Saturday, December 13, 2014

A HOLIDAY GIFT

Here comes Santa Claus,/Right down Santa Claus Lane. Popular Holiday Song

And just in time for the holiday season also comes Pistrina's summary of its 2013 series of posts rebutting/refuting the Blunderer's defense of the validity of one-handed priestly orders.

Our THE DUBIETY OF ORDINATION CONFERRED WITH ONE HAND will also be found on a separate resource page together with the September 1990 letter from the nine priests and "One Hand's" reply to one of the signers.

Now instead of clicking through our many posts, inquiring minds can turn to one document for all the answers they need. As we've said before -- ♫ many times, many ways ♫ -- we don't know whether priestly orders conferred with one hand are invalid. That decision awaits a restored Church. What we do know is that such a conferral is defective -- and that Tony Baloney's now discredited monograph can no longer be used to make a case for validity.

So, when in doubt, opt for pars tutor, just as the Catholic Church used to do. 

BTW, one of our colleagues is busy working on the Spanish version, which will be available to the Spanish-speaking world in 2015. We do hope we have it in time for Dannie's expected junket to Mexicali, Mexico.

93 comments:

  1. "The Validity of Ordination Conferred with One Hand" by Fr. Cekada:
    http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=47&catname=11

    for compare/contrast/reference

    ReplyDelete
  2. Have you directly emailed Fr. Cekada and Bp. Dolan and gotten their reaction to this piece?

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Here comes the interesting part of the story. The emergency jurisdiction is given to these clerics only when the faithful are asking them for the sacra­ments. We should keep in mind that it is not the people who grant this kind of jurisdiction. It is supplied by the Church herself who is ever anxious to save human souls for heaven. However, the actual granting by the Church is activated by the faithful requesting the services of these clerics.

    In practice it means that in our time when the diocesan bishops cannot be regarded as Catholic bishops, I have the right to request any validly ordained priest or bishop to administer the sacraments to me, or to my congregation. Upon my request they will have the "ad hoc" jurisdiction to do that. (This is the jus­tification for Abp Lefebvre's going around the world without having ordinary jd.) If they are not requested, they don't have jurisdiction to administer any sacra­ments. - This is a far cry from the self-assumed authority and universal juris­diction that the new bishops of Msgr. Thuc are claiming for themselves."
    -Rev. J. Vida Elmer

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, I'd surely protest loudly if a vagrant cleric would administer any sacrament to me without my request!

      Delete
    2. Köszönöm szépen!

      With each passing year, these *vagi* make bolder, and bolder claims. Father's comment is an apt corrective to their warrantless assumptions.

      "One Hand" should forget about dreams of wider jurisdiction and get himself re-rordained and re-consecrated so that if anyone asks him to administer the sacraments there will be no doubt as to his validity.

      Delete
  4. Literal Google translation: "The Sacred Orders of the Diaconate , the Priesthood , and the Episcopacy is the imposition of hands to be single" from "Sacrorum Ordinum Diaconatus, Presbyteratus, et Episcopatus materiam eamque unam esse manuum impositionem"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The Dubiety of Ordination Conferred with One Hand" provides numerous correct and idiomatic translations of the pope's teaching, in several languages.

      What's interesting here is that even an awkward machine translation did not generate anything so perverse as Checkie's "one and the same."

      But, then again, the machine doesn't have an agenda, does it?

      Delete
  5. As someone who has been privileged to attend and even serve in numerous liturgical ceremonies, I am astonished that anyone can take this seriously at all. To say that in such an important ceremony, with so many priests standing around in different functions, at the most critical possible moment of the ceremony itself, that something so glaring and visible could have gone so horribly wrong without anyone noticing anything or saying something at the time is ridiculous. Every eye in the sanctuary would have been on the Archbishop and the ordinands at this moment, and everyone would have seen this mistake if it had occurred.

    Every priest and practically every seminarian in that sanctuary and the choir would have known that the bishop is supposed to impose two hands. Every eye would have been fixed on the ordinand at such a momentous occasion, at the moment of the essential matter. For Pete's sake, the deacon, subdeacon, archpriest and MC would all have been less than ARM'S LENGTH from this taking place. Were ALL of them too stupid, distracted, wrapt in contemplation, blind, drunk or high to see something like that? And if *they* were, are we supposed to believe that so was every single other cleric in the sanctuary? How many people are we talking about, anyway? Probably a dozen or two priests who would have all been staring fixedly at the bishop at this crucial moment. They all managed to miss this? And if they did see it, they would have just let it go because they were too intimidated to say anything? Seriously? They would allow the Archbishop to mess up the essential matter of Holy Orders in a historic ceremony of ordination because they were too wimpy to say, "Um, excuse me, Monseigneur, but I think you imposed only one hand on so-and-so?"

    I've seen MCs throw a fit over details as small as a priest saying a collect out of order or the thurifer forgetting to incense the crossbearer at the Offertory. I've seen people wring their hands trying to figure out how many swings of the censer a bishop in the sanctuary is supposed to receive, and whether those swings are supposed to be in clusters of two or three. MCs have stopped the holy Sacrifice itself when a priest incensed the relics on the altar in the wrong order, so he could do it again correctly. So the very notion that so many priests could have seen such a glaring mistake in such an important matter and not a single one say anything is really not a serious idea.

    But this story is in the "institutional memory" of Econe, right? So what? There are stories about flying saucers in the institutional memory of Roswell, New Mexico. I guess you have to believe in that too. Or, if you prefer, you have to be in "doubt" about it.

    It really doesn't matter what the origin of such a silly story actually is, but if I had to speculate (and I don't), I would say that probably some near-sighted seminarian thought he saw something like that, and it made a good nickname, and the name stuck. But it's self-evident that if this had really happened there would be someone who actually knew about it. And the fact that you can't produce even one priest who can verify this wild tale is just one more proof that it's a tall story.

    To say that something like this could have happened in front of all those priests without a single one saying a word during the ceremony is about as plausible as saying that, in the final thirty seconds of the World Cup, a player kicked the ball towards the goal and his team was credited with a goal, winning the game for them, when in reality the ball missed the goal by 50 feet. And none of the referees, players, coaches, managers or spectators noticed this discrepancy or raised any objection. That could happen a lot more easily than this silly story.

    I'm sorry to rain on your bizarre little parade here, but it really looks like you wasted the last six months writing your little "catechism" for nothing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Were ALL of them too stupid, distracted, wrapt in contemplation, blind, drunk or high to see something like that?" People make mistakes. Our local indult priest omitted the last blessing at a mass. No one spoke up about it. I did and then he blessed us right then and there. He was old. Shortly after this I went back into a stay-at-home sede vacantism and now conclavism under pope Michael. His stance is that Dolan was validly ordained and consecrated which I posted on this blog a few posts back on a Youtube video he did on this issue.

      Says Pistrina: "You should remember that there was a cult of the personality around the archbishop, and no one was supposed to correct the great man." Yeah, I think this is the problem in general which led to the Vatican 2 defection, and maybe what is prolonging the agony of solving the Vatican 2 crisis. People were quiet, dependent sheep and just going along with things. They're looking up to some of these men as leaders who are failing to lead well. Sometimes speaking up was punished or ostracized, and still is. Says Pistrina, "One former MC told us that once after correcting the archbishop he was severely criticized by other priests for being so bold." I seem to notice this with some "traditionalists" - feeneyites are a great example, they are very critical. But if we could allow each other to make mistakes and to have a faith that mutual understanding can be reached, or at least the truth if we are personally of a good will, maybe some of this smothering critical attitude could wane and the truth can have some room to triumph. In situations like these, the parties involved should email each other and raise questions and try to work to resolve different problems. Either Dolan was or was not validly ordained. We should compile the various questions on both sides and weigh the arguments until the truth comes out in the clear.

