Hi Readers:
Last week I worked through your critique (see "Lost in Translation") of Cekada's defense of ordination with one hand. My neighbor who used to teach Latin at a private school helped me. We had to agree you demolished his argument.
My question is not very "scholarly," but I want to ask you anyway. If Abp. Lefebvre wasn't upset about using one hand to ordain a priest, why do you folks at Pistrina keep making a big fuss?
My question is not very "scholarly," but I want to ask you anyway. If Abp. Lefebvre wasn't upset about using one hand to ordain a priest, why do you folks at Pistrina keep making a big fuss?
As they say, we're glad you asked that question.
Recently we contacted people acquainted with witnesses to the infamous '76 one-handed ordination. According to them, the archbishop was "in a state of panic" afterward. Apparently some of the clergy who noticed the defect were reluctant to bring it to his attention immediately while they were still in the sanctuary. (Ah, me! the horrors of the cult of the personality: it wreaks irreparable damage on organizations it infects.) One report relates that Apb. Lefebvre only calmed down after "someone" supplied a justifying explanation.
What's interesting is that no one seems to remember just who provided the explanation and how soon after the defective ordination the explanation emerged. Did they wait several days or weeks for a well-researched, impartial, and reasoned effort, or was it extemporized on the spot to soothe an unnerved Lefebvre? I guess we'll never really know. Apparently everyone then thought as our correspondent does: if it was O.K. with the archbishop, then everything was fine.
But we do know that everything was not fine at first. Why else would the archbishop have been in a "panic." He knew very well what Sacramentum ordinis demanded. He was right to be disturbed by his careless mistake. Accordingly, until a professional with a real academic background, a sound knowledge of Latin, and an advanced (and recognized) degree in Catholic theology addresses the topic afresh, continuing doubt about the validity of ordination with one hand cannot be so readily dismissed. (And some "folks" should seriously contemplate conditional ordination, just in case we all have to wait a while.)
Of course -- and this is pure, almost wild, wishful thinking -- if the next canonically elected pope were to abjure Vatican II and convert to the Catholic faith, the problem would be settled, since a restored Church would call upon all these fractious, wandering bishops to renounce their state of life and suspend themselves a divinis.
Wouldn't that be nice: restoration and good-riddance!
Bye-bye, beastie.
Recently we contacted people acquainted with witnesses to the infamous '76 one-handed ordination. According to them, the archbishop was "in a state of panic" afterward. Apparently some of the clergy who noticed the defect were reluctant to bring it to his attention immediately while they were still in the sanctuary. (Ah, me! the horrors of the cult of the personality: it wreaks irreparable damage on organizations it infects.) One report relates that Apb. Lefebvre only calmed down after "someone" supplied a justifying explanation.
What's interesting is that no one seems to remember just who provided the explanation and how soon after the defective ordination the explanation emerged. Did they wait several days or weeks for a well-researched, impartial, and reasoned effort, or was it extemporized on the spot to soothe an unnerved Lefebvre? I guess we'll never really know. Apparently everyone then thought as our correspondent does: if it was O.K. with the archbishop, then everything was fine.
But we do know that everything was not fine at first. Why else would the archbishop have been in a "panic." He knew very well what Sacramentum ordinis demanded. He was right to be disturbed by his careless mistake. Accordingly, until a professional with a real academic background, a sound knowledge of Latin, and an advanced (and recognized) degree in Catholic theology addresses the topic afresh, continuing doubt about the validity of ordination with one hand cannot be so readily dismissed. (And some "folks" should seriously contemplate conditional ordination, just in case we all have to wait a while.)
Of course -- and this is pure, almost wild, wishful thinking -- if the next canonically elected pope were to abjure Vatican II and convert to the Catholic faith, the problem would be settled, since a restored Church would call upon all these fractious, wandering bishops to renounce their state of life and suspend themselves a divinis.
Wouldn't that be nice: restoration and good-riddance!
Bye-bye, beastie.
No comments:
Post a Comment