LEAPIN' LIZARDS, PART 2

Must be wonderful to feel as big and important as that. Little Orphan Annie, the comic strip

Editor's Note: The second in our series justifying why "One-Hand Dan" must undergo conditional consecration in addition to conditional priestly ordination.

Some of our correspondents have argued that even if Dannie had not been validly ordained a priest, his subsequent episcopal consecration makes everything hunky-dory. They must think he's so important that he deserves a pass on prudent Church practice in cases such as his. (Never would've happened in the past!) You see, Dannie's enjoying the "Novus-Ordo Bonus" -- things are so bad now that nobody knows which way is right, so fine points are allowed to slide.

As we showed last week, real theologians were divided on the question of whether a man can leap to the episcopacy without intermediate valid priestly ordination. Everyone knows we've staked out the safe side of the question, but since it's just opinion, like so much in this dispute, it merits full consideration. For today and the next two weeks, we'll briefly explore other authors' opinions on the matter.

Today, let's look at what Marcelino Zalba, S.J., wrote in 1958:

It is disputed ... whether [the episcopate] contains in an eminent degree the priesthood, such that if anyone should pass over by a leap from the diaconate to the episcopate, his consecration would be valid albeit gravely illicit, just as an ordination to deacon carried out with suitable ceremony upon an acolyte not promoted to the rank of subdeacon would be valid. The negative opinion, which once was the more common, is now no longer held by certain persons of great name [with a footnote quoting Lennerz].*

Our answer is simple: while to manic culties this may look like a slam dunk for Dannie's motley team of religious and social misfits, we must draw everyone's attention to the all-important phrase it is disputed.

In the face of a disputed point in theology, the only recourse is the safer way. There's nobody so important as to induce any Catholic to risk spiritual danger just to avoid wounding Wee Dan's feelings.

"One Hand" should have rectified the problem 20 years ago with his consecrating bishop instead of dispatching the habitually erroneous Blunderer to jump into waters way out of his depth. The Bonehead's ignorance of Latin and his lousy scholarship have made the situation worse. Any reasonable man must gasp in contempt at both the author and the effort of the Cheeseball's discredited monograph in defense of priestly orders conferred with one hand. 

For the umpteenth time, we repeat: in the crisis, no one can know for certain whether priestly orders conferred with one hand are valid. However, we do know for certain that one-handed orders are at least defective in light of the infallible teaching of Sacramentum Ordinis.

The only recourse, then, is to follow the hallowed and safer practice of the Holy Office in cases of doubt: conditional ordination and consecration.

WEE "ONE HAND DAN" ISN'T IMPORTANT, BUT THE SACRAMENTS ARE. GET DANNIE FIXED AND THEN FIX THE 14 OR SO MEN HE'S "ORDAINED"!

* Theologiae Moralis Compendium, II (BAC ,1958), p. 704. Disputatur...num [episcopatus] presbyteratum eminenter contineat; ita ut si quis per saltum a diaconatu transiret ad episcopatum, eius consecratio esset valida etsi graviter illicita; sicut valida esset ordinatio in diaconum rite peracta super acolythum non promotum ad subdiaconi gradum. Sententia negativa, quae olim fuerat communior, nunc a quibusdam magni nominis non jam sustinetur.

LEAPIN' LIZARDS, PART 1

Don't it feel like the wind is always howlin'? Little Orphan Annie, the musical

For over two decades, "One Hand Dan" has been plagued by both clergy and laymen with doubts about his priestly and episcopal orders. As you know, our advice has been for him to seek both conditional ordination and consecration to put an end to any and all doubts. To our surprise (for we thought we had been clear), we learned that a pack of Dannie's drooling defenders mistakenly thinks that Pistrina recommends Dannie's conditional consecration owing to his Thục lineage.

NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH.

We've never had a quarrel with the validity of that line of priests and bishops. Our objections have more to do with their fitness. A masterly discussion authored by a formally educated layman, not a malformed priest, has put an end to all doubts about the Thục line forever. (It took a layman to do the real heavy lifting, for the cult's minor-key clerical wannabes are seriously overmatched: college-educated laity with real diplomas surpass them in every way.)

The reason for our insistence on re-consecration is based on sound theological opinion. Yes, that's right: Opinion. We won't try to pass our views off as certain, like some bouncing-off-the-wall goof balls in dog-collars we know. In the debate over the validity of priestly orders conferred with one hand, it seems that not a whole lot has been settled, in spite of Pius's best hopes. In fact, the only thing we know with absolute certainty is that the matter of the priesthood and the episcopate is the imposition of the bishop's hands and that of the diaconate is the imposition of the bishop's hand. In such a situation, opinion, not certainty, must abound.

As discerning, sophisticated Readers, we know that for almost every opinion there is a countervailing position defended by men just as well-intentioned and earnest as we are. That's normal, although some of our cult-addled interlocutors can't get their pea-brains around that notion. Our aim, then, is not to change any brainwashed cultie's mind (or the mess of confused bewitchment that passes for such). No, that's too high a hurdle even for us to clear.  Instead, we want to show the many intelligent souls in our audience the basis for our position on the safe-side of the issue. That's an easy caper.

