Alas, his wits are dull, his headpiece tough;/'Tis all in vain, he cannot learn the stuff. Nigel Longchamp (Mozley's translation of A Mirror for Fools)
Ed. Note: The fourth in a series of our responses to e-mail comments regarding our appeal on behalf of the integrity of the Rev. Mr. Nkamuke's priestly orders.
You must stop discussing Father Cekada's mistakes. It is a mortal sin to tell Gods anointed they are wrong. You must learn to look for them. Holy priests may get facts wrong but there is always a deep spiritual truth underneath. The same is true with Father Cekada. I never studied Latin, but maybe he did make a mistake. It is not important. Underneath is the TRUTH that Bishop Dolan is a true priest. Pope Pius would never have wanted a good bishop to suffer because some MC did not pay attention because of epekiea. That is why Father Cekada made his translation. To show the hidden truth. You keep making a big deal about his bad Latin but all you found are two mistakes. I read Fathers article and he quotes a lot of Latin. Two little mistakes is not that bad. You should beg him to forgive you.Our correspondent has affinities with the mortal-sin-multiplying former inmates of the swampland pesthouse. While at a loss to answer her chief argument(s?), we'll reluctantly reply to her comments on the Bonehead's errors in Latin. We wrote reluctantly because the documentation of the Blunderer's linguistic boo-boos can become tedious for the non-specialist. For that very reason, we didn't reference them all in earlier posts. However, insofar as there are other distempered cultists out there who share our fair correspondent's view, we feel obliged to reveal additional blunders in Latin.
First, however, let us (1) remind everyone that we've pointed out more than two errors (see, for instance, our posts of May 11, May 25, June 1, June 30) and (2) reiterate that the Blunderer's erroneous translation of a papal teaching proximate to the faith is no small matter. If the mistranslation and the added words were the only problem with his Latin, these errors alone would suffice to impeach his credentials.
We won't burden you with the Blunderer's penny-ante typographical goof-ups, like the mistranscriptions in footnote 37 (inposta for inposita) or in footnote 62 (huc et illus for huc et illuc). Instead, we choose more serious examples from a text that we will revisit soon in a separate post when we discuss Regatillo and Palazzini-De Jorio. For now, here's what the Bonehead offered at footnote 10 (we have printed in red four words to document his problems with the Latin language):
Theol. Mor. Summa 3:666. “Nam in diaconatu unica manus Episcopi imponitur; in presbyteratu ambae imponuntur, et haec impositionem deinde continuatur per extensionem solius dexterae. Et cum in Constitutione Pii XII designetur tamquam unica materia essentialis, triplici ordini communis, impositionem manuum; pronum est ut sicut ad diaconatum una manus sufficit, ita unica ad presbyteratum et episcopatum sufficiat.” His emphasis.Here's how he translates it in the appendix*:
For in conferring the diaconate, one hand of the bishop is imposed; in the priesthood, both are imposed and this imposition is continued by the extension of the right hand alone. And since in Pius XII’s Constitution the only essential matter common to all three holy orders is designated at the imposition of hands, it is obvious that just as one hand suffices for the diaconate, so also one hand would suffice for the priesthood and the episcopate.We'll start with the two smaller slip ups: Tony translates neither deinde ("then, thereafter, thereupon") nor tamquam ("as"). These words are not untranslatable particles but essential parts of speech for understanding the flow of Regatillo's line of reasoning.** Perhaps the first case represents a careless oversight, but the second omission may have arisen from his inability to construe the mistranscribed text, as we'll explain in the next paragraph. Beware: Heavy Grammar Zone Ahead.
The two occurrences of the word impositionem (accusative feminine singular) are wrong. Anyone with a basic knowledge of Latin can see at a glance that the word in both cases should be impositio (nominative feminine singular). However, we won't ask you to take our word for it, nor will you have to consult a skilled Latinist (don't look for one among the Traddies, however). At the top of this post is an image from the 1954 BAC third volume of Regatillo's Theologiae Moralis Summa (the edition cited by the Bonehead in his bibliography), so you can verify the facts for yourself (lines 2 and 5) and then affirm with us that the Blunderer is not quoting accurately.