      I'm wondering if the Abp. didn't do a one-handed ordination on purpose in order to cause more confusion, given his illogical stand which the SSPX carries on today between sede vacantism (or conclavism) and full communion with Rome, in to this no man's land of "partial communion". I'm wondering if that position of "recognize and resist" was deliberately created, to prevent electing a pope and restoring the Church, duking it out with the novus ordo and restoring order. And yet what did [falsely?] respecting the Abp. ultimately accomplish? Or what does having the same kind of mindset about Fr. Cekada's writing accomplish? "The nine" still ended up breaking from the SSPX, and many others followed suit. And what unity is there among the sede vacantists?

      The papacy needs to be restored and maybe then this case can be tried in an ecclesiastical court? I think this whole debate is an example of more chaos created by the conciliarists in order to distract people from more important issues (not that it’s not an important issue), and a symptom of a lack of submission to a true pope.

      May God come to our assistance, may the Lord make haste to help us!

      Delete
    2. I suppose I must add that when I say we should allow each other to make more mistakes, I don't mean that Dolan should say "masses" if he wasn't validly ordained. I don't mean that kind of experimentalism, but I mean the kind of asking questions maybe in emails or on this blog about if the ordination was valid, and allowing mistaken ideas to be proposed and reasoned out against. I don't know, it just doesn't feel like much progress is being made. How long has the one-hand ordination question of Dolan been going on now? This ceremony was in 1976, almost 40 years ago. I think something needs to change so these kinds of confusions stop multiplying (namely, the papacy needs to be restored).

      Delete
  6. Replies
    1. Let us again repeat what we have said over and over again. One of the principals in the sanctuary DID notice the defect, and he was chagrined that none of the others had the courage to intervene. It was only after the ceremony that the archbishop himself realized what he had done and was "in a panic" that someone came forward to tell him everything was OK.

      You should remember that there was a cult of the personality around the archbishop, and no one was supposed to correct the great man. One former MC told us that once after correcting the archbishop he was severely criticized by other priests for being so bold.

      BTW, we have the statement affirming categorically that the event happened. We have reasons for not sharing it, the principal one being that our objective has never been to prove the event happened: we have always said that the persistence of doubt about the '76 orders demands that "One Hand" choose the pars tutior, especially now that Cekada's monograph defending the validity of such orders has been rebutted/refuted.

      We have wasted nothing. We have refuted/rebutted Checkie's monograph, and we have made the case for "One Hand" to seek conditional orders.

      The one-handed conferral of '76 is not an urban legend, and people realize that not all nine priests who signed the letter are as callow as others would make out. Furthermore, had all the parties been as certain as you of a two-handed conferral, Checkie would never have published his now discredited monograph, and "One Hand" would have demanded that the signers retract their assertion of one-handed conferral as well as their imputation that his orders were doubtful. All they have done has been to defend the validity of one-handed conferral, not to deny that it took place.

      Nine priests affirmed it, and many, many others know of the account. In the face of such lingering doubt, the only choice is the safer course and re-ordination.

      Delete
    2. "One of the principals in the sanctuary DID notice the defect, and he was chagrined that none of the others had the courage to intervene"

      So who is he?

      "You should remember that there was a cult of the personality around the archbishop, and no one was supposed to correct the great man. One former MC told us that once after correcting the archbishop he was severely criticized by other priests for being so bold."

      This is called "hearsay."

      "BTW, we have the statement affirming categorically that the event happened. We have reasons for not sharing it, the principal one being that our objective has never been to prove the event happened:"

      Is the statement subject to impeachment on memory, like you claim of the priest who was there and saw two hands used? Guess we will never know! On a subject as important as this paragons of virtue, like the Reader, must realize that they should publish it to give moral certitude that it exists! You MUST prove the event happened, otherwise THERE IS NO DOUBT. Lefebvre enjoys the presumption of validity.

      "We have wasted nothing. We have refuted/rebutted Checkie's monograph, and we have made the case for "One Hand" to seek conditional orders."

      You've done no such thing. The monograph is moot since you have not proven the one hand ordination took place, so your whole case collapses right there.

      "The one-handed conferral of '76 is not an urban legend, and people realize that not all nine priests who signed the letter are as callow as others would make out. "

      I'm not being callow. The nine saw nothing and have no evidence. Rumors about a "friend of a friend" that can't be named as witnesses, do indeed make it a Traditionalist urban legend, right next to Leinart's "Masonry."

      "Furthermore, had all the parties been as certain as you of a two-handed conferral, Checkie would never have published his now discredited monograph, and "One Hand" would have demanded that the signers retract their assertion of one-handed conferral as well as their imputation that his orders were doubtful. All they have done has been to defend the validity of one-handed conferral, not to deny that it took place."

      Wrong. Dolan says in his letter he did not believe one hand was used Cekada also defended that claim. Arguing in the alternative was simply trying to strengthen the case from dolts who want to create doubt where none exists. So there was a denial, just not as "vigorous" as you claim it "should" be. This paragraph is loaded with conjecture.

      "Nine priests affirmed it, and many, many others know of the account."

      Yeah. Right. Sure. The nine saw nothing, have no proof, and you refuse to name even one so-called witness. Calumny is serious, but you keep on doing it. God pity you.

      Delete
    3. Introibo, you and "anonymous" should get yourselves checked into an asylum. Your maniacal rantings don't even deserve a response.

      Delete
    4. Translation: "I know I haven't a leg to stand on and had my fallacious reasoning exposed. So I'll call them crazy, like I call Dolan dubious."

      I'll make it simple; answer the following:

      1. How can nine priests who were not at the ordination and have no proof of a one handed ordination know that it happened?

      2. Institutional memory is based on fact. What facts, specifically, gave rise to this alleged "knowledge"?

      3. You need to prove a one handed ordination to prevail on your claim of doubt. You claim to have a witness but won't reveal him because you claim DON'T need to prove it happened. If you can't demonstrate by credible evidence that a one handed ordination took place, where's the reasonable doubt? Anonymous and I are crazy alright--crazy like a fox ;-)

      Delete
  7. You must read TheRadTrad and his remarks about one of your bêtes-noires' scholarship. He appears to have a caueat or two about Cekada's scholarship.

    I really shouldn't comment about popish matters but thought you could warn the poor pup about these queens.

    Pax tibi!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Re: Introibo, 12/15 @6:13 p.m.

    The our rebuttal/refutation of Cekada's monograph is independent of whether or not a one-handed conferral actually took place: If, as some have alleged, Checkie were merely making "even-if" arguments, we have shown that they cannot withstand scrutiny.

    Our purpose is narrow -- to demonstrate that Checkie's monograph cannot be invoked to defend the validity of one-handed conferral. In no way do we foreclose on the possibility that a properly formed priest or layman with a real education can one day propose sterling arguments for the validity of one-handed orders. It's just that the Blunderer isn't that person (and never will be).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who cares? I don't think you have--and I've written why on my blog, but again, who cares? The raison d'être of this blog is to impeach Bp. Dolan's orders (and by extension those priests whom he ordained) by means of calumny. You have no proof of a one handed ordination, nor does anyone else. There is no reasonable doubt, so the presumption is that two hands were used, and everything else is MOOT. Without meeting the burden of proof, you can't overcome the presumption in favor of Lefebvre, so Dolan has valid orders conferred with both hands. If you like to think you've "refuted Cekada, bravo!