For this first post in our new, short series, we'll own up to the fact that two sides do exist, and we won't try to vault over the opposing position, hoping you won't notice. For the sake of brevity, allow us, then, to jump in by reminding you of the argument that favors our recommendation. On August 11, we cited the Dominican Royo Marín to support our recommendation that "One Hand" be re-consecrated after his conditional ordination to the priesthood:

If there is well-founded and prudent doubt over whether or not something essential was missing, the ordination ought to be repeated sub conditione ["conditionally"], even though a higher order might have already been received, at least if it is a question of the three orders that certainly are sacrament and impress character. And so one ought to repeat sub conditione the doubtful ordination of deacon even though one may have already received the priesthood; and all the more one ought to repeat that of the priesthood even though one may have already received episcopal consecration, inasmuch as the validity of the episcopal consecation in one who may not be previously a priest is very doubtful. In this case, one would have to repeat sub conditione the two ordinations: that of priest and that of bishop.* 

However, the Spanish Jesuit Ferreres, footnoting the redoubtable Gasparri, tells us that some authorities found no problem with clerical leap-frogging:

...0thers claim with a great deal of probability that episcopal ordination confers the priesthood fully and independently of priestly ordination, and, therefore, for its validity it does not require in its subject either the presbyterate or the lower orders.**

Long-time followers of this blog will recall that just over two years ago we touched briefly on the divided opinion about orders per saltum ("by a leap").  Now may be the time to look into why we think conditional orders guarantee the safer course. Then you can decide if you should persuade Dannie to get fixed, get out of the raging gale that's sweeping his failed apostolate away, and patch up his heretofore hard-knock life. (His "ordinati" will sure be grateful.)

So hop on board the truth-express and join us next week, same Saurian time, same Saurian channel as we continue this series. (In view of the upcoming holidays, we promise to be brief.)


*Teología Moral para Seglares, II (BAC, 1961), p. 494 , ❡c: "Si hay duda fundada y prudente sobre si faltó or no algo esencial, debe repetirse sub conditione la ordenación, aunque se hubiera recibido ya una orden superior, al menos si se trata de las tres órdenes que son ciertamente sacramento e imprimen carácter. Y así debe repetirse sub conditione la ordenación dudosa de diácono aunque se haya recibido ya el sacerdocio; y con mayor motivo debe repetirse la del presbiterado aunque se haya recibido ya la consagración episcopal, por cuanto es muy dudosa la validez de la consagración episcopal en uno que no sea previamente sacerdote. En este caso habría que repetir sub conditione las dos ordenaciones: la de sacerdote y la de obispo." (Emphasis his.)
.
** Derecho Sacramental (Eugenio Subirana, 1932.)❡ 348 (1) p. 184 :"..otros pretenden con bastante probabilidad que la ordenación espicopal confiere el sacerdocio pleno e independientemente de la ordenación de presbítero, y, por tanto, para su validez no se requiere en el sujeto ni el presbiterado ni las órdenes inferiores."

BEAU GESTE

Comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. Finley Peter Dunne

Editor's Note: Yeah, yeah. We know we promised to launch our serial discussion of the saltus this week. But we have a good excuse for postponing it.  On Wednesday, Time magazine announced its "Person of the Year," none other than Papa Pancho. As conscientious web journalists, Pistrina's staff strives for timeliness. So we stopped the presses, so to speak, to upload right away the following seasonal meditation on the Man of the Year.  

First off, let's make one thing perfectly clear: We're ready to believe anything negative about Jorge Bergoglio. (Except, of course, for the rector's idiotic characterization of him as ignorant and stupid.) Yes, he's an enemy of the liturgy. Sure, he's probably a crypto-Marxist. Of course, he's a Modernist through and through, and he's absolutely not a Catholic. And right you are, he's a flaming heretic. No doubt about it: His mission is to put an end to whatever little of tradition remains in the corrupt Vatican Establishment.

That said, we have to confess that if his "pontificate" lasts for, say, five years, he'll drive a stake through the lucre-loving, cold-as-stone hearts of the Mammonite cult masters of Traddielandia.

Here's why.

Bergie's a past master of the affective bias, the transformative language, and the calculated media postures introduced by Vatican II. He understands how to play to the crowd, which at his level comprises the world. In other words, he's thoroughly adept at manipulating symbols and archetypes to achieve his objectives. The malformed, sub-educated, shortsighted Traddie cult masters aren't. They have neither the brains nor the will power. They're only conniving and willful.

This truth about Bergie came home to us on the morning of Saturday, December 7, 2013, during a break at an editorial meeting, when we turned, with mouths only partially filled with the vigil's sparing frustulum, to the Wall Street Journal's opinion section. We were leafing through the 'paper looking for a piece on Papa Pancho's anti-capitalist exhortation.

There, accompanying Peggy Noonnan's column, was a color photo, filling perhaps a sixth of the page. In a tight shot, Bergoglio embraces a man afflicted with neurofibromatosis, a genetic disorder. The man's features are buried in Pancho's bosom. Visible are the man's matted hair and the grotesque tumors the disorder produces. What flesh we see is an ill-stitched quilt of hideous carbuncles. For us, benumbed by revulsion, horror, and pity, the graphic pic was almost too much to stomach at breakfast time. We wanted to turn the page. Yet to a man we kept on looking, staring as though it were a rare renaissance woodcut from some early medical textbook.