A look at Tony's handling of the second occurrence is instructive, for it intimates he didn't recognize his erroneous transcription. He knew he had to find a nominative singular for the verb designetur, but in his erroneous transcription the only animal of that kind was (unica) materia (essentialis), which he then treats as the subject of the verb in question and conveniently leaves out tamquam ("as"). The trouble is, tamquam makes materia a predicate complement, so (unica) materia (essentialis) cannot be the subject. The subject must lie elsewhere. At this point, anyone with a soupçon of Latin would have suspected a transcriptional error and at least would have checked the text as printed in the book. But that appears never to have crossed his mind. (Of course, a genuinely educated person would have immediately recognized that the subject must be impositio [manuum], and forthwith would have silently emended the text without having to consult the text.)
What the Bonehead, in fact, appears to do is to try to "save" the erroneous accusative impositionem by adding -- here we go again! -- the preposition "at." How clueless can you get? This man has no business being anywhere near Latin theological documents, and you must never pay him any attention when he speaks or writes. He's just plain wrong.***
Before closing for the week, we'd like to take issue with Tony's translating pronum est as "it is obvious." While we won't say it's definitely wrong, it is a misleadingly loaded over-reading. The adjective pronus, -a, -um originally meant "leaning or bending forward, sloping." By transfer, it took on the meanings of "inclined (to a given course of action or to favor), disposed to, prone to." In the course of usage, it also came to mean "proceeding without difficulty or hindrance, easy." In antiquity the phrase pronum est ut meant "it is easy to."
Christian Latin theological authors do not always use words in their ancient sense, because Ecclesiastical Latin usage and vocabulary often differ from Classical Latin. Nevertheless, the new meanings that developed over the centuries still share a semantic kinship with the words' original lexical definitions. It is, we argue, too far of a stretch to get "it is obvious" from the basic meaning "it is a thing inclined or disposed or prone to favor." The basic notion is an inclination or a tendency to something, which suggests some hesitancy, some probability, whereas "obvious" implies absolute certainty. So great a liberty on the unskilled translator's part smacks of special pleading. A far better and more accurate translation would be "it is likely" or even "it is very likely" (as we ourselves generously translated in note *** below).
P.S.
Before last week's commenter Anonymous July 17, 2013 9:42 PM weighs in with his two-cents' worth accusing us of writing bad Latin, we remind him that Pistrina did not make the comment under Anonymous July 17, 2013 4:06 AM. The latter commenter has independently acknowledged another anonymous commenter's correction (perhaps made by 7/17 9:42 PM himself).
As a caution to critics, we only comment as the Reader or under Pistrina Liturgica. We want all friends and enemies to know when we speak. and therefore we shun anonymous comments to ourselves. That apparently is a trick the cultists like to use on their blogs, and so they wrongly impute the low practice to us.
*Technically, the Blunderer seems to have tranalated from Ius Sacramentarium 3rd edition (Santander: Sal Terrae 1960), 873. But he tells us that "Except for the mention of the Holy Office decision, it is identical to the passage on the topic in his 1954 Theologiae Moralis Summa (Madrid: BAC), 3:495–96." Thus we'll assume it serves as his translation of the text in footnote 10.
** Lit. "This imposition is then continued..."; "And since in the constitution of Pius XII the imposition of hands is designated as the only essential matter..." The ensuing paragraph above perhaps explains why the befuddled Blunderer failed to translate tamquam in this second instance.
***For those of you who are annotating your copies of the Blunderer's monograph, here's a literal translation of the paragraph: "To be sure, in the diaconate, one hand only of a bishop is imposed; in the presbyterate, both [hands] are imposed, and this imposition is thereafter continued through the extension of the right hand alone. And since in the constitution of Pius XII the imposition of hands is designated as the sole essential matter common to the tripartite [sacrament of] order, it is very likely that in the same way as one hand is sufficient for the diaconate, so a single [hand] may be [or should be] sufficient for the presbyterate."
