STARTING FROM SCRATCH
Last week, we commenced our crusade to assure that the Rev. Mr. Nkamuke will return home with indisputably valid priestly orders. We asked you to petition the rector not to allow "One-Hand Dan" to ordain this cleric in November. Our reason was simple: owing to the nine priests' claim -- buttressed by other credible reports -- that Abp. Lefebvre used only one hand to ordain Dannie in 1976, there are just too many doubts about his orders -- doubts that can't be safely answered until the Restoration.(1)
Many CLODs ("close loyalists of Dannie") counter our moral reservation by citing the Blunderer's booby-prize-winning defense of ordination, with one hand, which has only served to magnify the original doubts. Despite our having posted long ago a complete analysis of the Blunderer's perverse translation of papal teaching, self-righteous CLODs have pressed us to offer additional rebuttal. Since we're tired of repeating ourselves to every high-strung CLOD who decides to weigh in, we'll start today, from the beginning. This initial post a bit long, but they asked for it.
CENTERING THE DISCUSSION
Let's get one thing straight right now: There are only two germane texts in this matter: The unambiguous and binding teaching of the 1947 Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis and, to a lesser extent, an unarguable rubric from the Pontificale Romanum, one of the Church's official liturgical books. Sacramentum Ordinis is so clear that it is sui ipsius interpres -- it interprets itself. If any birdbrain were to have a problem with the straight-forward text, the solution would come from internal evidence by means of intra-textual analysis.
There is no call whatsoever for inter-textual analsysis -- the only end of which is to muddy the otherwise limpid waters of Pius's Latin. (The ultra-textual problems lie within the realm of psychoanalysis.) The Blunderer's references to confirmation are notably valueless because (1) as a sacrament, confirmation is numerically distinct from orders and (2) theologians have been divided on what constitutes the essential matter.(2) Moreover, the Blunderer's citation of ancillary sources' interchangeable, indiscriminate use of the words hand and hands may likewise be dismissed as mere argumentative smoke and mirrors combined with sleight of hand (and quite a clumsy hand, if we may say so).
To emphasize: the bottom line here is that we really only need Sacramentum Ordinis, where the Pope decided the "question of what is required in the future for the valid administration of the Orders"(3) for deacon, priest, and bishop. Notwithstanding the self-sufficiency of the papal document, to the extent that CLODs want more, in separate, future posts we will take some time to address the probative value of several of the Blunderer's salient arguments, in particular, his remarks on holy orders in Eastern rites.
GETTING TO THE TRUTH
It's important to note that the teaching of Pius XII, to wit, that "the matter of the Orders of the Diaconate, Priesthood, and Episcopate is the imposition of hands alone" is, in Fr. Ludwig Ott's estimation, a teaching proximate to faith (sententia fidei proxima), i.e., a doctrine commonly considered as revealed but not yet expressly proposed as a truth of Revelation by the magisterium.(4) The contrary teaching is "suspect of heresy." As Jesuit theologian Clarence McAuliffe wrote in a volume cited by the Blunderer, "no Catholic can be opposed to this Conclusion (viz., 'the matter of the sacrament of order consists of the imposition of hands alone')."(5)
But you wouldn't know that Catholic truth from reading Tony the Blunderer's translation of the papal teaching. His laughably incompetent effort reads:
The matter of the Sacred Orders of Diaconate, Priesthood, and Episcopacy is one and the same, and that indeed is the imposition of hands." [Blunderer's emphasis.]Anyone with an ounce of wit can see Tony's version is very different from what real, trained theologians read and taught in the past.
The Blunderer's translation, in fact, is completely bizarre. No reputable authority ever gave Pius's Latin the reading "is one and the same." Why not? Simply because here eamque unam does not and cannot mean "one and the same" (and it is not the grammatical predicate either). The writer of the note "Lost in Translation" referenced three independent translations -- two in English, one in French -- to demonstrate how far removed Tony the Blunderer is from mainstream, orthodox Catholic thought. Just for giggles, we'll add a fourth independent translation, Fr. McAuliffe's:
...the only matter for the sacred orders of the diaconate, the priesthood, and the bishopric is the imposition of hands.(6)And, since we're in a generous mood, for good measure, we'll toss in a fifth, one by the Jesuits of St. Mary's College (where Fr. McAuliffe taught):
... the matter of the holy orders of diaconate, priesthood, and episcopate, is the imposition of hands, and that alone.(7)From all this, you may draw but one appropriate conclusion:
THE MOCK SCHOLAR'S ERRONEOUS RENDERING DISTORTS OFFICIAL CATHOLIC DOCTRINE!