      Perhaps you should write a book. How about "The Proper Use of Evidence." Law students can use it after the Charmin runs out.

      While your at it, there's a guy on here following "Pope" Michael. Maybe you can join with him and get appointed Prefect of the Congregation of Rites of The Vatican In Exile. You'll get an office next to the Kansas farmhouse near the pigpen. Then you can wear a tinfoil hat and make official pronouncements on the doubts regarding the sacraments and ordinations conferred with no hand!!

      Delete
    2. You care, IAAD, or you would not be wasting your time reading and replying to this blog.

      Similarly, DD and AC thought enough of the comments to spend time crafting their now-annihilated study justifying one-handed ordinations. Why? If there was nothing to it, they should have and easily could have just let the issue die. Their response (to this issue and many others) fanned the flames and now they are being justly asphyxiated by all the toxic smoke their actions have created.

      At the very least, PL's efforts have exposed AC as a completely unreliable, wanna-be scholar -- a man whose theological offerings are not nearly as useful as Charmin (a quality product within its own sphere).

      Delete
    3. I care about the calumny not about his alleged refutation of Fr C. They were arguing in the alternative to allay worries started by buffoons.

      Delete
    4. There is nothing "alleged" about the refutation -- it is solid and complete, as any honest, sort-of-educated man can see. I must say, you utterly avoided my main point: DD and AC responded in such a way to the "calumny" that they, unwittingly or no, provided traction. Do you ever wonder why? Common sense says, "Because it is NOT a calumny. It is a truth that, despite their best efforts to ignore, had to be addressed." I repeat myself, of course, but your close, constant attention to this matter on a supposedly-meaningless blog tells me all I need to know: this means A LOT -- to you (and DD and AC) -- and the idea that the arguments presented by PI scare the crap out of you. A miserable Christmas to you, for I am morally certain you deserve it (and likely much, much worse).

      Delete
    5. I go all over the blogosphere and interject anytime a Traditionalist cleric is maligned, as in the instant case. Arguing in the alternative does nothing to carry your burden of proof. Your "morally certain" I deserve a "miserable Christmas"? Given your "moral certainty" of a one handed ordination, I have nothing to worry about, Deo gratias! I wish you a Merry Christmas, and hope Santa fills your stocking with a refill on your lithium.

      Delete
  9. Never have we endeavored to impeach Dirtbag Dan's orders. We have always insisted that we don't know whether one-handed orders are valid or not. However, in the face of positive doubt, we have counseled him in Christian candor to seek conditional re-ordination in order to comfort the Catholics under his thumb.

    Perhaps he was reluctant to seek conditional orders beforehand for fear of offending the Cheeseball, who labored for naught, but now, you see, there's no reason to worry about hurt feelings. We've demolished the monograph, so "One Hand" is free to choose the pars tutior.

    BTW, if as you say, the Dynamic Duo "were arguing in the alternative to allay worries started by fools" -- several of which buffoons they continue to associate with today -- why doesn't Dannie allay these worries with a foolproof method -- conditional orders? One of the "buffoons," as you call them, his pal Big Don, can perform the re-ordinations for him. Perhaps he could fly up to the cult and perform the ceremonies in front of all the Gerties as a kind of reparation for signing the 1990 letter.

    However, we're afraid that we don't buy the assertion about "allaying worries." Back in 1990, they could have done the same thing by vigorously affirming, as you have, that there's no reason to doubt that the '76 ordinations were done with one hand.

    We wonder why they just didn't do that and forget all the business about trying to prove one-handed orders valid. A forceful denial that Dannie's ordination was done with one hand would have been the far simpler solution. Better yet, why didn't they insist, as did the tardy witness, that everything was done correctly? Why didn't "One Hand" demand that the nine priests retract the assertion that his ordination was done with one hand instead of just asking them to take back their charge of doubtfulness? Again, that would have been simpler and far more comforting than trying to prove a defective rite valid.

    That's what's really baffling. Why go the hard way, when there's an easier path? It almost makes one think that back then no one would have dared to claim a one-handed conferral didn't happen for fear of being contradicted.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. By claiming a doubt, you're impeaching his orders because he MAY not be a valid priest/bishop (says you) and needs conditional re-ordination. There is no difference in the practical order between an invalid priest and a dubious one---you must avoid him. You hate "Dirtbag Dan" and the best way to get people away from him is by placing an unreasonable doubt as to his orders.

      Second, Dolan he took the "easier path." In his letter of October 5, 1990 he stated that one of the problems with the letter of the nine priests was "You present rumor as fact." Furthermore, he wrote, "But it was MY head and I didn't notice just one hand. Nope." "Father Cekada ......saw no omissions from the rite and no "one hand business." This is what we call "a denial." And we also have a "witness" to that event who supports the denial. But its not "vigorous" enough. This is an invented principle. The burden is on YOU not Dolan, and he did DENY it and had a witness!!

      Dolan then states (correctly) the Church law that HE does not have to prove anything. "I don't have to disprove rumors."

      And rumor is all you have, so it's game, set, and match for Dolan.

      Delete
  10. In no way were Dannie's words a denial: they were an evasion. He didn't deny: he simply said he didn't notice. And Checkie, sitting at the organ, following a Latin-English pamphlet was not in a position to view every step of the ceremony, even if he knew what was supposed to happen (which we think he didn't). He just said he saw nothing wrong: Well, if you don't know what's right, how can you notice if something's wrong?

    These guys themselves used to admit that they knew nothing of the liturgy until the got back to the 'States and began to reconstruct it. Econe was a mishmash in those days. The rule was: Whatever the archbishop does is correct.

    True, no one has to disprove rumors. But, then, who says they were rumors in those days? From what we have learned, the story had gone far beyond mere rumor. We're almost certain that EVERYONE knew it had substance.

    The fact remains that the dirtbag still never mounted an aggressive, affirmative denial that a one-handed ordination took place. Everything was mental reservation, deflection, and dancing around the issue in hopes no one would notice. When the faux scholar Checkie delivered his error-filled opinion, they thought it was settled.

    We refuted/rebutted it, so we're back to square one: the original doubt raised by the nine priests in the first place. It's up to Dannie to settle the question: Ask Big Don to re-ordain and re-consecrate him to put the problem behind him. It's that simple.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, it's not! A friend of a friend has a secret communication that said Sanborn was consecrated with one hand!!
      That's a positive doubt
      LOL!!
      Stop your calumny. It's that simple

      Delete
    2. Your friend's friend is wrong. We have the video tape of Sanborn's consecration and two hands were used.

      Luckily, we know that our sources are much more reliable than yours. They also reported the one-handed conferral very soon after the even, so their report is less vulnerable to impeachment than the European who made his statement 35 years after the event.

      Delete
    3. No. My friend of a friend said the video was really comprised of an actor that LOOKED like Sanborn to fool everyone! Doubt persists! LOL

      Delete
  11. Who are the nine priests that signed the letter?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The names of the nine priests can be found in the first footnote in our "The Dubiety of Ordination Conferred with One Hand," found at the top of the page under our banner.

