Editor's Note: This is the second of our two-part series aimed at discrediting the statement of a European priest, who swore "before God" -- and some 35 years after the fact! -- that the notorious June 29, 1976, priestly ordination took place at Écône without defect. Last week we demonstrated how common sense assures us his testimony is highly suspect. This week we'll summarize the scientific findings and forensic insights that argue compellingly why traditional Catholics of good conscience should ignore this priest's statement. N.B. At the end of today's post, we have a special announcement, both in English and in Spanish.
Defense attorneys, prosecutors, and judges all are aware of the unreliability of eyewitness testimony. In fact, the forgetting curve begins to drop off swiftly after 20 minutes. Thereafter, it continues to decline exponentially until the second day, where it levels off at a considerably reduced accuracy. Moreover, the inevitable decay of memory is irreversible: the more that time goes by, the greater the likelihood of faulty remembrance. This means that earlier testimony is, on the whole, more accurate than later testimony. Consequently, the longer the interval, the greater the probability that post-event information will become confused with the target memory. Indeed, with the passage of time, memory is increasingly susceptible to contamination.
Human memory, as Bartlett showed in 1932, is reconstructive. A witness uses several sources to reconstruct a memory, only one of which is the actual memory itself. Our memories have gaps. To fill in the gaps, we recruit prior knowledge, expectations, biases, attitudes, prejudices, and information fed to us by others. Once our recollection has been contaminated, it's impossible to recover the original memory intact.
As well-founded research teaches, we don't record and recall memories as we would store and play back sounds and images on a recording device. We store the gist of any memory in a way that makes sense to us. Our mind organizes -- makes sense of -- the information by forming our memories into schemata or units of knowledge corresponding to stereotypes of people, places, things, and circumstances. We then use these schemata to predict outcomes of near-term events as well as to plot the courses of action we should undertake.
To the extent that the schemata can be influenced by our values, unconsciously unacceptable information can be distorted so as to accommodate the schemata we have created. Our mind makes an effort to reduce dissonance by adjusting our memories to our knowledge and understanding of the world. All this is to say that we often alter our memories to make them more meaningful to us, to shape them in accordance with our firmly fixed beliefs.
Inasmuch as human memory is so malleable, it's fair to say that no one can put any stock in the European priest's jurat regarding the 1976 ordination, even if he did sign it solemnly "before God." Quite frankly, thirty-five years is too long an interval to wait, so it's easy to see the schemata at work in this case: Holding the archbishop in such high esteem, this hero-worshiping priest could not fit the well-reported fact of the one-handed ordination into his stubborn belief in the venerable prelate's unerring competence.
For this man, the archbishop still towers over the traditional Catholic world from his lofty pedestal. To admit that this heroic figure -- perhaps even a saint -- had made a serious mistake was simply too unthinkable. Our witness's human memory, compromised by the suggestions of partisans and possibly aided by unconscious transference (confusing one event for another), reconstructed the priestly ordination rite of June 29, 1976, so that it would make sense to him, the great archbishop's starstruck acolyte. Since he could not comprehend his hero's making so grave an error, his reconstructed "memory" came to rescue his challenged understanding. The desperate and unscrupulous defenders of one-handed orders simply took advantage of his psychological dependence and the unreliability of human memory to support their now utterly defeated position.
THE BOTTOM LINE: We cannot take, without a grain of salt, the European priest's sworn statement. There are too many threats to its reliability. Both common sense and awareness of the inherent weakness of tardy eyewitness testimony lead the prudent man and woman to reject it out of hand. Anyone who appeals to this priest's statement stands impeached before Catholics of good will and sound intellect.
SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT
AVISO ESPECIAL
La semana entrante, Pistrina publicará la versión en inglés de la refutación muy anticipada de la obra fracasada del "Tonto Toño
Popcorn ready. I'm ready to refute :) :) :) {both sides}
ReplyDeleteThere was a lively discussion several weeks ago. Feel free to jump in. It was basically the same issues that are mentioned in this post.
ReplyDeleteWhere was the lively discussion? On this blog or somewhere else?
DeleteMy lively discussion is about conclavism, I really think the sedes need to get under a pope [Michael].
Oh, Brother!!!
DeleteGood Grief!!
Please spare us, Anon 7:34!
As per the drawing at the head of this article, you know all about the human mind but what do you know about the human heart? You geniuses will perish in your own conceit.
ReplyDeleteI am sure the revered author knows that One-Hand has the fullness of the priesthood - deep, deep in Dannie's oh so tender heart. How can such a sweet man not be a priest, right? Let's not worry about these all too rigid intellectualists with their unmerciful constructs like "matter" and "form". Just have one look at Dan and all doubts will dissipate like smoke and vanish ...
DeleteYou do give us pause for reflection, noble Sir. Why, little Dannie is so very gentle and meek, especially when there's cash to be counted, isn't he? In fact, he's so mild that in 2009 he had to fire via e-mail one of his teachers who told him the cold, hard facts of the principal gone wild. Why should such a soft heart have to confront the truth? So tender, sensitive a soul shouldn't be expected to take principled action or to hand out a pink slip man-to-man. How could any hard-nosed realist expect that little ball of undeserving vanity and naked self-interest to live up to the standards that measure the rest of mankind. Dannie's soft-heart and sweet-tempered personality exempt him from all censure and criticism, don't they? We guess that's why the Gerties give him a pass every time. We suppose we should let all our doubts vanish, but we've got a conscience that keeps them alive. Still, we're grateful for your high-minded efforts to adjust our nasty , conceited attitude. :D
DeleteI am ever at your service, my dear Sir.
DeleteYou guys seem to be having a gay old time!
Delete"Defense attorneys, prosecutors, and judges all are aware of the unreliability of eyewitness testimony. In fact, the forgetting curve begins to drop off swiftly after 20 minutes. Thereafter, it continues to decline exponentially until the second day, where it levels off at a considerably reduced accuracy. Moreover, the inevitable decay of memory is irreversible: the more that time goes by, the greater the likelihood of faulty remembrance. This means that earlier testimony is, on the whole, more accurate than later testimony. Consequently, the longer the interval, the greater the probability that post-event information will become confused with the target memory. Indeed, with the passage of time, memory is increasingly susceptible to contamination."
ReplyDeleteAs an attorney myself, everything you wrote applies to the declaration of the nine priests written 14 YEARS after the alleged "defect." Hence, not only is the memory unreliable, it comes from clerics who have nothing to remember, as they were not there and claimed to see nothing! You claim they must've been "morally certain" of the one-handed ordination, or their consciences would not permit them to sign it. The same would hold true for the priest who WAS there and SAW two hands used.