Jorge Bergoglio, in profile, looks serene. No theatrical mugging to telegraph sympathy. No pursed lips or exaggerated rictus of feigned compassion aimed at the massive audience he realized was peering in at the pair of them from the other side of the lens. In that photo, and in others like it, he calmly beholds this disfigured child of God, a soul sorely tried here on earth, and cradles him as a father would an infirm, weeping son.

To the churched and the unchurched, to the maudlin and the cynical, to Bergie's fans and his ardent detractors like us, it is a shining image of the Gospel, full of pathos yet -- owing to Bergoglio's steady, unaffected gaze -- miraculously unsentimental.

Now, as we said, we'll believe anything bad about this so-called pope. We're sure the ol' Bergomeister knew the TV cameras were rolling and would capture this PR triumph. He probably planned the photo op. It wouldn't have been hard.

When we were in Rome this fall, we think we saw the poor wretch several times as we strolled up the straight and broad Via della Conciliazione on our way to St. Peter's or to the Vatican museums or to our favorite hole-in-the-wall arancini joint in the Borgo. He was just one of the many professional cripples and bums who inconveniently block the way of self-absorbed tourists. Each time we spied him, he was kneeling on the dirty sidewalk, face to the concrete, his hands -- sun-browned, filthy, gnarled -- raised above greasy wisps of blackish hair and cupped in expectation of alms.

Wincing and holding our breath, one time only, we gingerly dropped degli spiccioli -- some small change --onto his cracked, soiled palms. Then we tripped away, trusting our miserly charity and unsettling sympathy would charm away the memory of a ghastly sight on a bright, Roman autumn day. On our return hours later, we strategically crossed to the other side of the via, on the pretext of visiting the Carmelite church of Santa Maria in Traspontina, but really because we were resentful he was still there -- and  because we hadn't the courage to eye him again.

So, you see, it wouldn't have been hard for Pope Pancho to command a few Sisters of Charity to collect the beggar so he could be ready for his close-up. 

And, wow, Mr. DeMille, what a close-up it is!

Bogeyman Bergoglio the heresiarch, cunning enemy of the faith, without betraying alarm or repugnance or smugness, enfolded an unsightly --  no, let's say it to our own discredit -- appalling creature. He caressed the deformed and wounded flesh. He may have lightly kissed his forehead. He imparted the warmth of a hale, human frame to someone whom most men would regard a latter-day leper, a diseased outcast from whose slightest touch they would recoil in shivering disgust.

What a super-human act of the will! What focused purposefulness to fulfill an agenda! To herd more souls into the deadly Modernist fold, to bewitch them into believing its falsehoods, to alienate them from truth and tradition, he walked the path that only a few great saints have trodden. The whole scene might have come from some 1950's Hollywood sword-and-sandal B-movie set in Roman Judaea at the time of our Lord's ministry, except for the absent over-acting and over-wrought orchestral score.

To overcome the reflexive impulse to push the man away took real gumption. Authentic self-control. Singular self-possession. True grit.

How, we ask, can Trads defend against such an unforgettable, heart-tugging image? What can they offer as a visual response? Globe-trotting, aspirational prelates more at home at Gammarelli's than at Gethsemane? Undereducated priests hawking half-baked, scandalously cruel "theological opinions" about the Terri Schiavo tragedy? Loud-mouth bluffers in shimmering pontificals panhandling for more and more money for more ill-constructed Quonset huts in disguise?

Traddie cult masters are either busy kicking the faithful out of their chapels for attending an "una-cum" Mass, or they're breathlessly updating the bill-paying laity on their excellent adventures in fine dining and spa hopping. They spend their time planning for and practicing elaborate but largely unattended ceremonies or hatching tacky fund-raising schemes. Their preference is to comfort the well-heeled who suffer from "affluenza."

These Trad-World amateurs can't even camouflage their motives in order to achieve their ends. That's why after almost four decades they have so little to show. They haven't the steely discipline of Papa Pancho to lay aside for a higher purpose their jealousies, pet peeves, pathetic neediness, backbiting, and divisiveness. They can barely abide each other let alone suffer the gruesomely afflicted to come unto them.

That one, almost certainly stage-managed, Galilean-inspired gesture of Papa Pancho is worth a thousand ill-written, error-filled articles by half-educated phonies with no real Latin. It's worth a hundred thousand hellfire-and-brimstone homilies condemning Catholics to eternal perdition for attending the "wrong" chapel. That stunning image will rake in more cash and corral more followers than multiple lifetimes of cult-master cajolery and menace.

Chief among those bewitched by Bergie's publicity coup will be the younger Traddie generation. The kids are sick unto death at the cult masters' behavior. In their minds' eye, they will imagine that Provincial- Superior Bergoglio would have put an end to the SGG School principal's tenure after the 2008-2009 scandal erupted. Novice-Master Bergoglio would have dismissed irascible Scut the Prefect for driving guiltless, traumatized young seminarians out into the dead of night over the silly rector's wet cat. Archbishop Bergoglio would never have required a parishioner to leave his church because he took a job with a competitor of a big donor: he wouldn't whine about the bread taken from his mouth; he'd worry about feeding his sheep. And lastly, Trained-Scientist and Real-Seminary-Theology-Professor Bergoglio would never have been so misinformed as to claim that a feeding tube constituted extraordinary means to preserve life and imposed a grave burden on society.