REAPING THE CONSEQUENCES OF IGNORANCE
Surely it resulted from dimwittedness (and a poor understanding of Latin as well as authorial intention, we might add). Despite writing an appendix touching upon the ages-old controversy regarding the essential matter for orders, the Blunderer didn't quite understand that Pius intended to clear up the oft-debated question once and for all.
Otherwise, what in the world did the hopeless dullard Tony think the Pope meant when, just before his declaration of the essential matter and form of orders, he wrote quatenus opus sit -- "seeing that there is need"? Maybe the Blunderer, true to type, wasn't paying attention or thought it was filler! He just couldn't take the hint from that short phrase that the Church needed the definition of the essential matter of orders to end the ongoing dispute, so Pius XII determined to settle the question for posterity.
Had Tony the Blunderer been keener on the semantic uptake, he might have then been able to grasp that Pius intended to exclude absolutely every other candidate for the essential matter of orders except the imposition of hands. What the Pope clearly said to everyone else possessed of some common sense was this: The imposition of hands is the one and only essential matter. Not the handing over of the instruments. Not both the handing over and the imposition together. Nope! Not on your life! Nothing else. Just the imposition of hands alone, period, settled, end of question!
LOOKING AHEAD
The practical effect of the dangerously inept translation "one and the same" is to nullify every argument based on it and advanced in support of it. We count at least seven direct references to the gross mistranslation in support of the Blunderer's sundry misbegotten conclusions.(8) Indeed, Tony the Blunderer's error is so egregious, so alien to universal Catholic understanding, that no prudent man may give credence to anything else he writes in the monograph or elsewhere. Nevertheless, the agitated, defensive CLODs clamor for more arguments against Tony Baloney, so we'll slog on next week by continuing our analysis of what Pius really wrote and what real theologians say it means.
Then you'll see that one-handed priestly ordination is a defect, inasmuch as the imposition of hands alone constitutes the essential matter for priestly orders. Whether it's an essential defect or no, we can't and won't say. The point is this: in the current crisis, Catholics must not gamble with the validity of the Rev. Nkamuke's orders in the sleazy, charity-free, go-for-broke, low-class cult casino. The Nigerian faithful who prayerfully await the soon-to-be Father Nkamuke's return deserve better from America.
PREVENTING ANXIETY
Yet CLODs needn't fret: Dannie doesn't have to undergo the shame and humiliation of ego-bruising conditional ordination and consecration. (He was hurt enough, poor thing, when the rector got his own miter.) And he can be spared the contemptuous disbelief that would attend a vigorous, public denial almost 23 years after the 9/21/90 letter appeared.
All the rector has to do is to ordain the Rev. Mr. Nkamuke himself.☺
Simple -- and cheaper, by the way: No wasteful, laity-supported transportation expenses from the fetid Florida swampland to gelid cult headquarters in SW Ohio. And better weather, too. The Buckeye State is usually cold and dismally cloudy in mid November.
So we ask decent folk to email the rector today (bpsanborn2002@yahoo.com). Tell him to ordain the Rev. Mr. Nkamuke himself and save the young man a lifetime of grief -- and the faithful the spiritual anxiety of positive doubt.
(1) We hasten to point out, as ever, that we are not certain ourselves whether one-handed ordinations are invalid or whether Dannie is or is not a valid bishop. In the same spirit in which Heinrich Denzinger wrote a century and a half ago, we say, Nos hic loci controversiam istam dirimere minime intendimus (Ritus Orientalium, vol. 1, p. 133), "by no means do we intend to settle this controversy right here." In reverent emulation of that great scholar, we'll just present the kind material from which the Church can later formulate solid conclusions. Our first contention is that "One-Hand" should have either (1) issued an unequivocal, vigorous, public denial in 1990 when the allegation was made or (2) had himself ordained sub conditione to dismiss any doubts. Our second is that Tony the Blunderer's monograph, with its special pleading and mistranslation of Catholic teaching, is of no consequence: the doubts raised in the 9/21/90 letter signed by the rector and eight other priests have not been calmed. More on all this in the weeks to come.