Furthermore two of the priests who signed, were Frs. Baumberger and Greenwell. Fr. Baumberger was 18 yrs old in 1976, and Joseph Greenwell was 12. Both were in the U.S. at the time. How can they be morally certain of anything that took place in Econe?
Your witness, if one exists, is subject not only to the same memory objection you make, but also of moral cowardice for refusing to go public with a signed sworn declaration before God. Since your alleged eyewitness is subject to the same criticism of the priest's declaration who was there, it's a matter of equally unreliable reports that contradict one another; putting it in the light most favorable to your side. Since there is a presumption that a Catholic Bishop who performs a sacrament does so validly, the burden of proof is on YOU to prove a two handed ordination DID NOT take place, and you have not carried your BOP.
Your further contention that the "persistent report" makes conditional ordination necessary, is laughable. A "report" which is rumor with no photographic evidence, or signed, sworn testimony is just that--a rumor. A rumor, no matter how persistent cannot overcome your burden proof. There has been a persistent rumor Elvis is alive and well, working at the local supermarkets as a bag boy, yet this in no way constitutes "doubt" about his death.
This persistent rumor was so well known that the 9 priests who signed the statement (one of whom retracted his name) allowed a priest they believe to have doubtful orders work with them for 14 years (until they had a falling out) before claiming a defect.
Wouldn't their consciences demand that they stop "Dannie" in 1976, since the fact was so well known?
If you cannot prove a one handed ordination, the presumption is that two hands were used. If two hands were used their is no defect in the rite. If there is no defect in the rite, Dolan's orders are valid. Period.
Bottom line: You're liars and calumniators. Please repent before you have to appear before the Divine Judge.
First of all, we must remember that the 1990 letter was signed by men who were *priests,* and we, as Catholics, must therefore presume that men bearing the charism of the priesthood would not affirm something as a fact if they were not morally certain of its truthfulness. These priests enjoy a deferential preference.
ReplyDeleteSecond, we have never claimed the 9 signers were eyewitnesses. Rather, they are more like expert witnesses, witnesses having special knowledge of the subject not possessed by the average person. You as an attorney know that this special knowledge need not necessarily come from direct observation. As associates of the SSPX, the nine (and many, many others) gained knowledge of the one-handed conferral as they did of other historical events in the society. Most of our knowledge of the world does not come from first-hand experience: it is taught to us from reliable sources, and we accept it as true because the sources are trustworthy. Just because you may have never seen St. Peter's doesn't mean you can't reliably pass on the knowledge of someone else who has actually visited the basilica.
Third, we agree that a bishop is presumed to intend to ordain validly, but that presumption doesn't preserve him from making defects in his conferral. For example, we're certain that the "Skipper" in Michigan intended to say Mass validly when he began the Mass at which he forgot the consecration, but that didn't keep him failing to confect the sacrament. Human error will always get in the way of good intentions.
Third, while we cannot speak to the motives of our witness, we presume the reason he did not speak out earlier was that everyone at Econe bought the party line that one-handed conferral was OK. As we've said before, the archbishop was in a panic after the ceremony until someone (no one has revealed who) told him that one-handed conferral was valid. Therefore, for him and others, there was apparently no reason to blow the whistle so their consciences remained clear.
From our reading of the 1990 letter, the motive for bringing the matter to Dannie's attention was that they thought they had found opinions that contradicted the party line, so they asked him to suspend himself a divinis and conduct research. When they heard that the Blunderer had done research to support the validity of one-handed conferral, they accepted the conclusion and therefore needed to say nothing more. Their consciences, accordingly, were satisfied. Perhaps, Tony Baloney's (now-discredited) research enabled some of them to retract their signature.
However, Pistrina's thorough rebuttal/refutation of the Cheeseball's monograph -- and especially our demonstration of Checkie's perverse translation of the Pope's teaching, upon which so much of the monograph depends -- means that all the original doubts have returned in force. There will always be proponents on both sides (although we suspect that most older clergy know the real truth), so the only way to end this contretemps is for Dannie to seek conditional re-ordination. That is the pars tutior in a dispute that will never be settled one way or the other: the circumstantial evidence of one-handed conferral is too abundant and robust to presume a two-handed ordination.
Bottom Line: You're a cultist. Please tell Dannnie to get fixed so your fellow cultlings can lay aside the doubts raised by the 9 priests in 1990.
In addition to our senior colleague's remarks to Introibo, we'd like to add that he is in error to call us "liars" and "calumniators." We simply reported what nine priests had categorically said to him in a letter:"...your ordination was done with one hand...," which is true. (We have even provided a copy of the original.)
DeleteFurthermore, we exposed both Cekada's perverse translation of papal teaching and all his nonsense about the so-called "decision of the Holy Office." Moreover, the report of one-handed ordination is not manifestly false, and we are assured of its accuracy by a communication in our possession. And even if we didn't have it, there is no incontrovertible proof that the report is false.
You are liars and calumniators. The report of the 9 priests is based on no viable proof and you then treat it as fact, declaring doubt where none exists. You thereby keep Traditionalists away from the Sacraments depriving them of the graces needed to obtain Heaven.
DeleteThe alleged communication is about as real as Bigfoot, as long as it remains anonymous. If you really have such, why not share the signed, sworn statement online? Even if real, there are numerous grounds on which it might be impeached once made public. If it exists and satisfies you, so be it. You stay away from Dolan and his priests, but don't ask others to do so and petition for a conditional ordination when you hide alleged evidence.
You still don't understand the concept of the burden of proof. YOU have the burden to prove a one handed ordination took place. Dolan need not prove that a two handed ordination happened as he enjoys the presumption of validity. Got that? If you are accused of a crime you enjoy the presumption of innocence and the DA must carry the burden of proof. Incontrovertible proof of your innocence is not necessary any more than it's needed to prove a one handed ordination did NOT take place. The DA must prove the crime took place and you are the perpetrator. Likewise, YOU must prove a one handed ordination DID take place with clear and convincing evidence, not hearsay and long standing rumor. You impugn the orders of Dolan and his priests based on no tangible evidence. To do so without the requisite proof is calumny.
1. There is nothing in moral theology or canon law that gives priests a presumption of telling the truth. Please give the pre-Vatican II citation to any theologian who teaches your invented principle. Even if true, it would apply to the priest who has sworn that he saw two hands used, and you have not carried your burden. Both are separated by large spans of time so both declarations are equally impeachable on those grounds. You have not met the burden of proof.