The young will rush out of the cult as soon as they're emancipated from money-wastin', Kool-Aid-guzzlin' ma and pa. 

It's Advent. Don't let Bergie win. Resolve to starve the beast this Christmas, and send your cult masters packing. Replace 'em with caring, certainly valid priests and bishops.

GETTING THROUGH THICK SKULLS

Editor's Note: The last in our holiday series of answers to e-mails.

A little while back you posted a letter about the "generic institution of the sacraments." [See our November 3, 2013 post, "The Rite Stuff."] The "anonymouse" writer said the church could change the matter of the sacraments and that was why there could be different matter for Latin priests and eastern priests. I asked our priest about this and he never heard of such things. In fact he said it was heretical. The writer did not give any sources and you did not add one of your smart alecky footnotes with books in languages nobody knows. Whose [sic] the one now thats [sic] making things up?

Your priest must be one of the terminally ignorant pesthouse completers badly taught by the intellectually challenged, feebly educated faculty. Before we take you and your nitwit priest to school, let us by way of preface say (1) Pistrina, not the writer, withheld the name, and (2) the writer did provide a cite, although, as you say, the Readers did not insert an additional footnote. We omitted footnoting because the ideas in the letter are very well known to educated Catholics. (That's why your priest hadn't heard of this theological position -- like so many Traddie clergy, he's incurably handicapped by malformation and an in-bred reluctance to improve himself through study. We don't want to pry, but that "heretical" nonsense sounds as though it comes from "The Skipper" -- you know, the bean-brain who once skipped the consecration and has a habit of inventing new mortal sins.)

But we won't ask you or any other skeptic out there to take us at our word.  We'll draw our reply from a book written in English, the Jesuit Bernard Leeming's Principles of Sacramental Theology (The Newman Press, 1956). 

The Latin term for "generic institution" is institutio in genere (institution in a general manner, as opposed to institutio in specie, in a specific manner). As explained by Fr. Leeming, starting on p. 414, according to the theory of institutio in genere,

Christ settled the meaning of the sacrament, but left power with the apostles or the Church to determine the elements in which this meaning may be embodied ... in Orders, Christ settled the office and the grace to fulfill it, but left it to the Church to settle which particular rite would express the meaning of the grant of such power.

Therefore, Fr. Leeming concludes, "the same meaning" can be expressed in rites "differing in material form."   Hence it's not impossible to have one matter in the West and another in the East. Fr. Leeming informs us that among the authors who endorsed the generic-institution theory are de Soto, Lugo, Billuart, Billot, Tanquerey, Lennerz, and Doronzo. (Very good company to be in.)

As a reminder, neither Pistrina nor the letter writer argued that the substance of the sacrament could have been changed under the theory of generic institution. The change would have occurred in the rite. What we do hold is that after Sacramentum Ordinis, it's clear that two hands are the required matter for valid priestly ordination in the Latin rite. One hand, then, must be by definition a defect. Since in the crisis-ravaged Western Church we haven't a clue if less than two will do, the defect should be cured by conditional ordination. The stakes are too high to tolerate the slightest, tiniest doubt. Furthermore, the remedy is soooooo very, very simple. Why, even the rector could do it.

One final point about "making things up": we're not the Bonehead, so we don't have to rely on erroneous and misleading translations. In addition, we don't tart up undocumented hearsay and claim it's a "decision" of the Holy Office. The persuasive weight of the Church's best practices and thinking is overwhelmingly on our side in this dispute. Sticking with the truth is far easier and more compelling than inventing something. We don't need to play laughably transparent word games, confuse rites, ignore modern textual scholarship, or trot out a gross distortion of papal teaching. But to be fair, unlike the Bonehead, we didn't start with a losing proposition either.

It's a no-brainer that orders conferred with one hand are defective. They cry out for remedy. Dannie should've gotten fixed two decades ago.

The faithful -- including (for charity's sake) the mouth-breathing, hypersalivating, degenerate zombie cult-slaves -- deserve peace of mind.

THE WOULD-BE WISE MAN

"

Editor's Note: Our holiday mail call continues with this electronic message from an outraged traditional Catholic:

My husband and I were shocked to read that Bishop Sanborn allowed Bishop Dolan to ordain that young Nigerian. He always seemed to be a cut above Dolan and the rest. You Readers are often brash and always insulting but you have made the case that ordination with one hand is at least defective. You have also proved that Father Cekada's defense of these defective orders is untenable. Of all people, Bishop Sanborn should have seen that. He is the best educated and smartest of all the traditional clergy. Why he sent that young man out into the world with this burden is a mystery and a tragedy. We have decided to stop all monetary support.