The careful student who compares our translation to the Bonehead's will note he added the word "also," for which there is no justification in the original: the Latin relative adverb sicut answering to the correlative demonstrative ita is translated "in the same way as, just as...so," not "...so also." The same scrupulous reader might well remark that we did not translate sufficiat as Tony Baloney did, viz. "would suffice," but rather as "may be sufficient" or "should be sufficient." Our choice is not a criticism of the Blunderer's rendering, which is certainly acceptable: our translations of sufficiat were chosen to underscore the potential subjunctive (i.e., a conceivable action) in an explanatory comparative clause of manner. Thus the difference between our rendering and the Bonehead's is not important. What is important, however, is the substantial question we raise here :
Why did Regatillo, if he were so cock sure of his opinion that one hand is sufficient to confer priestly orders validly, use the subjunctive, the mood of subjectivity?
In Ecclesiastical Latin, "the verb in clauses of comparison is in the Indicative, if it is implied that the comparison is in accordance with fact" (Nunn EL, ❡174). So, had Regatillo been certain, he would surely have written: sicut ad diaconatum una manus sufficit, ita unica ad presbyteratum et episcopatum sufficit, viz. "in the same way as one hand is sufficient for the diaconate, so a single [hand] is sufficient for the presbyterate." Why didn't he, then, use the indicative, the mood of fact? We answer: Because he was a real Catholic theologian, and therefore wrote cautiously when he advanced personal opinion. In other words, he knew that his opinion was just that, so he hedged it with the subjunctive.
"Before last week's commenter Anonymous July 17, 2013 9:42 PM weighs in with his two-cents' worth accusing us of writing bad Latin, we remind him that Pistrina did not make the comment under Anonymous July 17, 2013 4:06 AM. The latter commenter has independently acknowledged another anonymous commenter's correction (perhaps made by 7/17 9:42 PM himself)."
ReplyDeleteYes, this is true, I myself acknowledged the error of transcription from a note written by hand, but I'm glad it was made because it illustrates the double-standards of these people.
The correspondent cited by the Reader errs obscenely: "You must stop discussing Father Cekada's mistakes. It is a mortal sin to tell Gods anointed they are wrong. You must learn to look for them. Holy priests may get facts wrong but there is always a deep spiritual truth underneath."
So now we are supposed to allegorize the idiocies of these acephalous and vagrant clerics in a schizoid variant of Stockholm Syndrome!? These people refute themselves in the excess of their stupidity and credulity.
I must here gently rebuke the Reader: “We wrote reluctantly because the documentation of the Blunderer's linguistic boo-boos can become tedious for the non-specialist. For that very reason, we didn't reference them all in earlier posts.”
You ought not to lower yourself to the intellectual immaturity of the cultists whom you are countering. You are ever to be mindful that there is audience for whom such linguistic and grammatical argumentations would have been edifying in a more efficacious manner had these been presented earlier. This is because there are people who are reading this blog who are anxious to think logically and not give way to emotion, being detached from the circus of Sedeland and thereby enfranchised from the wiles and deceit of the clerical clowns thereof.
Of course, you're right, and we are duly chastened. We do know that we have readers of your caliber, and we should have you uppermost in our minds. We also understand that a typo is no indictment against your very evident (and enviable) deep learning and equally deep discernment of the motives of Traddie clerics. That's why originally we didn't point out the Blunderer's obvious typos. Such momentary slips are not significant. We focus on errors that betray genuine ignorance, which we feel bound to bring to light in order to disabuse Catholics of the notion that these clowns are the real thing.
DeleteFr. Cekada's translation really doesn't change the meaning substantially. The point is that the matter is the imposition of hands, and it's common to all three orders. That is contained substantially in his translation and also in yours. So where's the problem? And please don't tell me that we have to disregard everything Fr. Cekada wrote because he got one or two words wrong. That's ridiculous.