ReplyDelete2. You state: "You as an attorney know that this special knowledge need not necessarily come from direct observation. As associates of the SSPX, the nine (and many, many others) gained knowledge of the one-handed conferral as they did of other historical events in the society. Most of our knowledge of the world does not come from first-hand experience: it is taught to us from reliable sources, and we accept it as true because the sources are trustworthy. Just because you may have never seen St. Peter's doesn't mean you can't reliably pass on the knowledge of someone else who has actually visited the basilica."
Your analogy is inapposite. You can not gain knowledge of history via rumor. You name no witnesses, and have no photos or videos. On your ipse dixit we are supposed to believe it happened. There's no proof Lienart was a Freemason, but that rumor persists as well. As far as passing on knowledge of St. Peter's Basilica is concerned, I have ways of corroborating the information you impart, so if you tell me that the walls are painted orange, I can confirm or deny it by investigation. In the instant case, I'm supposed to believe that a 12 year old in the Midwest possesses "special knowledge" of a one-handed ordination? That unsubstantiated rumor is "evidence"?
Unless the nine had visions from Heaven, how can they know what took place based on a story that can't be verified?
3. You say: "Third, we agree that a bishop is presumed to intend to ordain validly, but that presumption doesn't preserve him from making defects in his conferral."
You got something right. However, the burden of proof is on YOU that the defect occurred. You have not come forward with one shred of evidence. No signed, sworn eyewitness testimony (which you claim would be useless anyway due to the lapse of time), no photos, nothing except hearsay. Hearsay cannot overcome the presumption of validity.
4. You said: "while we cannot speak to the motives of our witness, we presume the reason he did not speak out earlier was that everyone at Econe bought the party line that one-handed conferral was OK. As we've said before, the archbishop was in a panic after the ceremony until someone (no one has revealed who) told him that one-handed conferral was valid. Therefore, for him and others, there was apparently no reason to blow the whistle so their consciences remained clear."
Therefore his memory is subject to be impeached just as you explained due to the time gap :-) Why doesn't he go public now and at least prove he actually exists? And, of course, we have another alleged Archbishop in a panic--with no witnesses (again) and an unknown person (again) who caused his panic.
You write: From our reading of the 1990 letter, the motive for bringing the matter to Dannie's attention was that they thought they had found opinions that contradicted the party line, so they asked him to suspend himself a divinis and conduct research"
ReplyDeleteOnce more, they saw nothing, and signed because Clarence Kelly TOLD THEM TO DO SO. You can't be morally certain of anything without evidence, of which they(and you) have NONE. Isn't it amazing how they found these opinions just as he left them, and Kelly was bitter?
6. You write: "Bottom Line: You're a cultist. Please tell Dannnie to get fixed so your fellow cultlings can lay aside the doubts raised by the 9 priests in 1990."
I am a Traditionalist since 1981 who was converted by my spiritual Father, the late, great Fr. Gommar A. De Pauw, JCD. He started the Catholic Traditionalist Movement in 1964 when the Council was still going on, and Lefebvre was not to be found. I attended Mass with him until his holy passing in 2005. I since attend Mass with the SSPV. I know personally most of the priests who signed the letter and at least one admits he signed it simply because he was told to do so! I don't know Dolan, and have never attended his Masses. Therefore your charge of being a "cultist" is refuted. (Unless a "cultist" is anyone who detests your calumny)
There is no proof that the one handed ordination occurred, and we must therefore presume that it did not occur. All you have is hearsay, and that cannot overcome the presumption of validity enjoyed by Abp. Lefebvre. The only "doubt" that exists, is the one in your (so-called) "mind." Stop your calumny. I can tell you're no lawyer because if one-handed ordinations were a crime, no court would be able to convict Lefebvre, and your case would be thrown out on a motion to dismiss. The judge would sanction you for wasting the court's time.
This is all I can do for you. I was a NYC teacher before becoming a lawyer. Unfortunately, I'm not licensed to teach special ed.
What about Big Don Sanborn himself? Why did he sign the letter? Just because there was one moral weakling who succumbed to duress doesn't mean the others would treat justice so cavalierly.
DeleteBTW, we know one-handed ordinations are not a crime, and we have always said we don't know whether they are valid or invalid. Our point is that after Sacramentum Ordinis they are defective. And until the Church can rule on the matter, the safer course is to seek conditional re-ordination. Given the strength of the report and its abiding presence over the years, securing conditional orders is the only prudent course to allay any doubts. We know that the first-hand account was in circulation almost immediately after the '76 ordination, so it is less susceptible to impeachment than one delivered 35 years after the fact by someone who may have been too preoccupied with his own role to have noticed. (And remember, he may not even have known what the correct rite was.)
The strength of which report? Your report of a one handed ordination has as much credibility as an Elvis sighting. No witnesses, no photos, no anything but hearsay. Hearsay cannot overcome the presumption of validity. Since you have no positive proof, there's no need to get into any other theological particulars. You never get off the ground, since two handed ordination must be presumed to have occurred.
Delete“Introibo” (or, more appropriately, “Ignorantio”) your legal-beagle arguments about proving the invalidity of Dannie’s orders is IRRELEVANT. Pistrina NEVER argued about “validity,” but on the DOUBTS of that validity – and a letter from NINE priests is PROOF of that DOUBT. Your argumentative tactics are typical of a lawyer: you mention that Fr. Greenwell was only twelve years old when Dannie was “ordained”; and then you insinuate that this invalidates the other eight priests as well – typical lawyer’s trick.
ReplyDeletePistrina only contended that if there WERE doubts (which there WERE and ARE), then any DECENT man would seek conditional re-ordination. But Dannie is NOT decent; he has proved that NUMEROUS times – and that, by the way, CAN be proved in a court of law. In my mind (and in the minds of countless others), whether Dannie is “valid” or not is a moot point: the RELEVANT point is that he is a MORAL LEPER. You talk about “calumny.” If you want to see REAL calumny, look at what this dirt-bag (or his depraved assistant) has had to say about so many others on NUMEROUS occasions – all of which can be DOCUMENTED and PROVED in ANY court of law.
Your feeble attempts to champion this serpent’s cause may win you brownie points with him, but with NO ONE ELSE – and they also brand you as the hopeless CULTIST that you are. Your arguments remind me of those used by another bunch of “lawyers”: the Scribes and Pharisees who had our Lord put to death. Again, Introibo, you might convince your boss (and your fellow brain-dead cultists), but you’ll convince no one else outside of that warped sphere. Dannie’s influence and credibility outside the cult corral are EVAPORATING, and your legalistic mumbo-jumbo won’t change that undeniable fact.
This really isn't hard to understand.
Delete1. The ceremony is presumed to be done correctly.
2. "Presumed" here means it is considered done correctly unless the contrary is proven.
