Saturday, August 31, 2013

YOU BE THE JUDGE: PART 1


...only the individual reader is important to me. Nabokov

For nearly four months, rabid  CLODs ("close loyalists of Dannie") have upbraided us for exercising our faculties of judgment when we read theological opinions. In their narrow, cult-besotted minds, engaged and reflective reading equals disparagement or impermissible comment.

That's all nonsense, of course. And, as for us, well, we're readers. We read. Closely. Carefully. Comparatively. Critically. We affirm or deny. We consider. We question.

Sorry, cloddies, but we have an intellect, so that's how we roll. (And that's why we're immune to the cultmasters' empty blandishments and hollow imprecations.)

Mind you, we're not theologians, and we never said we were. In fact, many of you know we don't believe there can be any genuine theologians around in the crisis. Real theologians will have to wait for the Restoration and the reconstitution of Catholic higher learning. However, as readers who have Latin, we are capable consumers of Catholic theological opinion. And, after careful reading and discussion, when we find something that looks problematic, we then bring it to Trad Nation's attention -- not to disparage a recognized theologian from the good-old-days but to caution other consumers, who may be naïve or overly credulous. After all, opinion, even informed opinion, is just opinion, and the best of authors can err.

Now that we have received a copy of Palazzini and De Jorio's two-volume Casus Conscientiae, propositi ac resoluti a pluribus theologis ac canonistis Urbis (Marietti, 1958), we can share with you our critical reading of the passage the Blunderer so shoddily transcribed and translated (see our August 4 post, "A Capital Mistake"). As an aside, we note with satisfaction that the original text has confirmed our common-sense conjectures about the Blunderer's errors of transcription and translation -- and even more*: it's amazing just how sloppy and unscholarly he is.

First, let's look at the entire context of what Palazzini-De Jorio printed (De Jorio is the author of the article). In the following  literal translation we have reproduced the author's emphasis; note, however, we have formatted the section as one paragraph, for convenience; the text colored blue is the subject of our comments that follow:


Likewise no one is in doubt about the validity of priestly ordination or episcopal consecration conferred by the imposition of one hand. For indeed the power that is conferred is sufficiently indicated by the imposition of one hand. It is true, in fact, that the apostolic constitution Sacramentum Ordinis decides and determines that in priestly ordination the matter is the first imposition of hands that is done in silence. But the extension of one right hand is held to be a continuation of the imposition of hands. Moreover, that the imposition of one hand does not have less power than [that] of both [hands] is  proved conclusively with legal sanction from the aforementioned apostolic constitution, which, while it declares "the matter of the holy orders of the diaconate, priesthood, and episcopate, is the imposition of hands, and that alone" (paragraph 4), decides and determines : "In diaconal ordination, the matter is the imposition of the bishop's hand, which occurs in one and the same action in the rite of that ordination" (paragraph 5).**

N.B. Before we begin our comments, we point out that De Jorio appended no footnotes to support his sweeping assertions. We, therefore, conclude that he is expressing his personal opinion as a canonist writing around 1957, only a few years before the inception of the council.

Although the extension of the bishop's right hand is a seamless, gestural action occurring in unbroken succession close upon the imposition of both his hands, we must vigorously protest any implication that the extension of the one right hand has anything whatsoever to do with the matter of sacerdotal orders.

Why? Are we being impiously bold here, forgetting our place as laymen? Are we foisting our own peculiar, subversive notions on these published and recognized Roman canonists -- especially upon De Jorio, who, truth to tell, was a notary in the Holy Office and held other esteemed positions in Rome (albeit Novus-Ordo Rome)?

Not on your life.