DeleteBy the way, can you please explain how the diaconate can be valid according to your reading? You argue that two hands are required for validity for the priesthood, yet Pius XII said quite clearly that there is only one essential matter for all three orders — the imposition of *hands*. According to you what you're saying, it should be invalid to impose only one hand in the diaconate.
In any case, it doesn't bother me that Fr. Cekada copied that quote from Regatillo wrong, for the simple reason that my belief that the priesthood is valid with one hand doesn't depend primarily on Fr. Cekada. It depends on the authors whom he quotes. YOU'RE the one saying we should virtually ignore the theologians and pay more attention to your "cogent arguments" and "prudent doubt". Fr. Cekada, unlike you, is a priest trained in theology, and he knew better than to ask people to simply trust his opinion, much less put his opinion above that of theologians, both of which you're asking us to do. But you seem to have some strange obsession with Fr. Cekada. Could you explain to us why you spend so much time and effort trying to attack him?
As far as your hand-wringing over the meaning of "pronum est", I think you answered your own question when you said "pronum est ut" means "it is easy to". The sense would be something like, "it is easy to see that it would be valid..." Besides, any time you come across an obscure passage in another language, the best solution is to look at the *surrounding context*. The surrounding context here has Regatillo saying in the previous paragraph that he considers this valid. Thus, it makes no sense to have him only saying it is "likely" valid in the next paragraph, as you suggested.
I want to answer your "substantial question" too: "Why did Regatillo, if he were so cock sure of his opinion that one hand is sufficient to confer priestly orders validly, use the subjunctive, the mood of subjectivity?" Well, first of all, you really need to stop thinking that using adjectives like that to describe yourself and your writings somehow gives you more credibility ("substantial question", "prudent doubt", "cogent argument", etc.). You look kind of silly when you do that, actually. But to answer your "substantial question", the subjunctive in Latin has a vast number of usages, not all of which indicate speech contrary to fact, and your inference is pretty tenuous. As far as why it's in the subjunctive, my best guess is that it's a parallel clause with the one starting with "Cum" at the beginning of the sentence, which is also in the subjunctive.
DeleteThere are other possibilities. We use the subjunctive in English all the time in similar circumstances, for example: "Publishing a blog like Pistrina and discussing theology without an Imprimatur would have been enough to get you excommunicated before Vatican II," when the real meaning is "WAS enough to get you excommunicated, etc." Both usages in English are equally acceptable and identical in meaning. The same thing happens in Latin all the time, so your point proves nothing.
Look at the paragraph just before that one (I actually wish you would talk about that one a little more): "I and other canonists whom I consulted think ordination thus conferred is valid. And we would leave someone ordained thus to exercise his orders in good faith." He must be pretty sure about his opinion if he would say such a thing.
"disabuse Catholics of the notion that these clowns are the real thing."
DeleteWhat on earth are you talking about? Your thinking is so confused. What "real thing" does Fr. Cekada claim to be, which he isn't? Where did he claim to be the "real thing"? And how do you know that he isn't the "real thing"? What "real thing" is he supposed to be, anyway? And what would he have to do to be the "real thing"? And if Fr. Cekada is not the "real thing", does that mean we can't attend his Mass or receive the Sacraments from him? Why not? And what else follows from his being or not being the "real thing"? Why is it so important to you to have a priest who is the "real thing"? Why do you seem to think you *deserve* a priest who is the "real thing"?
And if Fr. Cekada isn't the "real thing", then who is? Do you know of any clergy you can recommend to us as the "real thing"? What would make them the "real thing"? If you can't name any clergy who are the "real thing", then do you realize that maybe your "real thing" doesn't exist, which would make it actually an "unreal thing"? Have you thought of that?
What more do you want from a priest than to teach you the Catholic Faith and give you valid Sacraments? Isn't that enough to make him the "real thing"? Do you think you'll get a higher place in heaven if you have a priest who is the "real thing"? What benefit *do* you expect to receive from having a priest who is the "real thing"?
And lastly, What are YOU doing to help form clergy who are the "real thing"?
Have you ever thought about any of these questions?
