ASKED & ANSWERED

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....

...BREAKING NEWS

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.

A CAPITAL MISTAKE

Everyone needs an editor. Timothy Foote

As a matter of press policy, the Readers have endeavored to refrain from calling out the Blunderer's merely typographical errors. Anyone who has put fingers to keyboard understands how difficult -- indeed, how nearly impossible -- it is to proofread one's own work when laboring under a deadline. (Perhaps it's impossible even without a deadline.) Way back when we started our post mortem of the Blunderer's stillborn monstrosity of shoddy errors, Work of Human Hands, Pistrina adopted the practice of passing over in silence what the Readers considered innocent typos. Since then, we have made exceptions to our fair-minded policy only when prompted by correspondents (e.g., as on July 21).

However, there comes a time when a small blunder in an important passage is so egregious as to condemn the entire published work as unfit for use. A famous example is the 1631 "Wicked Bible," which resulted in a heavy fine, the publishers' loss of their printer's license,  and the cancellation and burning of remaining copies. Now the Blunderer, as should be expected, has given us another instance.

In Appendix I of his thoroughly discredited monograph on one-handed orders, we find the following translation of a passage from Palazzini and De Jorio's Casus Conscientiae (we have marked the blunder in red; another blunder, noted in blue, the gross mistranslation of Pius XII's definition, is one we have already discussed at length and hence needs no comment today, except to remind everyone how so much of the Bonehead's argument is based on his error; brown marks other problems):

That this other imposition of one hand does not have less power than the imposition of both hands is required by force of the aforesaid Apostolic Constitution itself which, while it declares “The matter of the Sacred Orders of diaconate, priesthood and episcopacy is one and the same, and that indeed is the imposition of hands” (§4), determines and lays down: “For ordination to diaconate, the matter is the imposition of the hands of the bishop which occurs once in the rite of this ordination” (§5)

We don't need to drag out the Denzinger Latin text of ❡5 to inform everyone that Pope Pius wrote manus impositio  -- imposition of the HAND, singular, not plural (that would be manuum): In Tony's footnote 11, where he attempts to supply the Latin text, we find the words as Pius wrote them  (our highlighting and  green emphasis):

Certerum 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 ocurrit.' (n. 5).*

The Bonehead's sloppiness in this context is inexcusable. Those Catholics without any Latin are burdened with another false impression of what Pope Pius XII and the two theologians actually wrote. Also, the blunder resulted in another erroneous translation of Pius XII's teaching, which led a number of e-mail correspondents (and doubtlessly many others) astray. If Tony had any real academic training, in the case of such a theologically important passage, he would have checked, double-checked, and triple-checked his translation against the original Latin. (He should have done the same for all his direct quotations from the Latin, too. But when you're untutored and intellectually slovenly, you're lost forever.)

He also ought to have enlisted the services of a formally educated layman or laywoman; it's obvious his unschooled clerical pals missed all his dumb goofs. Perhaps the real reason he didn't seek informed guidance from his betters was that he knew the culties and CLODs ("close loyalists of Dannie") are so bewitched, beguiled, and befogged that they'll believe anything he says, even when it's just plain wrong.

One thing for sure can be said: when you don't give a fig about accuracy, the going is pretty easy -- until you get caught.

That's why those of you who aren't held in the Southwest Ohio cult's thrall should never, ever pay one whit of attention to anything the Blunderer writes or says. Let the cultie troglodytes ingest all that toxic waste. Decent Catholics must shun such dangerous fare. By now, "One Hand" knows the Bonehead's monograph is a train wreck, so he should get on the horn and put in an emergency call to the rector for conditional orders. That'll give the forlorn Rev. Mr. Nkamuke a fair start in his priestly life.

* A bit of caution is advised: We took this text directly from the Bonehead's slapdash monograph without checking it against a printed copy of Palazzini and De Jorio's book, which we have not yet been able to obtain. But even without the book, we can show that Tony didn't transcribe everything correctly.  For starters, right off the bat there's a definite transcriptional error, "Certerum" instead of "Ceterum" (or "Ceteram," if we are to believe Tony's translation, which we don't.).  But insofar as an extra r is a relatively harmless blunder compared to mistranslating and adding whole words to papal teaching, as a corollary to our policy, we'll give him the benefit of the doubt and stipulate, for the time being, that his transcription of Palazzini and De Jorio's Latin correctly quotes Pius's manus impositio. (In the near future, please note, we do intend to revisit Palazzini's and De Jorio's opinion qua theological opinion, but only after we get hold of a copy of their book. Our concerns are too important to risk relying on Tony's tissue of inaccuracy.)