We ground our protest in the very words of Pius XII in the same apostolic constitution that definitively and absolutely excluded the extension of the right hand from the matter of the sacrament. (Makes sense to us: it's an extension, not an imposition, duh! But much more on that in a future post.) However, you needn't take our word for it. Read for yourself what Sacramentum Ordinis itself says in paragraph 5 (our emphasis in bold):
In Ordinatione Presbytertali materia est Episcopi prima manuum impositio quae silentio fit, non autem eiusdem impositionis per manus dexterae extensionem continuatio, nec ultima....
(Lit.) In priestly ordination, the matter is the first imposition of the hands of the bishop, which is done in silence, but not the continuation of the same imposition by the extension of the right hand, nor the last ...** (Our emphasis.)***
Writing separately in 1948, two French commentators on the constitution, A. Michel and A. Delchard, both remarked on the sharp verbal precision and limpidity of the declarations of Sacramentum Ordinis.****  Nowhere is this linguistic exactitude more evident than when Pius XII makes it abundantly clear that the extension of the right hand (which uninterruptedly succeeds the first imposition of hands) is absolutely NOT the matter. The matter of priestly ordination, as Pius taught and as you've just read, "is the first imposition of the hands of the bishop, which is done in silence." Nothing more. Nothing less.

Pius intended to end all doubts in the future regarding orders, hence his remarkable linguistic and jurisprudential rigor throughout the constitution. The document's precision resists and defeats every effort to read into it what it clearly never affirmed: The pope taught the matter for the priesthood was the first imposition of hands done in silence, thereby precisely locating where the matter occurred in the rite. He explicitly excluded from the matter of priestly orders the ensuing extension of the right hand following the first imposition as well as the last imposition of hands to which are joined the words: "Receive the Holy Ghost: whose sins thou shalt forgive, etc." Furthermore, for each order, he distinguished and differentiated the matter (imposition of hands [plural] for priests and bishops, imposition of the hand [singular] for deacons) and specified the exact words of the form.

What could be more obvious to anybody? What could be more free from the need for interpretation than Pius's plain, unequivocal language?

The extension of the right hand that continues after the first imposition is not the matter. 

How, then, can there be any dispute about what was the will of Pius XII? How does anyone, no matter how eminent, presume to fudge here? How can anyone so cavalierly ignore Pius's crystal-clear declarations about which there can be no debate, no wrenching of new meanings, no "higher" explanations, no "buts," and no violations of the letter and the spirit of papal teaching.

No means no!

And since to err is human, the Church has long provided an easy and painless way to rectify what was wrong or what might be wrong: conditional orders.

But you know this. You can read, too. You've already learned how to exercise your judgment. You can't be distracted by sophistry, unsupported assertions, or an all-too-convenient inadvertence to Pius's actual teaching. You yourself can join us in saying that anyone who upholds one-handed conferral of priestly orders by affirming or alleging that the extension of the right hand has the same sacramental power as the first imposition of hands is wrong, whether he be a competent, pre-Vatican-II-trained academic Latin author or a malformed, uncredentialed, Latin-challenged blunderer. 


* In footnote 11, the Bonehead  italicizes 17 words of Latin text and ascribes the emphasis to the author ("His emphasis," Tone writes, even though he cites both Palazzini and De Jorio). However, in the original book, for the sentences cited, only one word is italicized, viz. "continuatio."

**Case 341, vol. 2, p. 287, 2°. Item nemo dubitat de validitate ordinationis sacerdotalis vel consecrationis episcopalis, conlatae per unius manus impositionem. Etenim potestas, quae confertur, satis significatur per unius manus impoositionem. Verum est quidem Constitutionem Apostolicam Sacramentum Ordinis decernere atque constituere in ordinatione presbyterali materiam esse primam manuum impositionem quae silentio fit.
At unius manus dexterae extensio habetur continuatio impositionis manuum. Ceterum impositionem unius manus non minorem habere virtutem quam utriusque iure cogitur ex praedicta Constitutione Apostolica, quae dum declarat «Sacrorum Ordinum Diaconatus, Presbyteratus et Episcopatus materiam eamque unam esse manuum impositionem» (n. 4), decernit atque constituit: «In ordinatione Diaconali materia est Episcopi manus impositio quae in ritu istius ordinationis una occurrit» (n. 5). (Author's emphasis; we have indicated the original paragraphing by the symbol .)

*** Denzinger 2301, ❡5. Here's the translation from the Canon Law Digest on papalencyclicals,net:"In the Ordination to the Priesthood, the matter is the first imposition of [Ed. Note: corrected from "off"] hands of  the Bishop which is done in silence, but not the continuation of the same imposition through the extension of the right hand, nor the last imposition..." 