3. No proof has been offered that the ceremony was done wrong.
4. (Hearsay assertions and "I-know-a-guy-who-said-so-but-I-can't-tell-you-his-name" are not proof).
5. Therefore the ceremony is presumed to be done correctly.
6. If the ceremony is presumed to be done correctly then people must assume Bp. Dolan et al. are valid clergy.
P.S. Your opinion of Bp. Dolan's "moral leprosy" is completely irrelevant to this discussion.
The ceremony is presumed to have been done correctly until there is a credible objection. There is - and has been - one for many years.
DeleteI have a nice appropriate name for you too! But since my parents (God rest their souls) taught me not to make fun of the mentally challenged, I will decline to do so in your case as well.
ReplyDelete1. There can be know doubts about validity unless YOU prove a one handed ordination took place. The presumption, which even your colleague acknowledges, is that the rite was correctly performed since it was undertaken by a Catholic Archbishop. This has not been done.
2. The fact that Greenwell was 12 demolishes your argument that the nine priests (all of them) were morally certain that the one handed ordination took place. As to the other eight, Fr Baumberger was 18 and living in Colorado, and NONE of the others were witnesses to anything! That's not a trick, it's a fact.
3. At least you finally admit the real problem---personal animus against Dolan. So be it. Attack him on the alleged horrible things he's done (if you have real proof) and do not have others deprived of the sacraments by impugning his orders and those of the priests he has ordained.
All the priests were of the age of majority when they signed the letter, and by so doing, they did not affirm their physical presence at the '76 ceremony but rather they attested to their morally certain knowledge that the event took place. Once again, we have never said they were eyewitnesses. They certified that they had heard the report and were satisfied with its veracity. In other words, they attested to the institutional knowledge in the SSPX that in '76 there was at least one conferral of orders with one hand.
DeleteThis knowledge extends much farther than the SSPV group. Many SSPX seminarians who attended Winona knew of the event independently of the 1990 letter. Organizations have histories, which are passed along to their members over the generations. As sociologists and anthropoligists have documented, such institutional memory is remarkably accurate and stable.
Huh? These priests attested that they were "morally certain" that the event took place? They certified that they had "heard the report"? What letter are you reading? The one you posted online didn't say any of that. It just said Bp. Dolan had been ordained with one hand.
DeleteThey were "morally certain" based on hearsay? Sorry, that "argument" doesn't hold water. Clarence Kelly wanted them to sign the letter and they did. There is no solid evidence to back up their claim. I heard a report that Leinart was a Freemason; there is no evidence to substantiate that claim and Lefebvre's "dubious" orders.
ReplyDeleteYou keep talking about the "many" people who know of this defective ordination, but you can't produce ONE eyewitness name! The only eyewitness testimony AFFIRMS that two hands were used. Institutional memory doesn't fly in civil or ecclesiastical court; nor does it comport with logic and common sense. There's alligators here in the sewers of NYC---didn't you know? The story has been around the Big Apple for decades so it must be true!
This whole discussion is pointless unless this "Reader" is going to actually present some real proof. All we get right now is him repeating over and over again that everyone knows this happened, and there's some secret priest somewhere who asserts this happened, and so on.
ReplyDeleteWe might as well sit around and discuss which team we think is going to win the Super Bowl.
Very true. These people are so bent on calumny based on personal hatred that they can't/won't see that their assertions are clearly refuted. They have no argumentation skills and I wouldn't even bother with them, except for the fact they spread their poison to others. If THEY want to avoid Dolan and his clergy, fine. If their "evidence" satisfies them, let them stay away. However, to plant ideas in others that the orders of Dolan and his priests are somehow "dubious" and that he needs "conditional re-ordination" or else the sacraments they receive will be doubtful (and therefore to be avoided) is rank calumny that may keep good Traditionalists away from the sacraments. God pity these men for defending lies.
DeleteWhy will you not publish the "proof" that you have that Bp. Dolan was ordained with one hand?
ReplyDeleteOur position has always been that in the presence of decades-long, positive doubt, Dannie must take the safer way and seek conditional re-ordination. And BTW, the institutional memory of the '76 one-handed conferral is not hearsay. The nine priests who signed the letter knew that. So do many, many others, perhaps even you guys.
ReplyDeleteWhat we're advocating really is no more than Checkie did when he advised the SSPV priest to seek conditional re-ordination: the reports were divided on whether the ordaining bishop garbled the essential words. We think Checkie gave the right advice even though we would tend to believe the witness of the priest who affirmed nothing untoward occurred. In the face of such doubt, the only answer to to choose the *pars tutior.*
Why won't you publish this "sworn statement" that you have?
Delete"Our position has always been that in the presence of decades-long, positive doubt, Dannie must take the safer way and seek conditional re-ordination."
ReplyDeleteWhat positive doubt? you have not ONE SHREAD of evidence it ever happened. That's like claiming there's positive doubt about Elvis' death.
"And BTW, the institutional memory of the '76 one-handed conferral is not hearsay. The nine priests who signed the letter knew that. "
How did they know this? More empty conjecture.
"What we're advocating really is no more than Checkie did when he advised the SSPV priest to seek conditional re-ordination: the reports were divided on whether the ordaining bishop garbled the essential words."
In the case of the SSPV, there were reports by named eyewitnesses and their own contradictory signed statements as to the recitation of the form. Here you have NOTHING!!!
"In the face of such doubt, the only answer to to choose the *pars tutior.*"
There is no doubt since you have not met the burden of proof, and the is no safer course to be followed.
Your Elvis simile is fatuous. The doubt about the '76 ordination arose because of a first-hand report, made soon after the event, and supported by institutional memory.
ReplyDeleteAs to the SSPV episode, we have everything on our side. One of the chief witnesses for the invalidating side is a known slacker who preferred camping and working on cars as opposed to academic study. The chief witness for the validating side is a man who, according to his web curriculum vitae, is an alumnus of the Angelicum. Nevertheless, we are in favor of re-ordination because of the doubt.Checkie's advice was, indeed, the safer course, just as is ours in this present case.
You should know that *pars tutior* does not demand meeting the burden of proof required under American law. The presence of doubt is sufficient.
What's fatuous is your "reasoning." Who made this "first hand report"? There have been "first hand reports" of Elvis working at the local supermarket, but no one can ID these "witnesses" either. The SSPV was written about on my blog. There were plenty of reports by established witnesses. The episode is beside the point, since it has no bearing on "The matter at hand"(pun intended).