      Delete
  12. Basically, those who formed the SSPV. Greenwell was 12 years old in Kentucky in 1976. Paul Baumberger was 18 and graduating high school in Colorado. NONE of them were witnesses, none of them claimed to know any witnesses. They have no photographic or video evidence. In sum, they have NOTHING.
    Yet, those on this blog would like us to believe that they were "morally certain" that a one handed ordination took place! How can you be morally certain of anything without evidence? One of the priests told me Clarence Kelly told him to sign it. "Institutional memory" must have a specific factual basis or else it's no more than an urban legend, which is what it is when examined.

    As to what "Reader" wrote above:
    "In no way were Dannie's words a denial: they were an evasion. He didn't deny: he simply said he didn't notice"

    Yes he did. He said the nine presented "rumor" as fact" He thereby denied the one handed ordination was a fact.
    And Checkie, (there puerile name for Fr Cekada) sitting at the organ, following a Latin-English pamphlet was not in a position to view every step of the ceremony, even if he knew what was supposed to happen (which we think he didn't). He just said he saw nothing wrong: Well, if you don't know what's right, how can you notice if something's wrong?"

    How do they know this, since they weren't there? And they further know Fr C didn't know the use of two hands is in the ceremony? All of this is sheer conjecture.

    On the side of Dolan, we have:
    1. A denial
    2. Two witnesses who said two hands were used.
    3. The presumption of validity from Church law.

    On Pistrina Liturgica we have:
    1. Hearsay
    2. Conjecture
    3. An unnamed "witness" who uses "secret communications"
    4. A letter signed by nine priests based on #1 and 2 above, making it worthless.

    None of this overcomes the presumption of validity, since none of it constitutes a reasonable doubt.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dannie's "denial" is lukewarm and hedged. The clown crew never mounted a vigorous denial that a one handed conferral took place. Instead, they offered a defense of one-handed orders.

      Our first-hand witness never used "secret communications." He is openly identified. We have not disclosed his identity because we have never attempted to prove the one-handed conferral took place. Our point has been that in the face of doubt, and with Checkie's monograph thoroughly refuted/rebutted, Dolan should seek conditional re-ordination.

      The presumption of validity disappears in the face of a defect in the rite. Since the Church cannot tell us whether the defect is invalidating or not, Dolan must take the safer course.

      We can't understand why you're so exercised about this. The Cincinnati Twins have themselves done the same thing as we have with reference to Kelly's consecration and the ordination of one of the SSPV priests. Have you roundly critiqued them, too?

      And BTW, as we've said before, the nine priests did not have to be present for them to know with a high level of certainty that the event took place. It was a well know datum back in those days, and there was no reason to challenge it. Remember, these guys were insiders and had access to the same information as we do, and not all nine could have been so low as to affirm something that their consciences opposed.

      Delete
  13. "Dannie's "denial" is lukewarm and hedged"

    No it's not. He said it was rumor presented as fact. That means it's not fact. Is English your second language? "Lukewarm"? This is your subjective interpretation, he denied it happened. Period.

    "Our first-hand witness never used "secret communications." He is openly identified"

    Great! Who is he and what did he claim? Show everyone!

    "We have not disclosed his identity because we have never attempted to prove the one-handed conferral took place."

    That's because it never happened, so you can't prove it. I also believe your "witness" is made up. There is no cogent reason for not identifying the person and his statement if he "is openly identified."

    "The presumption of validity disappears in the face of a defect in the rite. "

    But you haven't proven the one handed ordination ever took place, since you've no reasonable evidence giving rise to a reasonable doubt. There is no "safer course." Dolan is valid.


    "The Cincinnati Twins have themselves done the same thing as we have with reference to Kelly's consecration and the ordination of one of the SSPV priests. Have you roundly critiqued them, too?"

    Yes. See my blog post, "In Defense Of AN Ordination."
    I spent a long time having conversations with both Frs Greenwell and Baumberger. I also researched the matter, and sifted the evidence. Real evidence. I'm convinced Bp. Santay conditionally ordained them in private. Here there was real evidence (in my opinion, it WAS valid), but I think they took a REAL safer course in private (some cleric have huge egos--sad)

    "And BTW, as we've said before, the nine priests did not have to be present for them to know with a high level of certainty that the event took place."

    Without photographic/video evidence or signed sworn statements, how can they have ANY certainty? They can't.

    "It was a well know datum back in those days, and there was no reason to challenge it."

    Well-known according to what FACTS?? It's well-known that there are alligators in the sewers here in NYC. It's also an urban legend.

    "Remember, these guys were insiders and had access to the same information as we do, "

    Which is.....what? Conjecture, hearsay, appeals to an institutional memory that functions like "the force" from Star Wars? Please!!

    "not all nine could have been so low as to affirm something that their consciences opposed."

    Sheer speculation. One signed on Kelly's say so, and none had any credible information. Why didn't they rebut Dolan's letter by proving the one handed ordination was NOT rumor BUT WAS FACT? Ans. They couldn't.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They didn't rebut Dirtbag Dan's letter because he didn't ask them to retract the assertion that the ordination was done with one hand. He only demanded they retract the affirmation that his ordination (so administered?) was doubtful. (Those that did may have been laboring under the erroneous "research" of Cheeseball Checkie.

      Once again, we remind you that our objective has never been to prove that a one-handed conferral took place. Our very simple position is that in the face of the solemn assertion of nine priests -- including Big Don --, there exists a doubt that has never been satisfactorily addressed. In the face of that positive doubt, Dannie needs conditional re-ordination.

      If Bp. Santay did conditionally re-ordain the priest, then there's all the more reason for Dannie to seek re-ordination and re-consecration. The SSPV can be his model as a means to efface his own ego. What a simple gesture to secure so much peace! The SSPV, as ever, leads the way. Why can't Dannie humble himself for the sake of the peace of mind of the faithful?

      BTW, the nine did indeed have very credible information that they received first hand. Nothing you can say will erase that fact. Just because you yourself don't are not privy to it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. They ALL know it, though some may be unwilling right now to admit it to you. In their hearts, they all have no doubt that their information was certain.

      Delete
    2. 1. If someone claims you present rumor as fact, the nine should have made a vigorous and immediate denial that it was a rumor!

      2. I believe Bp. Santay did so in private. I have no proof, and they would never admit that it was done. Egos run large.

      3. If your objective is not to prove that a one handed ordination took place, you have no case. The presumption is that it was done properly, and validly. Nothing you have presented rises to the level of credible evidence that would create a reasonable, positive doubt.

      4. If the NINE received very credible information, why did Greenwell say (point blank) that he signed because Kelly told him to do so? That would be a lie. (Not that priests can't lie) They also have a serious moral obligation to reveal this information before they impeach someone's orders. (Yes, claiming doubt IS impeachment since you must avoid the dubious priest). Why would they withhold such vital information? I know most of them and they give me no reason to believe they have ANY such information. Why are YOU withholding the info? Is it a national security risk, and the CIA would have to kill you?

      Lastly, just because you are not privy to information proving Elvis is alive doesn't make it untrue. However, rational people must believe that which is highly more probable than not on the credible evidence. There is no more evidence for Elvis working at my local supermarket than for a one handed ordination. Only a fool would believe it on secret information proposed on someone's ipse dixit.

      Delete
  14. The nine did not need to deny it was a rumor since the report was so well known, especially here in the U.S. It was part of the organizational history and at least some knew of an eyewitness report. We cannot account for Greenwell's motives, other than to say he must have trusted in his superior's knowledge at the time.