We applaud our correspondent's strong sense of right and wrong. We hope other traditional Catholics imitate her example and turn off the cash flow, too. STARVE THE BEAST, for, if rumors from the East Coast have any truth in them, it looks as if Big Don's already ginning up his next cash-vacuuming campaign in order to add a new wing to the pesthouse. (We guess he may hope to revive his stillborn big $30 K plan in order to build dormitories to house more misfit Euro Trash and native-born, home-schooled knuckle draggers, so hang on to your wallets.*)

The writer's disappointment in Big Don is based on a false assumption. The beginning of wisdom lies in acknowledging that the rector is not the erudite, widely informed, analytical thinker the sputtering cult public-relations machine portrays him to be. He's really a dud.  On numerous occasions in the past, Pistrina has documented his ignorance, botched assessments, and howling errors in language and history. Remember how he had to walk back his stupendously off-base prediction that the SSPX would run to the arms of Modernist Rome? (Even toothless carnival fortune-tellers have a better track record than this blowhard.)

From recent pesthouse newsletters, we now offer a fresh example of his shallowness to demonstrate that any respect for him as an authority is sorely misplaced. In June, Big Don accused Bergoglio of "a profound ignorance of even the basics of sacred theology and of church (sic) history." He characterized Papa Pancho as "a man of limited intelligence who has received a very poor formation"; to boot, he is a "first-class Loser."  In August, the rector repeated his criticisms, ranting that P-Squared is "ignorant of theology and Church history." Moreover, in the rector's eyes, he is "an intellectual dullard" and "dumb." In September, the obsessed rector shrieked that Bergoglio -- hobbled by a "lack of education in the basics coupled with a dull mind" -- "manifests a serious lack of intelligence."

What triggered this violent spasm of school-yard name-calling was Papa Pancho's novel (to say the least) understanding of the term "pelagianism." Apart from its childishness, the rector's superficial analysis betrays a seriously misinformed underestimation of his enemy. "Ignorant," "malformed," "dullard," "dumb," and "loser" are all fit descriptors for his buddies, the Blunderer and "One-Hand Dan," but it's a fatal mistake to tar the calculating Modernist Bergoglio with that brush.

If the rector were a subtler thinker or if he possessed a university education that had exposed him to techniques for the formal analysis of discourse, he might have read with care the Jesuit John O'Malley's What Happened at Vatican II. In it, O'Malley, a novus ordite, argues that the council produced a radically new language and style, an Orwellian ecclesiastical New Speak. In O'Malley's apt phraseology, Vatican II constituted a language event that drew a line separating its documents not only from those of other councils but also from all other official Church documents.

The revolutionary conciliar rhetoric, in O'Malley's view, represented a shift in language and style that modified the previous operational mode and model of the Church. For the drafters of Vatican II documents, style and literary genre were essential. The radically new language indicated and induced a shift in values or priorities. To endow the altered discourse with substance, the council's agents developed a new vocabulary with updated definitions and understandings.

The result was the subversion of fixed lexical meaning. In its place, Vatican II rhetoric established the foundation for ad-hoc definition. Ancient terms of art, once thought stable, take on any new meanings an "authoritative" speaker wants them to assume. The audience colludes in the distortion by acquiescing to the linguistic revisionism: Old understandings are laid aside as surprisingly novel, strikingly unconventional understandings emerge to drive the old away through repetition and social pressure. (The untested presumption of an "authoritative" religious speaker's competence is a robust obstacle to critical thinking and the search for truth, as many Traddies have learned from bitter experience: that's how both the Vatican-II establishment and the cult masters have survived for so many years.)

To effect such a move from precise denotation to unstable signification requires not only boldness of spirit (some would say chutzpah) but also rhetorical aptitude joined with a deep psychological understanding of how unwilling and unfit most Catholics are to question those who seem to be in authority, screaming error notwithstanding. (That may explain why before Pistrina's exposé no priest [including the rector] publicly noticed Cekada's grossly misleading mistranslation of Pope Pius XII's definition of the matter of the sacrament of priestly orders.) 

The man who purposefully manipulates for his own persuasive ends the meaning of words may be dishonest or conniving or cynical, but he is certainly not "ignorant" or "dumb." Team Bergoglio is both agenda-driven and savvy in their way with words.  Any traditionalist adversary, even a feeble one, who underestimates these men, does so at Catholics' peril.

Intelligent Trads must read Bergie's revision of the meaning of the pelagianism in the context of the revolution in theological discourse attendant to Vatican II. The rector's failure to interpret Papa Pancho under something other than this rubric proves him to be unworthy of our attention as well as our largess. A man this clueless won't participate in the Restoration. 

His superficiality also explains why he allowed Dannie the Deacon to "ordain" Bede Nkamuke in the face of overwhelming evidence that "One Hand's" ordination to the priesthood is patently defective. If he had an ounce of sensus catholicus, he would have known that "One Hand" needed to remedy the defect before laying on hands again.  Let's face it: the rector just doesn't have the equipment upstairs to see the problem, though he prays deep-pocketed Traddie moneybags don't notice.

We think they do.

*There's really no need for a wastefully expensive, brick-and-mortar seminary any more, given that in 2012 "One Hand Dan" ordained a man who had studied independently under one priest for just a few years and then under you-know-who for a much shorter period. The supervising priests had significant responsibilities to their own chapels and hobby horses, so they couldn't have given their pupil the same attention a seminarian would receive in a more formally structured and supervised academic environment aimed exclusively at forming clergy. (Even the intellectually atrocious pesthouse is better than independent study.)