ReplyDelete"The presence of doubt" means a reasonable doubt, not "an unnamed, unknown person said something was defective and I won't reveal their identity." The doubt must be reasonable, not hearsay. I can introduce doubt everywhere I go by saying "I have a secret communication that says Fr (or Bp) so and so did something defective so we must repeat the sacrament because of doubt." Please. Please cite the proper burden of proof from a verifiable pre-Vatican 2 source. It will not condone unreasonable doubt like yours, that much I can tell you with apodictic certainty.
Our doubt satisfies the definition of positive doubt, a term of art: "The suspension of assent because of equally serious reasons," cfr. St. Thomas, Sent . iii, dist. 23, qu.. 2, a. 2,1
ReplyDeleteJust because you and your fellow blind mice cannot identify the witness doesn't mean he doesn't exist.Moreover, your ignorance of the issue does not mean that the parties involved were once and/or are now aware of the fact.
Again, the SSPX as an institution knew of the report of a one-handed conferral of priestly orders in '76. It knew its chief reporter, who was upset that no one dared bring the defect to the archbishop's attention at its occurrence. The report was so rooted in institutional memory that it could not be suppressed. It became part of the culture, no matter how hard others tried to make it disappear
The doubt is the elephant in the room in Tradistan, and you cannot make it vanish, no matter how hard you huff and puff. You may be blissfully free of its burden owing to ignorance of the background. Good for you! But the principals involved are all very aware, though, perhaps, they have by now been able forge a psychological accommodation.
"An equally serious reason" is not an unknown, unnamed secret "witness." As you refuse to publish the declaration all intelligent people must suspend belief that this person exists. I have no more reason to believe he exists than Bigfoot (at least there were some blurry photos in his case). An "institution" cannot know anything. You must point to the atomic individual (s) involved. "It" knew its chief reporter? Really? The "collective consciousness" knew? The force be with you!!
ReplyDeleteIf we are blind and ignorant enlighten us with positive proof. Not hearsay, conjuncture, secret communications and Star Wars-like appeals to the memory of some institutional force ("I can feel a defect occurring in Scone, Luke!)
Stop your calumny. If you're satisfied that's something is wrong, good for you! Don't give scandal by trying to keep others away from the Sacraments through lies.
We did not point out that Dannie was ordained with one hand: Nine priests did, one of whom is Big Don Sanborn. And we believe them in the light of all the many other confirmations we possess. Get one thing straight: we are not trying to persuade you to adopt that view. Our sole purpose is to move Dannie, who knows the truth, to get re-ordained in the face of so much doubt. There are many others who find our work sufficiently persuasive to work toward that end. They know what we know, so it's unnecessary to disclose the name of the witness. Whether you yourself are persuaded is irrelevant.
DeleteWe aren't driving the faithful from the sacraments: we want them to be certain that they are receiving the sacraments, even if they are so unwise as to be members of a cult.
And BTW, institutional memory is not the Jungian "collective unconscious."
We've been through this all before Einstein:
Delete1. Nine priests signed a declaration because they were told to do so by Clarence Kelly. Kelly had an axe to grind with Dolan. None of them saw anything, nor did they claim to have any evidence for this assertion. Priests should know better than to sign such a statement on Kelly's say so, but they are human too, and sin like all of us.
2. You have "many confirmations" but can't name even one.
3. You are working to deceive ("persuade") others to adopt your line of baloney in order to impeach the orders of a Bishop and the priests he ordained. If "they know what we know" there's no need of persuasion or a website. whom are you kidding, guy? You can just continue to petition Dolan to do something he need not do since two hands were used, and you have not proven the contrary.
4. Institutional memory is defined as a "collective set of FACTS and know how held by a group of people." Although it transcends the individual, facts are stubborn things that can be verified. It is not nameless, secret, "knowledge." When you start ranting about the SSPX having a memory of a one handed ordination with no evidence it ever occurred, it becomes some sort of gnostic "consciousness." Got that Chewbacca?
"Our sole purpose is to move Dannie, who knows the truth, to get re-ordained in the face of so much doubt."
DeleteRethinking the whole matter, maybe you should have advised the good folks of Cincinnati to save up for old Dan's retirement fund. Whom could he harm in the artsy Southwestern desert, apart from himself?
Many in and out of the SSPX know it occurred. That is the content of the institutional memory.
DeleteOwing to Checkie's error-filled monograph on one-handed orders, these people believed that such orders were certainly valid. Now that we have rebutted/refuted that document, our mission is to remind these folks of the renewed doubt so they can persuade Dannie to get fixed.
People were led astray for years by that tissue of errors -- especially by the perverse translation of infallible teaching. We have been re-educating them in the light of our rebuttal/refutation.
Well, the Pistrina case is coming out like next week, right? So we can just examine it then.
ReplyDeleteIf you can't wait to start reading, you can find all the information in the upcoming summary starting with our posts in May 2013.
DeleteUm, no, there isn't going to be anything new coming out next week. Certainly not the proof we need. It's just going to be a repeat of everything we've seen ten times already.
DeleteCorrect me if I'm wrong here, but I think the "Reader" is misrepresenting the concept of "burden of proof". A burden of proof means that unless someone *proves* something, the opposite holds good.
ReplyDeleteSo his repeated assertion that "a burden of proof does not hold in the presence of a credible assertion to the contrary," or "a burden of proof does not hold in the case of positive doubt" is simply false.
The very concept of the "burden of proof" means that you have to PROVE the opposite. A "credible assertion" or "positive doubt" are not sufficient by definition, because they're not proof. And in the absence of proof the ordination is not "doubtful" but must be considered valid.
If the burden of proof is on someone casting doubt on an ordination, then in the face of "positive doubt" or a "credible contrary assertion" the ceremony must be considered valid, and one cannot cast doubt on the validity of the orders conferred.
Pistrina, do you accept:
a) My explanation of the concept of burden of proof?
b) The principle that the burden of proof is on someone casting doubt on an ordination?
c) My statement that a "credible assertion" or "positive doubt" do not meet the burden of proof?
d) The fact that the letter of the nine priests or your fictitious "testimony" or supposed "institutional knowledge" may possibly be considered evidence, but are not proof?
If you would specify which one of those statements a-d you dispute, maybe we can make some progress in this discussion.
You really expect him to answer your well-reasoned queries, my friend? He will side-step, and attempt to twist things around, repeating his same worn out and disproven assertions. If God Himself told him the ordination took place with two hands, he would STILL deny it.
DeleteLook at how he even invents "principles--that a declaration signed by a priest is automatically presumed to be veridical. No such principle exists, but that couple with his other assertion that they have "special knowledge" sounds good. Forget the fact that none of them claimed to see anything, were not present, and one was a 12 year old child in Kentucky at the time. Examine his statements and all he does is recycle garbage.
