A little while back you posted a letter about the "generic institution of the sacraments." [See our November 3, 2013 post, "The Rite Stuff."] The "anonymouse" writer said the church could change the matter of the sacraments and that was why there could be different matter for Latin priests and eastern priests. I asked our priest about this and he never heard of such things. In fact he said it was heretical. The writer did not give any sources and you did not add one of your smart alecky footnotes with books in languages nobody knows. Whose [sic] the one now thats [sic] making things up?Your priest must be one of the terminally ignorant pesthouse completers badly taught by the intellectually challenged, feebly educated faculty. Before we take you and your nitwit priest to school, let us by way of preface say (1) Pistrina, not the writer, withheld the name, and (2) the writer did provide a cite, although, as you say, the Readers did not insert an additional footnote. We omitted footnoting because the ideas in the letter are very well known to educated Catholics. (That's why your priest hadn't heard of this theological position -- like so many Traddie clergy, he's incurably handicapped by malformation and an in-bred reluctance to improve himself through study. We don't want to pry, but that "heretical" nonsense sounds as though it comes from "The Skipper" -- you know, the bean-brain who once skipped the consecration and has a habit of inventing new mortal sins.)
But we won't ask you or any other skeptic out there to take us at our word. We'll draw our reply from a book written in English, the Jesuit Bernard Leeming's Principles of Sacramental Theology (The Newman Press, 1956).
The Latin term for "generic institution" is institutio in genere (institution in a general manner, as opposed to institutio in specie, in a specific manner). As explained by Fr. Leeming, starting on p. 414, according to the theory of institutio in genere,
Christ settled the meaning of the sacrament, but left power with the apostles or the Church to determine the elements in which this meaning may be embodied ... in Orders, Christ settled the office and the grace to fulfill it, but left it to the Church to settle which particular rite would express the meaning of the grant of such power.Therefore, Fr. Leeming concludes, "the same meaning" can be expressed in rites "differing in material form." Hence it's not impossible to have one matter in the West and another in the East. Fr. Leeming informs us that among the authors who endorsed the generic-institution theory are de Soto, Lugo, Billuart, Billot, Tanquerey, Lennerz, and Doronzo. (Very good company to be in.)
As a reminder, neither Pistrina nor the letter writer argued that the substance of the sacrament could have been changed under the theory of generic institution. The change would have occurred in the rite. What we do hold is that after Sacramentum Ordinis, it's clear that two hands are the required matter for valid priestly ordination in the Latin rite. One hand, then, must be by definition a defect. Since in the crisis-ravaged Western Church we haven't a clue if less than two will do, the defect should be cured by conditional ordination. The stakes are too high to tolerate the slightest, tiniest doubt. Furthermore, the remedy is soooooo very, very simple. Why, even the rector could do it.
One final point about "making things up": we're not the Bonehead, so we don't have to rely on erroneous and misleading translations. In addition, we don't tart up undocumented hearsay and claim it's a "decision" of the Holy Office. The persuasive weight of the Church's best practices and thinking is overwhelmingly on our side in this dispute. Sticking with the truth is far easier and more compelling than inventing something. We don't need to play laughably transparent word games, confuse rites, ignore modern textual scholarship, or trot out a gross distortion of papal teaching. But to be fair, unlike the Bonehead, we didn't start with a losing proposition either.
It's a no-brainer that orders conferred with one hand are defective. They cry out for remedy. Dannie should've gotten fixed two decades ago.
The faithful -- including (for charity's sake) the mouth-breathing, hypersalivating, degenerate zombie cult-slaves -- deserve peace of mind.
"Fr. Leeming informs us that among the authors who endorsed the generic-institution theory are de Soto, Lugo, Billuart, Billot, Tanquerey, Lennerz, and Doronzo. (Very good company to be in.)"
ReplyDeleteYup, it sure is. Funny you don't want to be in their company about the validity of ordination conferred with one hand. In fact, you're a veritable LONE WOLF in saying such a defect renders the validity doubtful. And you're not even a theologian.
It sure makes one wonder why you want so badly to make people think Holy Orders conferred with one hand is doubtful in spite of every theologian saying the opposite ...
But we ARE in their company, witness our quote from Fr. Lennerz on May 25:
Delete"The practice of the Roman Congregations in repairing defects of the ordination of priests done before the Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis is, that the ordination be repeated conditionally, if the defects were either in the imposition of hands (in the beginning of the ordination), or in the handing over of the instruments; it is supposed therefore that such defects can render an ordination invalid."
BTW, "every" is hardly an adjective that can be used in this discussion. You need to learn precision. And a theologian who opined that one hand might be OK hedged his OPINION to leave room for doubts.