There must be huge gaps in amateur's Latin, philosophy, and theology (and one day we'll go into greater detail after we finish gathering all the juicy data -- there's a great back story here, believe you us); however, this "well-rounded" guy appears to be able to say the Mass and take care of the basics, and that's good enough for the crisis. (He claimed, in an oral address to squirming, wedgie-chafed cult members, that he graduated from a four-year university with two (!!) degrees: criminal justice and philosophy -- what a combination! Wow! Two degrees, not just two majors!

 If true, that puts him light years ahead of Deacon Dan, Cheeseball Checkie, Big Don the Beggar, and most of the unibrow, stuttering-and-twitching completers. Apparently, he's adept at juggling, too, which adds to his usefulness to the fumbling cult masters. He'll be a worthy successor when (and if) the Gruesome Twosome head off for their long-wished-for Southwestern retirement.

What "One Hand's" ordination of this too-cool-for-school newbie means for contributors is that the laity don't have to cough up their precious savings to fund another wing for the pesthouse in swampy Florida. Basic, functioning priests can be churned out at a far lower cost. (Pistrina, as you know, heartily endorses such a plan of action.) The ol' rector doesn't seem to object either, because he lets this haphazardly formed interloper visit the pesthouse and particpate actively in ceremonies. (We think we saw him at luckless Bede Nkamuke's "ordination.")

So much for Big Don's insistence that only a "seminary formation" will do.  He doesn't have the courage of his convictions or else he would have barred a "priest" without seminary experience from setting foot on the pesthouse premises. 

Starve the Beast, so that this year, you can give your kids the Christmas presents they tearfully begged Santa to bring. They know the jolly old elf's itinerary includes more stops than just Brooksville and Rialto Road.

TRYING THE AXE'S EDGE

Editor's Note: As Americans settle back in anticipation of the approaching holiday feast, Pistrina will offer lighter fare this week and the next by answering a few e-mails about Traddie turkeys, their troubled orders, and the shameful decision to allow Dannie the Deacon to "ordain" Bede Nkamuke. In the weeks afterward, we'll get on to the saltus to explore in depth why holy Mother Church herself demands that "One Hand" be re-ordained and re-consecrated. But first, an email from someone who just may not be a fan:

Okay, okay, okay, Readers. I get your point. Fr. Cekada stumbled badly. He is no scholar, but you have to admit he is a valid priest. So just leave the priest be. He's toast anyway after your hatchet job.  My question is, why can't you go along with Fr. McAuliffe's opinion that "it is very probable that the imposition of only one hand would suffice for validity"? Remember, you defended him. You agree he was [a] real theologian. Then why can't you humbly accept his opinion and stop trying to scare everybody to death?

As long as you concede that being a valid priest doesn't render an under-educated wannabe immune from error, we can agree. For our part, we'll stipulate he's certainly far better off than his doubtful boss and the poor slobs ordained by him.  

You're right:  We did defend McAuliffe and his work against the Blunderer's cheap put down, but we can't see how exposing dodgy mistranslations, howling transcriptional blunders, text-critical simplemindedness, and the mischaracterization of undocumented hearsay as a decision of the Holy Office can in any way be a "hatchet job."

Since when is it invidious to expose, with surgical precision, gross error and slovenliness?

But before we reply to your questions, let's first say something one more time: We have never affirmed that one-handed priestly orders are invalid. We've always said we don't know for sure, and neither will anyone else until the Restoration. Our position is: The sacrament of order is so important that Catholics cannot tolerate a soupçon of uncertainty. The fix -- conditional orders -- is easy, and it's in keeping with Church's best past practice: reordinetur cum manibus.

Now that's done with, we can get on with our answer!

Although we think Fr. McAuliffe's judgment merits attentive consideration, our problem lies with his qualifier very probable. You see, very probable falls short of certainty (and sacred orders cry out for certainty). It's true the term very probable tells us that an opinion has a notable degree -- or, we might say, an abundance -- of probability. A very probable opinion (opinio probabilissima) can move a prudent man to assent more readily to the likelihood (verisimilitudo) of an opinion than if it were merely probable. Nonetheless, we must ever be mindful that something very probable, like something merely probable, is not manifestly true; it only bears abundant signs that can move us to assent.

With anything probable or very probable, there's always the chance of error, which means there's the presence of risk. In everyday life, we can live with a certain amount of risk, but decent traditional Catholics must harbor the lowest tolerance for risk -- we prefer zero -- in the sacrament of order. If mule-headed clergy refuse to remove the risk incurred by one-handed conferral of orders, then the laity's situation is not too much more advantageous than staying home alone, making an act of perfect contrition, and keeping the family treasure. (If the clergy's stubbornness bars them from pursuing the safe course, then the safe way for the laity is to become home-aloners.)

Let's defend our caution with what can only be called a perfect example. In 1932, the Spanish Jesuit Juan Ferreres wrote the following in his Derecho Sacramental (Sacramental Law)*:

Con respecto al presbiterado: ... Probabilísimamente [la materia] consiste en la sola imposición segunda de la mano que hace el Obispo juntamente con los presbíteros asistentes. (Lit.) With respect to the priesthood:...Very probably [the matter] consists in the single second imposition of the hand that the Bishop makes jointly with the assistant priests.