In addition, again without the aid of the book, we can see the Bonehead's translation has problems (as usual). He renders ceterum here as "this other," yet  the word it's supposed modify, viz. impositionem, is feminine accusative singular. But ceterum is masculine accusative singular or neuter nominative or accusative singular when it's used as an adjective. Consequently, unless Tony made another transcriptional error in the same word, ceterum cannot mean "other."  (We read it as the commonly found neuter singular adverb meaning "but, however, moreover, in addition, for the rest, otherwise etc.")  Nevertheless, before shaming the Blunderer once again with a corrected translation, we'll wait until we can inspect the original, just to be 110% sure: the text as transcribed by the chronically slipshod Bonehead is too unreliable at this juncture to make any firm conclusions. (As an aside, we invite you to observe our forbearance in not commenting at length on the misspelling of ocurrit in the last line of the Latin-- a trifle in comparison with the other colossal foozles.)

We note in passing three other problems with his translation: first, there is no word in the Latin to justify "this" in "this other imposition."  Second, there is no word in the Latin to justify "itself" in "Apostolic Constitution itself." Third, there is no word in the Latin (to wit, one of the so-called "weak" causal connectives nam, enim, etenim etc.) that justifies the English coordinating conjunction "for" in the phrase, "For in the ordination to diaconate...": Continuous Latin prose, as every seriously trained student of the preliminary hints in Bradley's Arnold will tell you, deploys such connectives with greater precision and frequency than does English. Had such a particle been needed, it would have appeared in the text of Sacramentum Ordinis, from which Palazzini-De Jorio directly quoted. (However, in theory, we suppose, there's always the chance that the klutzy cultmaster made still another faulty transcription.)

Let's face it, folks: the Blunderer just loves to add nuances that were never intended. Keep this sub-amateur forever away from Latin theological works, and, for heaven's sake, don't believe a word he says! (Pssst! Are you listening, "One Hand"?)

SAFETY MATTERS

KEEP  CALM and GET CONDITIONAL ORDERS. Anonymous

Ed. Note: The last post in a series of our responses to e-mail comments regarding Pistrina's appeal to the rector on behalf of the integrity of the Rev. Mr. Nkamuke's soon-to-be-conferred priestly orders.

I have a question. Cekada says the priest who wrote the 1990 letter "misrepresented (read “lied about”) what both authors said," the two authors being Fr. Walter Clancy and Fr. Clarence McAuliffe. I can see where McAuliffe was misrepresented but I cannot see how Clancy was misrepresented. The PDF of the 1990 letter says "in the opinion of two authors, the case would have to be referred to the Vatican for judgment" and then the letter names the books by Clancy and McAuliffe. Cekada directly quotes from Clancy, "Since [Pius XII’s] Constitution does demand the imposition of both hands of the bishop (impositio manuum), however, in the ordination of a priest, the facts should be presented to the Holy See for a judgment." Based on that quote, it looks like the priest did NOT misrepresent Clancy. What do you think Cekada meant?

He's so sloppy that we often have no idea what he really means, but we'll try our best to explain. The Blunderer, no doubt, was referring to the clause -- colored blue by us -- preceding our correspondent's quote, viz.:

In the course of the research which was being done in reference to ordinations and episcopal consecration, it was discovered that sacerdotal ordinations done with one hand are dubious, and in the opinion of two authors, the case would have to be referred to the Vatican for judgment." 

A good authority tells us the research in question (reported to have been extensive) had to do with the Thuc lineage. That aside, we point out that the full sentence, as written, does not necessarily affirm that Clancy and McAuliffe held one-handed priestly ordinations to be dubious. Indeed, owing to the coordinating conjunction "and" after the comma as well as the position of the phrase "in the opinion of two authors," a careful reader might understand two separate and independent assertions: the first, that the nine priests concluded from their research that one-handed conferral of priestly orders was dubious, and the second, that two of the authors encountered during the research process opined that a case of one-handed orders should be submitted to Rome for a determination.

From a syntactic and stylistic point of view, the language of the letter furnishes no firm grounds to assume the two named authors judged one-handed orders dubious. A careless or biased reader might well infer that the sentence means Clancy and McAuliffe said one-handed orders were doubtful (which, we concede, the two certainly did not). While the loose construction of the sentence may imply that Clancy and McAuliffe asserted such orders were doubtful, it may be just as likely that the priest was writing about different conclusions culled from several sources, some saying one-handed orders were dubious and two others independently advising that an individual case be sent to the Holy See. (Only one of them [viz., Clancy], however, did in fact counsel that course of action.)  Structural analysis, then, has led us to an interpretative impasse.

