Ed. Note: The third in a series of our reactions to e-mail comments received as a result of our crusade to rescue the Rev. Mr. Nkamuke's priestly orders from a lifetime of wrenching doubt.
Funny how all the Cekada backstoppers like Introibo Ad Altare are completely ignoring the fact that he mistranslated Pius XII. You gave 5 examples to show how no one else ever translated it as "one and the same" and no one added extra words either [See our May 11 post]. I respectfully submit a SIXTH. Weird how everybody but Cekada including the "Novus Ordo" can get it right. Sede priests are idiots. This is from the 2012 Ignatius Press Denzinger by Hunerman, Fastissi and Nash:
"...the matter of holy orders of the diaconate, priesthood, and episcopate is the laying on of hands alone..."
No "one and the same" and no additional words. I'll stick with Francis and the Society. They get it right.We were grateful for the citation because, at the time we received it, we had not been able to consult the Hünermann edition. The e-mail also happily inspired us to conduct a little experiment of our own.
A friend of ours has a nephew who belongs to a Novus-Ordo religious order in South America. Through the bright young man's good offices, we spoke to an elderly religious, who once taught Latin in Rome. (He also taught for a period in Washington, D.C.) We asked him to translate into Spanish Pius's definition of the matter of holy orders so we could see how a formally trained Catholic religious a continent away would read the text. Here's what he sent:
[...disponemos que:] la materia, y la única materia, de las Órdenes Sagradas del Diaconado, el Sacerdocio, y el Episcopado sea la imposición de manos.* (Lit: the matter, and the only matter, of the sacred orders of the diaconate, the priesthood, and the episcopacy is the imposition of hands.)So here we have a seventh version -- three now from the much maligned Novus Ordo -- confirming yet again that no competently educated, theologically literate person appears to read Pius's Latin as wrongly as the Blunderer did. Clearly, the Bonehead is spectacularly off base. His supporters know he's wrong, too, but they're culties, so they try to hide from the implications by avoiding or downplaying the subject. They prefer to adhere, limpet-like, to an unsubstantial P.R. image rather than embrace the solid truth. In our eyes, that's abject, quaking stupidity grounded in superstition.
You rational folks out in cyber space mustn't make the same mistake. The Blunderer's mistranslation is a gravely serious breach of scholarly standards, to say the least, even if the sole causes are his profound ignorance of Latin and impoverished formation. Bear in mind that more than a mere misunderstanding of easy Latin was involved: the Blunderer added words of his own (again, see our May 11 post for specifics): A virulently toxic brew of bewilderment, inexperience, lousy training, indiscipline, and lack of adult supervision induced a rendering very, very alien from what Pope Pius XII taught.
Worse, the inexcusable blunder misled many people, including, it seems, the nine priests, who in good conscience had demanded that Dannie "stop saying Mass, hearing confessions, and administering the sacrament of Extreme Unction until this problem is solved." It may also have prevented "One Hand" from getting himself fixed and thereby putting an end to all the anxious, soul-rending speculation of the past two decades.
The Blunderer's erroneous translation is a linchpin of his argument. It is the subject of the prominent first section, and he returns to it several times throughout. To counter the priests' central claim that "One-Hand's" ordination was dubious, the Bonehead declares Pius XII "decreed that for the three Orders the matter was 'one and the same'" -- something that you now know Pope Pius never, ever did. In his summary, Tone seems to suggest that the canonists' opinions were based on a similar reading of Pius's apostolic constitution,* and a reference to the mistranslation appears in Appendix II, his laughably presumptuous "historical note."**
In his easily rebuttable defense of one-handed orders, the "erudite theologian" -- gag us with a spoon! -- Antonius à Bononiâ, a k a "Tony Baloney," informs us that the priest who drafted the 9/21/90 letter to Dannie "misrepresented (read 'lied about') what both authors [viz. McAuliffe and Clancy] said." Fair enough -- at least with regard to what Fr. McAuliffe wrote. Therefore, are readers of the Bonehead's monograph justified in characterizing his erroneous rendering of Pius's words with a similar parenthetical condemnation? The Novus Ordo has a right to laugh itself silly at a cause championed by such vacuous apologists.