With the benefit of hindsight, we know today that the learned Fr. Ferreres was flat-out, dead wrong.  Fifteen years after the 4th corrected and enlarged edition of the book appeared in print, Pope Pius XII authoritatively taught:

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.)

Fr. Ferreres didn't know the truth at the time he wrote, for the magisterium had not yet decisively settled the matter and form of orders. He had to make an educated guess, presumably after reading deeply and consulting with eminent canonists.  Nevertheless, in retrospect, we know that through no fault of his own, this theologian's very probably was way, way short of the mark.

Perhaps Fr. McAuliffe wrote under similar invincible ignorance of a future decision that may consign his "very probable" opinion to the wastebasket of sacramental theology. So, while we admire Fr. McAuliffe, his very probable cannot calm our mortal fears in the face of a valid pope's explicitly clear, authentic teaching, which is: The matter of priestly orders = the first imposition of the bishop's hands.

Consequently, one-handed conferral of priestly orders, my friend, is very scary! Contrary to what the Blunderer erroneously wrote, the Church has NOT settled the issue. For true peace of soul, security requires not a theologian's probable assurances, but rather a written, dated, and certain ruling published by an uncompromised Holy Office. 

C'mon, Deacon Dannie -- get thee to a sanctuary and get fixed! (And then order your flunky the rector to fix Bede Nkamuke before he returns to Nigeria in December.)

* p. 186, IV (a)

** 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..." 

PERISHED COUNSEL

(

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Proverb

The surprising thing about the Blunderer is not all his errors or his intellectual untidiness. We've known for nearly 15 years that he's a half-educated poseur constitutionally incapable of acknowledging his mistakes and bitterly resentful of those who easily discover them.

No ... what's really surprising is how he won't follow his own advice. Even when it's sound! 

In 2006, Erroneous Anthony wrote an article calling into question the validity of the 1990 ordinations of two SSPV priests, owing, for the most part, to the ordaining bishop's reported mispronunciation of an essential word of the rite.

Following his analysis, the Blunderer presented a number of practical conclusions. First, said Tone the Bonehead, the two priests "must submit to another ordination." In support of this recommendation, he cited Regatillo:

"There is an obligation to correct a defect:* First, if it concerned something either certainly or probably essential... Manner of correction: a) If the defect concerned something either certainly or probably essential, the entire ordination must be repeated, either absolutely or conditionally."

He backed up Regatillo with this zinger of a quote from Nabuco:

"Further, even if one were to maintain that the ordination was not certainly invalid, but merely doubtful, the same course of action must nevertheless be followed: "A doubtful ordination, at least in practice, must be repeated again conditionally in its entirety."

Then the Checkmeister wrapped up his argument:

Therefore, until such time as the Society of St. Pius V provides convincing proof that the two priests ordained by Bp. Mendez in 1990 have undergone a repetition of their ordination, the faithful should neither assist at their Masses, receive sacraments from them, nor receive the Eucharist from tabernacles in the churches they serve.

For all the foregoing reasons, therefore, the re-ordination should take place as soon as possible.

(Does all this sound familiar? But let's not toot our own horn. Let's get back to Checkie's counsel.)

Whether the bishop's actual pronunciation error constituted a substantial alteration or not, no one can say for certain. The whole narrative is a thigh-slapping, Traddie low comedy of claims and counter claims. But that's not our point: We think the Blunderer gave good advice in this instance. (He must've been in idiot-savant mode at the time.)  As we have insisted over and over again, the slightest doubt about a priestly ordination demands we act out of an abundance of caution, for in the matter of priestly orders, there's no substitute for certainty.

Based on the account of one witness** -- and considering the possibility that singular not plural forms might have been used -- we agree there was enough doubt present to counsel choosing the safe way, namely, re-ordination. We also think that Cekada was right in advising the faithful not to assist at these priests' Masses and not to receive the sacraments from them until the doubt could be erased.

Bear with us as we reiterate:

There's just no room for any doubt whatsoever in priestly orders -- no matter what!

The smart move would have been re-ordination, even if, as we suspect, the one priest's attestation that the bishop "had pronounced the form exactly and correctly" were true. Why? There is just too much doubt that cannot not be resolved without an audio recording to settle things.*** In such doubtful situations, the sound advice is: fix it, forget it, and move on!****

The parallels between this case and that of "One-Hand Dan's" are too obvious for extended comment. Let's leave it at this:

Absent any official Church pronouncement, we don't know for certain whether, after the publication of Sacramentum Ordinis in 1947, conferral of priestly orders with one hand represents a substantial defect in the sacramental matter such that it does not signal what the Church intended. In the same way, we don't know whether Bishop Mendez's reported mispronunciation was sufficiently egregious as to corrupt the meaning of the form.

Anyone can see the bottom line here: There's a serious defect in both cases.  There's at least a well-founded and prudent suspicion that quite probably something essential might be missing in both cases. Defects, as Regatillo said, must be corrected. (But you don't need a learned canonist to tell you that, do you? Didn't you learn that lesson at your mother's knee long ago? And weren't you tearfully sorry when you didn't listen to her?)