We've never asserted we're theologians. In fact, we don't believe there can be any theologians in the crisis. But we can read well enough to expose the Blunderer's errors. And we can read when the pope decrees hands not hand for priestly ordination. A defect is a defect, and absent authority to make a definitive decision, uncertainty reigns.
The reason we insist on the defect is that a valid priesthood is of paramount importance. There's no room for any kind of doubt.
"But we ARE in their company, witness our quote from Fr. Lennerz on May 25:
Delete"The practice of the Roman Congregations in repairing defects of the ordination of priests done before the Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis is, that the ordination be repeated conditionally, if the defects were either in the imposition of hands (in the beginning of the ordination), or in the handing over of the instruments; it is supposed therefore that such defects can render an ordination invalid."
The key words above are "before the Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis". That makes the rest of it irrelevant.
"BTW, "every" is hardly an adjective that can be used in this discussion. You need to learn precision. And a theologian who opined that one hand might be OK hedged his OPINION to leave room for doubts."
Every theologian who spoke on the matter said it was valid. Can you come up with a theologian who spoke on this specific case who said it wasn't valid?
"We've never asserted we're theologians."
I'm glad that's clear. Now, can you please explain how you feel competent to advise other people on technical theological questions if you're not a theologian?
"In fact, we don't believe there can be any theologians in the crisis."
Even better! So you're not a theologian, yet you reject the conclusion of the real theologians who wrote BEFORE the crisis. Please explain ...
"But we can read well enough to expose the Blunderer's errors."
And somehow, without being a theologian, you can also read well enough to expose the errors of Cappello, Aertnys-Damen, Regatillo, and the list goes on ...
"And we can read when the pope decrees hands not hand for priestly ordination. A defect is a defect, and absent authority to make a definitive decision, uncertainty reigns."
Um, I thought you said you weren't a theologian? I'm confused. There were several real theologians who wrote about this precise case after Sacramentum Ordinis and before the crisis, and all of them said that a one-handed ordination is certainly valid. Where do you draw your dissenting opinion from?
"The reason we insist on the defect is that a valid priesthood is of paramount importance. There's no room for any kind of doubt."
Good idea. Please indicate where you derive this "doubt" from.
What I mean is, please find even ONE THEOLOGIAN who says an ordination with only one hand is doubtful.
Feel free to take as long as you need to reply ...
You don't need to be a theologian to draw conclusions from plain text any more than you need to be a licensed physician to know that a suppurating wound requires treatment. Also remember that nine priests, two of whom are now bishops, held that ordination with one hand was doubtful unless evidence could be shown that it was certainly valid. The Blunderer's monograph failed to do that, as we have painstakingly detailed for over six months. (A gross mistranslation of formal papal teaching didn't help either.)
DeleteCappello, as quoted by Regatillo, did not say one-handed conferral was "certainly valid." He said said one-handed "impositio valida censetur, et consequenter ordinatio valida censenda est." The Latin verb CENSERE means "to deem, to consider, to suppose, to express as one's opinion, to imagine, to think (often mistakenly)." Hence, it is only an opinion, not a certainty.( McAuliffe said it was very probably valid, but we've already put that baby to bed in a recent post.)
Regatillo naturally understood the limits of opinion, for he says a little later that despite his and his colleagues conclusion, they would advise "ut consulatur S. Officium: an aliquid sit supplendum in casu" -- check with the Holy Office to see if anything needs to be supplied in a case of one-handed conferral. He also acknowledged Pius's specific language. That's why he said that "it is likely (pronum est)" that one hand would work. Likely is a far cry from certainty.
Since there's no competent authority for Traddies and since one-handed imposition of priestly orders is an obvious defect in view of the pope's plain-language teaching, common sense counsels the safer way -- conditional orders.
"You don't need to be a theologian to draw conclusions from plain text any more than you need to be a licensed physician to know that a suppurating wound requires treatment."
DeleteThis is absurd. You are not just quoting texts, you are drawing conclusions from them that are in no way in the texts themselves, opinions which require expertise. And yet you claim to have no expertise on the matter by saying you're not a theologian.
"Also remember that nine priests, two of whom are now bishops, held that ordination with one hand was doubtful unless evidence could be shown that it was certainly valid."
They weren't theologians either, so it doesn't much matter what they thought.
"Cappello, as quoted by Regatillo, did not say one-handed conferral was "certainly valid." He said said one-handed "impositio valida censetur, et consequenter ordinatio valida censenda est." The Latin verb CENSERE means "to deem, to consider, to suppose, to express as one's opinion, to imagine, to think (often mistakenly)." Hence, it is only an opinion, not a certainty."
"censenda est" is a gerundive, which indicates necessity: "must be considered valid." It boggles my mind that you are trying to twist the words "must be considered valid" to mean that Cappello was not sure. But I compliment you for those impressive verbal gymnastics.