    To your other objections, we simply reply, "asked and answered." You may not be satisfied with the answers, but nothing can be gained by endlessly retracing our steps.

    We, and many, many others, know of the credibility of the report of a one-handed ordination in 1976. Maybe it was valid, maybe it wasn't. Only the restored Church can tell us. In the meantime, in light of Pius's apostolic constitution and our rebuttal/refutation of Checkie's monograph, even if the probability of a one-handed conferral's having taken place is low (and we believe it is very high), the safer course must be chosen now. The stakes are too high.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "The nine did not need to deny it was a rumor since the report was so well known, especially here in the U.S. It was part of the organizational history and at least some knew of an eyewitness report."

    It's as well known as "alligators in NYC sewers. It's so well known not one eyewitness can be named. No evidence, period.

    "To your other objections, we simply reply, "asked and answered." You may not be satisfied with the answers,"

    Refusing to answer is not an answer. You MUST prove the one handed ordination took place with credible evidence that produces reasonable doubt. If you claim "it's not our intention to prove it ever happened" then there is no need for a safer course of re-ordination.
    You claim to have a witness and again I ask, Why are YOU withholding the info? Is it a national security risk, and the CIA would have to kill you?

    The stakes are only high when you're understanding and morals are extremely low.

    ReplyDelete
  16. All asked and answered many times before ( even Elvis, alliagtors, and aliens when we affirmed that the report of a one-handed conferral was not an urban legend).

    We don't refuse to answer: we just don't see any profit in repeating what we have repeatedly answered. Reject our replies.Condemn them. Ridicule them. But don't keep coming around with the same questions in search of a different answer. Was it Einstein who said that the definition of insanity was doing the same thing over and over expecting different results?

    Quousque tandem abutere patientia nostra?

    Just a reminder, however: the presence of doubt in reference to the sacraments always requires the safer course in the Catholic Church.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Why would it hurt you so much to name even ONE PERSON who can vouch publicly for the one-hand ordination? It's not inherently secret information. If it happened at all, it happened before thousands of people and numerous priests. It's a public fact, and no one can have any reasonable cause for keeping it secret. You claim you won't name any witnesses because somehow you don't *need* to mention their names because the "doubt" will still somehow exist in a vacuum even if you don't.

    You don't seem to realize that explaining why you don't strictly *need* to name them is quite a different thing from explaining why you persistently refuse to name them, as easy as that would be, and as beneficial as that would be to your "case". You claim to have all these witnesses for this, and all you would have to do to prove that this happened is publish one report from one of them, and somehow you refuse because you don't "need" to.

    For an objective observer, when he sees two sides debating a question, if he sees that one side claims to have a simple and easy way to prove his point, but doesn't use it because claims he doesn't feel the "need" to, the observer can only conclude that that person really doesn't have the proof he claims to have.

    I'm just trying to give you a little help here, Craig, because you're getting clobbered with this problem on your side, and it would help you a lot if you could either show this proof you claim to have or at least give some clear explanation for why you CAN'T.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Yes, Reader, people are seeing through your lies and deception. My purpose in asking over and over the same questions was not to expect different answers, but to GET ANSWERS. Anyone reading this blog sees you haven't done so. This makes your request for Dolan's conditional ordination a joke. Each time you evade a real answer, you dig yourself in a deeper hole.

    "All asked and answered many times before ( even Elvis, alliagtors, and aliens when we affirmed that the report of a one-handed conferral was not an urban legend)."

    Affirming something is not an urban legend is not the same as proving it. I can affirm alligators in the NYC sewer system is not an urban legend, but I need to offer proof. You offer no proof of a one handed ordination. The burden is on YOU to prove it did happen. However, you claim you don't need to prove it happened. Then you have no case.

    "We don't refuse to answer: we just don't see any profit in repeating what we have repeatedly answered."

    I'm sorry. Where did you mention the name of a witness to the one-handed ordination. Must've missed it. Can you state it again, if you already answered?

    "Reject our replies. Condemn them. Ridicule them."
    I can't reject, condemn or ridicule them since you never made any replies that directly answer the questions. The commenter above clearly sees that.

    " But don't keep coming around with the same questions in search of a different answer."

    I can't expect a different answer until you give me a first answer.

    "Quousque tandem abutere patientia nostra?"

    Until you provide a real first-time answer.

    "Just a reminder, however: the presence of doubt in reference to the sacraments always requires the safer course in the Catholic Church."

    Just a reminder, however: calumny is a mortal sin and the calumniator is required to publicly retract the damage to the one he calumniated.


    "

    ReplyDelete
  19. All asked and directly answered.

    Now that Checkie's error-filled monograph has been rebutted/refuted, nothing can overcome the doubt raised by the nine priests in 1990 when they categorically affirmed "One Hand's" one-handed ordination.

    The only remedy is re-ordination and re-consecration.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "All asked and directly answered"

    All asked and NONE answered!!

    Humor all of us: Where did you mention the name of a witness to the one-handed ordination. Must've missed it. Can you state it again, if you already answered?
    LOL

    The nine priests (actually seven, one retracted his name and one admitted he signed it because Kelly told him to do it) saw nothing, have no witnesses and no evidence. The claim that they have esoteric knowledge is laughable. You can't overcome the presumption that two hands were used with alleged "facts" not in evidence.

    The only remedy is for you to cease your lies and calumny. Everyone sees it--read what the commenter said above!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Asked and answered.

      The presumption of validity was overcome with the well-known report of a one-handed conferral.

      The retractions are meaningless until we know whether they retracted their affirmation of doubt or whether they retracted the affirmation of one-handed conferral or both. As you know, Dannie only asked for a retraction of doubt. Produce the written retractions so that the conversation can continue. But then, we will still have seven who affirm the one-handed conferral.

      BTW, hasn't your buddy become estranged from Bp. Kelly? Could that account for his willingness to admit to weakening under duress? Does his current boss admit to acquiescing to Kelly's pressure, too?

      Delete
    2. I see! This is not an answer but a lie! You claim multiple times to have witnesses that you can't name. Now you claim it's the letter of the nine priests? So which is it? If secret witnesses release the name. If the nine, it's a joke, as I've already shown. They were not there nor do they claim have witnesses or evidence. First, you claim some special status that they must be morally certain as to its contents because of the "charism" of the priesthood. The charism if the priesthood in no way can give one special knowledge nor does it prevent them from sin. See theologian Henry Davis write about solicitation in the confessional back in the 1930s!!

      The fact that it was "well known" doesn't make it true without credible evidence of which both they and you have none!

      Sanborn is reported to have retracted his signature. Greenwell never did even though he claimed to have signed by virtue of Kelly's request. Having nine or nine hundred people who saw nothing and have no evidence proves nada. You try a nice bait and switch---I don't have to produce anything because the burden is on the one claiming doubt. Furthermore, I don't need the retractions to impeach the letter. It presents rumor as fact. How could a 12 year old child in Kentucky know anything with moral certainty that happened in an ordination at Econe? The esoteric knowledge theory makes a good plot for a Malachi Martin novel (were he still with us) but makes no proof of anything except your desperate measures to give the letter credence it doesn't possess.