The only way to get to the truth would be to ask the priest himself what he meant when he wrote the sentence. Without his testimony, everything is speculation, and we must avoid reading something into a sentence that its syntax does not necessarily or does not very probably support. The Blunderer should have been content with McAuliffe's opinion, to wit, "it is very probable that the imposition of only one hand would suffice for validity," and left Clancy out of it.

But really, who knows how the Bonehead thinks? We're still dumbfounded over his mistranslation of papal teaching, his characterization of undocumented hearsay as a decision of the Holy Office, and his clumsy note on Pope Gregory IX's letter.

Nevertheless, this is as good an opportunity as any to remark that Clancy's advice to refer the matter to the Vatican is in keeping with the thinking of well-known theologians. According to the Bonehead, Clancy's work was his doctoral dissertation. Of it, the Blunderer hissed, "This is hardly the Summa" -- a sophomoric and dismissive judgment that might well be leveled against almost all other theological literature.  (You can almost gag on the smell of the fetid ill will he harbors against Clancy for his academic attainment.) But as we all understand, although a theological work may not rival or even distantly approach the Angelic Doctor's magisterial effort, it may still have something to offer, even if it repeats what others have taught.

Regatillo, whom everyone -- including the Latinless CLODs who cannot read his works -- praises to high heaven, offered advice along similar lines, in spite of the fact that he considered one-handed priestly orders valid! Earlier we quoted the following passage from Regatillo in a reply to a comment, but it's worth bringing it to the attention of the larger audience of a post:

 (Lit.) The other canonists, whom I have consulted, and I think that an ordination so conferred [viz. with one-hand] is valid; and we would leave one so ordained to exercise his order[s] in peace. However, in the meantime we would recommend [or "advise" or "urge" or "suggest" etc.] that the Holy Office be consulted whether something must be supplied in the case. (Our emphasis.)*

Observe the refreshing absence of smarmy arrogance and the comforting presence of Catholic vigilance: As certain as Regatillo was of the validity of one-handed orders, he prudently advised a safe course of action: meanwhile check with Rome to see if something should be done ceremonially with regard to the defect in a particular case. Note also that Clancy's opinion is completely in keeping with the Roman ethos of cautiousness in such matters, which is always to choose the safe way, no matter what.

Owing to "One Hand's" ecclesiological position, he never had available the option of consulting the Holy Office or its successor. Accordingly, long before he aggressively pursued and gained the episcopacy, he should have embraced the spirit of Regatillo's and others' teachings and sought conditional ordination. If in the years before he captured the episcopacy he couldn't find a bishop willing to confer orders sub conditione, he should have petitioned his consecrator before his consecration.

It's still not too late. By now, everyone has rejected the absurd meme that Tony is an "erudite scholar" and the rector a "great theologian." Only the most psychically brutalized cultists now believe that old wives' tale. (Or is it an urban legend?)  "One Hand" himself has probably agonized through that rude awakening by now. If so, he should aspire to the solace that comes from knowing his orders are certainly valid.

No one, not even Dannie, could relish the dark, suffocating, poisonous atmosphere of doubt he now breathes.  If he desires an antidote, if he seeks peace of soul for himself and his culties, he must secure conditional ordination and consecration. It's quick, easy, and painless (except, perhaps, for an outsized ego). But even stinging grief will be assuaged when all the carping critics like Pistrina can no longer hurl thunderbolts of dubiety at his orders and at those of the luckless men he's ordained.

Wouldn't that alone be worth it?

Maybe the rector will at length take pity upon the poor Rev. Mr. Nkamuke and, ad cautelam, administer the antitoxin needed ad arcendas funestas sequelas ordinationis forte invalidae. Why, he might even enjoy the one-upmanship and the delicious requital for so many past slights, a few of which took place on his home turf under his very nose.


* The Latin text from the Theologiae Moralis Summa III (1954), p. 495, reads,  "Alii canonistae, quos consuli, et ego validam putamus ordinationem sic collatam; et sic ordinatum relinqueremus ut ordinem in pace exerceret. At interea suaderemus ut consulatur S. Officium: an aliquid sit supplendum in casu." 

TRADUTTORI TRADITORI

Alas, his wits are dull, his headpiece tough;/'Tis all in vain, he cannot learn the stuff. Nigel Longchamp (Mozley's translation of A Mirror for Fools)

Ed. Note: The fourth in a series of our responses to e-mail comments regarding our appeal on behalf of the integrity of the Rev. Mr. Nkamuke's priestly orders.