"(McAuliffe said it was very probably valid, but we've already put that baby to bed in a recent post.)"
Yeah, I think you tried again to twist the words "very probably valid" into meaning "I'm not sure it's valid so it's probably doubtful." If he had wanted to say it was doubtful he would have said that, not said it was very probably valid.
"Regatillo naturally understood the limits of opinion, for he says a little later that despite his and his colleagues conclusion, they would advise "ut consulatur S. Officium: an aliquid sit supplendum in casu" -- check with the Holy Office to see if anything needs to be supplied in a case of one-handed conferral."
DeleteJust because the Holy Office would suggest they supply something doesn't mean there's any doubt. A baby in danger of death baptized by a layman needs to have the rest of the ceremonies supplied by a priest later, but that doesn't mean the baptism was doubtful. The Church wants the sacraments to be conferred correctly, and sometimes ceremonies need to be supplied if they are done wrong, but that doesn't mean there was doubt about the validity.
But in any case, these are questions for theologians, which you have made clear is a category that doesn't include you, so you have no business writing about such things.
"He also acknowledged Pius's specific language. That's why he said that "it is likely (pronum est)" that one hand would work. Likely is a far cry from certainty."
"Pronum est" could just as easily mean "it follows that ..." Besides, if he were not certain, as you think he wasn't, he wouldn't have said it's certainly valid. That's pretty clear.
Anyway, the fact that you are not a theologian and you disagree with real theologians makes it pretty obvious who's right.
You should really cite a Latin original if you're going to make statements affirming Regatillo said that one-handed priestly ordination was "certainly valid."
DeleteBTW, not to put too fine a point on it, but "censenda est" is not gerundive. "Censenda" is, indeed, a gerundive, but the phrase "censenda est" is a passive voice periphrasis. True, the passive periphrastic conjugation usually expresses the idea of necessity, but the requirement it imposes is only that it be CONSIDERED valid, not that it must BE valid. These aren't verbal gymnastics. Just simple semantics.
Okay, fine, it's a passive periphrastic. But you're saying Regatillo said the ordination must be "considered valid" but he didn't say it must BE valid. I'm desperately trying to follow your train of thought here. What exactly do you think Regatillo's position is? And what do you think he meant when he said the ordination must be considered valid? You seem to think that's different from saying the ordination is valid. What's the difference?
DeleteBesides, it's funny he said he would leave a man so ordained to exercise his orders in perfect peace if he thought there was *any* doubt at all about it.
We think it was his considered, private opinion that priestly orders conferred with one hand were valid. He may have had doubts but none serious enough to undermine his confidence in his perceived probability of being correct. Hence, he references Cappello, that people should consider such defective ordinations as valid. Furthermore, as far as he and some colleagues are concerned, anyone so ordained should go merrily on their way without a care. Should they not be willing to take his advice, he allows they can always check with the authorities. (But note that he does admit that "perhaps the sole imposition of hands" [forte sola manuum impositio] needs to be repeated.)
DeleteFine! That's his opinion -- and , granted, it's an educated one at that! We've always said that R's voice belongs to the discussion. However, he was flying blind, for he acknowledged that neither canonists nor liturgists speak about the impact of the defect, and no Holy Office "dipositio" is found. More to the point, not every theological opinion turns out to be right, no matter who proposes it. Just look at some notable Dominicans' opinions on the Immaculate Conception, e.g., Juan de Torquemada.
Finally, his very brief discussion in a text covering all topics in sacramental law can by no means be considered definitive. To us, it reads like an obiter dictum.
It obviously wasn't dispositive, or Clancy wouldn't have advised presenting the facts of a one-handed ordination "to the Holy See for a judgment." The bottom line is that it was just an opinion, and, in the light of Pius's explicit teaching, we'll never know whether it was true or false until the Restoration.
In the crisis today, we cannot tolerate even a miniscule amount of doubt in a priest's or a bishop's orders. Our standard is high: We want to be 100% sure, and that means we cannot accept mere opinion. In the absence of authority, we must consider one-handed conferral of orders invalid. Ordination sub conditione is the safe way out of this mess.
"One-Hand" should have done it on the eve of his consecration 20 years ago. Unfortunately, he listened to the ever-wrong Blunderer, whose defense of the defect we have exposed for its errors.
"the mouth-breathing, hypersalivating, degenerate zombie cult-slaves"
ReplyDeleteI'm addressing the following to anyone who might possibly take this website seriously:
You should really think long and hard before thinking that someone who thinks it's appropriate to write the above in a public forum about other people just because they go to a church he doesn't like is a "real theologian" or even a sane human being.
Once again, we've never said we're theologians. Perish the thought. We're Readers.
DeletePeople are known by the company they keep, and there are some folks you should just stay away from if you have any self-respect.