STILL ON PAUSE

How dull it is to pause. Tennyson

Visitor traffic to Pistrina is has not yet returned to customary levels to allow us to resume our last series on one-handed conferral of priestly orders. In fact, it's not time yet even to warm things up with a discussion of the rector's recent nearsighted, mistaken assessment of Papa Pancho. We'll wait another week until everybody knows we're back in town: Trad World deserves to hear what Pistrina has to say!

This week, we'll limit ourselves to praising German Novus Ordites for having a more richly developed moral sense than zombie Traddie cultists. A Thursday, October 24 article in the Wall Street Journal reported Pancho's suspension of the infamous "Bishop of Bling," who obscenely spent $42,000,000 to renovate his residence. As part of the story, the Journal quoted the president of a local court in the spendthrift's diocese, who claimed the disgusted faithful have been leaving their parishes in large numbers because of their ordinary's behavior.

Say what you will about the N.O. flock, but Trads should take a page from their book to bring pressure on their own free-spending, donation-wheedling, revenue-obsessed, luxury-loving, Mammon-enthralled clergy with their steroidal construction projects, caviar dreams, and deluxe spa-vacation plans. 

Just refuse to donate. 

And while you're waiting for their sense of self-preservation to bring them to their senses, form a lay board to keep the Roman-collared curs on a short leash after they come slinking home with their raggedy tails between their legs.

We're here ready to help decent Christians send a message to all clerical bling-bats, whatever their ecclesiology. Just remember:

STARVE THE BEAST TODAY SO YOUR KIDS CAN EAT BETTER ON THANKSGIVING AND ENJOY A MERRIER CHRISTMAS WITH ALL THE CASH YOU SAVE.

BACK IN THE SADDLE AGAIN

L

Let us return to our sheep. From Maistre Pierre Pathelin.

To what must be the great delight of friend and foe, after a short and very productive sabbatical, Pistrina is ready to resume its good and holy work of exposing sede ignorance and cant.

We have lots of new material to share with you.

One of our great successes was drafting a summary of our surgically precise evisceration of the Blunderer's defense of one-handed orders.  It's now almost ready for translation into French, Spanish, Italian, and German.  In the future, no one will cite the Bonehead's work. 

In addition, our Power Point presentation to the Lay Governance Congress met with great success, for the body voted to require re-ordination of any priest ordained by "One Hand" as a condition of employment. (The SW Ohio cult won't last forever, and the hapless young Levites, most of whom have no degree or profession, will need to look for bed and board in another chapel.) 

Most fruitful of all was a lively discussion with a very lucid 89-year-old Dominican in Milan, an erstwhile student at the Angelicum, who concurred that one-handed conferral of priestly orders was sufficiently dubious as to call for conditional ordination.

But, whoa! We're getting ahead of ourselves. We still have some loose ends to tie up from our last two series, such as the saltus and Holy-Office policy. Plus, we're just about a month out from the Rev. Mr. Nkamuke's ordination to the priesthood, so we have to monitor that situation to make sure the rector, not "One Hand," is the ordaining bishop. (We're also interested in finding out who will attend: Will the so-called "bishop for Africa" be conspicuously absent from the priestly ordination of a future [and real in every sense] African bishop?)

We'll wait a week or so before we engage these important topics. During the hiatus, many of our supporters, detractors, and observers may have gotten out of the habit of checking-in regularly. After all, we don't want them to miss out on all the good information urging "One-Hand Dan" to seek conditional priestly and episcopal orders and then re-ordain those poor losers who received their orders from him.

ON HIATUS

Please stand by. Anonymous

Pistrina will continue with its new series YOU BE THE JUDGE when the Readers return after a break of several weeks.

In addition to enjoying some well-deserved rest and recreation, at the behest of a traditional Catholic organization, our staff is taking time off to prepare a synoptic rebuttal of the Blunderer's monograph based on what we've posted during the last four months. The final document will be made available in English as well as in select European languages. Eventually we will post a shorter version of it on this site once the contracting party green-lights a broader distribution.

During our extended break, we'll also attend the now-annual lay governance conference, where we'll summarize the errors, shoddy scholarship, and untenable conclusions of the Bonehead's monograph, that miracle of incompetence; we'll also present our reasons for advocating the conditional ordination of any priest ordained by "One Hand." That way, in the future, after the cult has collapsed and its clergy dispersed in a desperate search for gainful employment, independent chapels will be able to insist upon conditional orders before signing a religious-services contract with these forlorn and malformed souls.

In the meantime, remember to

STARVE THE BEAST -- it's needy, and it's itching for your hard-earned money.

