Saturday, August 10, 2013


Advice is seldom welcome; those who want it the most always like it the least. Chesterton

"ON WHO'S (sic!) AUTHORITY," pugnaciously demanded a klazomaniacal and spinning-eyed cultie-zombie, in between what must have been fearsome bouts of involuntary shuddering and uncontrollable torso jerks, "DO YOU PRESUME TO ORDER HIS GRACE BISHOP DOLAN TO BEG FOR BOTH CONDITIONAL ORDINATION AND CONSECRATION????"

My oh my! Well, then, since we figured others in Sede Nation might be SHOUTING similar combative challenges, we thought we'd share the source of our counsel to "One Hand Dan." We assure everyone we didn't decide on our own that Dannie needed to repair the defects of both his priesthood and his episcopacy. The sound advice comes from the Spanish Dominican Antonio Royo Marín, whom we promised on June 8 to revisit. So here's a literal translation (emphasis his):
If there is well-founded and prudent doubt over whether or not something essential was missing, the ordination ought to be repeated sub conditione ["conditionally"], even though a higher order might have already been received, at least if it is a question of the three orders that certainly are sacrament and impress character. And so one ought to repeat sub conditione the doubtful ordination of deacon even though one may have already received the priesthood; and all the more one ought to repeat that of the priesthood even though one may have already received episcopal consecration, inasmuch as the validity of the episcopal consecation in one who may not be previously a priest is very doubtful. In this case, one would have to repeat sub conditione the two ordinations: that of priest and that of bishop.
Insofar as Pope Pius XII (a) clearly taught that the matter of priestly ordination is the first imposition of hands of the bishop and (b) explicitly excluded as the matter the ensuing extension of the right hand as well as the last imposition joined to the words "Accipe Spiritum sanctum...,"**  a reasonable, conscientious man could naturally conclude that there might exist a "well-founded and prudent doubt over whether something essential was missing," if his ordination to the priesthood had been conferred with one hand.

Pius's teaching is too detailed to ignore or to brush off mindlessly: He specified imposition of hands in pointed contrast to his teaching on the matter for the diaconate just a few lines before; moreover, he carefully identified which gesture was the matter and expressly denied others, one of which was the extension of a hand. Absent a formal Church ruling on the issue, everyone with the germ of a conscience should have doubts about the validity of priestly orders conferred with one hand after a Sovereign Roman Pontiff has spoken so unequivocally. Common sense tells us that, in light of Pius's teaching, something essential does indeed seem to be missing if only one hand was used at the first imposition.  

And the fact now remains: No one now on earth can guarantee that less than two will do.

Wonderfully, the cure for this well-founded, prudent doubt is easily at hand: conditional orders. The ceremonies are simple, and the formae e Pontificali Romano depromptae are readily available. Dannie should have done it years ago just before he got hold of the episcopate.  Royo Marín said it could be done in secret to avoid scandal, but, in "One Hand's" case, the conditional orders should take place in public (a) so the faithful can have peace of mind and (b) so the men he's ordained can confidently make an appointment to receive conditional orders from him after he gets fixed. He should have to pay out of his own money, not the cult's, for these unfortunates' transportation to the cult center, especially for those who currently reside in Latin America and Europe.

So there you have the authoritative basis for our advice to Dannie. We hope it has educated his conscience.

BTW, we privately advised our cultist interlocutor on his misuse of forms of address for clergy in the U.S. We suggest that for this particular episcopus vagans, "His Non-Entityship" might be apt, especially in light of the....


we found a week ago in Dannie's weekly local weather report and social events calendar called  "The Bishop's Corner":

Rev. Mr. Nkamuke has finished some extra studies in Detroit with Fr. Fliess, and is now with us for the remainder of the Summer (sic), as he prepared (sic) for his ordination on Wednesday, November 6th, at most (sic) Holy Trinity Seminary in Florida.

How weird. Only last March the rector wrote in his MHT Newsletter that the Rev. Mr. Nkmauke "will be ordained in November by Bishop Dolan." Does Dannie's announcement mean he won't be the ordaining bishop? Or will "One Hand" take a swampland junket at the cult's expense to escape the dreary SW Ohio early November weather?