You really should delve into Regatillo more deeply than you do. There is a whole wealth of knowledge in there that would help you. I especially found this quote interesting, which is the last paragraph of section 668, in which he gives the rules for correcting defects in Holy Orders (emphasis mine):
ReplyDelete"One must DESPISE SCRUPLES, which frequently occur in this matter. It doesn't seem consistent with Divine Providence that the validity of Orders should depend on the TINY THINGS which some EXCESSIVELY STRICT authors require for validity." Maybe you should take that as the text for your meditation tomorrow morning.
To Anon. #1 7/25, 7:47PM
DeleteThe Bonehead's mistranslation is a big deal, for it changes the meaning of Pius's words. Also, he did more than mistranslate: he added words not in the original to make his blunder seem to work. The pope did not say the matter was one and the same; he said the only matter was the imposition of hands. There's a big semantic difference. We have no problem with the diaconate because Pope Pius specifically decreed, "In the ordination of deacons the matter is the one imposition of the bishop’s hand." As to "pronum," in the previous paragraph, after affirming his belief in one-handed orders, he still advises consulting Rome to see if anything needs to be supplied. Hence, the context justifies the translation of "pronum" as "very likely." Also, like the Blunderer, you are adding words that weren't in the original with your imaginative rendering of "it is easy to see."
To Anon. #2 7/25, 7:47PM
Your "best guess" is wrong about the subjunctive. The subjunctive in the previous clause was necessary because it was a cum-causal clause; the mood of the verb in a comparative clause is not dependent on the anterior clause but depends upon the author's attitude of mind in writing the comparative clause. Moreover, the basic idea behind all subjunctive usages in Latin is subjectivity, possibility; it indicates the mind is not neutral or detached. Also, your example from English is wrong, for both usages, though similar, are not quite identical. The indicative of the second example lends a different nuance. Moreover, before Vatican II, there would have been no need to publish this blog: the priests were properly vetted, selected, educated, and supervised. As to the previous paragraph, see our response above and stay tuned.
To Anon. 7/25, 8:02 PM
The "real thing," as we have used the phrase in this blog in the past, refers to the cult's PR hype that its leading clergy embody the intellectual standards and scholarship of the pre-conciliar Church. We have no problem with Traddie priests who know their limitations and don't try to pass themselves off for what they aren't. We admire them because they stick to administering the sacraments. And not one of them has ever tried to exceed his remit (and not one has ever produced anything so repulsive as the Blunderer's "opinion" on the Schiavo case).
To Anon. 7/25 8:48 PM
We have read the passage and many like it in other authors, and we agree with it. However, our point is that in light of Pius XII's explicit, proximate-to-the-faith teaching, one-handed conferral of priestly orders is not a small matter. He specifically directed that the matter is the "imposition of hands." We always keep in mind the famous case where despite Pius VI's decision in the controversy over the necessity of physical touch in the conferral of the episcopate, the Holy Office maintained its policy of conditional re-consecration with physical contact for the sake of safety and to avoid the deadly consequences of a possibly invalid ordination.
To “Anonymous # 7-25 at 7:47 P.M.: To your “…please don’t tell me that we have to disregard everything Fr. Cekada wrote because he got one or two words wrong” – actually, he got a whole bunch of things wrong! In fact, he “gets it wrong” EVERY TIME he opens his mouth. And speaking of “getting it wrong,” what were you smoking when you said [of Pistrina]: “According to you what you’re saying, it should be invalid to impose only one hand in the diaconate.” Pistrina never said or implied any such thing. Anonymous, please take a course in logic (and Tony, put a muzzle on him; he’s embarrassing you as well as himself).
ReplyDeleteAnd to this “Anonymous” and to the other “Anonymouses,” You keep questioning the credentials of this blog’s author, implying that he is no match for “renowned theologians” such as Regatillo, etc., and you keep implying that he is criticizing Regatillo. First off, he NEVER criticized Regatillo -- as you well know -- yet you keep implying that. He only said that what Regatillo says [on one-handed ordination] is OPINION, and what a pope says on it is NOT. And, no matter how many theologians you pull out of the hat, Regatillo et al are NOT the pope; and we must go by what the POPE says, not by some theologian’s OPINION.