YOU BE THE JUDGE: PART 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not on your life.

We ground our protest in the very words of Pius XII in the same apostolic constitution that definitively and absolutely excluded the extension of the right hand from the matter of the sacrament. (Makes sense to us: it's an extension, not an imposition, duh! But much more on that in a future post.) However, you needn't take our word for it. Read for yourself what Sacramentum Ordinis itself says in paragraph 5 (our emphasis in bold):

In Ordinatione Presbytertali materia est Episcopi prima manuum impositio quae silentio fit, non autem eiusdem impositionis per manus dexterae extensionem continuatio, nec ultima....

(Lit.) In priestly ordination, the matter is the first imposition of the hands of the bishop, which is done in silence, but not the continuation of the same imposition by the extension of the right hand, nor the last ...** (Our emphasis.)***

Writing separately in 1948, two French commentators on the constitution, A. Michel and A. Delchard, both remarked on the sharp verbal precision and limpidity of the declarations of Sacramentum Ordinis.****  Nowhere is this linguistic exactitude more evident than when Pius XII makes it abundantly clear that the extension of the right hand (which uninterruptedly succeeds the first imposition of hands) is absolutely NOT the matter. The matter of priestly ordination, as Pius taught and as you've just read, "is the first imposition of the hands of the bishop, which is done in silence." Nothing more. Nothing less.

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

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

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

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

No means no!

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

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

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

**Case 341, vol. 2, p. 287, 2°. Item nemo dubitat de validitate ordinationis sacerdotalis vel consecrationis episcopalis, conlatae per unius manus impositionem. Etenim potestas, quae confertur, satis significatur per unius manus impoositionem. ¶Verum est quidem Constitutionem Apostolicam Sacramentum Ordinis decernere atque constituere in ordinatione presbyterali materiam esse primam manuum impositionem quae silentio fit.

¶At unius manus dexterae extensio habetur continuatio impositionis manuum. ¶Ceterum impositionem unius manus non minorem habere virtutem quam utriusque iure cogitur ex praedicta Constitutione Apostolica, quae dum declarat «Sacrorum Ordinum Diaconatus, Presbyteratus et Episcopatus materiam eamque unam esse manuum impositionem» (n. 4), decernit atque constituit: «In ordinatione Diaconali materia est Episcopi manus impositio quae in ritu istius ordinationis una occurrit» (n. 5). (Author's emphasis; we have indicated the original paragraphing by the symbol ¶.)

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

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

ODDS & ENDS

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

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

UPDATE 1:

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

[D]ie Materie der Heiligen Weihen des Diakonates, Presbyterates und Episkopates - und zwar die einzige - ist die Auflegung der Hände... 
(Literally: The matter of the Holy Orders of the Diaconate, Presbyterate and Episcopate - and that is the only one - is the imposition of hands...)

The second is from the 1963 Herder edition of Denzinger translated into Spanish by the authoritative Ruiz Bueno**:

... la materia única de las sagradas órdenes del diaconado, presbiterado y episcopado es la imposición de las manos...
(Literally: ...the only matter of the sacred orders of the diaconate, priesthood, and episcopate is the imposition of hands...)

Don't all of you out there in cyberspace believe by now that the Blunderer's monograph might just represent the only time the phrase "one and the same" has appeared in print in any civilized language as a translation of Pius's eamque unam? Who else could have come up with such a stupidly outré rendering? And to think that Wee Dan bet the farm on such idiocy when all he had to do was to petition for conditional orders before his 1993 consecration. Twenty years of doubt and insinuation, for Pete's sake! How could he bear it? Surely, there is no one who will still defend Tony Baloney, not even the most warped, spittle-stained zombie-cultist in captivity -- or even Dannie and the rest of the lumpen clergy.

UPDATE 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

**https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B9XFGc_BZfpPZ3RMT1NNdnB6Tk0/edit?pli=1

CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING

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

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

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

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

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

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

a) The imposition of hands was sufficient.

b) The delivery of the instruments was sufficient.

c) Both ceremonial actions were necessary.

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

a) The first imposition was sufficient.

b) The first imposition followed by the extension of the right hand.

c) Opinion “b” plus the last imposition.