Errors like Tony's have ended careers in the real, cult-free world (here we mean professions where accountability and accuracy are the norm). It is to Traddieville's eternal shame that its backward, twitching and flinching, self-mutilating citizens do not awaken from their stupor to demand he pack up and get out for good. (How the rector can allow the Bonehead to "teach" at his swampland clerical clown college would be beyond comprehension, if we didn't understand his motives as well as we do.) But you all know that Traddieville, a shabby, sullen, unclean town without pity run by hypocrites, forgives no one except its erring, malformed clergy.
*****
Before we sign off for this week, permit us to make a special request of our German-, Italian-, and Spanish-speaking followers:If you have access to an official edition of Denzinger translated into your native language, we would be grateful if you would send us the text of Pius's definition of the matter of holy orders. (Please supply bibliographical information as well.) The section is 2301, paragraph 4, in older editions; it may be numbered 3859 in more recent ones. From our followers in Brazil, we'd like to have a Portuguese version, too. In fact, we'd like to have versions in all the other European languages except French (which we have already cited). Please forward by way of the comment form or email (pistrinalit@gmail.com).
* "Pius XII decreed specifically that for diaconate, priesthood, and episcopacy the matter is one and the same. The canonists Regatillo and Palazzini therefore state that, since the imposition of one hand suffices for diaconate, it also therefore suffices for priesthood and episcopacy." [Blunderer's emphasis.]
**"The pontiff declared that for conferring the Orders of diaconate, priesthood and episcopacy the essential matter was the same: the imposition of hands." [Our emphasis.]
See my post of 7/14/13 at www.introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com
ReplyDeleteWe are edified that you have the intellectual honesty to stipulate that the Blunderer mistranslated. (Already you stand several ontological and moral levels ahead of your fellow Gertrudians.) Moreover, we applaud you for rejecting Tony's gruesome position on Schiavo as well as the cult's other shibboleths, like "una cum." We sincerely hope that your candor doesn't result in any punitive actions against you or your family at the hand of peeved cultmasters.
DeleteIt saddened us, however, to read your brazen and sophomoric assessment that Pius was guilty of poorly wording his apostolic constitution. Worse was your outrageous (and frankly ridiculous) attempt to offer a better wording for the official teaching of a Sovereign Roman Pontiff.
We know the following question is beyond the restricted ken of so poorly informed a man such as yourself, but have you no idea of the vetting process that a document like "Sacramentum Ordinis" would have endured in the 1940s? The brightest Roman theologians, with advanced degrees from pontifical universities, the best canon lawyers, the cream of the cardinals, and the most skillful Latinists would have combed through the various drafts before signing off. Indeed, Antonio Bacci probably authored or at least reviewed the text. Every word was weighed, every nuance parsed, every phrase examined over and over again.
What motivates someone like you, a Latinless, rank amateur, to presume to correct the language of a Sovereign Roman Pontiff? In your rebuttals, you have put on public display your limitations, your naivete, and your argumentative deficits. You have demonstrated that you cannot follow an opponent's line of reasoning. You have made it clear that you are living in some other dimension. You have no acquaintance with curial protocols. And yet you are so bold as to "improve" upon Pius's text.
You are another blunderer, writ small.
"What motivates someone like you, a Latinless, rank amateur, to presume to correct the language of a Sovereign Roman Pontiff?"
DeleteThat's a question you could and should ask most sedevacantist pundits, especially the RialtoRd./Brooksville franchise and their abettors.
It is as a friend recently wrote when treating upon the exegesis of St. Thomas of a verse from St. Matthew's Gospel: "Cœtum schismaticarum qui jactant se opponere modernistarum errores sed et audeant pronuntiare suas doctrinas falsas et representare eandem ut doctrina Christi, cognoscitur vulgo ut traditionalistæ, damnantur in SS. Scripturis."
The Angelic Doctor indeed taught: "Isti infideles et haeretici, dum sunt fideles in societate vel congregatione non possunt decipere, sed nituntur quod a societate separentur, et tunc decipiunt; et hoc est quod vult dicere: Si dixerint vobis, Ecce in deserto est, nolite exire. Nolite a bona societate et congregatione separari. Item, si in penetralibus, quia semper intendunt locum secretum, nec doctrinam in publico audent dicere; unde Io. XVIII, v. 20: Ego palam locutus sum mundo. Nolite credere, quia qui cito credit, levis est corde, Eccli. XIX, 4" (lect. supra Matth. cap. xxiv. 26).