And as for being anyone’s “match,” Tony Baloney is no match for this blog’s author – nor are any of you. Whatever the bunch of you say or think is of no consequence. What matters is that rational traditional clerics, i.e., those outside the Dolan-Cekada-Sanborn cult clique, now see Antonius Balonius for the arrogant, ignorant sham that he is – and, conversely, they have long recognized this blog’s author as an expert both in classical languages and in theology. You bozos know it too, yet you keep trying (in vain) to defend the indefensible wretch Cekada; and, in the process, you keep making fools out of yourselves.
All of you, including “Introibo,” have tried your best to twist and misrepresent the words of this blog, and to fabricate outright lies to supplement your futile arguments. Like Phony Tony, you have “tried every trick in the books,” but to no avail. You will never prevail, because you do not have truth on your side. Your “champion,” Phony Tony, has been found out to be the arrogant, ignorant liar that he is. Amongst traditional clerics of any note, his credibility is completely gone (if he ever had any to begin with). So, give it up, guys; you’re backing a dead horse.
"In fact, he “gets it wrong” EVERY TIME he opens his mouth."
DeleteHere ya go, can you please read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_mark#Signaling_unusual_usage
I think that's what you're trying to do with these quotation marks all the time, but you don't seem to know how to do it properly. This page should help you. You're welcome.
"First off, he NEVER criticized Regatillo"
I guess that depends on what you mean by "criticize". He said Regatillo's opinion was wrong and his was right. I think that's a criticism. If you want to call it something else, please feel free to do so.
"He only said that what Regatillo says [on one-handed ordination] is OPINION, and what a pope says on it is NOT. And, no matter how many theologians you pull out of the hat, Regatillo et al are NOT the pope; and we must go by what the POPE says, not by some theologian’s OPINION."
So what did the pope say that we have to go by? I really don't think you've been following this argument very well.
"Whatever the bunch of you say or think is of no consequence."
See, this is where I get confused. I used to think that questions about theology should be resolved by looking up the answers in theology books written by theologians. Then I found out that was wrong; I found a blog on the internet where I learned that if you find an anonymous blog written by a guy who thinks his arguments are better than the arguments of the Church's theologians, then you should go with his opinion. He defended that by saying that you should follow the side with the more compelling arguments. I did kinda think that was a circular argument, though, for him to declare that I should follow his arguments because they are more compelling. I mean, the strength of his opinion depends on the strength of his arguments, no? So what sense does it make for him to say that his arguments are stronger, therefore his opinion is the better one? That's a circular argument.
But here's the really confusing part. He claimed he didn't need to present any credentials because the argument should stand on its own. That would be an absurd position even discussing a trivial topic like who the best quarterback in football is. But in an elevated and technical subject like theology, it's patently false. Questions in theology, just like in history, medicine, science, or any other intellectual discipline, are discussed by citing sources pro and con. Fr. Cekada cited sources on his side. The author of this blog has yet to cite ANY sources saying one-handed ordination is doubtful. All he has done is give his opinion, which is worth nothing. Fr. Regatillo's opinion, on the other hand, is worth a lot because he was chosen by important people in the Church to teach theology and even write a book about it.
So I really don't understand why what he says is important, and what I say isn't. If he doesn't need to cite any sources or even give any credentials because his argument stands on its own, why doesn't that apply to me too?
"What matters is that rational traditional clerics ... have long recognized this blog’s author as an expert both in classical languages and in theology."
Wow. Talk about an unsupported assertion! Who are these mysterious priests you're talking about? I've never met any. Can you put me in touch with one of them?
Anonymous, I'll let your reply stand on its own "merits"; I really don't have to add anything to it. As for your advice on using quotation marks, please remember (as I told one of your fellow morons once before), the "comments" section of this blog does not allow for italics, bold-face, etc.; hence, the only way to emphasize something is either by using quotation marks or by CAPITALIZING.
Delete