martes, 27 de agosto de 2013

El contexto lo es todo

El siguiente artículo fue publicado originalmente en el blog Pristina Liturgica, un blog católico muy inteligente y cuya lectura recomiendo. El artículo que aquí se presenta es una respuesta al que escribió el Padre Anthony Cekada (y que reproducimos en la entrada anterior), sobre la validez de las ordenaciones conferidas utilizando una sola mano.
Pronto (ni bien termine con el Estado de la Cuestión de mi tesis) pondré en Sursum la traducción de ambos artículos, aunque, si alguien quiere hacer el favor, estaré muy agradecido.

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

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

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

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

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

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

a) The imposition of hands was sufficient.
b) The delivery of the instruments was sufficient.
c) Both ceremonial actions were necessary.

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

a) The first imposition was sufficient.
b) The first imposition followed by the extension of the right hand.
c) Opinion “b” plus the last imposition.

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

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

Let us examine, in context, what Pius actually wrote in paragraph 4 of his constitution (the emphases are my own):
Quae cum ita sint, divino lumine invocato, suprema Nostra Apostolica Auctoritate et certa scientia declaramus et, quatenus opus sit, decernimus et disponimus : Sacrorum Ordinum Diaconatus, Presbyteratus et Episcopatus materiam eamque unam esse manuum impositionem; formam vero itemque unam esse verba applicationem huius materiae determinantia, quibus univoce significantur effectus sacramentales, — scilicet potestas Ordinis et gratia Spiritus Sancti — , quaeque ab Ecclesia qua talia accipiuntur et usurpantur. Hinc consequitur ut declaremus, sicut revera ad omnem controversiam auferendam et ad conscientiarum anxietatibus viam praecludendam Apostolica Nostra Auctoritate declaramus, et, si unquam aliter legitime dispositum fuerit, statuimus instrumentorum traditionem saltem in posterum non esse necessariam ad Sacrorum Diaconatus, Presbyteratus et Episcopatus Ordinum validitatem. *
That is to say, by the context, you clearly see that he is differentiating the imposition of hands from the delivery of the instruments, which is evident from paragraph 5 of Sacramentum Ordinis (the emphases are mine): 
De materia autem et forma in uniuscuiusque Ordinis collatione, eadem suprema Nostra Apostolica Auctoritate, quae sequuntur decernimus et constituimus: In Ordinatione Diaconali materia est Episcopi manus impositio quae in ritu istius Ordinationis una occurrit… In Ordinatione Presbyterali materia est Episcopi prima manuum impositio quae silentio fit, non autem eiusdem impositionis per manus dexterae extensionem continuatio, nec ultima… Denique in Ordinatione seu Consecratione Episcopali materia est manuum impositio quae ab Episcopo consecratore fit.**
In a word, the pope first speaks of the three orders in general: he says that the matter is onefold and common to the three, namely, the imposition of hands; that is to say, it is not twofold since the delivery of the instruments is not necessary for validity, and then he determines in particular what the matter of each one of the orders is, most especially that of the priesthood, which was the one that presented doubts.

Cekada, in contrast, understands the above-cited paragraph 4 as referring in particular to each one of the orders (diaconate, presbyterate, episcopate) when he writes: 
In his Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis, Pius XII, having explicitly invoked his supreme Apostolic Authority, declared and decreed:
The matter of the Sacred Orders of Diaconate, Priesthood and Episcopacy is one and the same, and that indeed is the imposition of hands.
Then, with his awful, tendentious translation, he tries to prove that just as the ordination of deacons is valid with one hand, the same thing occurs with priestly and episcopal ordination.

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

In his commentary on the constitution, the Jesuit Hürth makes this very clear (my emphases in bold):
12. Parte preparatoria sic absoluta, Constitutio Apostolica (Const. n. 4) transit ad partem dispositivam, in qua primo collective pro omnibus tribus ordinibus, Diaconatus, Presbyteratus, Episcopatus statuitur, quid ad valorem requiratur, quid non requiratur; deinde ididem (read ibidem) fit relate ad singulos hos ordines, singillatim sumptos***
Or in other words, paragraph 4 specifies in general what is required for validity (imposition of hands) and what is not required (delivery of instruments), and then the next paragraph specifies in particular what matter and what form are required in each one of the orders.

Hürth clarifies his thinking even further (my own emphases in bold):
13. Id quod “declaratur", (respective insuper “disponitur”), ex parte est positivum, ex parte negativum. Pars positiva respicit necessitatem et suficientiam solius manuum  impositionis, tamquam materiae, ad validam Ordinationem diaconalem, presbyteralem, episcopalem, necnon necessitatem et sufficientiam verborum, tamquam formae, etc.****
14: Parti positivae statim adnectitur pars negativa, scl. declaratio et dispositio, quidnam non requiratur (Const. n. 4). Haec pars negativa est simplex et necessaria conclusio ex antecedenti parte positiva; ideo incipit verbis: “hinc consequitur”. Et revera, si unica (1) materia, quae ad valorem requiratur, est impositio manuum, nulla alia materia ad valorem necessaria esse potest. Pars negativa in primis respicit “traditionem instrumentorum”, quam, ut supra notatum est, multi theologi primae notae ante et post Concilium Florentinum dixerunt materiam sacramenti, ad valorem saltem etiam necessariam.*****
He then goes on to speak of the orders in particular and comments:
16. Parti generali de tribus Diaconatus, Presbyteratus, et Episcopatus Ordinibus adiungitur pars specialis de singulis Ordinibus, singillatim sumptis (Const. n. 5), et quaeritur, quinam ex ritibus occurrentibus ad essentiam et valorem singulorum ordinum sint necessarii.******
In conclusion, as you can see, not only does Cekada not know Latin, and not only does he distort the words of the pope, but he has no understanding at all about what Sacramentum Ordinis is talking about.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No hay comentarios:

Publicar un comentario en la entrada

Muchas gracias por dejar tu mensaje. Si el mismo contiene insultos o groserías, será eliminado.
Benedicamus Domino!