Please continue exposing the hypocrisy, banality, and ultimately anti-Christian nature of the RialtoRd./Brooksville group and of their concept of sedevacantism/traditionalism.
DeleteHey Craig, your "friend" (who I would bet is also named Craig) seems even dimmer in the Latin department than he is in the theology department. Why did he put "Coetum" in the accusative? It seems to be the subject of that long sentence, but the form is accusative. My first thought was that there is more to that sentence before what you quoted, but I don't think that can be the case, because a precise man like you would have put the first letter of "Coetum" in brackets if the capital letter were not in the original. If the entire sentence is at it stands, it's not grammatically correct.
Oh, and by the way, "Coetum" is singular. You can't make it the subject of verbs in the plural.
The "theology" is even more troubling than the "grammar". Traditionalists are schismatics who are condemned by the Scriptures? Then can you please explain why (and, I should add, if) you are a traditionalist yourself?
It's nice to hear you have a friend who has a nephew who is a "bright young" heretic in South America, who knows an elderly "religious" modernist who has gone against what he was taught in his youth by being a member of what you consider the "much maligned" Novus Ordo Church. It seems like you would be happier with those people. Why don't you just go join them and leave us alone?
By the way, I'm confused about where Fr. Cekada "mistranslated" "Sacramentum Ordinis". I saw a place where he paraphrased Pius XII, but nowhere where he made a mistranslation. Can you please enlighten me? Thank you.
Glad to know you people still know how to use your grammar books (or Google translator). A. Cekada should have had you as his proofreader before vomiting publically his articles.
DeleteI'm glad the mistake of typing m instead of s (cœtus, plural nominative form) was made, because it shows the hypocrisy of your brood: one anonymous layman gets cut into pieces for any mistake, but you do not even question the clerical cultmasters that prostitute sacred theology to suit their theological and psychological errors and failures: men who are canonically unfit and untrained, lacking mission and jurisdiction, pandering to even more dense and unfit people. A "wicked and adulterous generation" indeed.
"Why don't you just go join them and leave us alone?"
Yes, you are far happier in your little Waco-like world, all alone to your selves, the "elect" whom alone will be saved by a traditionalist deity and dilettantes with tin-foil mitres and carton birettas who have deformed Catholicism into some eccentric kitsch that is now unrecognizable as religion. However, the Reader has a moral obligation to expose the depths of Anthony C.'s stupidity and malice. If you poeple still continue to follow these ill-bred clerics, then you shall share the blame in their sins.
Anonymous. 7/17, 6:44 AM
DeleteOur correspondent, whose name we don't know, has answered your comment about his Latinity, so we'll stay out of that discussion.
As to the Blunderer's mistranslation, we documented that thoroughly in May. But since you won't believe us, go to the online version of Bonehead's monograph and read under section I, Pius XII: ONE AND THE SAME MATTER. There you will find the his mistranslation in plain sight, which he even footnoted. Then go back to our May posts and read the analyses, or work through our page "Lost in Translation."
As a note, Buster Brown, we don't need to comment to ourselves. When we have something to say, we post or reply as the Reader or Pistrina Liturgica. You're just miffed because there is a groundswell of ridicule against the Blunderer's ignorance. No one believes the P.R. myth any more, not even his fellow Traddie clergy. They're laughing harder than we are.
To Anonymous 7/17, 2:14 PM:
DeleteThis blog spent weeks on end combing through every footnote in Fr. Cekada's book trying to find every possible typo, with an effort to "discredit" the book. This literally went on for weeks. And I'm petty because I say that someone who is held up for our respect can't even write a single sentence in Latin without multiple basic errors — putting the subject in the accusative, and using plural verbs with a subject in the singular?
Your turn, Craig:
DeleteFr. Cekada didn't mistranslate anything. Here's what he wrote:
"In his 1947 Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis Pius XII settled a long-standing debate among theologians when he decreed that the essential matter for conferring the Holy Orders of diaconate, priesthood and episcopacy was one and the same: the imposition of hands."