****For their commentaries, see the Rore Sanctifica site.

23 comments:


  1. "Sorry, cloddies, but we have an intellect"

    You have an ego, but I don't see any evidence of an intellect. Anyone with an intellect knows to get information on a technical, academic subject from an expert, preferably someone who has written a textbook on the subject. No one in his right mind would go to a self-appointed nobody for such information.

    If you have a medical condition, do you go to a doctor, or do you look up a blog on the internet?

    If you need to sue someone, do you go to a lawyer, or do you look up a blog on the internet?

    If you need to have the transmission in your car rebuilt, do you take it to a mechanic, or do you look at a blog on the internet and do it yourself?

    And if you have a question about sacramental theology, do you look it up in the books which the CHURCH HAS USED TO TEACH THEOLOGY TO HER CLERGY FOR DECADES, or do you do it yourself? You know what they say about the guy who is his own lawyer — he has a fool for a client.

    So I'm glad to hear you have an intellect. Why don't you use it and go read what the experts have written on this subject, and realize you're not one of them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The comments of this anonymous CLOD (CLUELESS Loyalist Of Dannie) mirror those that he (and his fellow harpies) made on Pistrina’s last article: they are no more than the classic (and empty) “ignore the message, shoot the messenger” strategy: ignoring the writer’s message, while attacking his “credentials,” and/or going off on tangents in an effort to divert attention from the issue at hand. “Anonymous,” it’s amazing that you “don’t see any evidence of an intellect” in the blog’s words – because everyone else DOES -- including most of the trad clergy (i.e., those not connected with the SGG cult clique); and they, NOT you, are the REAL audience for this blog.

      As for the blog author’s “credentials,” I might remind you that OUR LORD was a “nobody” when He walked the earth -- a “carpenter from Nazareth” with no “credentials” – but His message was nonetheless important. And, using your own criterion to judge what someone says based on his “credentials,” what does one believe: the OPINION of a theologian, or an OFFICAL PRONOUNCEMENT by a reigning pope? (One thing for sure: one does not take Cekada’s word on anything!)

      You say that when one has a question about sacramental theology, he should (to quote you) “…look it up in the books which the Church has used to teach theology for decades” [vs. promulgating it himself]. Well, the blog’s author did just that: he looked up what a reigning pope -- Pius XII – OFFICIALLY PRONOUNCED on the subject. The words are Pius XII’s, NOT HIS (nor those of a theologian expressing an opinion). Or, perhaps, you think that Pius XII is a “self-appointed nobody” too?

      “Anonymous,” can you read? You are obviously having trouble deciphering plain, comprehensible English. Perhaps you have a learning disability (or a more serious medical problem) – in which case, I suggest you take your own advice: don’t try to “fix it” yourself, but seek the help of an expert – a doctor (but, then again, you might shun the advice of doctors, as Tony did on “Schiavo”). But, if your problem IS serious – perhaps even a brain tumor -- I suggest you find out and have an “exploratory procedure” done: a colonoscopy.

      Delete
    2. Hi Jim. Your last comment was very gross. You know, you're kind of a weirdo. And you should learn some grammar and punctuation. And ask your friend Craig to explain to you where the argument is at this point, because you obviously haven't been following very well. Have a nice holiday weekend!

      Delete
  2. "You have an ego, but I don't see any evidence of an intellect. Anyone with an intellect knows to get information on a technical, academic subject from an expert, preferably someone who has written a textbook on the subject. No one in his right mind would go to a self-appointed nobody for such information."

    "If you have a medical condition, do you go to a doctor, or do you look up a blog..."



    Here is that dreaded IF factor again!

    Why do you suggest that the Author does not have extensive resources available to him?
    Why do you presume that he only reads "A" textbook on the subject he is presenting to the public on his site?

    Why do you presume that the Author, himself is not an expert on the subject?

    IS that YOUR intellect that does not understand the subject matter? Or is it YOUR Ego that has been challenged and caused you to lash out at the Author?

    Well, just because YOU do not understand, does not make him wrong, or PROVE that the Author did not research the subject matter, or have knowledge on it.