You must stop discussing Father Cekada's mistakes. It is a mortal sin to tell Gods anointed they are wrong. You must learn to look for them. Holy priests may get facts wrong but there is always a deep spiritual truth underneath. The same is true with Father Cekada. I never studied Latin, but maybe he did make a mistake. It is not important. Underneath is the TRUTH that Bishop Dolan is a true priest. Pope Pius would never have wanted a good bishop to suffer because some MC did not pay attention because of epekiea. That is why Father Cekada made his translation. To show the hidden truth. You keep making a big deal about his bad Latin but all you found are two mistakes. I read Fathers article and he quotes a lot of Latin. Two little mistakes is not that bad. You should beg him to forgive you.

Our correspondent has affinities with the mortal-sin-multiplying former inmates of the swampland pesthouse. While at a loss to answer her chief argument(s?), we'll reluctantly reply to her comments on the Bonehead's errors in Latin.  We wrote reluctantly because the documentation of the Blunderer's linguistic boo-boos can become tedious for the non-specialist. For that very reason, we didn't reference them all in earlier posts. However, insofar as there are other distempered cultists out there who share our fair correspondent's view, we feel obliged to reveal additional blunders in Latin.

First, however, let us (1) remind everyone that we've pointed out more than two errors (see, for instance, our posts of May 11, May 25,  June 1, June 30) and (2) reiterate that the Blunderer's erroneous translation of a papal teaching proximate to the faith is no small matter. If the mistranslation and the added words were the only problem with his Latin, these errors alone would suffice to impeach his credentials.

We won't burden you with the Blunderer's penny-ante typographical goof-ups, like the mistranscriptions in footnote 37 (inposta for inposita) or in footnote 62 (huc et illus for huc et illuc). Instead, we choose more serious examples from a text that we will revisit soon in a separate post when we discuss Regatillo and Palazzini-De Jorio. For now, here's what the Bonehead offered at footnote 10 (we have printed in red four words to document his problems with the Latin language):

Theol. Mor. Summa 3:666. “Nam in diaconatu unica manus Episcopi imponitur; in presbyteratu ambae imponuntur, et haec impositionem deinde continuatur per extensionem solius dexterae. Et cum in Constitutione Pii XII designetur tamquam unica materia essentialis, triplici ordini communis, impositionem manuum; pronum est ut sicut ad diaconatum una manus sufficit, ita unica ad presbyteratum et episcopatum sufficiat.” His emphasis.

Here's how he translates it in the appendix*: 

For in conferring the diaconate, one hand of the bishop is imposed; in the priesthood, both are imposed and this imposition is continued by the extension of the right hand alone. And since in Pius XII’s Constitution the only essential matter common to all three holy orders is designated at the imposition of hands, it is obvious that just as one hand suffices for the diaconate, so also one hand would suffice for the priesthood and the episcopate.

We'll start with the two smaller slip ups: Tony translates neither deinde ("then, thereafter, thereupon") nor tamquam ("as").  These words are not untranslatable particles but essential parts of speech for understanding the flow of Regatillo's line of reasoning.** Perhaps the first case represents a careless oversight, but the second omission may have arisen from his inability to construe the mistranscribed text, as we'll explain in the next paragraph. Beware: Heavy Grammar Zone Ahead.

The two occurrences of the word  impositionem (accusative feminine singular) are wrong. Anyone with a basic knowledge of Latin can see at a glance that the word in both cases should be impositio (nominative feminine singular). However, we won't ask you to take our word for it, nor will you have to consult a skilled Latinist (don't look for one among the Traddies, however). At the top of this post is an image from the 1954 BAC third volume of Regatillo's Theologiae Moralis Summa (the edition cited by the Bonehead in his bibliography), so you can verify the facts for yourself (lines 2 and 5) and then affirm with us that the Blunderer is not quoting  accurately.

A look at Tony's handling of the second occurrence is instructive, for it intimates he didn't recognize his erroneous transcription. He knew he had to find a nominative singular for the verb designetur, but in his erroneous transcription the only animal of that kind was (unica) materia (essentialis), which he then treats as the subject of the verb in question and conveniently leaves out tamquam ("as"). The trouble is, tamquam makes materia a predicate complement, so (unica) materia (essentialis) cannot be the subject. The subject must lie elsewhere. At this point, anyone with a soupçon of Latin would have suspected a transcriptional error and at least would have checked the text as printed in the book. But that appears never to have crossed his mind. (Of course, a genuinely educated person would have immediately recognized that the subject must be impositio [manuum], and forthwith would have silently emended the text without having to consult the text.)