As you can see clearly, he was paraphrasing Sacramentum Ordinis. If he were *translating* it, he would have quoted it directly and put the quote in quotation marks. If you don't follow me so far, just ask Jim Gebel to explain it to you. He is the world's leading expert on the correct use of quotation marks.
So, what Fr. Cekada did was make a statement about the contents of SO — a comment which was absolutely correct. If, as SO says, "the matter of holy orders of the diaconate, priesthood, and episcopate is the laying on of hands alone" (see how I did that? That's a direct quote), then it follows that all three have the same matter of Holy Orders. This is as simple as saying a, b, and c are equal to d, therefore a=b=c. This is basic logic and basic English, and you really could have read what he wrote a little more carefully before digging through six Denzingers and emailing people across the world in different languages.
I can hear your response: "But the diaconate only uses the imposition of ONE hand! Therefore the matter for the three is not the same!" Well, you probably should tell that to Pius XII. As Introibo explained, and which I really hate having to explain again, Pius XII was saying that the phrase "imposition of hands" applies equally well to an imposition of one hand or of two (please don't blame me for saying this — blame Pius XII). In other words, there is no substantial difference between an imposition of ONE hand, and of TWO hands. There is a slight difference between imposing one and imposing two, but Pius XII indicates it's not a substantial difference, otherwise he couldn't have lumped them together the way he did.
And IF they're not substantially different, THEN it doesn't invalidate the conferral of the priesthood to use one hand — only a substantial change would invalidate it.
So, I hate to ruin your day, but Fr. Cekada was actually right in what he said. Pius XII did say the matter is one and the same, but just not in those exact words.
My jaw really dropped at this point:
Delete"The brightest Roman theologians, with advanced degrees from pontifical universities, the best canon lawyers, the cream of the cardinals, and the most skillful Latinists ..."
Who cares what these people think? They're all wrong about the matter of Holy Orders anyway — even some guy in a blog was able to prove that! He writes a blog called Pistrina. Maybe you should read it!
Anonymous, July 17, 10PM
DeleteWe hate to ruin your day, but you're wrong. Here's what the Blunderer wrote under section I. Pius XII: One and the Same Matter.
"In his Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis, Pius XII, having explicitly invoked his supreme Apostolic Authority, declared and decreed:
The matter of the Sacred Orders of Diaconate, Priesthood and Episcopacy is one and the same, and that indeed is the imposition of hands",
which he footnoted with the following Latin Text:“…divino lumine invocato, suprema Nostra Apostolica Auctoritate et certa scientia declaramus et, quatenus opus sit, decernimus et disponimus: Sacrorum Ordinum Diaconatus, Presbyteratus et Episcopatus materiam eamque unam esse manuum impositionem.”
So, simply put, you're wrong. He did mistranslate, as we have conclusively demonstrated. Go read his monograph and educate yourself on what he actually wrote at the beginning of his argument. Better yet, get the print version, where the formating makes it clear that he is offering a "translation." Better yet, ask him.
Anonymous, July 17, 10:25 PM
We were referring to the highly trained, professional staff attached to the Roman curia, who would have made certain that the text of the constitution was clear in what it aimed to teach.
You may close your jaw now. (Irony doesn't suit you, anyway.)
And BTW, we have never disparaged the credentials of the theologians cited by the Bonehead. We have even stipulated that their opinion is a material component of the discussion. Our point has been, and will always be, that these opinions are not final, as the theologians themselves would have readily conceded.
To "The Reader"
ReplyDelete"It saddened us, however, to read your brazen and sophomoric assessment that Pius was guilty of poorly wording his apostolic constitution. Worse was your outrageous (and frankly ridiculous) attempt to offer a better wording for the official teaching of a Sovereign Roman Pontiff."
For someone with your moniker, it's quite ironic that your comprehension level is so low. Go back to my blog and read what I actually wrote.
My point was that IF your "superior" understanding of Sacramentum Ordinis (SO) was correct, you run into a huge problem.