      I don't know who my "Buddy" is supposed to be--Greenwell? We spoke several times, but he's not my "buddy" The last I heard, he is still a member of the SSPV in good standing and serves at Immaculate Conception Church with William Jenkins. Greenwell offers Mass in the most slovenly and rushed manner I have ever seen. In NY the joke was if you arrived 5 minutes late, he'd be up to the Last Gospel. Many people here were not happy with him. I always tried to avoid his Mass. So he still retains the same "boss"

      Delete
    3. You've shown nothing, and you have no written retractions to demonstrate what specific act the retractors made. Withdrawing a signature is not a retraction or recantation of what was stated. It looks more like a hesitant withdrawal and is certainly not an attempt to repair any wrong done by a defamatory imputation. The real question is, Why did he sign it in the first place? Fear? Duress? Stupidity? Or did he agree with but later found it inconvenient, so he contrived a neutral escape?

      We repeat for the umpteenth time: one need not be an eyewitness to assert a fact reliably. The report was well-known history, and known history can be passed along if the source is reliable. We know -- and so do many, many others -- that the source was reliable. You're an outsider not privy to the information.

      Delete
    4. And I repeat:
      To be a reliable witness you need a reliable source. If I claim that Pearl Harbor was bombed on 12/7/41, it is reliable (even though I wasn't born) not on the basis of some esoteric knowledge, but grounded in real facts, such as photos, eyewitness testimony, etc.

      The basis of your evidence rests on some gnostic evidence, which in a public forum is no evidence at all. If you want others to call on Dolan to be conditionally re-ordained, you must let us be privy to that knowledge as well, or else all anyone has is your ipse dixit. Why will you not divulge the names of your witnesses or the source of the alleged knowledge of the nine priests. Why the secrecy? Please don't repeat that you don't need to prove it because you DO. If you are satisfied with this alleged information fine; but you cannot make public allegations based on gnostic information which I don't (and another commenter doesn't) believe exists. On a subject so important, wouldn't you want everyone to know the credible information, so they can be as certain as you?!?

      Delete
  21. Introibo, you -- who are trying so hard to impress us with your legalistics – claim that the Reader is lying, just because he does not name a witness. To use your own cross-examining line of questioning, how do you know he is lying? Where is your proof? But more importantly, why bring that up at all, since "providing witnesses” was NEVER part of the “case” to begin with – only proving DOUBT.

    All the reader has to “prove” is that there WAS doubt about Dannie’s orders – and a letter from NINE priests is ample proof that there WAS (and Cekada’s pathetic response attempting to prove the validity of one-handed orders is further proof of that doubt). Contrary to your claim, just those two things would be more than enough to prove DOUBT – which they have done. Anyone other than a MORON should be able to see that.

    The truth is, most of traddieland (especially its clergy) are aware of that doubt as well – and probably wonder (as we do) why Dannie never took the painless step of getting himself conditionally ordained. The reason, of course, is Dannie’s ARROGANCE -- which both he and Tony have demonstrated time and again, from “Schiavo” to the SGG school scandals. So, it is probably a wonder to them (as it is to us) why you choose to defend such men at all.

    ReplyDelete
  22. If someone makes a serious accusation, they need to back it up. The inference in our justice system is that someone who claims proof and then fails to produce it without serious reason(e.g. Doctor -patient privilege) is presumed not to have such evidence (i.e. They lie). It's also common sense. However the Reader and you haven't been on speaking terms with logic and reality for quite some time now.

    The letter from the nine proves nothing more than a grudge. To be REASONABLE doubt (the kind you need to overcome the presumption of validity), it must be based on evidence. You have none, nor do the nine clerics.

    Let's face it: you can doubt anything. The moon landing was staged in Arizona, I doubt it happened. I doubt my surroundings are real because I have a doubt; like the "Matrix" I might be a in a vat with aliens putting this info in my mind. These are all doubts. Are they reasonable? No. We have good reasons to believe they are not and no credible reason to support such doubt.

    I defend any Traditionalist cleric whose orders are question based on malice without evidence and thereby keep good people away from the sacraments.

    If a moron like me can understand this, you must be an IDIOT, one step lower on the old Binet IQ Scale ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  23. If I were trying to prove Pistrina's point, and I really believed it, I would put up a list of people on this site that can vouch for the fact that Bp. Dolan was ordained with one hand. There'd be a quick link at the top or side, with a small directory of names, complete with several types of contact information for each one, and a note at the top saying, "Call or email any one of these people and they'll be happy to tell you that they saw Abp. Lefebvre imposed only one hand on Bp. Dolan."

    It's as easy as that. As I said, this information isn't secret. And if so many people know about it, then there wouldn't be any reason not to.

    On the other hand, if I were trying to spread an urban legend that has no real basis, I'd do exactly what he's doing. Just say it might be true, and I know for a fact that it is true but I can't show my information.

    Other than that, this is becoming a waste of time. I'd rather listen to Coast to Coast AM and hear people "affirm" that the world is ruled by humanoid lizard-type creatures. Much like Pistrina here, they maintain that their story is "not an urban legend" because it's based on "eyewitness testimony" that they have but "can't disclose for their own reasons". At least in the case of those people it's a little more believable because they claim they would be assassinated by the government if they "blew the whistle" on everything. In this case there is no reason for not revealing information that's already public that would shut this whole thing down.

    Kook to Kook AM is more entertaining than this nonsense anyway. And more believable.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Nothing can break the iron triangle of doubt:

    A. The Sept. 1990 letter from nine priests affirming that Dannie was ordained with one hand.

    B. The "RETRACTION AND PLEDGE," appended by Dannie to his Oct. 1990 reply, which required the signer (a) to retract statements/insinuations that his ordination was dubious, doubtful, and/or invalid and (b) to pledge to make no further statements/insinuations that impugn the validity of his orders. He notably did NOT require the signer to retract the affirmation of one-handed conferral.

    C. The conscious decision of Checkie to publish his (error-filled) defense of one-handed orders but not to make a vigorous, well-researched, and solidly documented rebuttal to the charge of one-handed ordination.

    It appears as though they acknowledged the affirmation and only sought to defend against the imputation of dubiety. That worked for a while until Pistrina refuted/rebutted the Blunderer's shoddy monograph. So now "One hand's" defenders have embarked on a course of patent revisionism, one the Dynamic Duo never dared to pursue themselves.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Unholy Trinity:
      A) Nine priests who saw nothing and make a baseless assertion.
      B) He denied that one hand was used "presenting Rumor as Fact."
      C) Arguing in the alternative. Dolan, Cekada and another priest all affirm there was nothing wrong with the rite. We know who they are and they are eyewitnesses.
      Coast to Coast would be a good show for you to present your case.

      Delete
  25. Three strikes: you're out!

    P.S. C is no alternative argument. These are all statements, not arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  26. You have the burden of proof.
    A) There is no evidence to back up their assertion.
    B) statement of fact that shows Dolan's denial
    C) you have to prove that it was not arguing in the alternative to introduce doubt
    You never make it to first base

    ReplyDelete
  27. Quousque animam nostram tollis? si tu [habes testimonium], dic nobis palam.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Loquor vobis, et non creditis.

      Delete
    2. Dico tibi quia quod scimus loquimur, et quod vidimus testamur, et testimonium (solidum) nostrum non accipitis. Si (scripta) dixi vobis et non creditis, quomodo, si dixero vobis (nomina), credetis?

      Insuper de dubio agitur, non de collatione manca.

      Delete
    3. Immo omne consecuti sumus, et superiorem discessimus. Veritatem enim, ut dicit Salomon, meditabitur guttur nostrum. Dolis et fallaciis, tu propter amicitiam infandam vera cum falsis confudisti.

