Saturday, August 31, 2013


...only the individual reader is important to me. Nabokov

For nearly four months, rabid  CLODs ("close loyalists of Dannie") have upbraided us for exercising our faculties of judgment when we read theological opinions. In their narrow, cult-besotted minds, engaged and reflective reading equals disparagement or impermissible comment.

That's all nonsense, of course. And, as for us, well, we're readers. We read. Closely. Carefully. Comparatively. Critically. We affirm or deny. We consider. We question.

Sorry, cloddies, but we have an intellect, so that's how we roll. (And that's why we're immune to the cultmasters' empty blandishments and hollow imprecations.)

Mind you, we're not theologians, and we never said we were. In fact, many of you know we don't believe there can be any genuine theologians around in the crisis. Real theologians will have to wait for the Restoration and the reconstitution of Catholic higher learning. However, as readers who have Latin, we are capable consumers of Catholic theological opinion. And, after careful reading and discussion, when we find something that looks problematic, we then bring it to Trad Nation's attention -- not to disparage a recognized theologian from the good-old-days but to caution other consumers, who may be naïve or overly credulous. After all, opinion, even informed opinion, is just opinion, and the best of authors can err.

Now that we have received a copy of Palazzini and De Jorio's two-volume Casus Conscientiae, propositi ac resoluti a pluribus theologis ac canonistis Urbis (Marietti, 1958), we can share with you our critical reading of the passage the Blunderer so shoddily transcribed and translated (see our August 4 post, "A Capital Mistake"). As an aside, we note with satisfaction that the original text has confirmed our common-sense conjectures about the Blunderer's errors of transcription and translation -- and even more*: it's amazing just how sloppy and unscholarly he is.

First, let's look at the entire context of what Palazzini-De Jorio printed (De Jorio is the author of the article). In the following  literal translation we have reproduced the author's emphasis; note, however, we have formatted the section as one paragraph, for convenience; the text colored blue is the subject of our comments that follow:

Likewise no one is in doubt about the validity of priestly ordination or episcopal consecration conferred by the imposition of one hand. For indeed the power that is conferred is sufficiently indicated by the imposition of one hand. It is true, in fact, that the apostolic constitution Sacramentum Ordinis decides and determines that in priestly ordination the matter is the first imposition of hands that is done in silence. But the extension of one right hand is held to be a continuation of the imposition of hands. Moreover, that the imposition of one hand does not have less power than [that] of both [hands] is  proved conclusively with legal sanction from the aforementioned apostolic constitution, which, while it declares "the matter of the holy orders of the diaconate, priesthood, and episcopate, is the imposition of hands, and that alone" (paragraph 4), decides and determines : "In diaconal ordination, the matter is the imposition of the bishop's hand, which occurs in one and the same action in the rite of that ordination" (paragraph 5).**

N.B. Before we begin our comments, we point out that De Jorio appended no footnotes to support his sweeping assertions. We, therefore, conclude that he is expressing his personal opinion as a canonist writing around 1957, only a few years before the inception of the council.

Although the extension of the bishop's right hand is a seamless, gestural action occurring in unbroken succession close upon the imposition of both his hands, we must vigorously protest any implication that the extension of the one right hand has anything whatsoever to do with the matter of sacerdotal orders.

Why? Are we being impiously bold here, forgetting our place as laymen? Are we foisting our own peculiar, subversive notions on these published and recognized Roman canonists -- especially upon De Jorio, who, truth to tell, was a notary in the Holy Office and held other esteemed positions in Rome (albeit Novus-Ordo Rome)?

Not on your life.

We ground our protest in the very words of Pius XII in the same apostolic constitution that definitively and absolutely excluded the extension of the right hand from the matter of the sacrament. (Makes sense to us: it's an extension, not an imposition, duh! But much more on that in a future post.) However, you needn't take our word for it. Read for yourself what Sacramentum Ordinis itself says in paragraph 5 (our emphasis in bold):
In Ordinatione Presbytertali materia est Episcopi prima manuum impositio quae silentio fit, non autem eiusdem impositionis per manus dexterae extensionem continuatio, nec ultima....
(Lit.) In priestly ordination, the matter is the first imposition of the hands of the bishop, which is done in silence, but not the continuation of the same imposition by the extension of the right hand, nor the last ...** (Our emphasis.)***
Writing separately in 1948, two French commentators on the constitution, A. Michel and A. Delchard, both remarked on the sharp verbal precision and limpidity of the declarations of Sacramentum Ordinis.****  Nowhere is this linguistic exactitude more evident than when Pius XII makes it abundantly clear that the extension of the right hand (which uninterruptedly succeeds the first imposition of hands) is absolutely NOT the matter. The matter of priestly ordination, as Pius taught and as you've just read, "is the first imposition of the hands of the bishop, which is done in silence." Nothing more. Nothing less.