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

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

Let us examine, in context, what Pius actually wrote in paragraph 4 of his constitution (the emphases are my own):

Quae cum ita sint, divino lumine invocato, suprema Nostra Apostolica Auctoritate et certa scientia declaramus et, quatenus opus sit, decernimus et disponimus : Sacrorum Ordinum Diaconatus, Presbyteratus et Episcopatus materiam eamque unam esse manuum impositionem; formam vero itemque unam esse verba applicationem huius materiae determinantia, quibus univoce significantur effectus sacramentales, — scilicet potestas Ordinis et gratia Spiritus Sancti — , quaeque ab Ecclesia qua talia accipiuntur et usurpantur. Hinc consequitur ut declaremus, sicut revera ad omnem controversiam auferendam et ad conscientiarum anxietatibus viam praecludendam Apostolica Nostra Auctoritate declaramus, et, si unquam aliter legitime dispositum fuerit, statuimus instrumentorum traditionem saltem in posterum non esse necessariam ad Sacrorum Diaconatus, Presbyteratus et Episcopatus Ordinum validitatem. *

That is to say, by the context, you clearly see that he is differentiating the imposition of hands from the delivery of the instruments, which is evident from paragraph 5 of Sacramentum Ordinis (the emphases are mine): 

De materia autem et forma in uniuscuiusque Ordinis collatione, eadem suprema Nostra Apostolica Auctoritate, quae sequuntur decernimus et constituimus: In Ordinatione Diaconali materia est Episcopi manus impositio quae in ritu istius Ordinationis una occurrit… In Ordinatione Presbyterali materia est Episcopi prima manuum impositio quae silentio fit, non autem eiusdem impositionis per manus dexterae extensionem continuatio, nec ultima… Denique in Ordinatione seu Consecratione Episcopali materia est manuum impositio quae ab Episcopo consecratore fit.**

In a word, the pope first speaks of the three orders in general: he says that the matter is onefold and common to the three, namely, the imposition of hands; that is to say, it is not twofold since the delivery of the instruments is not necessary for validity, and then he determines in particular what the matter of each one of the orders is, most especially that of the priesthood, which was the one that presented doubts.

Cekada, in contrast, understands the above-cited paragraph 4 as referring in particular to each one of the orders (diaconate, presbyterate, episcopate) when he writes: 

In his Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis, Pius XII, having explicitly invoked his supreme Apostolic Authority, declared and decreed:

The matter of the Sacred Orders of Diaconate, Priesthood and Episcopacy is one and the same, and that indeed is the imposition of hands.

Then, with his awful, tendentious translation, he tries to prove that just as the ordination of deacons is valid with one hand, the same thing occurs with priestly and episcopal ordination.

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

In his commentary on the constitution, the Jesuit Hürth makes this very clear (my emphases in bold):

12. Parte preparatoria sic absoluta, Constitutio Apostolica (Const. n. 4) transit ad partem dispositivam, in qua primo collective pro omnibus tribus ordinibus, Diaconatus, Presbyteratus, Episcopatus statuitur, quid ad valorem requiratur, quid non requiratur; deinde ididem (read ibidem) fit relate ad singulos hos ordines, singillatim sumptos. ***

Or in other words, paragraph 4 specifies in general what is required for validity (imposition of hands) and what is not required (delivery of instruments), and then the next paragraph specifies in particular what matter and what form are required in each one of the orders.

Hürth clarifies his thinking even further (my own emphases in bold):

13. Id quod “declaratur", (respective insuper “disponitur”), ex parte est positivum, ex parte negativum. Pars positiva respicit necessitatem et suficientiam solius manuum  impositionis, tamquam materiae, ad validam Ordinationem diaconalem, presbyteralem, episcopalem, necnon necessitatem et sufficientiam verborum, tamquam formae, etc.****

14: Parti positivae statim adnectitur pars negativa, scl. declaratio et dispositio, quidnam non requiratur (Const. n. 4). Haec pars negativa est simplex et necessaria conclusio ex antecedenti parte positiva; ideo incipit verbis: “hinc consequitur”. Et revera, si unica (1) materia, quae ad valorem requiratur, est impositio manuum, nulla alia materia ad valorem necessaria esse potest. Pars negativa in primis respicit “traditionem instrumentorum”, quam, ut supra notatum est, multi theologi primae notae ante et post Concilium Florentinum dixerunt materiam sacramenti, ad valorem saltem etiam necessariam.*****

He then goes on to speak of the orders in particular and comments:

16. Parti generali de tribus Diaconatus, Presbyteratus, et Episcopatus Ordinibus adiungitur pars specialis de singulis Ordinibus, singillatim sumptis (Const. n. 5), et quaeritur, quinam ex ritibus occurrentibus ad essentiam et valorem singulorum ordinum sint necessarii.******

In conclusion, as you can see, not only does Cekada not know Latin, and not only does he distort the words of the pope, but he has no understanding at all about what Sacramentum Ordinis is talking about.

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

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

___________________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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