Now for the long-delayed mail. In New England and New York, there's been a lot of fresh talk about "One-Hand Dan's" doubtful orders. A few hardline cultist lamebrains have been trying (and failing) to defend Dannie's "priesthood." Apparently, after Pistrina's withering refutation/rebuttal of the Blunderer's pathetic effort, the CLODs ("close loyalists of Dannie") are making their last stand.
...this guy [on the East Coast] swears that another priest in addition to Sanborn made a retraction of the [September 1990] letter where 9 priests said Dolan's ordination to the priesthood was doubtful. Do you have more information? Thanks.
Third parties (including Tony Baloney) have reported retractions, but we've never seen one in written form. Without a document, no one can be certain of precisely what anyone may have retracted. For instance,
(1) Did they retract the assertion that Dannie's ordination was "dubious"?; or
(2) Did they retract the assertion that his "ordination was done with one hand"?; or
(3) Did they retract the letter's imputation that one of the authorities cited therein (viz. Clarence McAuliffe, S.J.) advised that such a case "be referred to the Vatican for Judgment"?
There's a great difference among these motives
for retraction, and, as you know, sede priests are notorious for their wanton application of mental reservation. As a result, until the reasons are made plain in a sworn statement (accompanied by a copy of the original written retraction), we dismiss the alleged retractions as not germane to our argument: we continue to believe all nine priests were/are morally certain Li'l Dan had been ordained with one hand.
In addition, if one of these priests had made
his retraction based on Tony Baloney’s perverse translation of Pope Pius XII’s infallible teaching, today he may wish to repudiate his retraction and
reassert his faith in the doubtfulness of "One-Hand Dan’s" priestly ordination.
In Dannie's October 5, 1990, reply to a signer of the September 1990 letter (his arch nemesis, BTW), he appended a RETRACTION AND PLEDGE for the priests
to sign. It should be noted that he demanded only that they (1) retract
statements and insinuations “that the ordination to the priesthood of the Rev.
Daniel L. Dolan was (or ought to be considered) ‘dubious,’ doubtful, and/or
invalid" and (2) retract the statements and insinuations, pledge to make no further statements impugning Dannie's validity, and pledge to inform
people of their retraction.
It's very important to understand that Wee Dan did not require them to retract the affirmation that he had been ordained with one hand.
We have no idea whether those one or two priests alleged to have made a retraction signed the form enclosed in "One Hand's" follow-up letter. For all we know, any retractions may well have been general, informal, and oral. (Sedes hate to bind themselves in writing.) But if they did sign "One Hand's" form, you'll note that they could not have retracted the letter's affirmation that Dan's priestly orders were conferred with one hand.
Now, we must ask, if Deacon Dan had been certain that the archbishop used both hands, why didn't he (or Cheeseball Checkie) insert a clause in the document binding the signatory to retract the assertion of one-handed ordination? As we have stated before, if Deacon Dan affirmatively knew he had been ordained with two hands, then by natural right and in natural justice he had a moral duty to deny immediately, vigorously, and unequivocally the nine priests' allegation that his "ordination was done with one hand." Accordingly, he should have demanded that the priests also retract their affirmation of a one-handed ordination.
But "One-Hand Dan" didn't do that, did he?
This omission, together with the publication of the Blunderer's error-filled, specious defense of one-handed orders with its perverse translation of the infallible teaching of Pope Pius XII, suggests that Dannie knows the account of one-handed conferral to be true. And if he knew it was true, then he should have remedied the defect years ago by seeking conditional ordination before his "consecration."
His prideful failure is responsible for all the doubt that continues.
Should it turn out that one-handed conferral of orders represents more than a defect and, in fact, renders an ordination invalid, then that would explain Dirtbag Dan's failure to remove the SGG School "principal" in November 2009:
Now, we must ask, if Deacon Dan had been certain that the archbishop used both hands, why didn't he (or Cheeseball Checkie) insert a clause in the document binding the signatory to retract the assertion of one-handed ordination? As we have stated before, if Deacon Dan affirmatively knew he had been ordained with two hands, then by natural right and in natural justice he had a moral duty to deny immediately, vigorously, and unequivocally the nine priests' allegation that his "ordination was done with one hand." Accordingly, he should have demanded that the priests also retract their affirmation of a one-handed ordination.