      Delete
    4. In correct Latin, that would be "tu ES mendax."

      Delete
    5. Thanks! You're real smart. Between the two of us we know everything! You know everything except the fact that you're a obvious calumniator. And I know that ;-)

      Delete
    6. No, we would never claim to know everything. We just know enough Latin to know that Checkie grossly mistranslated the infallible teaching of Pius XII and in so doing assisted materially in prolonging the crisis of doubt.

      BTW, we're not calumniators. We're reporters. Besides, we've never falsely imputed a fault committed by Dannie. One-handed orders are not a fault in the moral sense, and he is not to blame for the defect (we don't even know if they're invalid).

      Like the good journalists we are, we simply reported the history of this event. In so doing, we also set the record straight by revealing all Checkie's errors, exposing his perverse translation, and rebutting/refuting his claims.

      All our work has been directed toward helping Dannie to put all this ugliness behind him by seeking conditional re-ordination and re-consecration. That is an act of charity 0 :-)

      Delete
    7. "No, we would never claim to know everything"
      Good! Because it seems like you don't know anything, including the name of any real witness!

      "BTW, we're not calumniators. We're reporters"

      Awesome! You're reporters for the National Enquirer? I'll be looking for your article on one handed ordinations right below the main story of a secret alien invasion from Neptune!

      "Besides, we've never falsely imputed a fault committed by Dannie. One-handed orders are not a fault in the moral sense, and he is not to blame for the defect (we don't even know if they're invalid)."

      No, you claim a defect where no witnesses or proof exist. You therefore counsel people to stay away from the sacraments without cause and by lying about a defect. Making the accusation that Dolan is dubious and needs re-ordination based on hearsay and rumor is calumny.

      "Like the good journalists we are, we simply reported the history of this event"

      Good reporters give FACTS. Not rumors, hearsay, and conjecture.

      "All our work has been directed toward helping Dannie to put all this ugliness behind him by seeking conditional re-ordination and re-consecration. That is an act of charity 0 :-)"

      The only ugliness is in your lies. Help us to help you by showing the proof of a one handed ordination. Don't confuse stupidity and calumny for charity ;-)

      Delete
    8. It is a fact that the nine priests sent the letter. It is a fact that Checkie mistranslated the pope's infallible teaching. It is a fact that doubt exists. And it is a fact that we have a document attesting to the occurrence of a one-handed conferral. But the real issue is, and ever was, doubt, not the occurrence of a one-handed ordination.

      Delete
    9. It's also a fact the letter proves zilch.

      It is NOT a fact that REASONABLE doubt exists; the kind you need to prevail of the presumption the rite was dome correctly. The type of doubt you have is the kind of "doubt" that the Moon landing really took place, or if Elvis is really dead.

      If you have a document YOU MUST SHARE IT TO MAKE A PUBLIC CASE. Otherwise, it is presumed not to exist. If this were pre-Vatican II days, you could not submit nameless, alleged "witnesses" and expect them to do anything but affirm validity.
      Your claim of REASONABLE doubt is (and ever has been ) roundly refuted.

      Delete
    10. The doubt we have claimed is prudent doubt. It's the type of doubt that paleographers have when they dispute the authenticity of a newly found papyrus fragment.

      Delete
    11. Really? They submit a letter from nine people who weren't there and never examined it to produce doubt? Deo gratias you're not a lawyer who needs to provide real evidence in court!

      Delete
  28. We've hit a home run. Dannie did not demand the nine priests retract their assertion of one-handed orders in 1990. It's too late now to assert a one-handed conferral never happened. The failure to so so nearly a quarter of a century ago is sufficient testimony.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sufficient testimony to what? Something which in the body of the letter he said was a rumor presented as fact? Another bait and switch. DOLAN need not show or prove anything in his writings!! The burden of proof is on those who wish to insert doubt. Neither you or the nine have done so.

      Delete
    2. "Dannie did not demand the nine priests retract their assertion of one-handed orders in 1990."

      By JOVE! My point exactly! DD and AC responded in a way that indirectly lent/lends weight the initial assertion. Btw, rumor has it that Caravaggio, Puccini and Vivaldi -- Danny Boy's Feline Triumvirate -- are considering dumping DD's Disordered Love Shack for warmer climes far, far from AC, a man known (via his own admission) to have tortured cats when in the minor seminary.

      Delete
  29. The letter of the nine priests raised the doubt in 1990 and requested "One Hand" to conduct research to show that one-handed ordinations were certainly valid..

    Wee Dan replied, saying that Cheesy's "research" had revealed that one-handed conferral was valid, and very tellingly he only demanded the nine to retract the doubt and imputation of invalidity of his orders and did not require them to retract their categorical affirmation that he had been ordained with one hand.

    A decade later, when the issue surfaced again, Cheesy produced an error-filled monograph, grounded on a perverse translation of infallible papal teaching, that made it possible for the clergy and the few literate laity to set aside their renewed doubts about one-handed orders. Accordingly, since at that time many sede clergy and laymen, relying on Cheesy's flawed effort, thought that one-handed orders were valid, the doubt about the validity of "One Hand's" orders once more receded into the background. Everyone felt (mistakenly) certain that either one hand or two was fine and dandy.

    With Pistrina's definitive rebuttal/refutation of Cheesy's monograph, the original doubts have returned. There is nothing for Wee Dan to stand on now, and it doesn't look as though the Church will be able to pronounce on the matter for quite some time. Moreover,malformed Tradistan hasn't an intellectual light who can produce a credible defense of one-handed conferral to diminish the doubt.

    Wee Dan's situation isn't hopeless, however.

    There is a simple remedy to put an end to this debate: Dannie must opt for the safer way and secure re-ordinaion and re-consecration to banish doubt forever.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The letter of the nine stated rumor as fact. Dolan said as much. Cekada saw nothing wrong with the rite. You were not there and are in no position to declare what he could and could not see.
      You have not overcome the presumption of validity by introducing a reasonable doubt. Dolan had Cekada argue in the alternative to show up Kelly and company. Your letter does not refute his monograph, but I won't even go there because without real evidence, there's no doubt that two hands were used.
      There's one easy way to end this: post the names of the many people who can affirm the one hand was used. Publish their declarations and email. Otherwise cease your calumny.

      You may be "The Reader" but what this site really needs is a "Comprehender"

      Delete
    2. We have never tried to overcome the presumption of validity. But, as we have said, the presumption of validity does not obtain if there was a DEFECT in the rite, just as in the case of the Skipper in Michigan who failed to consecrate the sacred species through his own inadvertence.

      The nine priests reported a well-known datum of oral history, not a rumor. At least some of them knew of the occurrence from a first-hand source, and the others affirmed the reliable report of their trusted superiors. That cannot be overcome.

      Delete
  30. The presumption does not obtain if there is a defect in the rite.
    The presumption is immediate and can only be overcome with EVIDENCE of a defect. You have no such evidence. The nine clerics have no such evidence. Who is the first hand reporter whom saw a one handed ordination? If the report of their superiors is trustworthy tell us the FACTS upon which it is based. Hearsay, conjecture and unnamed secret witnesses shall never make credible evidence creating a reasonable doubt that the matter of the sacrament was not properly applied. I don't know who "the skipper" is (I lose track of all the puerile names) but how do you know that his Mass was invalid?
    I bet you have:
    1. Real witnesses
    2. Who were there
    3. Who can say they heard the Canon and he omitted the Consecration

    I bet it is NOT based on:
    1. Priests who were not there
    2. They sign a letter stating the Consecration was omitted but offer no proof other than "because we said so" or presenting a rumor as fact.