Each side of an argument always tries to shift burdens of proof. The atheist says he doesn't have to prove a negative, i.e. that God doesn't exist. The theist argues that the atheist must prove that what is certainly true by the natural light of reason is false (“God’s existence can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason” -Pope St. Pius X).
DeleteTrue. But in this case Church law is clear that the burden of proof is on the one claiming "doubt" or invalidity when a sacrament has been conferred by a Catholic cleric.
DeleteLOL!!! So true! Reader and Watcher are so committed to their calumny that they can't/won't admit they simply don't have a leg on which to stand. Look at the above:
ReplyDelete"Many in and out of the SSPX know it occurred. That is the content of the institutional memory."
Define "many" and name JUST ONE!! He can't, because they don't exist. How would he even know what's in the "institutional memory" of the SSPX, and even if true, the institution has to be able to prove the "memory" is based on FACT. Otherwise you have a "Traditionalist Urban Legend"---this happened to a friend of a friend, and that guy is reliable because you just have to take my word for it.
"Owing to Checkie's error-filled monograph on one-handed orders, these people believed that such orders were certainly valid"
Which people? Name them--or even one and how they obtained this proof of a one-handed ordination.
For real reading material check out my blog post of 10/19/13, "A Hands On Application Of Sacramental Theology For The Culpably Ignorant." Under "Issues to be addressed" Look no farther than point (A)--if he can't make it to first base all his talk about Sacramentum Ordinis is MOOT:
http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2013/10/a-hands-on-application-of-sacramental.html
Introibo, you keep telling us to provide proof of our allegations, while you yourself accuse us of calumny, yet provide NO PROOF whatsoever to back up that accusation.. For the record, both Dolan and Cekada have calumniated (and harmed) scores of innocent victioms, both lay and clerics. We have proved this in many of the articles on both the Pistrina website and the Lay Pulpit website – with much of that proof coming from Dolan’s and Cekada’s own mouths. (And no, I am not going to repeat it all here; just go back and read the articles on those websites.)
ReplyDeleteYou and your colleagues are fighting a losing battle in backing both Dolan and Cekada. Most traditional priests outside the Dolan-Cekada-Sanborn circle now consider Cekada’s “defense” of one-handed ordination to be bankrupt. With your arguments, you are only convincing YOURSELVES and NO ONE ELSE. However, we welcome your attempts to do so, because it only shows you for the “sounding brass” and “tinkling cymbals” that you are.
As far as proof of doubt about Dolan’s ordination is concerned, the fact that NINE priests wrote to him is proof enough. And speaking of “proof,” where is YOUR proof that Kelly coerced these men into signing that letter? Also, if there was no doubt about his one-handed ordination, why did Cekada go to all the trouble to write his (erroneous) monograph? Again, Introibo, you can huff and puff all you want, but you’re only convincing YOURSELF.
Oh, boy! Just when I thought your responses couldn't get any more pathetic, you prove me wrong! Unfortunately, it's the only thing you've proven. Here we go again folks!!
Delete1. My proof of calumny rests in the FACT that you impeach a clerics orders without carrying the burden of proof. You know you don't carry that burden but you continue to trumpet there is "Doubt" so as to keep Traditionalists away from the sacraments. The other joker keeps talking about "secret communications" and "many witnesses, yet the only statement we have is from a priest who was there at the ordination and saw two hands used!! If there is such a witness on your side, you (and he/she) have a moral duty to make the statement public, otherwise its no different from me claiming you are a sodomite based on some secret witness who saw you doing things in a gay bathhouse. To make such a serious accusation and then call on you to "fix yourself" with a psychologist who believes homosexuals can change is CALUMNY. You have a right to face your accusers, as does Dolan. The witness is no witness, as far as any thinking person is concerned, he is a myth.
2. Numbers don't equal truth. You have nine men who weren't there and saw nothing. They have not claimed to have any evidence of a one handed ordination. I live in NY. If I had 500 people who lived here and were not in Ohio in 1990, sign a declaration that you committed murder in Ohio in 1990, is that "proof" or "evidence" that you're a murderer?!? Here is where calumny comes into play again--- the invented principle that Catholics must give priests a presumption of veracity when they sign any document. They are given no such presumption anywhere in Dogmatic Theology, Moral Theology, or 1917 Canon Law. I challenged Reader to give me a citation, and of course he came up empty handed (plural; both hands)!
How could nine men who weren't there and saw nothing be morally certain of anything? Green well was a child in Kentucky at the time. What does a sixth grader in Kentucky know about an ordination in Econe? No more than you, "Watcher."
One of the priests told me that Kelly told him to sign it. So I'm the witness. You need not believe me because (a) I'm not telling people to stay away from Bp. Kelly or impeach anybody's orders and (b) I don't need that info to impeach the credibility of the nine. The document impeaches itself on the grounds that no one who signed was there and no proof was offered.
3. As to the monograph, its called "arguing in the alternative." Intelligent people do it all the time which is why you are unfamiliar with it. "Even IF what you said was true, it still doesn't matter and here's why..." I need to do that in court and in my legal briefs. Whether his monograph was correct or not is moot. If you can't overcome the presumption of validity, and you haven't, your case collapses and ends right there.
Just a correction: we never alleged that a deferential preference was grounded in moral theology or canon law. When we invoke principles, we cite authorities. You were the one who chose to construe our private advice as an appeal a formal principle.
ReplyDeleteWe offered our personal rule of thumb in the spirit of personal piety and childlike trust: if we do not have the firm expectation (grounded in simple hope) that someone with the charism of the Catholic priesthood -- an alter Christus -- will not speak frivolously and will speak truthfully to the best of his knowledge at all times when prudence sanctions him to speak, then we are lost. If we view priests with the same low expectations we have of other men, then how can we trust them to confect the sacraments validly and how can we trust them with our secrets or follow the advice they give in the confessional?
Priests are held to a higher standard, and, for our own psychological well being, we must trust they will live up to that standard until it is demonstrated that they cannot.
Perhaps one of the nine was so callous as to sign the statement under duress, but it's hard to believe that the other eight would have fallen so far short of the high standards of priestly comportment. We Readers may not like some of signers, and we may think some are ignorant blowhards, but we would never hesitate to presume that the ones we've met would have affirmed a one-handed conferral unless they had been morally certain it had occurred.
Sorry, Reader, "Pistrina Liturgica wrote above:
Delete"First of all, we must remember that the 1990 letter was signed by men who were *priests,* and we, as Catholics, must therefore presume that men bearing the charism of the priesthood would not affirm something as a fact if they were not morally certain of its truthfulness. These priests enjoy a deferential preference."
That certainly reads as a stated principle, not a pious sentiment.