    It just means that YOU do not understand, because his research required perhaps, more information than the suggested "A" textbook could offer, and then your argument would be void.

    That's the beauty of this Author, he does not claim to be an expert. He does not pound on a pulpit and force you to believe. No, he just presents the seen, and unseen facts, and then presents a scholarly analysis which leads the reader to a logical conclusion. What is wrong with that?
    It's called Free Will, believe it or not. I choose to believe him, as most of the clergy don't have the answers, and they run from the truth.

    Ones intellect should be sparked to want to research, and ask questions for themselves and not let their Ego get in the way of a truth.

    These are very serious matters, and we should all be investigating these researched problems.

    Put your own EGO aside, and just ask yourself this one question. What IF the Author is only 90% correct? Where does that leave us?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Why do you suggest that the Author does not have extensive resources available to him?"

      I don't know what resources he has available to him, and neither do you. And who cares, anyway?

      "Why do you presume that he only reads "A" textbook on the subject he is presenting to the public on his site?"

      He obviously hasn't read ANY textbooks on this question. Every single textbook in existence says the OPPOSITE of what he's saying. Does that tell you anything?

      "Why do you presume that the Author, himself is not an expert on the subject?"

      For the simple and obvious reason that he isn't an expert on anything until he has given any proof for it, which he hasn't. When you read an article by some nobody on the internet who gives no credentials but who claims to be an expert in some technical field, do you believe them? Never mind. Maybe you do ...

      "Well, just because YOU do not understand, does not make him wrong, or PROVE that the Author did not research the subject matter, or have knowledge on it."

      What knowledge does he have? And where did he get it? And why can't he come up with a single REAL EXPERT who supports what he says? Why can't he find a single REAL EXPERT who doesn't say the EXACT OPPOSITE of what he's writing here? Doesn't that mean anything to you?

      "It just means that YOU do not understand, because his research required perhaps, more information than the suggested "A" textbook could offer, and then your argument would be void."

      What is a "suggested 'A' textbook"? You can't even write English and you claim to make judgments on theological questions?

      "That's the beauty of this Author, he does not claim to be an expert."

      I love this. He claims to know more than every single theologian of the 20th century, while not claiming to be an expert in theology. This is fascinating! Please continue ...

      "No, he just presents the seen, and unseen facts, and then presents a scholarly analysis which leads the reader to a logical conclusion. What is wrong with that?"

      I don't know what facts you're talking about. Maybe you could tell us? And no, it's not a logical conclusion to believe some nobody is more knowledgable about Sacramental Theology than the premier theologians of the 20th century.

      "It's called Free Will, believe it or not. I choose to believe him, as most of the clergy don't have the answers, and they run from the truth."

      I don't know what you're talking about. What answers don't the clergy have? And what truth do they run from? Please elaborate.

      "Ones intellect should be sparked to want to research, and ask questions for themselves and not let their Ego get in the way of a truth."

      I wish Craig Toth's intellect were sparked to research this question. If he did, he would find out that all the theologians agree there is no problem with the validity of a priest who was ordained with only one hand. Do you think he has researched this? Where do you think he researched it?

      "These are very serious matters, and we should all be investigating these researched problems."

      Yes, I agree. We should research what theologians have written on this question. Why don't you ask Craig to do that for us?

      "What IF the Author is only 90% correct? Where does that leave us?"

      What does it mean for him to be only 90% correct? What on earth are you talking about? And where do you think it would leave us if he were?

      Delete
    2. Anon. 6:40

      Buster Brown, if you want to be taken seriously, you're going to have to curb your adolescent penchant for wild exaggeration and misstatement of an opposing position. You diminish yourself every time you comment, not, of course, before your equally puerile cultists, but in the eyes of rational men and women.

      This blog has never asserted its superiority over pre-Vatican II authors, although it has demonstrated where they were wrong or where their opinions did not have overly persuasive force. To be sure, this blog has affirmed the large academic inadequacies of the Blunderer, but it has always presented hard evidence to support its assertions.