    In other words you had real, credible evidence, not bunk!
    Comprende usted? (You don't comprehend English or Latin; maybe I can get someone to spell it out for you in espanol?)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We know the Skipper's Mass was invalid because he himself admitted from the pulpit that he had skipped the words of consecration in his Mass (after many eyewitnesses brought his oversight to his attention). Of course, he blamed the faithful for his laxity, accusing them of making him work too hard. Typical Tradistani.

      Delete
    2. Yes! Real evidence! He admitted it and there were eyewitnesses!! Perfect! Not "institutional memory" not unnamed "witnesses" not nine clerics who weren't there and signed a letter affirming rumor as fact. It's a distinction with a difference. In Dolan's case you have NONE of that---you've got squat!!

      Delete
    3. But there was a witness who reported the defect early. At least some of the nine knew of the witness and confidently relayed the report (definitely not a rumor), which became part of the institutional memory. That memory is still very much alive in the minds of the elder clergy at least, and in their hearts they don't doubt its accuracy.

      But that's not relevant to our case. Our focus is on the perduring doubt about Dannie's orders raised by the nine priests and Cheesy's acquiescence to the allegation by defending the validity of one-handed conferral and Dannie's requirement that the signers only retract the charge of dubiety. (Of course, our other focus is on the easy-as-pie remedy.)

      It's the doubt that Dannie must cure now.

      Delete
    4. There's an old saying in law school: "Don't lie, but if you do be a smart liar." Your both a liar and stupid--that's being charitable.

      "There was a witness..."
      WHO? What exactly did he testify ? Would the CIA kill you if this info was revealed?

      It's "definitely not a rumor" You know this how? We believe this and call on a conditional ordination based on your ipse dixit?
      "Some of the nine knew..."
      Which ones? They're all alive. Why can't one of them declare the name of this witness and what was said under oath?

      This is EXACTLY relevant to your case because without credible evidence leading to reasonable doubt, you have no case!

      The cure for calumny is retraction and Confession. Unfortunately for you, there's no known cure for stupidity

      Delete
  31. All asked and answered many times before, but we'll repeat our position:

    The nine priests introduced the doubt about his orders. Checkie allayed those doubts with his error-filled monograph and its perverse translation of papal teaching. Pistrina rebutted/refuted Checkie's sloppy work, so the doubt has returned. In dubio pars tutior eligenda est. The safer side is conditional orders.

    Our private knowledge assures us that no calumny is involved and the content of the priests' letter was not rumor, but that has no direct bearing on our position and we are not obligated to share it with anybody, for it is unnecessary. The doubt introduced in 1990 by the nine priests is very real and will remain. (Not all nine would have been as frivolous as the individual you cite, if what you reported is true.) The easiest way to remove that obstacle is re-ordination and re-consecration.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The nine priests introduced the doubt about his orders"

      No they didn't they claimed no evidence and have produced nothing to show a one handed ordination took place!

      "Checkie allayed those doubts with his error-filled monograph and its perverse translation of papal teaching."

      I'm assuming "Checkie" is Cekada. There were no fears to allay because thee letter presented rumor as fact.

      "The safer side is conditional orders."
      There is no safer side since no one has produced credible evidence leading to a reasonable doubt that a one handed ordination took place!

      "Our private knowledge assures us that no calumny is involved and the content of the priests' letter was not rumor"

      Why are you making public accusations with private knowledge? We are supposed to believe you.....WHY? Don't say "it's not our position to convince anybody" because that's the whole purpose of this site; to get people away from Bp. Dolan and deprive themselves of the Sacraments. Your pathological hatred is apparent. You want to "starve the beast" and what better way to cut off funds than to make people afraid that Dolan's orders are dubious? If you want people to call for a conditional re-ordination you MUST supply the proof. Otherwise, without serious reason for withholding evidence, for which you have none, the presumption is it does not exist and you're a calumniator!

      "but that has no direct bearing on our position and we are not obligated to share it with anybody, for it is unnecessary."

      Sharing it is necessary to introduce doubt. Without it your case collapses. More importantly, if it's real, why won't you share it and really get back at "Dirtbag Dan" as you call him?

      "The doubt introduced in 1990 by the nine priests is very real and will remain. (Not all nine would have been as frivolous as the individual you cite, if what you reported is true.)"

      Once again, they have no evidence so they have no doubt. They are all alive so why doies not at least one share their knowledge of the well-known eyewitness and the content of the declaration from him/her? Ans. There is no such witness.

      "The easiest way to remove that obstacle is re-ordination and re-consecration."

      Church law does not admit of conditionally administering the sacraments unless there is reasonable doubt. No one has done this so the calumny must stop and Dolan need not do anything.

      BTW, the nine clerics would tell you that Dolan has no way to "repair" his episcopacy. The SSPV only recognizes six valid Catholic bishops in the world. Kelly and Santay (Mendez line), and the four Lefebvre line bishops from 1988. "Thuc bishops" are ALL dubious. They would not say such things unless they were morally certain, right? So how can he "fix himself" as none of those six would perform the rite? LOL

      Delete
    2. Danny needs to get fixed for those who do not reject the Thuc lineage. Furthermore, many priests know of the reliable first-hand report of a one-handed conferral.

      Delete
    3. So name these priests and tell us where they got the knowledge. Without it, you have no case, only calumny.

      Delete
    4. In other words, WHO gave the reliable report and WHAT did he claim under oath?

      Delete
  32. Those questions are not germane to our public position:

    Nine priests categorically affirmed one-handed ordination. It is highly improbable that all nine priests would make so grave an affirmation based on rumor alone. They had definite knowledge, and that's all that's required. Anything else is merely icing on the cake, so we won't complicate the issue. The declaration of the nine is sufficient for us and for many, many others.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. More conjecture. Priests have done many unspeakable things. Lying or being pressured to sign an affirmation of which they have no knowledge would be the least of the crimes perpetrated by clerics in history.
      You claim they had definite knowledge. So tell us how they have this alleged knowledge. They stated rumor as fact. That's not all that's required for a reasonable doubt. You have rumor, hearsay and conjecture.
      The declaration may be sufficient for you and many others who can't grasp basic notions of evidence and reasonable doubt.
      If I had 100 clerics claim you committed murder and no one had evidence or was anywhere near the murder site, is there doubt as to your innocence based on that worthless document?
      Obviously not. Same for the letter of the nine. They might as well affirm the existence of Bigfoot and claim gnostic knowledge. It's a joke and would be funny if your calumny were not so serious.

      Delete
    2. O.K. Your persistence deserves its reward. We will finally tell you.

      You may take our word, as scholars and gentlemen, that we have a communication attesting to the one-handed conferral and that we have spoken to priests who have affirmed that such knowledge is not hearsay or rumor but reliable reportage.

      Now, at last, you can calm down before you have a stroke. And you may have our proleptic "You're Welcome" as well.

      But even without this our solemn assurance, you can be confident that the nine affirmed something much more real than Bigfoot, and the clergy all know this, too, even if they're too coy to tell you.

      Delete
    3. You haven't named anyone. Nor have I seen the declaration. Publish it as you did the letter of the nine and Dolan's response

      Delete