What the Bonehead, in fact, appears to do is to try to "save" the erroneous accusative impositionem by adding -- here we go again! -- the preposition "at." How clueless can you get? This man has no business being anywhere near Latin theological documents, and you must never pay him any attention when he speaks or writes. He's just plain wrong.*** 

Before closing for the week, we'd like to take issue with Tony's translating pronum est as "it is obvious." While we won't say it's definitely wrong, it is a misleadingly loaded over-reading. The adjective pronus, -a, -um originally meant "leaning or bending forward, sloping." By transfer, it took on the meanings of "inclined (to a given course of action or to favor), disposed to, prone to." In the course of usage, it also came to mean "proceeding without difficulty or hindrance, easy." In antiquity the phrase pronum est ut meant "it is easy to."

Christian Latin theological authors do not always use words in their ancient sense, because Ecclesiastical Latin usage and vocabulary often differ from Classical Latin. Nevertheless, the new meanings that developed over the centuries still share a semantic kinship with the words' original lexical definitions.  It is, we argue, too far of a stretch to get "it is obvious" from the basic meaning "it is a thing inclined or disposed or prone to favor." The basic notion is an inclination or a tendency to something, which suggests some hesitancy, some probability, whereas "obvious" implies absolute certainty. So great a liberty on the unskilled translator's part smacks of special pleading. A far better and more accurate translation would be "it is likely" or even "it is very likely" (as we ourselves generously translated in note *** below).


P.S.

Before last week's commenter Anonymous July 17, 2013 9:42 PM weighs in with his two-cents' worth accusing us of writing bad Latin, we remind him that Pistrina did not make the comment under Anonymous July 17, 2013 4:06 AM. The latter commenter has independently acknowledged another anonymous commenter's correction (perhaps made by 7/17 9:42 PM himself).

As a caution to critics, we only comment as the Reader or under Pistrina Liturgica. We want all friends and enemies to know when we speak. and therefore we shun anonymous comments to ourselves. That apparently is a trick the cultists like to use on their blogs, and so they wrongly impute the low practice to us.


*Technically, the Blunderer seems to have tranalated from Ius Sacramentarium 3rd edition (Santander: Sal Terrae 1960), 873. But he tells us that "Except for the mention of the Holy Office decision, it is identical to the passage on the topic in his 1954 Theologiae Moralis Summa (Madrid: BAC), 3:495–96." Thus we'll assume it serves as his translation of the text in footnote 10.

** Lit. "This imposition is then continued..."; "And since in the constitution of Pius XII the imposition of hands is designated as the only essential matter..." The ensuing paragraph above perhaps explains why the befuddled Blunderer failed to translate tamquam in this second instance.

***For those of you who are annotating your copies of the Blunderer's monograph, here's a literal translation of the paragraph: "To be sure, in the diaconate, one hand only of a bishop is imposed; in the presbyterate, both [hands] are imposed, and this imposition is thereafter continued through the extension of the right hand alone. And since in the constitution of Pius XII the imposition of hands is designated as the sole essential matter common to the tripartite [sacrament of] order, it is very likely that in the same way as one hand is sufficient for the diaconate, so a single  [hand] may be [or should be] sufficient for the presbyterate."

The careful student who compares our translation to the Bonehead's will note he added the word "also," for which there is no justification in the original: the Latin relative adverb sicut answering to the correlative demonstrative ita is translated "in the same way as, just as...so," not "...so also." The same scrupulous reader might well remark that we did not translate sufficiat as Tony Baloney  did, viz. "would suffice," but rather as "may be sufficient" or "should be sufficient." Our choice is not a criticism of the Blunderer's rendering, which is certainly acceptable: our translations of sufficiat were chosen to underscore the potential subjunctive (i.e., a conceivable action) in an explanatory  comparative clause of manner. Thus the difference between our rendering and the Bonehead's is not important. What is important, however, is the substantial question we raise here :

Why did Regatillo, if he were so cock sure of his opinion that one hand is sufficient to confer priestly orders validly, use the subjunctive, the mood of subjectivity?

In Ecclesiastical Latin, "the verb in clauses of comparison is in the Indicative, if it is implied that the comparison is in accordance with fact" (Nunn EL, ❡174). So, had Regatillo been certain, he would surely have written: sicut ad diaconatum una manus sufficit, ita unica ad presbyteratum et episcopatum sufficit, viz. "in the same way as one hand is sufficient for the diaconate, so a single  [hand] is sufficient for the presbyterate." Why didn't he, then, use the indicative, the mood of fact?  We answer: Because he was a real Catholic theologian, and therefore wrote cautiously when he advanced personal opinion. In other words, he knew that his opinion was just that, so he hedged it with the subjunctive.