(2) For the casual reader, Fr. Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Tan Books), pp. 363-365, has an brief, easy-to-understand discussion of the issues in English . Although this English translation of Ott's Grundriss der Katolischen Dogmatik has, as Fr. Hay pointed out in 1960, many inadequacies, it is still a useful resource for non-specialists.
(3) Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma p. 454.
(4) Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 454; for the definition of the theological note fidei proxima, see p. 9, §8, n. 3. The text of the Apostolic Constitution itself reads: [declaramus, etc.:] Sacrorum Ordinum Diaconatus, Presbyteratus, et Episcopatus materiam eamque unam esse manuum impositionem, which the Canon Law Digest translated as: "[We...declare ...that ] the matter, and the only matter, of the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy is the imposition of hands." Note, if you will, Tony the Blunderer's illicit additions of the word "indeed"and a second "is," which aren't in the Latin original. Memo to Tony Baloney: Don't put words into popes' mouths. (If you'd like to compare Deferrari's translation to that of the Canon Law Digest, click here and go to paragraph 4.)
(5) Sacramental Theology, p. 359; the wording of the "Conclusion" is found on p. 358, Conclusion 6. Note that Conclusion 6 occurs just three pages before the passage Tony cited (p. 361) to give the lie to the 9/21/90 letter's claim that a case of one-handed ordination "would have to be referred to the Vatican for judgment." Had he been smarter and less agenda-driven, he would have read everything in the section and been able to see that his translation was at variance with the understanding of a real scholar and theologian. (And McAuliffe was a real theologian and scholar, we kid you not.)
(7) The Church Teaches, p. 333 (TAN books). Compare the Jesuit Fathers' version to those of the Canon Law Digest and Deferrari, above.
(8) E.g., in his summary: "Pius XII decreed specifically that for diaconate, priesthood and episcopacy the matter is one and the same." [Blunderer's emphasis.] But all of you by now know the statement is not true. Why, we'll bet even our correspondent Introibo Ad Altare, Esq., now sees it's not true.
Had Tony the Blunderer been keener on the semantic uptake, he might have then been able to grasp that Pius intended to exclude absolutely every other candidate for the essential matter of orders except the imposition of hands. What the Pope clearly said to everyone else possessed of some common sense was this: The imposition of hands is the one and only essential matter. Not the handing over of the instruments. Not both the handing over and the imposition together. Nope! Not on your life! Nothing else. Just the imposition of hands alone, period, settled, end of question!
LOOKING AHEAD
The practical effect of the dangerously inept translation "one and the same" is to nullify every argument based on it and advanced in support of it. We count at least seven direct references to the gross mistranslation in support of the Blunderer's sundry misbegotten conclusions.(8) Indeed, Tony the Blunderer's error is so egregious, so alien to universal Catholic understanding, that no prudent man may give credence to anything else he writes in the monograph or elsewhere. Nevertheless, the agitated, defensive CLODs clamor for more arguments against Tony Baloney, so we'll slog on next week by continuing our analysis of what Pius really wrote and what real theologians say it means.
Then you'll see that one-handed priestly ordination is a defect, inasmuch as the imposition of hands alone constitutes the essential matter for priestly orders. Whether it's an essential defect or no, we can't and won't say. The point is this: in the current crisis, Catholics must not gamble with the validity of the Rev. Nkamuke's orders in the sleazy, charity-free, go-for-broke, low-class cult casino. The Nigerian faithful who prayerfully await the soon-to-be Father Nkamuke's return deserve better from America.
PREVENTING ANXIETY
Yet CLODs needn't fret: Dannie doesn't have to undergo the shame and humiliation of ego-bruising conditional ordination and consecration. (He was hurt enough, poor thing, when the rector got his own miter.) And he can be spared the contemptuous disbelief that would attend a vigorous, public denial almost 23 years after the 9/21/90 letter appeared.