Pope Pius wrote,
"the matter, and the only matter, of the sacred orders of the diaconate, the priesthood, and the episcopacy is the imposition of hands." (Plural) However, Pius knew that the matter for the ordination of a deacon is the imposition of one hand, yet he puts it together with the orders of priest and bishop under the phrase imposition of HANDS (plural).
Therefore, it logically follows that either (1) Pius made a mistake in putting what required only one hand under the plural phrase requiring HANDS
---OR---
(2) the phrase "imposition of hands" can refer to using either one hand or two, thus providing a defeater for your argument. Moreover, many theology manuals written by eminent theologians (like Prummer, to name but one) talk about the one handed matter employed in deacon ordination to be an "imposition of HANDS" (plural)--giving further credence to the second logical option. Furthermore, every renowned theologian who wrote about ordinations with one hand declared them to be VALID. You claim this is "merely opinion" and it goes against the text of Pius' Apostolic Constitution.
Even assuming your presupposition to be correct, expert opinion can only be rebutted by other expert opinion of equal or greater weight. Hence, if I have a trial and my opponent puts a medical doctor on the stand to testify as an expert witness on the findings of medical tests, I can't rebut it using the testimony of a high school biology teacher who thinks he can understand things as well, if not better, than an MD with an outstanding record of achievement.
You are the "biology teacher of theology" to claim that your reading and understanding of SO is of equal import as the theological giants Regatillo and company that have been correctly cited by Fr. Cekada. If you really think that your so-called education puts you on par with them, then you are the one who "made it clear that you are living in some other dimension."
And lastly, "In your rebuttals, you have put on public display your limitations, your naivete, and your argumentative deficits. You have demonstrated that you cannot follow an opponent's line of reasoning."
Nice words without substance to support them. I will leave it to those that read both blogs who has the stronger arguments. And while I admittedly am not a great theologian (nor have I ever claimed to be such), I would be glad to put my academic and professional credentials next to yours anytime you feel the need to be publicly humiliated.
By the way, rumor has it you've been seen on many occasions coming out of the bathroom wiping your elbow with toilet paper ;-)
But that's a story for another day.
Introibo, your original blog post about SO was pretty clear to me. I was amazed our friend here managed to get the meaning absolutely upside-down. I suspect the "misunderstanding" was deliberate, but who knows. This guy isn't quite as bright as he wants people to think. He quotes every language under the sun and books that no one ever heard of, and then he can't understand simple English.
DeleteYour point about a doctor versus a biology teacher in court was excellent, but it's hopeless trying to explain that to this guy. I've been trying to make him understand that for weeks now, and he still can't manage to grasp why a theological textbook by the greatest theologians in the Church is an authority on theology, and an anonymous blog isn't. Someone who doesn't understand that isn't going to understand much of anything.
Your example was not even extreme enough, though. Capello, Regatillo, and the others aren't equivalent to a regular doctor. They're more on a par with a professor in Harvard Medical School, or maybe with the dean of Harvard Medical School. These are the experts who write the books that seminaries throughout the world use. But the guy on this blog thinks he's smarter than them.
Oh, and he's not even equivalent to a biology teacher in comparison. He gives us no credentials at all, so he's really more comparable to some guy making a speech on the street corner.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteOur question to Introibo (and to his supporters) is this:
ReplyDeleteDid you or did you not write "Pope Pius' poorly worded phrase..."?
As to the rest of Introibo's non-puerile statements, we have answered his points sufficiently in our posts and replies. All else we pass over in silence.
Also, as a necessary reminder, we have never attacked the credentials of Regatillo or the others cited by the Blunderer. We have merely classified their judgments for what they are, viz. theological opinions (a characterization which none of these eminent men would have gainsaid). However, in a few weeks, we will have something to say about two of the theologians' puzzling assertions. After presenting three quotations, we will reserve judgment at the time and allow you to draw your own conclusions or explain the assertions by way of email or a comment.
You deliberately quote me out of context. Here's the full quote,
Delete"Remember, PL thinks that there may be an essential (i.e. substantial) difference in the matter of the sacrament depending on whether one or two hands are used. This being the case, a two handed ordination of a deacon must be held dubious, and Pope Pius' poorly worded phrase makes it seem like both hands are needed for the diaconate. True, he later specifies one hand for the ordination of a deacon, but that doesn't vitiate the fact that what he wrote prior would be (according to the principles laid down by PL) incorrect--the matter and the only matter of the sacred order of diaconate is not the imposition of HANDS, but the imposition of a HAND. Two hands may be substantially different from one hand, and render the deacon's ordination "dubious."