But "One-Hand Dan" didn't do that, did he?
This omission, together with the publication of the Blunderer's error-filled, specious defense of one-handed orders with its perverse translation of the infallible teaching of Pope Pius XII, suggests that Dannie knows the account of one-handed conferral to be true. And if he knew it was true, then he should have remedied the defect years ago by seeking conditional ordination before his "consecration."
His prideful failure is responsible for all the doubt that continues.
Should it turn out that one-handed conferral of orders represents more than a defect and, in fact, renders an ordination invalid, then that would explain Dirtbag Dan's failure to remove the SGG School "principal" in November 2009:
The charism of the priesthood would have been missing from his soul, so he had no chance of doing the right thing.
I see there's now a Pistrina Scribd. Nice!
ReplyDeleteAlso Pope Michael weighed in on this issue in May of this year: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yBsbpT3_Xg&list=UUtxasxcOuyabC0XWbtXi2qA
At about 7:00 in he gets to some interesting points. He found an old book that says that one hand would be fine. Also, that now that Dolan is a bishop, presuming the validity of that consecration, he doesn't have to be a priest before receiving that consecration anyway, hence he is now a valid bishop (ceteris paribus all other issues equal). Hence the issue would only regard sacraments administered from when Dolan was "ordained" until he was consecrated bishop, unless one holds that the Thuc line is invalid, which I don't think Pistrina and most "trads" do.
I suggest that if Lefebvre did "consecrate" with one hand, maybe he had an invalidating intention and did it purposely, as his sincerity is called in to question and some think he was in cahoots with the Vatican 2 revolutionists.
St Gertrude the Great feast tomorrow, maybe we can pray she intercedes for the fixing of the SGG group.
You may wish to read our series of posts beginning in May 2013, and continuing throughout the remainder of the year, which answers the points you have brought up. Alternatively, you could wait until we publish our rebuttal/refutation of Cekada's defense of one-handed orders. We hope to be ready to post the English version, in Question-and-Answer format, by the end of November.
ReplyDeletePlease note that many theologians of repute hold that one must be a valid priest before one can be validly consecrated (see of "Leaping Lizards" series of 2013). Furthermore, you may wish to check the printing date of the book you referenced: if before 1947, then whatever it says may be untenable, since Pius XII legislated proactively, but not retroactively.
Note that our position has never been that one-handed orders after 1947 are invalid. The Restored Church must rule on that point. We merely hold that in light of the infallible teaching of Pius XII's "Sacramentum Ordinis," one-handed orders are defective, and hence doubtful. In such doubt, the safer course is conditional re-ordination (and also for Dolan, re-consecratiion).
We're certain you will enjoy reading our Q&A when it's posted.
Do you have the names of which one or two priests allegedly did retract, even if not in writing? I would assume Sanborn would be one since they now work together, but I found it very interesting that he signed it initially. Also, how long was Sanborn involved with the SSPV, and what were the circumstances of his exit? I am new to all this information, if this has been addressed in the past I would be happy to simply be pointed to which blog in the past contained this info. Thanks
ReplyDeleteA couple years ago we received an email from a man on the East Coast (a defender of Dannie's orders), who said that Ahern also had made a retraction.
ReplyDeleteThey were all part of the SSPV after leaving the SSPX. From what we know, Dannie and Checkie were separated from SSPV in 1989. Big Don was still a member as of the autumn of 1990 when he signed the letter, but he may have left as early as 1991 or 1992.
We don't know of any blog that has all the details. Perhaps someone reading this may know for certain.
We really don't keep up on the rector's history in that we consider him a minor figure in Tradistan. Had he not come to Dannie's defense in November 2009, we would have left him to keep pretending his clown college had any significance. (By then, experience had disabused us of the fiction that he was a great scholar and educator.)
Is there any priest or even layman who was at this ceremony who ever said publicly that Dolan was ordained using only one hand?
ReplyDeleteWe have an email from someone who attended the ceremony and who was very close to the action, and he affirmed that the orders were conferred with one hand. As we have written before, the source will remain anonymous. In addition, other priests report that they had heard the same account from others who were in attendance. One even recounted how the archbishop was "in a panic" back in the sacristy when he realized what had occurred. Someone came forward and told him it was OK, but no one knows whether the individual was just making it up to console the archbishop or whether he had done some research. Incidentally, one priest from that era thinks no research was done because in the mid-'70s, academic standards at Econe were not very high.
