THE RITE STUFF

Match me such marvel save in Eastern clime. Burgon

Editor's Note: Well, our visitor stats are starting to get back to pre-hiatus levels, so it's time to pick up where we left off in September and begin to finalize our demolition of the Blunderer's flatfooted, cringingly unscholarly defense of the validity of priestly orders conferred with one hand. Just to show you that we're not the only ones who can discern all his errors, we thought you'd like to read a thought-provoking email we recently received from a distinguished Catholic scholar who reads this blog.

Dear Pistrina Liturgica:

Cekada and his supporters are off the mark when they argue that calling one-handed priestly orders dubious would “imply a substantial difference between Holy Orders in the West and in the East.” 

When one speaks of the validity of ordination conferred with one hand in an Eastern rite, even supposing that it be so, it is perfectly possible that a sacrament may have one matter in an Eastern rite and another in the Latin rite. The Jesuit Hürth expressly says so when he comments on the validity of “moral contact”: he writes that, in the case in which there had been no physical contact of the hands on the head of the ordinand in an Eastern-rite ordination, Rome must be consulted to determine whether the ordination is valid or not. (I have found the same opinion in other authors.)

One must not forget that Pius XII defined the sense of the word substance as given by Trent, and he did not identify sacramental substance with the matter and the form. Furthermore, the notion of the generic institution of some sacraments (among which is the sacrament of order) is a perfectly valid theological opinion. We are always going to be able to return to this argument in order to uphold the dubiety of a one-handed priestly ordination.

Even if it were proved that in the West one-handed conferral of priestly orders was valid, datum sed non concessum, there always remains the possibility that the Church may have the power to change the matter of the sacraments (generic institution), and, in fact, in Sacramentum Ordinis Pius XII may have done just this by specifying the imposition of (both) hands.

The weakness of Cekada’s defense of one-handed priestly orders by appealing to analogues in Eastern-rite practices is made more evident when we consider the centuries-long debate about whether the traditio instrumentorum formed a part of the matter of the sacrament. (One of the principal reasons behind the issuance of Sacramentum ordinis was the resolution of that very question.) Now, the traditio never existed in Eastern rites, so the whole question of the traditio as the matter of the sacrament in Latin orders would have been absurdly and entirely useless if similarities between the Latin and Eastern rites were required to make a determination.

There are differences between the rites, and it is misleading to compare apples to oranges.

Accordingly, I can see no viability whatsoever in defending the certainty of a one-handed priestly ordination by invoking the practice of an Eastern rite.

Editor's Note: Our learned correspondent hit the nail on the head: Certainty is indeed the operative word here. Traditional Catholics have in justice and in charity a right to be certain that their clergy have been properly ordained, that not the slightest suspicion of irregularity attaches to their orders. Even soulless zombie cult followers -- the moral walking dead, as it were -- deserve the spiritual comfort such certainty provides. Trad World should be able to say, "No matter how far short of ideal our ill-trained, ill-bred clergy may fall, at least they are real priests."

Over the years people, perhaps even the nine priests who signed the 1990 ad cautelam letter to "One Hand," in their ignorance relied on the Blunderer's monograph for assurance that one-handed priestly orders were kosher. However, as we have shown definitively, the Cheeseball's monograph is an amalgam of errors, chief among which is its grossly distorted, achingly erroneous translation of the formal teaching of Pope Pius XII. The whole shoddy mess is an imitation of scholarship at the tenth remove. It has not withstood scrutiny. Toss it out. Traddielandia is back where all this began on September  21, 1990.

But let's not repeat what we've already made abundantly clear over the last six months. Let's cut to the chase:  There is absolutely no evidence to show that, in the words of the the nine priests who signed the letter (two of whom are now bishops), "one-handed ordination is certainly valid" (N.B.: the key word is certainly).

The sede cult masters have been busy casting doubts on the validity of Ratzinger's and Bergoglio's orders while blithely ignoring the problem in their own ranks. Just as we will never be sure whether B16 and Papa Pancho are valid bishops until the Restoration (when the Church may choose to decide the question), so, too, we will never know for certain whether one-handed priestly ordinations are valid until such time. Meanwhile, you'd think the cult-master clergy would want their orders to be above suspicion. You'd think they'd do anything in their power to remove every scintilla of doubt.

The tragedy for Traddies is that simple and easy means of assuring certainty  -- and of relieving faithful Catholics of any concerns -- are at hand: conditional ordination and consecration. It's time now for "One Hand" to get over it and admit that the Blunderer's monograph is worse than useless. His nine fellow priests' grounds for doubt remain as cogent as ever. 

Whether that doubt is positive, negative, or just nagging, we have to ask two questions:  First, why won't "One Hand" put an end to a controversy that has haunted him for over 30 years and just get fixed ... and then fix all the men he's ordained? Second, why can't he give Catholics and the witless men he's ordained the gift of peace of mind?

The answers to these questions are as difficult to reach as the answer to the question raised in late November 2009, at the height of the SGG School scandal: Why did he risk and lose so much in a stubborn, seemingly irrational defense of what many of his own parishioners and countless outsiders found indefensible?