validity of the doctrine of the Council of Trent, especially with regard to the Eucharist. Also with regard to the convictions, he reminded them that they apply in the matter, but do not automatically apply to the individual person. They presuppose a conscious rejection of the Catholic doctrine.
The responses to the interview with Cardinal Eijk laid bare how little the Catholic doctrine is known publicly and also among the Protestant interlocutors. Not least because it has been so little stressed from the Catholic side.