In other words, it would only be poorly worded IF your incorrect thesis were true. But it is not poorly worded because you're wrong!
I agree with the person posting above you that you aren't "going to understand much of anything." The reason was aptly put by Fr. Cekada---"When you're stupid NOTHING can be done." Amen and case closed.
You were not quoted out of context, although perhaps owing to your limitations you failed to express yourself adequately. Besides, we have scrupulously avoided saying the defect is substantial, so your premise is wrong to begin with.
DeleteWe have always maintained simply that in the light of Pius's words, "In the ordination of priests the matter is the first imposition of the bishop's hands...," a one-handed priestly ordination is at least doubtful, and we must await the decision of the restored Church to clear up that doubt. In the meantime, there is a simple remedy: conditional ordination, insofar as we cannot submit the issue to the Holy See. You, we must confess in Christian candor, are the slow coach in this dispute, and you are defending the indefensible. None of Tony Baloney's arguments have withstood rebuttal. With regard to the sacraments, we must always stand on the safer side. Your irrational, emotional attachment to the cult personalities precludes your seeing the truth.
"Besides, we have scrupulously avoided saying the defect is substantial, so your premise is wrong to begin with."
DeleteYou keep back-pedaling on what you said every time you get proved wrong. If the defect isn't substantial, then the sacrament is not in doubt. So if you say it's in doubt, and you go further by saying it's "at least doubtful", then I'm sorry but you really are saying it's a substantial change.
You should also review a little bit about doubt. "Doubt" in the theological sense doesn't mean some nobody is unsure about something, like what we have here. It means theologians with standing, who are competent to speak on these matters (hint: that doesn't include you), have expressed their doubt about a question and given serious reasons to back it up. Laypeople can't invent doubt, like you're trying to do.
You have what theologians call "negative doubt", meaning a doubt based on light reasons or no reason at all. And theologians teach that negative doubt must always be disregarded.
So no, we don't have to submit anything to the Holy See. Besides, it's been done already, as Regatillo said. And numerous times. The "doubt" exists only in your mind, and is contrary to what the theologians teach. And we don't depend on Fr. Cekada's arguments, either. We depend on the same people that *he* depends on: the theologians whom the Church uses to instruct her clergy and faithful (again, this doesn't seem to include you).
And please don't tell me we have to select the "safer" option with regard to the sacraments. Your solution is not the "safer" side. It's never safe to contradict every single theologian in the Church, or to invent doubt where they all deny that it exists, both of which you are doing.
As far as irrationality and emotional attachments go, one might well wonder what motivates you to write a whole article every week attacking priests and bishops, to the point where you find yourself at odds with every theologian in the Church about an important point of theology.
Never mind. I know you're just going to write something about the previous paragraph and ignore everything else in this post.
Our doubt -- and presumably that of the nine priests in 1990 -- is not based on light reasons. We have compelling motives for assenting to one proposition but at the same time a prudent fear that the other proposition is true. Positive doubt embraces such a state of mind, and nothing the Blunderer has written has eased our prudent fear. To the contrary, his flagrant mistranslation of the constitution's language, his characterization of hearsay as a "decision of the Holy Office," and his special pleading have magnified it.
ReplyDeleteAs to your comments about theologians, and in particular Regatillo, let us draw your attention to a paragraph of his 1954 Theologiae Moralis Summa (p. 495), which illustrates that at the time he, too, understood he was merely offering an informed opinion, and so hedged his opinion with good advice to allay any doubts that might be present in a prudent person's mind regarding a priestly ordination conferred with one hand:
"Alii canonistae, quos consuli, et ego validam putamus ordinationem sic collatam; et sic ordinatum relinqueremus ut ordinem in pace exerceret. At interea suaderemus ut consulatur S. Officium: an aliquid sit supplendum in casu." Lit. "Other canonists, whom I have consulted, and I think that an ordination so conferred is valid; and we would leave one so ordained to exercise his order[s] in peace. However, in the meantime we would recommend [or "advise" or "urge" or "suggest" etc.] that the Holy Office be consulted whether something must be supplied in the case."