DeleteSo the answer is no? No one ever made a public statement asserting that this defect even occurred at all? There must have been scores of people at this ceremony, including numerous priests. It seems odd that no one would have come forward and said anything, if such a thing did happen. When Frs.(?) Baumberger and Greenwell were ordained(?) in their own defective ceremony, the whole trad world was in an uproar, and there were only a tiny handful of witnesses to that event. So priests are definitely not squeamish about talking publicly about such things. What do you make of that?
ReplyDeleteBut priests did come forward: the nine priests who signed the September 1990 letter to Dolan. Doubtless, they had heard directly from witnesses. Also the account was well known at Econe and Winona from sources other than the nine. Note, too, the fact that Sanborn signed the letter affirming Dolan was ordained with one hand. Why would he have put his signature to such a document if he did not know something as a fact?
DeleteThere was no uproar back in '76 because of the myth that whatever the archbishop did was right. Former seminarians from Econe have told us that they had heard of the account when they attended, but since the one-handed order had been pronounced OK, and no one dared question the archbishop's actions, they had no reason to doubt the validity and so accepted such orders in silence. (But they always kept talking.)
From what we know, nothing was publicly mentioned until the 1990 letter from the nine priests. As far as we can see, the Bamberger/Greenwell contretemps resulted as a payback for the 1990 letter and the continued reference to "One- Hand Dan." . (BTW, although we believe the Pius V priest who attested to the correct pronunciation over the dolt who reported the error, in such a case the two men should have been conditionally ordained, and perhaps they were.)
We agree that priests aren't squeamish about such things. In fact, they love them. We can attest that in many privately conversations with a wide variety of priests from all over the country, they ALL talked about the one-handed conferral of '76. They weren't in an uproar because they bought the Econe line that everything was fine if the archbishop did it. Also, they were misled by Cekada's perverse translation of Pius XII's teaching. We can tell you that we have received many private e-mails from priests who, after reading our work, agree that he should have been re-ordained conditionally. We know of one who has himself be ordained sub-conditione.
Okay, fair enough. I'm just trying to get to the bottom of this story. So did the letter that the nine priests signed actually state that they had seen this defect themselves, or was it simply reporting that they had heard this story and were urging various measures out of caution?
DeleteThe letter made a declarative statement: "Since your ordination was done with one hand, we must hold your ordination to be dubious."
ReplyDeleteYou may view a facsimile of the letter here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/246398985/1990-Letter-to-Dolan-on-One-Handed-Ordination
Thanks for the link. Apparently the letter doesn't say the priests saw this themselves. Not all the signers were even present at the ceremony. Nor does it say how they knew this had occurred. So I'm trying to trace this rumor back to its origins — can you point me to a website or any public statement written by a priest or even a layman who says this the one-hand imposition really took place and he saw it with his own eyes?
ReplyDeleteThe reason I ask is because Dolan and Cekada denied the one hand story in their letter. In fact, Dolan argued that the presumption is in favor of the fact that a ceremony was done correctly, so the burden of proof would be on Kelly. Kelly might have proof of this somewhere, but I didn't see it in the letter.
We do not know of such a website. As we said, we personally have no doubt because we possess a statement from an eyewitness who affirmed the one-handed conferral took place and who expressed his dismay that other, more senior clergy in the sanctuary who witnessed the defect had not spoken up at the time. However, we will not release his name, for it is not necessary to our arguments that Dolan should have followed the *pars tutior* in his case and that one-handed conferral is at least doubtful.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that neither Dolan nor Cekada "noticed" a one-handed conferral has little dispositive weight in our eyes. Both were young men at the time. Dolan would have been preoccupied with his role as ordinand (and his head was down anyway), and the fact that Cekada had to use a "Latin-English booklet" to follow the ceremony from his perch at the organ speaks to his inexpertise. (Remember that these guys didn't really begin learning liturgical nuances until they returned to the U.S.)
What is a fact is that this story has persisted for so long. Although no eyewitness account has yet surfaced for public consumption, clergy have told us they heard the story from witnesses. A perfectly understandable reason exists why no witness has made a public declaration: at the time and still to this day, many assumed that whatever the archbishop did was correct, especially after someone right after the '76 ordination informed the archbishop that one-handed orders were OK.