      This discussion is obviously beyond your powers and your educational background. You are unable to face up to the fact that your cultmaster's work has been utterly demolished. Moreover, the question of "One Hand's" orders is now more in doubt than in 1990 owing to our rebuttal of the Blunderer's monograph and our exposure of its manifold errors of scholarship. You should re-channel your enthusiasm into persuading "One Hand" to seek conditional orders immediately.

      Delete
  3. "I don't know what resources he has available to him, and neither do you. And who cares, anyway?"

    Your first part of this sentence admits YOU do not know what resources are available to the Author, and that's fine, but then, you answer for me by saying, "neither do I". Then you top the whole thing off with "who cares"?

    Are you kidding me? That is what this whole ordeal is all about.

    I do care! That is why I do question, and not just the Author of this site.


    You then continue.

    "He obviously hasn't read ANY textbooks on this question. Every single textbook in existence says the OPPOSITE of what he's saying. Does that tell you anything?"

    Yes it does! You now make another assertion that the Author hasn't read ANY textbooks, while you appear to have read everyone in EXISTENCE." That's quite an accomplishment!

    Now let me ask you a question pertaining to YOUR following paragraph.

    "I wish Craig Toth's intellect were sparked to research this question. If he did, he would find out that all the theologians agree there is no problem with the validity of a priest who was ordained with only one hand. Do you think he has researched this? Where do you think he researched it?"

    Do you think that the Author was the only one back in the late 1980's to have serious doubt on Bishop Dolon's one handed ordination?

    Well he was not, and IF the issue was so clear, why then did five of the nine priests write a letter, and sign it, and strongly suggest that Bp. Dolan get conditionally re-ordained, for the sake of the Faith, the faithful, and most of all, for peace in UNITY?

    It appears that this was, and still is a matter that HAS NOt unified we Catholics, but has seriously divided us.


    Why?

    A simple lack of Charity, and humility on behave of Fr. Cekada and Bishop Dolan toward their fellow clergy, and the innocent faithful. Had they listened back in the "80's, who knows if unity would have occurred? But, I can assure you, that we would not be having this healthy exchange on ones Validity, and resources to validate another's credibility.

    So the Author is not the problem. He just made us aware that there is, and was, a BIG problem from the start.

    "What IF the Author is only 90% correct? Where does that leave us?"


    That means 10% is left for doubt, and that is not good enough for me. My faith is absolute, and therefore I will continue "to Ask" and I shall receive, and " to seek , and I shall find, and I believe you know the rest to this prayer.

    You are right on one thing, I would listen to anybody that came to me with the kind of Catholic Credentials that the Author has.






    ReplyDelete
  4. Bp. Williamson was ordained a priest in the same ceremony as Bp. Dolan, and yet we haven't heard a single word about his validity or the validity of the dozens of priests he has ordained over the years. In fact, this author has actually recommended and praised the SSPX several times.

    Just one more proof that the truth is not the real agenda here — something else is ...

    ReplyDelete
  5. "That's all nonsense, of course. And, as for us, well, we're readers. We read. Closely. Carefully. Comparatively. Critically. We affirm or deny. We consider. We question."

    This all sounds very noble, but here's the problem with that. Whether or not one-handed ordinatio is doubtful is a judgment call, a judgment that has to be made according to principles of Catholic theology. It is made by a learned person applying what he knows to the question and coming up with a conclusion. That's why credentials are important, because the value of the conclusion is directly related to the knowledge of the person making the judgment. These questions can't be answered based on, "Well, I read blah blah blah in Pius XII, and it looks to me like blah blah blah, and I don't think the argument of that theologian really makes sense, because he says over here something that looks wrong to me ..." That is truly ignorance in fifth gear. That isn't being a critical reader, that's being the annoying bratty kid in the back of the room who thinks he knows more than the teacher.

    Which brings us back to the main point. The reason we give weight to the opinions of theologians and not to anonymous nobodies is because the theologians have the knowledge of Catholic theology necessary to make an educated judgment on this question. Not only were they learned beyond what any of us (especially you) can even imagine, they were CHOSEN BY THE CHURCH to write books on theology to instruct her clergy.

