CathInfo.com

Great post, Yeti!

He was/is trying to black pill the entire trad movement, certainly not just sedes. I've never made a firm judgement as to his motivation: is he willing to destroy everything in order to exact revenge on +Dolan or is +Dolan just an excuse to cover a more sinister plot or is he just nuts? At the end of the day I think "Jorge" is the most fitting name for him.

Quote from: Lighthouse

Quote

I also see the contention that the problem has long since been resolved. Well, if it has, no one has bothered to tell the people behind Pistrina Liturgica.

Pyrrhos has graciously provided us with a source, unfortunately in Latin. I would bet that  only a small portion of the forum is fluent in Latin.  I, myself, had four hard high school years of it, but time and tide has washed away its features.

This is the only proof that we have that it has been settled. The Pope's declaration in 1947 is taken by the website writers to say that the laying on of BOTH hands IS the matter of the sacrament.  So, I assume Phyrros and SJB would say it has been clarified by such as
Aertnys-Damen in 1958 but it appears that Dolan's buddies at Econe hadn't been told it was settled.  And later on, Cekada says it is settled, but his unnamed interlocutor says he got that Latin wrong. 

Now, here we are in August, 2011 and we have PL guys thinking that it is not settled.  Could someone phone them and let them know it's settled?

Of course, dear Lighthouse, this problem was not "solved" by Aertnys-Damen, but they just have it in their book as any of the other more recent moral theologians have it, too. I could also provide scans of other books, but I guess that won´t be necessary.
Unfortunately I don´t have the actual docuмents from the Holy See in these regards, but all those great names of theology won´t betray us there, I am sure.
Before Sacramentum Ordinis some authors advised conditional (re-)ordination in such a case, but not anymore after its promulgation. 

Actually Cekada quotes the very same author, so I just give you his English translation (since my English is certainly not as good as his):

Quote

Quote

Question 2. Whether the imposition of both hands would be required for validity.

Answer. No. In the Ordination of a Deacon the Roman Pontifical prescribes in clear terms an imposition of only one hand. In the Ordination of a Priest and of a Bishop an imposition of both hands is indeed prescribed — but it is plain that this is in no way necessary to it for validity, as though a fuller transmission of power would be signified. For the fullness of power is also sufficiently shown to be transferred by the imposition of one hand alone, extended over the head. Nor, moreover, is this viewed as differing essentially from the extension of both hands. This is evident from the ancient liturgy in which priests and bishop were often ordained by the imposition of only one hand, and it is still done to this day in many oriental rites.

In regards to your other comments, I could also just speculate. It still seems to me that the main purpose of Pistrina´s blog entry (may Cajetan be its author or not) is to ridicule Cekada and bring the polemic to its final conclusion by logically following their false reasoning based on a false translation.

As the "one-hand-ordination" case is so well known, I can hardly believe that anybody with some remote knowledge of theology could actually doubt this ordination. 

Anthony Cekada’s pathetic “defense” of one-handed ordinations is demonstrably flawed