After all, now that the rector has his brand, spankin' new chapel, Dannie might need to show him how to do the job right, even if his orders are doubtful. Besides, the pesthouse inmates are certainly not up to pulling off the really big show, so "One-Hand" might just have to fly in his lay MC, who is, without doubt, the finest, most talented pontifical master of ceremonies in Sedeville. We're sure the rector wouldn't want his completers who skipped the consecration and couldn't perform a graveside service to jinx the first priestly ordination in the new chapel!

Alternatively, could it be that maybe, just maybe the rector heeded the letters all of you sent on the Rev. Mr. Nkamuke's behalf? Or did news of our series get through the pesthouse gulag censors and reach the eyes and ears of the good Rev. Mr. Nkamuke himself? Perhaps, if he didn't want to return to his homeland under a cloud of doubt, he summoned the pluck to approach the rector and plead for himself and his fellow countrymen. Only time will tell on all these questions. (We hope, for the Rev. Mr. Nkamuke's sake, that Dannie's not going to ordain him. From all accounts, the Nigerian's a decent fellow who deserves to exercise his orders in peace, especially since the rumor mill keeps grinding out reports of his future candidacy for a miter.)

Maybe the rector will have some kind of face-saving explanation in an upcoming newsletter. Maybe this will be the end of Dannie's ordination enterprise except for the occasional stray, woefully untrained wannabe he finds in somebody else's backyard.

Stay tuned as the Trad drama continues.

*Teología Moral para Seglares, II (BAC, 1961), p. 494 , ❡c; "Si hay duda fundada y prudente sobre si faltó or no algo esencial, debe repetirse sub conditione la ordenación, aunque se hubiera recibido ya una orden superior, al menos si se trata de las tres órdenes que son ciertamente sacramento e imprimen carácter. Y así debe repetirse sub conditione la ordenación dudosa de diácono aunque se haya recibido ya el sacerdocio; y con mayor motivo debe repetirse la del presbiterado aunque se haya recibido ya la consagración episcopal, por cuanto es muy dudosa la validez de la consagración episcopal en uno que no sea previamente sacerdote. En este caso habría que repetir sub conditione las dos ordenaciones: la de sacerdote y la de obispo." (Emphasis his.)

** Denzinger 2301, ❡5. “In Ordinatione Presbyterali materia est Episcopi prima manuum impositio quae silentio fit, non autem eiusdem impositionis per manus dexterae extensionem continuatio, nec ultima cui coniunguntur verba: ‘Accipe Spiritum Sanctum: quorum remiseris peccata, etc.’”

And wouldn't you just know it! Here the Blunderer botched (1) the citation, (2) the translation, and (3) the transcription of this simple passage. See for yourself. The following is taken directly from the monograph (our emphasis in red):
Sacramentum Ordinis, DZ 2301, §4. “In Ordinatione Presbyterali materia est Episcopi prima manuum impositio quae silentio fit, non autem eiusdem impositionis per manus dexterae extensionem continuatio, nec ultima cui coniungitur verba: ‘Accipe Spiritum Sanctum: quorum remiseris peccata, etc.’”
In blunder number (1), the Bonehead cites the passage as coming from paragraph 4, rather than from the correct paragraph 5. In blunder number (2), the word Tone translates as "this," viz. eiusdem, is the pronomial adjective of identity, not the determinative (of which it is the stronger form), and it means "the same." Here's his translation if you don't believe us (our emphasis in red):
In ordination to the priesthood, the matter is the first imposition of the bishop’s hands which is done in silence, but not the continuation of this imposition by the extending of the right hand, nor the last imposition which is accompanied by the words: “Receive the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive,” etc. 
In blunder number (3), the Blunderer wrongly prints the 3rd person singular coniungitur, not the 3rd person plural coniunguntur as required by Latin grammar as well as by text as printed in the 1957 Enchiridion Symbolorum.

What a laugh! Once again, a triple whammy of Tony's habitual textual blunders with the papal text: shoddy citation, faulty transcription, and erroneous translation.  This clowns's got no business being around anything written in Latin. Nobody, not even CLODs and culties, should take this goofball seriously. Next time he tries to impress you, give him a big, loud raspberry and laugh him out the door.

No comments:

Post a Comment