It was the biggest consistory in history; the first of the third Christian millennium; and, as the Pope himself is said to believe, was most probably the last consistory of this papacy. And that latter element is felt by many to have been the deciding factor in its complexion.

The College of Cardinals was below its 120 maximum number for electors; it was felt old supporters should be rewarded while there was still time; but above all it was about shaping the next papacy. And there is no doubt that the current regime in the Vatican would like to be followed by another of the kind.

In Rome parlance, the Pope "creates" a cardinal. It has led to the joke - worn thin this week - that only God and the Pope can create something from nothing. What Pope John Paul has created in the College of Cardinals is an institution much in his own image and likeness. Of the 135 cardinals now eligible to take part in the next papal conclave (election), all but 10 have been created by him. And of those 125, all, at least publicly, follow their master's voice.

So pundits say the next Pope will probably be a conservative, probably a good bit older than Pope John Paul was when he was elected in 1978 (he was 58), and most likely he will be Italian. The thinking? Traditionally, a long papacy (Pope John Paul is over 22 years in office) is followed by a shorter one.

It is also felt that after this whirlwind Pope with his apparently inexhaustible energy (appointing more cardinals than any predecessor; canonising more saints than all his predecessors put together; similarly with beatifications; issuing more encyclicals/letters than any predecessor; and travelling far more than any Pope in history), the church needs a break. A period of quiet to reflect and regather itself.

Many within Vatican circles, it is said, believe a steady, elderly Italian - therefore more familiar with Rome's ways - is what is needed for a while. They are not ready for another "foreigner' just yet.

But, they will tell you, the Holy Spirit has his ways. They point to another short papacy that followed a long one. An elderly, apparently conservative, steady Italian was elected and what they got was Pope John XXIII. The memory sends a shudder through some as they contemplate a possible repeat, noting that they are still dealing with the electric consequences of that five years.

They, including many of the most senior people in the Vatican who advise Pope John Paul on the selection of candidates for the College of Cardinals, aim to assist the Holy Spirit in a particular direction, as much as they can, in the hope that their will is done.

No one doubts that such thinking lay behind the creation of Cardinal Connell. Much admired in the Vatican for his intellect, his clarity of mind, his energy, but above all for his frequently courageous commitment to an unequivocal orthodoxy, he is also one who can be completely trusted to do the right thing at a conclave.

And this was his week. It would have been anyhow, but his Sunday Business Post interview ensured that, albeit probably for the wrong reasons.

It is doubtful whether he wanted such a moment in his life to be marred by acrimony, or to ascend the steps of St Peter's to receive his biretta while the clicketyclack sound of the devil's tap-dancing echoed behind him.

Indeed, it was very likely the devil's steps would have put even Michael Flatley to shame, in speed and volume, had the cardinal's entire remarks in that interview on current Church of Ireland practice concerning intercommunion been published.

Pressed as to whether he had been asked to drop anything from that section of his interview with the cardinal, Kieron Wood, the journalist who conducted it, said: "I am not saying anything."

He was not saying either whether he had left anything out from that section. Queries were referred to Mr Ronan Mullen, the Dublin archdiocese's communications officer. He had taped the interview. He had also issued "an extract, taken from the interview . . ."

He insisted the interview was Mr Wood's and it was up to him to release details. When told Mr Wood had said that he (Mr Mullan) had permission to issue the full transcript "chapter and verse", Mr Mullan said he was "not discussing the matter any further" and ended the conversation.

That same evening (last Monday) the cardinal said at the Irish College in Rome he did not recall all details of the interview but that he had not asked Mr Wood to remove anything, "and I certainly didn't ask Ronan Mullen to remove anything".

Whatever, it was just another indication of attempts at media "management" by the archdiocese this week. On Wednesday, after he had received his biretta from the Pope, the cardinal spoke "freely" at a lunch held in his honour in the Irish College. On Thursday he said he wasn't aware the media were present.

He had every reason to think so. The media were not present. They were not invited, but overheard his remarks from outside.