You write: " If we view priests with the same low expectations we have of other men, then how can we trust them to confect the sacraments validly and how can we trust them with our secrets or follow the advice they give in the confessional?"
Perhaps you'd like to explain why real theologians, like Henry Davis, wrote about solicitation in the confessional? We must respect priests but remember they are men who often fall way short of their calling. That's why we have real principles such as clerics are to enjoy a presumption of validity when they set about to confect a sacrament.
It is with reason that St John Chysostom wrote, "The floor of Hell is paved with the skulls of rotten bishops." The same hold for priests.
You write: "...we would never hesitate to presume that the ones we've met would have affirmed a one-handed conferral unless they had been morally certain it had occurred."
Sheer conjecture. Validly ordained priests and bishops brought about the great apostasy, and it was being too trusting that allowed parents to let their children alone with the ones who proved to be pederasts, but seemed like "great priests" when you met them. Men who weren't there, never saw anything, and have no proof, cannot be "morally certain of anything. What of the priest who was there and affirmed two hands were used? Wasn't he morally certain? Oh, yes but he doesn't count because of the lapse in time!! Yet, we must give this presumption of moral certainty to men who were not there, saw nothing, have no prof and wrote the letter 14 years after it happened? What a joke! I think "The Joker" would be a better moniker for you. Take your case on the road, it has great comedic value--if nothing else :-)
Can we please have a response to the post on December 11, 9:25 PM?
ReplyDeleteYou actually thought he'd respond? If he does, have your shovel ready!
ReplyDeleteWe haven't replied because it is not our aim to convince a trier of fact as to the truth of the claim and hence prevail in a civil or criminal suit. Hence, the 12/11 post is not ad rem.
ReplyDeleteWe stand on the ecclesiastical principle of pars tutior, a much less stringent standard. In cases of doubt, one must choose the safer side.
BTW, we don't gainsay all that you say about rotten priests and bishops: we've had 'em in the past and we've got 'em today in spades, Trads and Novus Ordites alike.Still, our reflexive attitude is to trust in the charism of the priesthood until the individual is proved a liar.
You haven't replied because it would further show you to be a crackpot unable to argue and with nothing more than an axe to grind.
Delete1. You keep repeating the magical incantation "doubt." You refuse to define it because a doubt must be REASONABLE. All you have is "secret communications," hearsay, conjecture, Stars Wars-like appeals to an institutional memory that operates like "the force," and a letter written by nine clerics 14 years after the fact (and none of whom were witnesses nor produced any evidence for their assertion. None of this constitutes "reasonable doubt." Imagine if I claimed Mass wasn't valid because I thought the priest left out the word "Corpus." I was sitting in the back of the Church and really can't hear anything recited in the secret tone of voice. Is the Mass and Eucharist "dubious" because I have a doubt? What if I further claim to have a communication from a secret witness who was close to the altar and also didn't hear the word. I won't tell you who he is or show you his communication. Have we strengthened the case for a doubtful Mass yet?
Anyone reading this will instantly see how stupid it is, except (Ironically) "The Reader" and his reason-challenged comrades.
2. If you're going to trust the charism of the priesthood, why not accept the statement of the priest who was there and saw two hands used? Is he a "proven liar?"
If you impeach his memory, the same holds true for the nine priests writing 14 years later, and were NOT witnesses, and have NO evidence either.
I told you to bring the shovel, anon! He won't answer, and he knows how to sling horse hockey!!
Introibo, let me say this just one more time: we are not saying that Dolan’s ordination was invalid, nor are we trying to prove that. What we are saying is that there are DOUBTS about that validity, and we are saying that a letter from NINE priests (including Donald Sanborn) is proof that they had those doubts -- not to mention, Cekada’s monograph defending one-handed ordination (which, do you think, that he wrote “just or the heck of it”?).
DeleteAnd speaking of that monograph, you stated: “As to the monograph, its called ‘arguing in the alternative.’ Intelligent people do it all the time which is why you are unfamiliar with it.” Well, it matters little whether his monograph is called “arguing in the alternative” (or whatever); the fact is, he wrote it; and it was written obviously in rebuttal to what was said by those nine priests in their letter. And, to any rational observer, it is also obvious that the reason it was written was that there was DOUBT about the validity of Dolan’s ordination.
After your comments about the monograph, you then QUOTED someone by staing (in quote marks): “. "Even IF what you said was true, it still doesn't matter and here's why..." I am assuming that you were quoting someone other than yourself, because you followed that with, “I need to do that in court and in my legal briefs. Whether his monograph was correct or not is moot. If you can't overcome the presumption of validity, and you haven't, your case collapses and ends right there.“ Firstly, who were you quoting there? Me? If so, please point out to me where I said it – because I DIDN’T. Secondly, let me AGAIN repeat that I am not trying to “overcome the presumption of validity,” but just contending that there was DOUBT about that validity.
Also, why do you keep harping about the fact that “Green well [sic] was a child in Kentucky at the time”? Again, whether you disqualify Fr. Greenwell or not, there were EIGHT other priests who signed that letter. And, again, we’re not talking about proving or disproving the validity of orders, but about DOUBTS in that validity. And, no matter how much you try to impress us with your legalistics, and no matter how much you try to shift the argument to contend that we are questioning the validity of Dolan’s ORDERS, we are NOT. We are merely saying that there WAS DOUBT about those orders -- doubt that prompted NINE PRIESTS to question them (and that also prompted Cekada to write his monograph). I hope that you see this, because I am wearying of trying to explain this to you over and over again. Do you understand this -- or is the gray matter inside your skull not brain tissue but CEMENT?
You claim there is "doubt" as to validity. In the practical order that has the same effect as invalidity. I cannot attend the Mass of a dubious priest because I might only be worshiping bread and wine. So you're claim of "doubt" is the same as a claim of invalidity--stay away.
DeleteTo be doubt, it must be REASONABLE doubt, not some fuzzy notion that something is amiss, nor unreasonable doubt. Levebvre enjoys the presumption that he performed the rite correctly and is valid beyond doubt. To introduce doubt, you must bring forth reasonable evidence. Are you following this so far? There may be a quiz later.
Now the letter from the nine priests proves nothing, because it is not evidence from which a reasonable doubt may be drawn. They may have had doubts, but those doubts are unreasonable and unsupported by the weight of the credible evidence. Why?
1. None of them were there.
2. None of them claimed to know anyone who was there and witnessed a defect.
3. None of them have photos or a video of a one hand ordination.
4. One of them told me he signed because Kelly told him to do so.
5. One was a child in Kentucky
6. One was 18 years old and graduating high school in Colorado.
7. #4&5 above just add to the sheer lunacy of the declaration. You have nine people who make a baseless accusation and as such cannot give rise to reasonable doubt.
