For over two decades, "One Hand Dan" has been plagued by both clergy and laymen with doubts about his priestly and episcopal orders. As you know, our advice has been for him to seek both conditional ordination and consecration to put an end to any and all doubts. To our surprise (for we thought we had been clear), we learned that a pack of Dannie's drooling defenders mistakenly thinks that Pistrina recommends Dannie's conditional consecration owing to his Thục lineage.
NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH.
We've never had a quarrel with the validity of that line of priests and bishops. Our objections have more to do with their fitness. A masterly discussion authored by a formally educated layman, not a malformed priest, has put an end to all doubts about the Thục line forever. (It took a layman to do the real heavy lifting, for the cult's minor-key clerical wannabes are seriously overmatched: college-educated laity with real diplomas surpass them in every way.)
The reason for our insistence on re-consecration is based on sound theological opinion. Yes, that's right: Opinion. We won't try to pass our views off as certain, like some bouncing-off-the-wall goof balls in dog-collars we know. In the debate over the validity of priestly orders conferred with one hand, it seems that not a whole lot has been settled, in spite of Pius's best hopes. In fact, the only thing we know with absolute certainty is that the matter of the priesthood and the episcopate is the imposition of the bishop's hands and that of the diaconate is the imposition of the bishop's hand. In such a situation, opinion, not certainty, must abound.
As discerning, sophisticated Readers, we know that for almost every opinion there is a countervailing position defended by men just as well-intentioned and earnest as we are. That's normal, although some of our cult-addled interlocutors can't get their pea-brains around that notion. Our aim, then, is not to change any brainwashed cultie's mind (or the mess of confused bewitchment that passes for such). No, that's too high a hurdle even for us to clear. Instead, we want to show the many intelligent souls in our audience the basis for our position on the safe-side of the issue. That's an easy caper.
For this first post in our new, short series, we'll own up to the fact that two sides do exist, and we won't try to vault over the opposing position, hoping you won't notice. For the sake of brevity, allow us, then, to jump in by reminding you of the argument that favors our recommendation. On August 11, we cited the Dominican Royo Marín to support our recommendation that "One Hand" be re-consecrated after his conditional ordination to the priesthood:
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.*However, the Spanish Jesuit Ferreres, footnoting the redoubtable Gasparri, tells us that some authorities found no problem with clerical leap-frogging:
...0thers claim with a great deal of probability that episcopal ordination confers the priesthood fully and independently of priestly ordination, and, therefore, for its validity it does not require in its subject either the presbyterate or the lower orders.**Long-time followers of this blog will recall that just over two years ago we touched briefly on the divided opinion about orders per saltum ("by a leap"). Now may be the time to look into why we think conditional orders guarantee the safer course. Then you can decide if you should persuade Dannie to get fixed, get out of the raging gale that's sweeping his failed apostolate away, and patch up his heretofore hard-knock life. (His "ordinati" will sure be grateful.)
So hop on board the truth-express and join us next week, same Saurian time, same Saurian channel as we continue this series. (In view of the upcoming holidays, we promise to be brief.)
*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.)
.
** Derecho Sacramental (Eugenio Subirana, 1932.)❡ 348 (1) p. 184 :"..otros pretenden con bastante probabilidad que la ordenación espicopal confiere el sacerdocio pleno e independientemente de la ordenación de presbítero, y, por tanto, para su validez no se requiere en el sujeto ni el presbiterado ni las órdenes inferiores."
No comments:
Post a Comment