Significantly, we have never seen from Dolan a categorical denial where he affirms that he has certain knowledge the archbishop used two hands. (Knowing what we do, we don't think he would have dared to make that affirmation in the public forum.) We have seen a sworn statement from a European priest who was ordained a deacon on the same day, but it was made some 35 years after the event, when memory had faded or been colored by partisan loyalty. Even in a court of law, a good attorney would impeach so belated an avowal. Besides, on such a special day in one's life, it's understandable that he would not have paid attention to all the ceremonial details. There's an awful lot going on at an ordination, and it's sometimes difficult to see what's happening unless you're in the sacristy.
If Dolan and Cekada had been so sure, then why did they comply with the first letter and do the research? Dolan should have openly and unequivocally insisted that his orders were done with two hands. If he couldn't do that, then he should have sought conditional re-ordination to be on the safe side.
I've been following closely the exchange between the author and the anonymous poster, and I am getting a little frustrated, because I would like to see some real proof too. This is what we have:
ReplyDeletea) No one has publicly said that he saw this defect occur.
b) Dolan and Cekada said they don't think it occurred, and would remember if it had. That's the best they can do given that that letter was written 14 years after the fact.
c) You say: "This story has persisted a long time, which lends it credibility." Well, the story of the Loch Ness Monster has been around for a lot longer. Does that make it true?
d) You say: "Cekada was using a Latin-English book during the ceremony, which shows he doesn't know Latin very well, which shows he is not smart enough to know if someone does something with one hand or two." To the first conclusion: using a Latin-English book doesn't mean one doesn't know Latin well. It just means that was the most convenient book to use at the time. The second conclusion is not worthy of a response.
e) You say: "Dolan and Cekada don't remember specifically that two hands were used. That means there might be something to this story." That's irrelevant. The burden of proof is on the one claiming something went wrong, as Dolan pointed out. Furthermore, this argument works both ways: the fact that you can't come up with any proof that one hand was used indicates that it didn't happen.
f) We have sworn testimony from someone who actually WAS there that everything was done correctly. This by itself puts an end to the matter.
g) You claim to have a statement from an eyewitness that one hand was used, but you won't reveal it or its author. Well, good for you. I have a statement from a high-ranking general in the Air Force who affirms the government is storing alien spacecraft in Area 51. But I can't reveal my source; you'll just have to take my word for it ... Oh, and I also have a letter from a priest who was there in 1976 who affirms that TWO hands were used, but I can't reveal that source either. So that disproves your whole story.
h) You say: "Dolan looked up theological arguments for why even one-handed ordination is valid, therefore he may have been ordained with one hand." No, he was arguing in the alternative: "Even if what you are saying *were* true, it still wouldn't prove your conclusion because ..." Intelligent people use this method all the time, and other intelligent people understand how it works.
i) Dolan is perfectly correct in saying that a ceremony by a Catholic bishop is presumed to be done correctly unles the contrary be proved. So he did take the safer course by not exposing the Sacrament of Holy Orders to invalid administration in the absence of any evidence that anything had gone wrong the first time.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWell done! You've exposed the nonsense of the Illiterate one who claims to be a "reader." Obviously, basic logic was never on his reading list (not that he has the wits to understand it anyway). If one-handed ordinations were a crime, I can tell you these bozos would be thrown out of court for not being able to produce any credible evidence the one-handed ordination ever took place (and I'm a lawyer!) Wouldn't this alleged witness want the world to know the ceremony was done incorrectly and thereby do his best to save souls from invalid sacraments? The Confrontation Clause mandates that everyone must be given the opportunity to face his/her accuser. In the 1950s, the Vatican would give no credence to a nameless, faceless "witness." I doubt this person even exists. Nevertheless, I have a letter from someone whom I won't name that claims the Reader is a practicing sodomite, and that's good enough for me! These types of assertions are an abomination. For a complete refutation of their claims, see my post of 10/19/13, "A Hands-On Application Of Sacramental Theology For The Culpably Ignorant" at www.introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com
DeleteSorry for the earlier deletions--computer problems!
But we have a statement from a witness, and that is sufficient for us. Remember our position is not to convince you that the one-handed conferral occurred. The 9 priests said it did, and so did an eyewitness.