    What theological knowledge do YOU have to apply to this question? If you don't know as much as Regatillo, Cappello, et al., then your opinion on this question is worth less than theirs, to say the least. To say you are reading them "critically" is meaningless. You're just saying you read what they say and then explain how you think they applied the principles wrong. But your opinion is worthless, because you don't know even a tiny fraction of what they knew and the principles they applied.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Your comments on Palazzini and De Jorio are a perfect example of what I'm talking about. You're trying to say they're morons because supposedly they said the extension of the bishop's right hand is part of the matter of the sacrament. Well, they didn't say any such thing, and the fact that you think they did just shows your ignorance and why you shouldn't be arguing with real theologians. All they said was that the extension of the right hand is a continuation of the imposition of hands. That's completely different from saying it's part of the matter of Holy Orders. Obviously they know what the matter of Holy Orders is — they just said that in the previous sentence! So whatever they meant by saying it was a continuation of that gesture, it obviously wasn't that. And if you don't know exactly what they meant by that, maybe that's because they are professors of theology and truly learned men, and you're not.

    Their point is clear, anyway. The extension of the right IS a continuation of the imposition. The bishop imposes both hands on the ordinand (matter of Holy Orders), and then places his left hand on his chest while continuing to hold out his right hand. That's really not hard to understand, and that's a totally different thing from saying both gestures are the matter for Holy Orders.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We invite Anonymous September 5, 2013 at 11:04 PM to reread, this time with care and intelligence, the selection from Palazzini-De Jorio. You will note that the author, De Jorio, is not making a bare declaration of a well-known fact. What would be the point of that? He was too well trained and intelligent and too much of a Roman theologian merely to repeat for no apparent purpose what anyone could find in the apostolic constitution itself.

      You see, De Jorio was making an argument, not reporting outside of context a simple and unconnected statement of fact. His purpose here was to support his solution for the first inquiry made in this particular case of conscience. (An informed reader will note the conjunctions he uses: they clearly signal that the he intended a proposition, not a fun-fact-to-know, and he introduced the proposition to advance to a conclusion.)

      De Jorio knew he had to resolve the dilemma resulting from the clash of his assertion that the imposition of one hand is enough to signify the power conferred AND the plain words of Pius XII, who wrote that the matter was the first imposition OF HANDS. The only way to do so was to imply that the one-handed continuation of the first imposition by an extension of the right hand somehow renders a one-handed imposition equivalent to the impositions of HANDS.

      Delete
  7. Your entire argument seems to boil down to your own subjective reading of Sacramentum Ordinis, and your claim that your interpretation of it is correct and the unanimous interpretation of the theologians is wrong. Do I understand that correctly?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Our reading is entirely objective. It is based on the easy to understand, plain -and-simple words of Pius XII, which do not need interpretation, gloss, or explication:

      "In priestly ordination, the matter is the first imposition of the bishop's hands, which is done in silence, but not the continuation of the same imposition by the extension of the right hand, nor the last..."

      That needs no interpretation. We take the Supreme Pontiff's words at face value. Even you can understand them: imposition of hands not a hand, and the extension of the right hand is not the matter.

      BTW, you appear to misunderstand what "unanimous interpretation of the theologians" really means. HInt: it doesn't mean just a handful writing in the '40's, '50's, & '60's.

      Delete
    2. Of course Pius XII said the matter for the priesthood is the imposition of both hands. That's not under dispute. The question is whether imposing one hand alone makes the sacrament doubtful. You say it does. Every single theologian who wrote on this question says it doesn't. You have yet to come up with a theologian that says it does.

      "BTW, you appear to misunderstand what "unanimous interpretation of the theologians" really means. HInt: it doesn't mean just a handful writing in the '40's, '50's, & '60's."

      Okay, your turn. Have you found any theologian from some other period that says it's doubtful? Why don't you tell us who he is?

      I'm still waiting for an answer to my question about Bp. Williamson, BTW.

      Delete
  8. Remember that Regatillo offered sound advice to those who had doubts in spite of his opinion. And, of course, Royo Marin, had some choice counsel for anything doubtful. You must remember also that now that the Blunderer's article had been discredited in every way, we must begin again, as though it were September 1990. The doubt is there, even more present than it was before. A pity that "One Hand" didn't heed the pleas of other priests who foresaw this challenge.