The Blunderer could see this childhood truth when he was busy vexing an old adversary. Why, then, couldn't he see it when his boss, patron, and protector faced a similar crisis? If, instead of penning his troubled (and now thoroughly rebutted) monograph, he had given ol' "One Hand" the same practical advice he gratuitously pressed upon his nemeses in the SSPV, Dannie and the men he's ordained would be able to exercise their orders in peace today -- and poor, young Bede Nkamuke could return to his homeland without the stigma of doubt that will scar his priesthood forever, unless he is re-ordained.

* We can't help observing that, while Cekada's translation of the clause is accurate, in his footnote he incorrectly transcribes Regatillo's Latin. (How typical of that serial blunderer!) Tony Baloney printed Obligatio est defectus corrigenda (our emphases and color coding), which makes no sense at all. Any proofreader with a whit of Latinity would have known the original text must have read corrigendi. The Bonehead's faulty transcription results in all manner of nonsense. One possible but unbearably tortured reading could be, "The obligation of a defect must be corrected." Say what?

But to be fair to the Latin-handicapped Cheeseball, we checked a couple of editions of Regatillo, including the one he cites, just in case there might have been a printer's error. As we expected, both the 1946 and 1949 editions read corrigendi (as also does Regatillo's 1954 Theologiae Moralis Summa, ❡668, which covers the same material). Unlike Cekada, Regatillo along with his editors and compositors actually knew Latin. (Cekada should really stay away from Latin texts, and Catholics should stay away from anything he writes.)

** This witness was also a signer, along with the rector, of the September 1990 ad cautelam letter to "One Hand Dan." Doubtless he has a keen eye for discerning irregularities in bishops' conferral of sacred orders.

*** An audio record is necessary because the situation is more involved than Cekada, with usual tunnel vision, could imagine. For instance, if Bp. Mendez uttered "da quae [pause] sumus etc.," an unbiased jury of genuinely educated experts would have to evaluate the length of the pause to determine whether the meaning of the essential words disappeared (but see note **** below). However, if Bp. Mendez said "da [pause] quae [pause] sumus [pause] etc.," then the job of evaluation becomes trickier. The reason is that a pause after spoken da and spoken sumus might signal that quae+sumus was a parenthetical element logically, but not grammatically or syntactically, related to the rest of the clause.  To be sure, that's exactly how the word functions in the text of the Pontificale as commas signal its separation from the other words of the clause. Then, regardless of a pause between quae and sumus, the meaning of the form might have remained intact.

However, we have to concede that informed, expert analysis might not wipe away all doubts:  What if the panel of experts couldn't agree? What if other experts outside the panel disagreed? And so on, and so on. No, the only satisfactory course of action is the safer course: re-ordination. That's the same course of action that "One-Hand Dan" and all the men he's ordained should take. They should erase the slightest trace of doubt because the question cannot be settled or can't be settled until the Restoration, which at this time promises to be in the distant future. In the meantime, the faithful remain in doubt about the validity of the sacraments they receive from these clergy. The laity who are not mouth-breathing cultists will heed Cekada's advice and  "neither assist at their Masses, receive sacraments from them, nor receive the Eucharist from tabernacles in the churches they serve." We emphasize that the faithful should not receive absolution or last rites from any of these men, and no one should undergo confirmation from "One Hand" until re-ordination and reconsecration.

**** We so assert in spite of two reservations: (1) we tend to believe the individual priest who affirmed the exactness and correctness of the bishop's pronunciation; and (2) Cekada's argument is not as strong as it seems at first sight. According to Cekada,  "the way Bp. Mendez separated the syllables of a word (quaesumus) substantially changed the meaning of the sacramental form from 'Grant... the dignity of the priesthood,' to 'Grant the things we are.'"  We grant this charge sounds very persuasive in Checkie's abbreviated text, but the argument weakens when you examine the whole clause: Da, quaesumus, omnipotens Pater, in hos famulos tuos [or famulum tuum if only one priest is to be ordained] Presbyterii dignitatem (literally, Bestow, we beseech [Thee], almighty Father, the dignity of the priesthood on these Thy servants [or this Thy servant]).

To someone who understands spoken Latin, the idiom of which language requires the listener to wait until a structural unit is complete in order to register the full meaning, it would very likely still be clear, in the event of a noticeable pause between quae and sumus, that the object of the imperative da is the accusative dignitatem, thereby ruling out the possibility that quae was neuter plural accusative.

A fortiori, if that Latin-competent listener were an attentive, Missal-literate Catholic, he would have immediately recognized, in spite of the pause, the formulaic elements of petition found in the collects of the Mass: Da or Tribue or Concede or Praesta +  quaesumus or deprecamur or rogamus + the direct address to the Divinity. (See, for example, the oration for Pentecost xvii:  Da, quaesumus, Domine etc. or that for  St. Prisca: Da, quaesumus, omnipotens Deus etc.) Therefore, the actual probability of an educated Catholic's thinking that the meaning of the form completely disappeared is low -- perhaps even zero.

Notwithstanding these linguistic counter-arguments, on the basis of just one of Cekada's citations (viz.,  Cappello: "Separating syllables changes the meaning [of a sacramental form] far more easily than separating the words, so that even a moderate separation would render the sacrament either invalid or at least doubtful"), we would have strongly recommended re-ordination, too. In the same spirit of pious caution, we have recommended that "One-Hand Dan" and all the men he's ordained (both as priests and as deacons) be conditionally re-ordained.