After hearing the unnamed bishop's account, Regatillo himself may no longer have harbored the same second thoughts as he did in the '50s. For us, that's understandable: he might have known the bishop well and been privy to a number of details in the prelate's account, which he did not think necessary to narrate. That personal knowledge might have been sufficient for him. However, for us, it is not enough to overcome our prudent fear that one-handed orders, considered in the light of Pius's explicit teaching and the Pontifical's rubrics, may be invalid.
Once again, we reiterate that we do not deny the opinion of these theologians. We recognize, however, that they are theological opinions; they are, to our minds, probable or, at best, more probable, but certainly not well founded -- which means they may be in error. We have granted that they belong as one element to the discussion. Again, we have consistently said that we do not know whether the defect is substantial or not; we fear the defect may be essential, and currently the issue cannot be resolved. (Perhaps if a properly educated priest, say, Fr. Iscara, were to assay the question, our fear might abate to the extent that we could enjoy negative doubt. But in the meantime, we believe "One Hand" should seek conditional orders to end all debate. (We also recommend that those priests ordained by him also seek conditional ordination -- from him, if they so wish, but only after he's been conditionally ordained and consecrated.)
=>"Our doubt -- and presumably that of the nine priests in 1990 -- is not based on light reasons. We have compelling motives for assenting to one proposition but at the same time a prudent fear that the other proposition is true."
DeleteThis is truly amazing that I have to keep explaining this. I'll try again. Only a theologian can decide what circumstances render a sacrament doubtful. You are not a theologian. Regatillo, Capello, and Nabuco ARE theologians, and they say there's no doubt here. Whatever reasons you think you have are irrelevant, because you are a layman who isn't qualified to judge the weight of those reasons supporting your doubt. Even priests aren't competent to judge whether some circumstance renders a sacrament doubtful, which is why when they have a question like this they look it up in the people who *are* qualified, and those people are Capello, Regatillo, and the others. This is a difficult question, and it's only the testimony of experts that matters. And your saying your reasons are sound doesn't make them sound.
=>"Positive doubt embraces such a state of mind"
Again, the state of your mind is irrelevant as to whether this sacrament is doubtfully valid. So are your reasons on the subject. My reasons are also irrelevant, which is why I look for the answer in the writings of theologians, who alone are competent to give an intelligent opinion on the matter. You're perfectly free to give an *unintelligent* opinion on the matter, though.
=>"nothing the Blunderer has written has eased our prudent fear"
Again, just saying your fear is prudent doesn't make it so. It's not prudent unless it's based on the writings of men who know what they're talking about, such as Regatillo.
=>"To the contrary, his flagrant mistranslation of the constitution's language"
Denied. He didn't translate or even mistranslate Sacramentum Ordinis. I discussed this in a little more detail in a previous post.
=>"his characterization of hearsay as a 'decision of the Holy Office,'"
Um, actually it was Regatillo that said there was a decision of the Holy Office. If you want to contradict Regatillo about whether there was a decision of the Holy Office, please see above.
=>"and his special pleading have magnified it."
I think claiming your blog has greater authority than the Church's theologians sounds a lot like special pleading to me.
=>"Once again, we reiterate that we do not deny the opinion of these theologians."
DeleteYes you do. They say there's no doubt. You say there *is* doubt. You deny their opinion.
=>"We have granted that they belong as one element to the discussion."
But of course, as we all know, the deciding element in this discussion apparently is YOUR opinion based on nothing more than your opinion.
=>"However, for us, it is not enough to overcome our prudent fear that one-handed orders ... may be invalid."
Again, just because you say your doubt is prudent doesn't make it prudent. A prudent doubt is one that is based on the opinion of theologians, not one that contradicts their unanimous opinion.
=>"We recognize, however, that they are theological opinions; they are, to our minds, probable or, at best, more probable, but certainly not well founded -- which means they may be in error."
Seriously? The opinions of Capello, Regatillo, and others are not well founded? But yours are? Your opinions about "doubt" which you have invented out of thin air are well founded?