    In the future, we'll be discussing what other theologians have said about the extension as well as the "saltus."

    As for Bp. Williamson, we have no asseveration about his orders from the nine priests who signed the 1990 letter to "One-Hand Dan," and therefore, what we cannot talk about, we shall pass over in silence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your actions speak so loud I can hardly hear your words anymore.

      You claim to have doubts about Bp. Dolan's ordination because of a letter from the 90's, yet that didn't stop you from attending his Mass and the Masses of priests ordained by him for years if not decades.

      You claim to have "doubts" about the validity of ordination conferred with one hand, yet you can't back up your doubts with anything except your own commentary on the words of Pius XII, which everyone is aware of and no one disputes, and which say NOTHING about this question.

      You claim to be a serious inquirer into truth, yet you reject what the real experts have written on this question, and substitute that with your own opinion based on nothing.

      You claim to have "doubts" about the validity of Bp. Dolan and priests ordained by him, yet you have absolutely no concern about the ordination of Bp. Williamson and the priests ordained by HIM, who by your reasoning labor under EXACTLY THE SAME "doubts" as Bp. Dolan. In fact, you have praised Bp. Williamson and the SSPX on this site more than once.

      You claim to be promoting the honor of God, yet you yourself have not received the Sacraments in years.

      Delete
    2. Our recommendation to anyone who was ordained with one hand or by someone who was consecrated with one-hand is to seek conditional orders.

      We understand that for many years, people and clergy accepted the conclusion of the Blunderer's monograph. However, now that its gross errors have been exposed and its assertions answered, everyone must chose the safer course, especially with respect to the sacrament of orders.

      The remedy is so easy. We can't understand why there is so much resistance. We don't know why "One Hand" rejected such appeals more than two decades ago.

      Delete
  9. I really enjoyed this volley between The Reader and Anonymous. However, the Reader takes the prize in my book, and the prize is: Can you answer some simple questions for me?

    Is it not true that in the days of "old" candidates for the priesthood could not have impediments such as: educational, physical,or mental deficiencies, or a negative family pedigree? Of course these are just a few that I mention.

    So under physical impediments weren't the two hands, and the ten fingers a prime necessary prerequisite for the priesthood?

    Where most of the Bishops not priests before they became Bishops?

    So wouldn't it be safe to say that it was understood that hands and fingers were necessary for the priest/Bishop to administer the Sacraments?

    And wouldn't it also be safe to say that the candidate for the Episcopacy would have to have met this particular criterion before he was even considered to be a Prince of the Church?

    Anonymous you lose because you ask for resources, then when you are given a good resource, you acknowledge it, and then skirt right over it.

    The Reader gives you a Good Pope as a resource, and your only reply is: "Everybody knows that".

    My question to you then is: If everybody knows THAT, then why is it such an issue about the quoted, "BOTH hands necessary....", by POPE Pius XII?

    Are Bishop Dolan and Father Cekada above a POPE? This quote should also serve as a definite resource for you, because you state it as an absolute fact that, "Everybody knows that". Therefore everybody should accept it, including you, Bishop Dolan and Father Cekada.

    Recommendation: Bishop Dolan should swallow his pride and get conditionally re-ordained, and put an Amen to this on going argument.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "My question to you then is: If everybody knows THAT, then why is it such an issue about the quoted, "BOTH hands necessary....", by POPE Pius XII?"

      Everybody knows what Pius XII said, and he certainly didn't say what you quoted. He said the matter for the priesthood is the imposition of both hands. It doesn't follow from that that an imposition of one hand makes the sacrament doubtful — that's the argument this blog is trying to make, and somehow he can't come up with any proof for it. In fact, all the people who really know anything about this subject — i.e., the thoeologians — seem to think the opposite.

      Read that again. Just because Pius XII said the matter for Holy Orders is two hands, it doesn't follow from that that only one hand makes the sacrament doubtful. If you disagree, please provide some authority for that (and no, you don't count as an authority, and neither does this blog).

      Delete
    2. I wanted to respond again to Sept 7, 8:21, and try to explain my position a little better, if you'll bear with me for a minute ...