As he and others emerged afterwards the cardinal agreed to talk to the media, along with the Taoiseach, Mr Ahern. However, it soon became clear to some senior clergy that media had heard his comments at the end of the lunch.

The cardinal was dragged away brusquely by his secretary, a somewhat brittle Father Martin O'Shea. It was 6 p.m. on Thursday before Cardinal Connell met members of the print media for the first time after his elevation. By then most of the Irish contingent had gone home.

There is no doubt the intercommunion issue goes very deep with Cardinal Connell, and his assertion in Rome in that Thursday evening interview, that he would continue to make the Catholic position on the issue clear and that he would "not deviate from that in the least", suggests further storms ahead. It also made clear that there is deep division at inter-church level on the issue.

The cardinal's comments on Thursday about the inter-church meeting in Dundalk, a regular meeting to discuss issues of common interest such as the Vatican's Do- minus Iesus document, suggest a deep frustration on his part with what he intimated was the fuzzy, feel-good factor in current Irish ecumenical efforts.

Such haziness does not sit easily with the ever-present, exacting metaphysician within. He likes clean, clear, classical lines.

Tomorrow the new cardinal will return to a Government welcome at Dublin Airport, after which he will visit the woman who started it all, at least the current intercommunion debate, the President, Mrs McAleese. At this perspective it is possible to glean just how appalled the cardinal must have been when she took communion in Dublin's Christ Church cathedral on December 7th, 1997.

She was just weeks in office and was visiting all the churches. Just a week before, on November 30th, 1997, he had praised her highly as someone who would be "a builder of bridges in a spirit of reconciliation and love".

He was speaking at a Mass to mark the beginning of her presidency in St Andrew's Church, Westland Row, Dublin. He expressed the delight of everyone present at the opportunity the Mass afforded them to tell her of their admiration and support.

AFTER Christ Church, all changed. Utterly. In that now almost legendary interview with Eamon Dunphy on Today FM on December 15th, 1997, he said that it was "a sham" for Catholics to take communion in "a Protestant church". In an article in this newspaper on December 19th he said what Mrs McAleese did was to expose "some of the sincerely held differences between Catholics and Church of Ireland members". What was at stake was "the future of ecumenism and the ecumenical movement". Mrs McAleese, as is her wont and as her role demands, remained silent until September. Following the publication of Dominus Iesus earlier that month she, it appears, could contain herself no longer.

Addressing the National Priests' Conference on September 25th she said how "all" could sense "disappointment and impatience on many fronts" at the failure of the Catholic Church to realise more fully the promise of the Second Vatican Council.

She explicitly referred to other churches as "sister Christian churches", even though Cardinal Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome and of which Cardinal Connell is a member, had advised bishops not to use the phrase "sister churches" in a letter sent out just weeks before.

Cardinal Connell did not hesitate. Speaking at St Patrick's in Drumcondra shortly afterwards he said hope "rather than enthusiasm stemming from misguided interpretations of the Second Vatican Council and depicting `a revitalised church comfortably adopted to the modern world' (a line from Mrs McAleese's speech)" would fire the church's work of renewal.

At a press conference in Maynooth some days earlier he said: "The Catholic Church cannot be a sister church of any other church. She is the mother church."

No doubt when these two people, now the most prominent Catholics in this State, meet tomorrow it will be with the high courtesy and civility, and indeed warmth, to which both can rise.

Indeed, when it was announced on January 21st that the cardinal was to be elevated, Mrs McAleese rang him at his house in Drumcondra.

"She spoke to me in the most encouraging and warmest terms," he later told the media. "You know of course that this is the style of the President. She is noted for her great warmth . . ."

And yet is it not indicative that our two most prominent Catholics can still be poles apart, theologically, while remaining within the one fold?

Is it not also indicative that one can do so while speaking forcefully and frankly on an issue, while the other view must remain tacit?

It also brings home the sometimes forgotten reality that the institutional Catholic Church's stance on issues such as intercommunion is not just upsetting and offensive to Reformed Church members. Which is why the cardinal inspired so much anger this week. And why he will probably continue to do so.