Pius intended to end all doubts in the future regarding orders, hence his remarkable linguistic and jurisprudential rigor throughout the constitution. The document's precision resists and defeats every effort to read into it what it clearly never affirmed: The pope taught the matter for the priesthood was the first imposition of hands done in silence, thereby precisely locating where the matter occurred in the rite. He explicitly excluded from the matter of priestly orders the ensuing extension of the right hand following the first imposition as well as the last imposition of hands to which are joined the words: "Receive the Holy Ghost: whose sins thou shalt forgive, etc." Furthermore, for each order, he distinguished and differentiated the matter (imposition of hands [plural] for priests and bishops, imposition of the hand [singular] for deacons) and specified the exact words of the form.

What could be more obvious to anybody? What could be more free from the need for interpretation than Pius's plain, unequivocal language?

The extension of the right hand that continues after the first imposition is not the matter. 

How, then, can there be any dispute about what was the will of Pius XII? How does anyone, no matter how eminent, presume to fudge here? How can anyone so cavalierly ignore Pius's crystal-clear declarations about which there can be no debate, no wrenching of new meanings, no "higher" explanations, no "buts," and no violations of the letter and the spirit of papal teaching.

No means no!

And since to err is human, the Church has long provided an easy and painless way to rectify what was wrong or what might be wrong: conditional orders.

But you know this. You can read, too. You've already learned how to exercise your judgment. You can't be distracted by sophistry, unsupported assertions, or an all-too-convenient inadvertence to Pius's actual teaching. You yourself can join us in saying that anyone who upholds one-handed conferral of priestly orders by affirming or alleging that the extension of the right hand has the same sacramental power as the first imposition of hands is wrong, whether he be a competent, pre-Vatican-II-trained academic Latin author or a malformed, uncredentialed, Latin-challenged blunderer. 

* In footnote 11, the Bonehead  italicizes 17 words of Latin text and ascribes the emphasis to the author ("His emphasis," Tone writes, even though he cites both Palazzini and De Jorio). However, in the original book, for the sentences cited, only one word is italicized, viz. "continuatio."

**Case 341, vol. 2, p. 287, 2°. Item nemo dubitat de validitate ordinationis sacerdotalis vel consecrationis episcopalis, conlatae per unius manus impositionem. Etenim potestas, quae confertur, satis significatur per unius manus impoositionem. Verum est quidem Constitutionem Apostolicam Sacramentum Ordinis decernere atque constituere in ordinatione presbyterali materiam esse primam manuum impositionem quae silentio fit.
At unius manus dexterae extensio habetur continuatio impositionis manuum. Ceterum impositionem unius manus non minorem habere virtutem quam utriusque iure cogitur ex praedicta Constitutione Apostolica, quae dum declarat «Sacrorum Ordinum Diaconatus, Presbyteratus et Episcopatus materiam eamque unam esse manuum impositionem» (n. 4), decernit atque constituit: «In ordinatione Diaconali materia est Episcopi manus impositio quae in ritu istius ordinationis una occurrit» (n. 5). (Author's emphasis; we have indicated the original paragraphing by the symbol .)

*** Denzinger 2301, ❡5. Here's the translation from the Canon Law Digest on papalencyclicals,net:"In the Ordination to the Priesthood, the matter is the first imposition of [Ed. Note: corrected from "off"] hands of  the Bishop which is done in silence, but not the continuation of the same imposition through the extension of the right hand, nor the last imposition..." 

****For their commentaries, see the Rore Sanctifica site.

Saturday, August 24, 2013


For there is good news yet to hear ... Chesterton

Editor's Note: As we await delivery through an interlibrary loan of Palazzini-De Jorio's Casus Conscientiae, we thought a short update on two topics might be in order for a busy end-of-August weekend. (You'll recall from our August 4 post that the Blunderer's transcription of a short passage from their book was rendered so untrustworthy by his mistakes that we couldn't comment on the content until we had a chance to consult the original book.)