BONEHEAD'S BOTCH REVISITED

One can only wonder/At so grotesque a blunder. Bentley

Ed. Note: The third in a series of our reactions to e-mail comments received as a result of our crusade to rescue the Rev. Mr. Nkamuke's priestly orders from a lifetime of wrenching doubt.

Funny how all the Cekada backstoppers like Introibo Ad Altare are completely ignoring the fact that he mistranslated Pius XII. You gave 5 examples to show how no one else ever translated it as "one and the same" and no one added extra words either [See our May 11 post]. I respectfully submit a SIXTH. Weird how everybody but Cekada including the "Novus Ordo" can get it right. Sede priests are idiots. This is from the 2012 Ignatius Press Denzinger by Hunerman, Fastissi and Nash:

"...the matter of holy orders of the diaconate, priesthood, and episcopate is the laying on of hands alone..."

No "one and the same" and no additional words. I'll stick with Francis and the Society. They get it right.

We were grateful for the citation because, at the time we received it, we had not been able to consult the Hünermann edition. The e-mail also happily inspired us to conduct a little experiment of our own.

A friend of ours has a nephew who belongs to a Novus-Ordo religious order in South America. Through the bright young man's good offices, we spoke to an elderly religious, who once taught Latin in Rome. (He also taught for a period in Washington, D.C.) We asked him to translate into Spanish Pius's definition of the matter of holy orders so we could see how a formally trained Catholic religious a continent away would read the text.  Here's what he sent:

[...disponemos que:] la materia, y la única materia, de las Órdenes Sagradas del Diaconado, el Sacerdocio, y el Episcopado sea la imposición de manos.* (Lit: the matter, and the only matter, of the sacred orders of the diaconate, the priesthood, and the episcopacy is the imposition of hands.)

So here we have a seventh version -- three now from the much maligned Novus Ordo -- confirming yet again that no competently educated, theologically literate person appears to read Pius's Latin as wrongly as the Blunderer did. Clearly, the Bonehead is spectacularly off base. His supporters know he's wrong, too, but they're culties, so they try to hide from the implications by avoiding or downplaying the subject. They prefer to adhere, limpet-like, to an unsubstantial P.R. image rather than embrace the solid truth. In our eyes, that's abject, quaking stupidity grounded in superstition.

You rational folks out in cyber space mustn't make the same mistake. The Blunderer's mistranslation is a gravely serious breach of scholarly standards, to say the least, even if the sole causes are his profound ignorance of Latin and impoverished formation. Bear in mind that more than a mere misunderstanding of easy Latin was involved: the Blunderer added words of his own (again, see our May 11 post for specifics):  A virulently toxic brew of bewilderment, inexperience, lousy training, indiscipline, and lack of adult supervision induced a rendering very, very alien from what Pope Pius XII taught.

Worse, the inexcusable blunder misled many people, including, it seems, the nine priests, who in good conscience had demanded that Dannie  "stop saying Mass, hearing confessions, and administering the sacrament of Extreme Unction until this problem is solved." It may also have prevented "One Hand" from getting himself fixed and thereby putting an end to all the anxious, soul-rending speculation of the past two decades.

The Blunderer's erroneous translation is a linchpin of his argument. It is the subject of the prominent first section, and he returns to it several times throughout. To counter the priests' central claim that "One-Hand's" ordination was dubious, the Bonehead declares Pius XII "decreed that for the three Orders the matter was 'one and the same'" -- something that you now know Pope Pius never, ever did. In his summary, Tone seems to suggest that the canonists' opinions were based on a similar reading of Pius's apostolic constitution,* and a reference to the mistranslation appears in Appendix II, his laughably presumptuous "historical note."** 

In his easily rebuttable defense of one-handed orders, the "erudite theologian" -- gag us with a spoon! -- Antonius à Bononiâ, a k a "Tony Baloney," informs us that the priest who drafted the 9/21/90 letter to Dannie "misrepresented (read 'lied about') what both authors [viz. McAuliffe and Clancy] said." Fair enough -- at least with regard to what Fr. McAuliffe wrote. Therefore, are readers of the Bonehead's monograph justified in characterizing his erroneous rendering of  Pius's words with a similar parenthetical condemnation? The Novus Ordo has a right to laugh itself silly at a cause championed by such vacuous apologists.