=>"which means they may be in error."
You don't seem to realize there is a possibility that *you* may be in error.
=>"if ... Fr. Iscara, were to assay the question, our fear might abate"
Why don't you ask him then? Ask him how he would investigate this question. He would look it up in the approved theologians, see what *they* said, and pass that on to you. I can assure you what he would NOT do, though — he would definitely not get on Google and find some anonymous blog and consult that for an answer in sacramental theology.
In a few weeks, we will post something that may provoke some second thoughts about the wrong-headed advice of blindly following opinions without first submitting them to scrutiny, which Catholics are bound to do. Conscience is supreme, and in light of Pope Pius's explicit definition, viz. "...first imposition of the bishop's hands..." we cannot assent to these opinions owing to our prudent fear based on papal teaching. (We do, nevertheless, consider them important, and if there were a supporting document from the Holy See, we would embrace them.)
DeleteAs to what an educated priest might answer, we have no doubt that he would review and report the theological literature, and ceratinly Regatillo, Palazzini et al. would be among the citations. He might also offer a critique similar to but independent of ours: His conclusion might be that, based on Pius's explicit teaching, the issue cannot be decided until the Restoration. And, if he were wise in the ancient folkways of the Roman Curia, he might caution that even then the Church might choose not to speak one way or the other. In that event, he might advise those who were ordained with one hand to follow Regatillo's advice and ask what should be supplied in their individual case to remedy a clear defect.
Whatever such an educated man might write, one could be sure that it was unbiased, agenda-free, and untainted by sloppy scholarship and bad Latin. (Tomorrow's post will explore in detail the last flaw.)
All right then, I challenge you to do that. Ask Fr. Iscara to read both Fr. Cekada's article and this blog (including the comments), and report back with his opinion.
DeleteCan you do that?
You know, there's this old priest who was a Jesuit, trained in the old school which you revere so highly. He was definitely, as you would put it, the "real deal". In fact, he was more than that. He was a professor in a pontifical university! And not just any pontifical university, but the Jesuit pontifical university in Madrid, in Spain! In the Old World! And he wasn't just any professor in this pontifical university, but he was regarded so highly by his superiors that he was chosen to write, not just a blog which any loser in his mom's basement can get for free nowadays, but an actual textbook on theology to teach seminarians throughout the world. Surely his opinion must count for something? Maybe for as much as an anonymous blog?
DeleteHis name was Fr. Regatillo, S.J. He wrote a book called "Theologiae Moralis Summa", in which he said that a priest ordained with one hand is validly ordained, and such a man should be left to practice his orders in complete good faith.
And there was this other guy whose book I read — but who knows how reliable it is. He was only a professor in the Gregorian University in Rome. I guess that's the premier Jesuit seminary in the ENTIRE WORLD. Do you think that would make him the "real deal"? Who knows. I wonder if the guy writing this blog thinks anyone except himself is the "real deal", and he doesn't even seem to be a priest. But as I was saying, this professor wrote a five-volume work called "Tractatus Canonico-Moralis De Sacramentis", which most priests that I know of consider to be the last word on sacramental theology. And no wonder. I couldn't write a five-volume work on anything, much less theology, much less get it approved by the Church as a textbook and reference work for her clergy! But the guy writing this blog can do even more. He can write a blog citing no references whatsoever which has, as he assures us, "more compelling" arguments than Cappello (I guess his arguments must be "more compelling" than Capello's if he tells us they are! After all, it's the internet, so everything you read on here must be true ...)
By the way, the author I was talking about is named Fr. Felix Capello, S.J. He said the ordination of someone ordained with one hand must be regarded as valid. But he lived in the days before we had Pistrina to inform us on matters of sacramental theology, so I guess we have to cut him some slack.
"And, if he were wise in the ancient folkways of the Roman Curia, he might caution that even then the Church might choose not to speak one way or the other. In that event, he might advise those who were ordained with one hand to follow Regatillo's advice and ask what should be supplied in their individual case to remedy a clear defect."
ReplyDeleteMaybe he would advise us to follow the rest of Regatillo's advice and leave someone like that in good faith to practice his orders in good faith?