In Bonehead's Botch Revisited, we posted two additional independent translations as part of our effort to prove that nobody except the Latin-challenged Blunderer reads Pius's Latin words eamque unam as "one and the same." Today we add two more instances, sent to us by correspondents from Europe and Latin America, for a total, at present, of nine. The first is from the German translation of Denzinger* :

[D]ie Materie der Heiligen Weihen des Diakonates, Presbyterates und Episkopates - und zwar die einzige - ist die Auflegung der Hände... 
(Literally: The matter of the Holy Orders of the Diaconate, Presbyterate and Episcopate - and that is the only one - is the imposition of hands...)
The second is from the 1963 Herder edition of Denzinger translated into Spanish by the authoritative Ruiz Bueno**:
... la materia única de las sagradas órdenes del diaconado, presbiterado y episcopado es la imposición de las manos...
(Literally: ...the only matter of the sacred orders of the diaconate, priesthood, and episcopate is the imposition of hands...)
Don't all of you out there in cyberspace believe by now that the Blunderer's monograph might just represent the only time the phrase "one and the same" has appeared in print in any civilized language as a translation of Pius's eamque unam? Who else could have come up with such a stupidly outré rendering? And to think that Wee Dan bet the farm on such idiocy when all he had to do was to petition for conditional orders before his 1993 consecration. Twenty years of doubt and insinuation, for Pete's sake! How could he bear it? Surely, there is no one who will still defend Tony Baloney, not even the most warped, spittle-stained zombie-cultist in captivity -- or even Dannie and the rest of the lumpen clergy.


On August 11, we reported on "One Hand's" surprise announcement that the Rev. Mr. Nkamuke will be ordained in Florida and not at the SW Ohio industrial-park & cult center. At the time, we didn't know whether Dannie or the rector was going to ordain in the swampland. Since then, several correspondents have told us that the ordaining bishop will be the rector himself. The alleged reason for the change of venue and bishop is that the Rev. Mr. Nkamuke will return to his homeland after ordination and thus will not indenture himself as one of Dannie's clerical flunkies at the cult's creepy head quarters. Therefore, there was no need for "One Hand" to ordain (even though, LOL, supposedly, a November ordination is a long-standing "tradition" during the Butler County cult follies).

If these reports are true, then the reason for the change sounds to us like a lot of face-saving hogwash. The last time we checked, Dannie's digital begging bowl, it said (right under the prominent "DONATE") that the St. Gertrude's Bishop's Apostolate "[s]upports Bp. Dolan's episcopal work in America, Mexico, France, and Nigeria."

Given that, according to his own website, "One-Hand" has an apostolate in Nigeria, wouldn't it, then, make the most sense for him, not the rector, to ordain the Rev. Mr. Nkamuke, a son of Nigeria? Wouldn't that seal the bond between prelate and people more than anything else? Wouldn't the people want their new priest to receive his sacerdotal orders from the hands of their very own episcopal worker bee and apostle?

Of course, the answer to all three questions would be yes, yes, and yes ... unless, perhaps, there were doubts. Is it possible that the rector has realized he was right to have signed the 1990 ad cautelam letter to "One Hand"? In a few months we'll know for sure -- maybe even sooner. 

Could it be that we just might be seeing the end of "One Hand's" role at the pesthouse if he does not submit to conditional orders? What seminarian in his right mind would consent to have a cloud of doubt loom over his own orders for the rest of his life just to keep "One Hand's" feelings from being wounded? Why doesn't "One Hand" just ask the ol' rector to fix him and then exercise his orders in peace? (To be sure, the rector may not be willing to oblige under the circumstances: what goes around, comes around, doesn't it?)

*Denzinger-Hünermann, 43rd edition, 2010, Herder, Freiburg im Breisgau, Imprimatur: Freiburg im Breisgau, 18th February 1997. No. 3859, p. 1002.


Saturday, August 17, 2013


No one would talk much in society, if he knew how often he misunderstands others. Goethe

Editor's Note: Today's post is entirely written by one of our regular correspondents, who recently sent us the following thought-provoking analysis:

I have followed the series of posts regarding Cekada’s work on ordination with one hand, and even here his incompetence in several areas is clear (although it is worthy of note that Sanborn, who supposedly knows Latin and theology, missed all the nonsense).

I agree with Pistrina’s criticisms of Cekada’s monograph, but I would like to point out one particular critique that has not been brought forward. It is one that, I think, serves to prove Cekada did not understand what was the subject at issue. That is to say, not only did he not understand Pius XII’s Latin, but he also did not understand the juridical and historical context of the apostolic constitution Sacramentum Ordinis.

Even though it is certainly true, as Billot says, that the discussion was more theoretically academic than any other insofar as the Church always opted for the safer way, nevertheless, for anyone who has read any theological treatise on the Sacrament of Order written before Pius’s constitution, it is easy to see that the theologians’ discussion was twofold.

1) First and foremost was the discussion of whether or not the delivery of the instruments belonged to the essence of the sacrament; in connection with that discussion, there were three opinions:

a) The imposition of hands was sufficient.
b) The delivery of the instruments was sufficient.
c) Both ceremonial actions were necessary.