Errors like Tony's have ended careers in the real, cult-free world (here we mean professions where accountability and accuracy are the norm).  It is to Traddieville's eternal shame that its backward, twitching and flinching, self-mutilating citizens do not awaken from their stupor to demand he pack up and get out for good. (How the rector can allow the Bonehead to "teach" at his swampland clerical clown college would be beyond comprehension, if we didn't understand his motives as well as we do.)  But you all know that Traddieville, a shabby, sullen, unclean town without pity run by hypocrites, forgives no one except its erring, malformed clergy.

*****

Before we sign off for this week, permit us to make a special request of our German-, Italian-, and Spanish-speaking followers:

If you have access to an official edition of Denzinger translated into your native language, we would be grateful if you would send us the text of Pius's definition of the matter of holy orders. (Please supply bibliographical information as well.) The section is 2301, paragraph 4, in older editions; it may be numbered 3859 in more recent ones. From our followers in Brazil, we'd like to have a Portuguese version, too. In fact, we'd like to have versions in all the other European languages except French (which we have already cited). Please forward by way of the comment form or email (pistrinalit@gmail.com).

* "Pius XII decreed specifically that for diaconate, priesthood, and episcopacy the matter is one and the same. The canonists Regatillo and Palazzini therefore state that, since the imposition of one hand suffices for diaconate, it also therefore suffices for priesthood and episcopacy." [Blunderer's emphasis.]

**"The pontiff declared that for conferring the Orders of diaconate, priesthood and episcopacy the essential matter was the same: the imposition of hands." [Our emphasis.]

SEND OUT THE CLOWNS

They're here! They're baaack: Over there's the Clown! They all traipse after  him, codgers and kids. At the wisecracks and gags, the whole gang claps. He officiously nods as he passes by, and then goes back to ballyhooing. Leoncavallo (an updated translation)

Ed. Note: The second in a series of our musings on e-mail comments sent in response to our effort to save the Rev. Mr. Nkamuke's priestly orders from the stigma of doubt. 

You Readers have not mentioned the elephant in the room. Maybe Fr. Cekada failed to prove the validity of one-handed orders, but he did prove that Fr. Clarence McAuliffe, S.J. never said orders done with one hand "would have to be referred to the Vatican for judgment" like the [Sept. 1990] letter says. McAuliffe said "it is very probable that the imposition of only one hand would suffice for validity."

My question is why Bp. Sanborn did not check the references before he signed the letter. He is supposed to be the sharpest and most intellectual of all the traditional priests. You would think he would have asked to see both McAuliffe's book and Clancy's dissertation before putting his name down. I can understand why the other 8 priests signed the letter without checking. One or two of them are real duds and the others were carrying water for the boss. I cannot understand Bp. Sanborn's lapse. He is a teacher, a great theologian and the respected head of a seminary who must set an example. He should have known not to take somebody's word without first checking it out.

Our correspondent is another victim of the cult's noisy, self-referential public-relations squawk box, the same rickety contraption that hypes the buffoonish Blunderer as a "scholar" and the boorish "One Hand" as a broadly cultured, genteel gourmet. In many posts over the past few years, we've drawn your attention to the rector's clownish educational deficiencies (one of the most recent is our post of April 28).  Our criticisms don't center on isolated slips to which all humans are subject. They shine a bright light on the unmistakable signs of a very model of a post-modern jester in matters academical. Once you learn to ignore the P.R. hullabaloo from cult central, then it's easy to see why the rector signed his name: He is not the "real thing," and the sooner Traddies get this into their heads, the better off they'll be (both spiritually and monetarily).

This e-mail suggested to us that Trad World needed a few more reminders about the rector's academic meltdowns in order to spare the gullible further disappointment. The April and May 2013 issues of the MHT Newsletter are just the ticket. There, on display for anybody to see, are the thigh-slapping stupidities that put the lie to the hollow P.R. messaging about the rector's preserving high Catholic standards. For your edification, we'll choose three examples, starting with the smallest.

TELL-TALE MORONITY #1

In the May issue featuring a review of a book by "Papa Pancho" Bergoglio and Abraham Skorka, the head of a rabbinical seminary in Buenos Aires, the rector uses the cringeworthy, pleonastic phrase "Jewish rabbi," a well-known marker of half-educated fools trying to bowl over their peers. Unlike a priest, who can and must be differentiated by descriptors like Anglican, Greek-Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Shinto, pagan etc., a rabbi always is Jewish. A genuinely educated man would have banished this commonplace of the untutored long ago. (We note that he virtually made the same error in March when he wrote the howler "Jewish synagogue." This Bozo needs immediate educational intervention! No wonder a pesthouse completer skipped the consecration, and another couldn't perform a graveside service! At least the Italians know when it's time to get rid of malformed MHT inmates! Maybe they're planning to wash their hands of the rector soon.)