ReplyDeleteSince everyone is not certain of what happened in the face of multiple, persistent accounts to the contrary and especially in light of our complete refutation & rebuttal of Cekada's monograph, our point is that Dolan should take the *pars tutior* and seek conditional priestly and episcopal orders.
And again we say that if Dolan had been armed with the sure and certain knowledge that his priestly orders had been conferred with one hand, he would/should have loudly insisted on that fact. But he didn't. Had he done so, he surely might have provoked a public protestation. True, he could have added the "even if" scenario you propose and therefore have presented Cekada's arguments. But now that Cekeda's arguments have been thoroughly answered (and some of them refuted, notably his perverse translation of Pope Pius XII's infallible teaching), Dolan has no such affirmation to rely on. He should have made the affirmation of two-handed orders 24 years ago. The presumption of correct conferral does not obtain against a credible assertion to the contrary.
As to your sworn testimony, made 35 years after the fact, we must tell you it has no probative value (as we think we did in an email a couple years ago). Perhaps we'll have a post on this very theme soon.
1. But we have a statement from a witness, and that is sufficient for us. Remember our position is not to convince you that the one-handed conferral occurred. The 9 priests said it did, and so did an eyewitness.
ReplyDeleteResponse: You must prove the one handed ordination took place or the rest of the discussion is moot. The 9 priests saw nothing, and never claimed they did. It was written 14 yrs after the fact and we should believe it? If this "defect" was so well known why the wait of 14 years? Coincidentally, that's when they had a falling out! Your eyewitness means nothing as long as he is anonymous.
2.And again we say that if Dolan had been armed with the sure and certain knowledge that his priestly orders had been conferred with one hand, he would/should have loudly insisted on that fact. Response: Where is this requirement in canon law, and/or Moral Theology? You made it up.As to your sworn testimony, made 35 years after the fact, we must tell you it has no probative value
Response: But a letter written 14 years after the fact by men who saw nothing DOES have probative value? What a joke!
3.
Dear Introibo,
ReplyDeleteIt's good to see you back! Yes, it's pathetic how this man argues(?). First he tells people to avoid the Sacraments of Bp. Dolan because he *might* have been ordained with one hand, then when someone disproves this claim he says, "Oh, I don't need to prove that Bp. Dolan was ordained with one hand."
Well duh, moron — if he wasn't ordained with one hand then why can't people receive the Sacraments from him??? If you don't prove this mistake even *occurred* then your theory doesn't even get to first base. But he fails to grasp this concept, and talks as though those two ideas weren't co-dependent. As though there could still be some "doubt" about Bp. Dolan's orders even if this mistake didn't occur. And then when this is pointed out to him, he just tries to shift the burden of proof to Bp. Dolan, and say that he should prove he was ordained with two hands. Apparently the concepts of "presumption" or "burden of proof" are a little over his head ... Or maybe he doesn't think an ordination ceremony by a Catholic bishop enjoys any presumption of validity. Heaven help us if THAT were the case, because no one could be sure about any priest at all!
And he claims to have "proof" of this that he won't show us, and when he's called out on that he says, "Oh, I don't need to convince *you*. This proof convinces me, and that's good enough for me." Well, then why are you putting all this stuff on a website and advising people to deprive themselves of the Sacraments if you don't feel the need to convince people of anything? He's trying to convince people to stay home alone, and when he gets backed into a corner and refuted he just comes out with, "I don't care what YOU believe, my position is good enough for me and that's all I need," like a middle-school child on a playground whose friends have just proved to him that his dad can't be a real-life version of James Bond.
Well, I shouldn't be so harsh. It's pretty hard to defend a false position, and I think this is the best he can do. I don't think I could defend a lie as well as he can, so I give him that.
Sorry we missed all these late comments. We'd have loved responding. Oh, well, there'll be other occasions. Just remember that we have always said we don't know for certain whether one-handed conferral is invalid. Since it is a defect in light of Pius XII's infallible teaching, and since we have no decision from the Church, the defect should be repaired through conditional re-ordination to remove all doubt. Even if we did not have a statement attesting to the occurrence of one-handed conferral, we would have advised re-ordination in view of the persistence of the report from as far back as the late '70s.
ReplyDelete