All the rector has to do is to ordain the Rev. Mr. Nkamuke himself.☺
Simple -- and cheaper, by the way: No wasteful, laity-supported transportation expenses from the fetid Florida swampland to gelid cult headquarters in SW Ohio. And better weather, too. The Buckeye State is usually cold and dismally cloudy in mid November.
So we ask decent folk to email the rector today (bpsanborn2002@yahoo.com). Tell him to ordain the Rev. Mr. Nkamuke himself and save the young man a lifetime of grief -- and the faithful the spiritual anxiety of positive doubt.
(1) We hasten to point out, as ever, that we are not certain ourselves whether one-handed ordinations are invalid or whether Dannie is or is not a valid bishop. In the same spirit in which Heinrich Denzinger wrote a century and a half ago, we say, Nos hic loci controversiam istam dirimere minime intendimus (Ritus Orientalium, vol. 1, p. 133), "by no means do we intend to settle this controversy right here." In reverent emulation of that great scholar, we'll just present the kind material from which the Church can later formulate solid conclusions. Our first contention is that "One-Hand" should have either (1) issued an unequivocal, vigorous, public denial in 1990 when the allegation was made or (2) had himself ordained sub conditione to dismiss any doubts. Our second is that Tony the Blunderer's monograph, with its special pleading and mistranslation of Catholic teaching, is of no consequence: the doubts raised in the 9/21/90 letter signed by the rector and eight other priests have not been calmed. More on all this in the weeks to come.
(2) For the casual reader, Fr. Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Tan Books), pp. 363-365, has an brief, easy-to-understand discussion of the issues in English . Although this English translation of Ott's Grundriss der Katolischen Dogmatik has, as Fr. Hay pointed out in 1960, many inadequacies, it is still a useful resource for non-specialists.
(3) Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma p. 454.
(4) Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 454; for the definition of the theological note fidei proxima, see p. 9, §8, n. 3. The text of the Apostolic Constitution itself reads: [declaramus, etc.:] Sacrorum Ordinum Diaconatus, Presbyteratus, et Episcopatus materiam eamque unam esse manuum impositionem, which the Canon Law Digest translated as: "[We...declare ...that ] the matter, and the only matter, of the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy is the imposition of hands." Note, if you will, Tony the Blunderer's illicit additions of the word "indeed"and a second "is," which aren't in the Latin original. Memo to Tony Baloney: Don't put words into popes' mouths. (If you'd like to compare Deferrari's translation to that of the Canon Law Digest, click here and go to paragraph 4.)
(5) Sacramental Theology, p. 359; the wording of the "Conclusion" is found on p. 358, Conclusion 6. Note that Conclusion 6 occurs just three pages before the passage Tony cited (p. 361) to give the lie to the 9/21/90 letter's claim that a case of one-handed ordination "would have to be referred to the Vatican for judgment." Had he been smarter and less agenda-driven, he would have read everything in the section and been able to see that his translation was at variance with the understanding of a real scholar and theologian. (And McAuliffe was a real theologian and scholar, we kid you not.)
(6) Sacramental Theology p. 360. Wow! Just think that this was only one page away from the Blunderer's cite (p. 361) . If only he had glanced over to his left, he might have been spared all this humiliation. As an aside, reading Fr. McAuliffe is a wonderful reminder of the old intellectual and academic standards, where truth, not personal agendas, stood foremost before the eyes of priests. Of course, the entrance standards to seminaries were much, much higher in the old days. In his introduction, Fr. McAuliffe notes that he retained all his own translations of Church pronouncements despite the fact that Deferrari's and the Jesuits' translations were available: He thought "it might be better to keep his own, rather than to adopt either of these, so that the student can have access to three translations" (p. xi). The Blunderer now has access to five, but we bet he'll never revise his monograph.
(8) E.g., in his summary: "Pius XII decreed specifically that for diaconate, priesthood and episcopacy the matter is one and the same." [Blunderer's emphasis.] But all of you by now know the statement is not true. Why, we'll bet even our correspondent Introibo Ad Altare, Esq., now sees it's not true.
No comments:
Post a Comment