2) In the second place, supposing the necessity of the imposition of hands, there was doubt about which one of the impositions was essential. In the diaconate and the episcopate, there is only one imposition, regarding which there was no problem, but in the case of the priesthood, there were three opinions:

a) The first imposition was sufficient.
b) The first imposition followed by the extension of the right hand.
c) Opinion “b” plus the last imposition.

In respect to this last option, it was the common teaching of theologians that the last imposition did not form part of the matter since it took place after the Host and Chalice had been consecrated.

Such was the nature of the discussion before the promulgation of Sacramentum Ordinis. Now, then, in 1947 Pius XII resolved both doubts, something that Cekada did not understand.

Let us examine, in context, what Pius actually wrote in paragraph 4 of his constitution (the emphases are my own):
Quae cum ita sint, divino lumine invocato, suprema Nostra Apostolica Auctoritate et certa scientia declaramus et, quatenus opus sit, decernimus et disponimus : Sacrorum Ordinum Diaconatus, Presbyteratus et Episcopatus materiam eamque unam esse manuum impositionem; formam vero itemque unam esse verba applicationem huius materiae determinantia, quibus univoce significantur effectus sacramentales, — scilicet potestas Ordinis et gratia Spiritus Sancti — , quaeque ab Ecclesia qua talia accipiuntur et usurpantur. Hinc consequitur ut declaremus, sicut revera ad omnem controversiam auferendam et ad conscientiarum anxietatibus viam praecludendam Apostolica Nostra Auctoritate declaramus, et, si unquam aliter legitime dispositum fuerit, statuimus instrumentorum traditionem saltem in posterum non esse necessariam ad Sacrorum Diaconatus, Presbyteratus et Episcopatus Ordinum validitatem. *
That is to say, by the context, you clearly see that he is differentiating the imposition of hands from the delivery of the instruments, which is evident from paragraph 5 of Sacramentum Ordinis (the emphases are mine): 
De materia autem et forma in uniuscuiusque Ordinis collatione, eadem suprema Nostra Apostolica Auctoritate, quae sequuntur decernimus et constituimus: In Ordinatione Diaconali materia est Episcopi manus impositio quae in ritu istius Ordinationis una occurrit… In Ordinatione Presbyterali materia est Episcopi prima manuum impositio quae silentio fit, non autem eiusdem impositionis per manus dexterae extensionem continuatio, nec ultima… Denique in Ordinatione seu Consecratione Episcopali materia est manuum impositio quae ab Episcopo consecratore fit.**
In a word, the pope first speaks of the three orders in general: he says that the matter is onefold and common to the three, namely, the imposition of hands; that is to say, it is not twofold since the delivery of the instruments is not necessary for validity, and then he determines in particular what the matter of each one of the orders is, most especially that of the priesthood, which was the one that presented doubts.

Cekada, in contrast, understands the above-cited paragraph 4 as referring in particular to each one of the orders (diaconate, presbyterate, episcopate) when he writes: 
In his Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis, Pius XII, having explicitly invoked his supreme Apostolic Authority, declared and decreed:
The matter of the Sacred Orders of Diaconate, Priesthood and Episcopacy is one and the same, and that indeed is the imposition of hands.
Then, with his awful, tendentious translation, he tries to prove that just as the ordination of deacons is valid with one hand, the same thing occurs with priestly and episcopal ordination.

However, let us note that, in paragraph 4, the only thing Pius XII is discussing is whether the imposition of hands is sufficient or whether the delivery of the instruments should also be included.

In his commentary on the constitution, the Jesuit Hürth makes this very clear (my emphases in bold):
12. Parte preparatoria sic absoluta, Constitutio Apostolica (Const. n. 4) transit ad partem dispositivam, in qua primo collective pro omnibus tribus ordinibus, Diaconatus, Presbyteratus, Episcopatus statuitur, quid ad valorem requiratur, quid non requiratur; deinde ididem (read ibidem) fit relate ad singulos hos ordines, singillatim sumptos***
Or in other words, paragraph 4 specifies in general what is required for validity (imposition of hands) and what is not required (delivery of instruments), and then the next paragraph specifies in particular what matter and what form are required in each one of the orders.