      There are rules for the matter of each of the Sacraments, but to break these rules doesn't necessarily invalidate the Sacrament. For example, the Church prescribes that for baptism the priest has to use specially blessed baptismal water. To use tap water or rain water, for example, would be a violation of the Church's rules, but it wouldn't invalidate the sacrament. But to use gasoline instead of water would be a substantial change, and the baptism would be invalid.

      Only a substantial change in the matter of a sacrament makes it invalid. If it's doubtful whether the change is substantial, it makes the sacrament doubtful.

      Another example: a priest is supposed to use white hosts for Mass. If he uses whole wheat hosts, he is breaking the rule of the Church, but the Mass is still valid because that's not a substantial change.

      I believe Pistrina would agree with me up to here.

      So, the question is, how do you know if a change in a sacrament is substantial, i.e., serious enough to render the sacrament doubtful? Well, you answer that the way you answer any question in theology or any other technical discipline — you consult the experts.

      Now, everyone agrees that the matter for Holy Orders, as Pius XII said, is the imposition of both hands. The question is, if a bishop only imposes one hand only, is that breach of protocol sufficiently drastic to make the sacrament doubtful or invalid? Again, consult the experts. Every single expert that anyone seems able to find has said that such a change absolutely does not make the sacrament doubtful. It's just like a priest baptizing with tap water — not the right way to do it, but unquestionably valid.

      That's why it's not enough for the author of this blog to say Pius XII said the matter for the priesthood is the imposition of two hands. That's something everyone agrees on. But to prove his point, he has to prove that an imposition of only one hand is a substantial change in the sacrament. And since he's not an expert in theology, he has to come up with a theologian who supports that position.

      We're still waiting for him to do that ...

      Delete
    3. Our point has always been that no one can be sure if one hand is sufficient. McAuliffe said that one-handed orders were "very probable," but that standard seems to be too lax in a matter so important as priestly orders. The easy cure is conditional ordination and consecration.

      Delete
    4. "Our point has always been that no one can be sure if one hand is sufficient."

      Well, all the real theologians seem pretty sure it's sufficient, so I think you're wrong here.

      "McAuliffe said that one-handed orders were "very probable," but that standard seems to be too lax in a matter so important as priestly orders."

      Seems too lax to whom? And based on what? So now theologians have to run their opinions by you to see if they're strict enough?

      It is as I said. I asked for evidence that one-handed ordination is doubtful, and all I get is a lightweight who wrote a college textbook in which he said they're "very probably" valid, as opposed to certainly valid. And all the other men more learned than he say it's certainly valid.

      You grasp at straws like a drowning man. And for what? Why does this matter so much to you? And why does the validity of Bp. Williamson and all his dozens of priests seem to not matter to you at all? Aren't they in the same situation as Bp. Dolan?

      Delete
  10. "Pretty sure" is not certain. The validity of holy orders is of paramount importance, and there shouldn't be a scintilla of doubt. We are all better advised to follow the constant practice of the Holy Office, which, as Hürth says, "always chose the safe way -- semper viam tutam elegit," and even in cases of absent physical contact it ruled in favor of conditional re-ordination "ex integro" (in its entirety) with physical contact (p. 34).

    Until the Restored Church decides the issue, one-handed orders will remain doubtful because Pius XII expressly said the matter was hands, not hand. Conferral of priestly orders with one-hand is a defect, and, absent an official ruling from the Church, should be cured by conditional ordination, just to be safe. It's painless, cheap, and easy.

    You obviously have not read McAuliffe's book, or you would not call him a lightweight. True, it's designed for college students and written in English, but that doesn't diminish its rigor and thoroughness. It was published in 1958, when undergraduates were far more prepared than today's priests and seminary completers and academic standards were far higher than those of '70s seminaries (including Écône) or the pesthouse today. In addition, McAuliffe authored a seminary textbook in Latin ("De Sacramentis in Genere"), a feat far beyond the training of the rector or the Bonehead. (BTW, as a reference book, the English college textbook is much more comprehensive than the Latin volume for seminarians.)

    ReplyDelete