TELL-TALE MORONITY #2

In the next paragraph, we find a more shameful illustration of the rector's ignorance. Let's quote the entire text so you can see for yourself:

The book is oddly characterized by Skorka's refusal to use the word "God." Instead, he says "G—d." Needless to say, this word does not present itself well in English, since there is the constant tendency to read it as GD. I found no explanation in the book why the rabbi used this way to refer to God.

It is a scandal that this pathetic clown, the operator of a so-called seminary, has never heard of the Jewish ethical practice of removing the vowel from the written or printed form of the Divine Name as a safeguard against erasure or defacement -- what the rabbis call mechikat HaShem. (Rabbi Skorka should be admired for his zeal in protecting the sanctity of the God's name in accordance with the legal strictures of his faith: his fidelity is also quite a stinging insult to Modernist sensibilities.)

Even worse than the rector's ignorance of a well-known, pious Jewish custom is the absence of the Catholic spirit of intellectual inquiry: he could have easily looked up the usage on the Internet by simply querying "G-d." But he didn't do it:  without a second thought, he just opened mouth and inserted foot, the usual outcome of the same kind of hard-headed arrogance that led to his embarrassing "radio" performance, where a lay listener took him back to school for a much-needed lesson in Church history (see our March 3 post). 

TELL-TALE MORONITY #3

The rector's ignorance isn't limited to Judaica, and, from all appearances, it extends to Catholic theology. In the April MHT newsletter, the rector pontificated that the proposition "women should be permitted to become priestesses" is heretical.  We knew that St. Augustine declared heretical those sects with women priests, but we wondered whether the proposition is heretical in the strict sense, in the sense that a "respected head of a seminary" and a "great theologian" should use to inform his written opinions.

We decided to put the rector's theological knowledge to the test. We restricted ourselves to  books that were readily available in English to the average Catholic: No knowledge of Latin, no special access to theological libraries required. Our aim was to assess whether a layman could have rendered a more authentically Catholic judgment than our prelate-pagliaccio.

So, here we go:

1. The "heretical" proposition as formulated by the rector is tantamount to denying the truth of the proposition "the Sacrament of Order can be validly received by a baptised person of the male sex only," which Ludwig Ott classifies as a sententia certa. *

2. According to Parente, Piolanti, and Garofalo,** heresy is a teaching in "...opposition to a revealed truth..." and "...to the definition of the Church magisterium...Heresy in the full sense of the word is opposed to a truth of divine-Catholic Faith."

3. But a sententia certa "is a doctrine, on which the Teaching Authority [magisterium] of the Church has not yet finally pronounced. " *** 

4. It appears, then, that Ott's proposition is not a truth of divine-Catholic faith. Therefore, it seems that the denial of the truth of Ott's proposition is not heretical. Oh, sure, the denial's a mortal sin. And, yes, it's indirectly opposed to faith. In fact, it is an error in theology. It does not, however, merit the censure of heresy.

There you have it: a layman can make a better theological judgment than Traddie clown-clergy. It looks as though the rector doesn't know what he's talking about, whether the subject be Catholic or non-Catholic. He apparently doesn't even try to get it right.  He just spouts off with whatever he thinks will frighten or impress the culties. He thinks they'll buy whatever he's selling because he's THE RECTOR -- a one-dimensional joker projected large by cult propaganda onto the lay imagination and made to appear substantial. But, as you see, he's not.

Consequently, there's no wonder why he signed the letter to "One Hand" in the apparent absence of confirmation of what Fr. McAuliffe actually wrote. Perhaps the rector's unwarranted superiority complex convinced him that whatever he says or does is right, the facts notwithstanding.

Isn't it about time to tell the rector, "One-Hand Dan," and Tony Baloney you won't listen to them anymore, that they are definitely not anything like the pre-Vatican II clergy, where humble country priests were veritable Doctors of the Church in comparison to these empty-headed, prideful goofballs? And isn't it about time to get serious about starving the Beast and cleansing Traddielandia of their obnoxious esprit de corps?

It's the cash-strapped laity's hard-earned money that enables these zanies to carry on as they do. Stop giving, and you'll see no more of their circus antics. Develop a good, healthy case of coulrophobia. End this intellectual harlequinade. Save your money for the few self-respecting Trad priests who don't pretend to be what they're not, who know they've no authority to preach or teach, who recognize the limits of their inadequate formation. They keep their mouths shut, avoid embarrassment, and stick to the cure of souls. 

*    Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (TAN Books), p. 459
**  Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology (Bruce)
***Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (TAN Books), pp. 9-10