Hürth clarifies his thinking even further (my own emphases in bold):
13. Id quod “declaratur", (respective insuper “disponitur”), ex parte est positivum, ex parte negativum. Pars positiva respicit necessitatem et suficientiam solius manuum  impositionis, tamquam materiae, ad validam Ordinationem diaconalem, presbyteralem, episcopalem, necnon necessitatem et sufficientiam verborum, tamquam formae, etc.****
14: Parti positivae statim adnectitur pars negativa, scl. declaratio et dispositio, quidnam non requiratur (Const. n. 4). Haec pars negativa est simplex et necessaria conclusio ex antecedenti parte positiva; ideo incipit verbis: “hinc consequitur”. Et revera, si unica (1) materia, quae ad valorem requiratur, est impositio manuum, nulla alia materia ad valorem necessaria esse potest. Pars negativa in primis respicit “traditionem instrumentorum”, quam, ut supra notatum est, multi theologi primae notae ante et post Concilium Florentinum dixerunt materiam sacramenti, ad valorem saltem etiam necessariam.*****
He then goes on to speak of the orders in particular and comments:
16. Parti generali de tribus Diaconatus, Presbyteratus, et Episcopatus Ordinibus adiungitur pars specialis de singulis Ordinibus, singillatim sumptis (Const. n. 5), et quaeritur, quinam ex ritibus occurrentibus ad essentiam et valorem singulorum ordinum sint necessarii.******
In conclusion, as you can see, not only does Cekada not know Latin, and not only does he distort the words of the pope, but he has no understanding at all about what Sacramentum Ordinis is talking about.

Many thanks to those at Pistrina for unmasking the incompetence of this pseudo-scholar.

(1) That is to say, materiam eamque unam does not mean, “the matter is one and the same” as Cekada wrongly translated, but “the only matter.

*Editor’s Note: Our correspondent cited the Latin texts only. In order to avoid any charge of bias against the Blunderer, instead of providing our own translation, for this and the next citation from Sacramentum Ordinis, we supply that of the “Canon Law Digest” of 1954 found on the website. We have reproduced our correspondent’s emphasis throughout. (For the citations from Hürth's commentary on Sacramentum Ordinis, of necessity we have supplied our own translations, which we have tried to keep scrupulously literal.)

Wherefore, after invoking the divine light, We of Our Apostolic Authority and from certain knowledge declare, and as far as may be necessary decree and provide: that the matter, and the only matter, of the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy is the imposition of hands; and that the form, and the only form, is the words which determine the application of this matter, which univocally signify the sacramental effects - namely the power of Order and the grace of the Holy Spirit - and which are accepted and used by the Church in that sense. It follows as a consequence that We should declare, and in order to remove all controversy and to preclude doubts of conscience, We do by Our Apostolic Authority declare, and if there was ever a lawful disposition to the contrary We now decree that at least in the future the traditio instrumentorum [“delivery of the instruments”] is not necessary for the validity of the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy.

** As to the matter and form in the conferring of each Order, We of Our same supreme Apostolic Authority decree and provide as follows: In the Ordination to the Diaconate, the matter is the one imposition of the hand of the Bishop which occurs in the rite of that Ordination... In the Ordination to the Priesthood, the matter is the first imposition of hands of the Bishop which is done in silence, but not the continuation of the same imposition through the extension of the right hand, nor the last… Finally in the Episcopal Ordination or Consecration, the matter is the imposition of hands which is done by the Bishop consecrator.

*** 12. After having thus finished the preparatory section, the apostolic constitution (paragraph 4) goes on to the determinative section, wherein first, for the three orders of the diaconate, priesthood, and episcopate, it is comprehensively determined what is required for validity, [and] what is not required; next, in the same context (ibidem) [the determination] is made in relation to each one of these orders, taken one by one. 

****13: That which “is declared,” (in this particular respect, moreover, “[that which] is provided”) is partly positive, partly negative. The positive part has reference to the necessity and sufficiency of the imposition of hands alone, as the matter, for a valid diaconal, priestly, [and] episcopal ordination, and also the necessity and sufficiency of the words, as the form, etc.

*****14: To the positive part is immediately joined the negative part, namely, the declaration and the provision, what, then, is not required (paragraph 4). This negative part is a simple and necessary conclusion from the preceding positive part; therefore, it begins with the words “hence it follows” [“it follows as a consequence” in the “Canon Law Digest” translation cited above]And in reality, if the only matter, which is required for validity, is the imposition of hands, no other matter can be necessary for validity. The negative part chiefly has reference to the “delivery of the instruments,” which, as has been noted above, many theologians of highest note before and after the Council of Florence said was the matter of the sacrament, at least also necessary for validity.

****** 16. To the general part concerning the three orders of the diaconate, the priesthood, and the episcopate is joined the particular (specialis) part concerning each order, taken one by one (paragraph 5), and there is an examination of which [ritual elements], then, from the occurring rites are necessary for the essence and validity of each order.

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.