8. An hypothetical: if I claim a priest's Mass is dubious because I did not hear him pronounce the word "Corpus" in the Consecration, is that a doubt as to validity? Do the Hosts need a conditional reconsecration? Now I claim that I have a secret witness, who was close to the altar, and didn't hear the word either. I won't tell you who he is, or show you his secret communication. Have I strengthened the case for doubt? Next I get nine priests who were not there at the Mass in question and they categorically declare, "The Consecration took place without the word "Corpus." Is my case for doubt stronger yet? Hopefully, you get the idea. None of what I offered was reasonable. Hence there is no doubt about the Mass. Ditto for Dolan's ordination.
2. The monograph wasn't written because of doubt, he was arguing in the alternative. This happens when some writes along the lines of, "Even IF what you said was true, it doesn't matter and here's why." I was attempting to show you how it works, not quoting anyone.
Fr Cekada was doing likewise, two hands were used, but even if only one was used, it doesn't matter and here's why. Still with me? It doesn't prove a reasonable doubt exists, just people who want to introduce a doubt where none exists.
3. The presumption of validity means its valid, and does not admit of doubt. Remember the old axiom, "a doubtful sacrament is no sacrament at all." If there is a reasonable doubt, you have overcome the presumption of validity, making conditional re-ordination and consecration a necessity. You have no reasonable doubt. You have "secret communications" from an unknown "witness," hearsay, conjecture, appeals to an "institutional memory" that functions like "the force" from Star Wars, a monograph from a priest who was there and believes two hands took place but wrote a monograph to argue in the alternative. None of this constitutes reasonable doubt. Since there is no reasonable doubt, the presumption is that the rite was correctly and validly administered. Hence, no need for Dolan to do anything. He's valid according to the principles of Catholic theology. Doubts about validity mean that you have overcome the presumption of validity which is why the conditional re-ordination becomes needed. Since you have no reasonable doubt, you have no case.
I must admit "Watcher," you are the most intelligent man working on this blog. Unfortunately, that's analogous to being the smartest kid with Down Syndrome.
When Introibo can demonstrate to our complete satisfaction that the nine priests are habitual liars or are morally compromised owing to duress, then we will re-evaluate the weight of the 1990 letter.
ReplyDeleteWe doubt he can do that -- or is willing to do that. But, if he could, we would still have many other sources to assure us that a one-handed ordination quite probably took place in 1976. A one-handed ordination enjoys no presumption of validity in light of Pius XII's apostolic constitution.
The burden of proof is on YOU not me (or anyone else). The letter stands impeached on its own right, as the nine have no proof for their assertion. Can you prove that the priest who was there and said two hands were used is a habitual liar, or morally compromised due to duress? If you object based on faulty memory the same can be said of the nine.
Delete"We would still have many other sources..." So name your sources and place their declarations online. You can't do that since they don't exist, and therefore the presumption is two hands were used and the ordination is valid. With you it's always "same discredited stuff, different day." Maybe you believe if you keep telling the same big lie over and over again, you will get people to accept it. Pathetic.
Matthew 12:36, "But I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall render an account for it in the day of judgment. "
ReplyDelete"Matthew 5:22, "But I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council. And whosoever shall say, Thou Fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." (raca means "empty-headed", or like "idiot" - http://www.gotquestions.org/raca.html).
"When you pray as you ought, there may come into your mind things about which it seems right to be angry with your brother. There is absolutely no anger against your brother which could be justified. If you look, you will find that the question can be settled quite well without anger. Therefore do your best not to be moved to anger." "153 Texts on Prayer", St Nilus of Mt Sinai
One of the brothers asked abba Isidore, a priest of scetis, "Why are the demons so terrified of you?" And the old man said, "Ever since I became a monk I have tried never to let anger rise as far as my mouth."
Abba Nilus said, "Prayer is the seed of gentleness and the absence of anger."
Wrath is a reminder of hidden hatred, that is to say, remembrance of wrongs. Wrath is a desire for the injury of the one who has provoked you. Irascibility is the untimely blazing up of the heart. Bitterness is a movement of displeasure seated in the soul. Anger is an easily changeable movement of one’s disposition and disfiguration of soul. St. John Climacus, “The Ladder of Divine Ascent,” (Boston: Holy Transfiguration Monastery, 1978), Step 8: On Freedom From Anger and On Meekness
It is necessary most of all for one who is fasting to curb anger, to accustom himself to meekness and condescension, to have a contrite heart, to repulse impure thoughts and desires, to examine his conscience, to put his mind to the test and to verify what good has been done by us in this or any other week, and which deficiency we have corrected in ourselves in the present week. This is true fasting. St. John Chrysostom.
Having withdrawn from the palace to the solitary life, Abba Arsenius prayed and heard a voice saying to him, "Arsenius, flee, be silent, pray always, for these are the source of sinlessness."
May prayer lead to the swift resolution of this issue!
We agree.
DeleteLet us pray that "One Hand" imitates the best practice of the Church and chooses the pars tutior by submitting to conditional re-ordination and re-consecration. Then let us pray that he conditionally re-ordains all the men he's ordained as priests and as deacons.
That will resolve the issue forever.
This issue is already decided in favor of validity under Church law. Let us pray you cease your disproven "doubt" and calumny so as to save your soul and prevent Traditionalist to mistakenly stay away from the sacraments due to your callous disregard for real Catholic principles.
DeleteOnce again I ask if we may see a list of the names of the priests who sgined the letter.
ReplyDeleteYou'll find them in the first footnote here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/249350348/Dubiety-of-Ordination-of-Conferred-with-One-Hand
ReplyDeleteI apologize if someone has already mentioned this, because I simply do not have the time to read all of these comments. But does Introibo's witness really matter if Dolan and Cekada felt it necessary to defend the "one hand" ordination? I feel it a safe assumption that this is absolute proof of it taking place.
ReplyDeleteThe witness doesn't matter at all because Dolan doesn't need one. He has the presumption of validity. The defense of one handed ordinations is a mere argument in the alternative. Both Dolan and Cekada, who was there, disclaim a one handed ordination took place.
DeleteYet wrote a defence about why it would be OK if a one handed ordination had taken place? That makes perfect sense.
ReplyDeleteYes it does. Intelligent people do it all the time. As I lawyer, I always must argue in the alternative, i. e., "even IF what you said was true, it wouldn't matter and here's the reasons why..." Whether the argument is successful or not doesn't matter given the fact they denied a one handed ordination took place, there is no credible evidence that it happened, and they enjoy the presumption of validity.
Delete