tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8940364093450837549.post1472597985305673773..comments2024-03-29T01:24:45.251+00:00Comments on Fr Hunwicke's Mutual Enrichment: Dixit et Loquitur: the Elizabethan episcopate (1)Fr John Hunwickehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17766211573399409633noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8940364093450837549.post-6406622737892524132017-01-26T04:40:31.534+00:002017-01-26T04:40:31.534+00:00Dr Tithe,
Whether or not the ordinal used at Park...Dr Tithe,<br /><br />Whether or not the ordinal used at Parker's consecration was "legal" was a question of its status with respect to canonical and parliamentary legislation, that is, positive human law. Thus it related to the category of licitness, not sacramental validity. This is an uncontroversial theological distinction, also used by the RCC in assessing the orders of SSPX Fr M. Kirbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06118708352430779782noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8940364093450837549.post-73130276636814671702017-01-23T23:42:35.775+00:002017-01-23T23:42:35.775+00:00Bishops as the successors to the apostles enjoy th...Bishops as the successors to the apostles enjoy the fullness of the priesthood. We know presbyters and deacons ...as well as those in minor orders are helpers of the bishop...who obviously cannot be everywhere. I have looked at the pontifical and see the Edwardian ordinal is missing huge sections.. The bishops promises or interrogation are different. It seems the prayers express a different John Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04705606458418222924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8940364093450837549.post-62221533769615522432017-01-23T17:41:58.053+00:002017-01-23T17:41:58.053+00:00I have always wondered why the bishops have claime...I have always wondered why the bishops have claimed in the past that the everyday suffering priesthood, the parish priest, gets their vocation through his priesthood. Another double entendre of which the Church today is riddled. Does the bishop visit the Parishes and sees a promising "victim" for his sacrifice and says you are my sacrifice come with me. The nearest that action is Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8940364093450837549.post-65638289104369740432017-01-23T11:50:24.373+00:002017-01-23T11:50:24.373+00:00"Parker's consecration was, however, only..."Parker's consecration was, however, only made legally valid by the plentitude of the royal supremacy; for the Edwardine Ordinal, which was used, had been repealed by Mary and not re-enacted by the parliament of 1559. Parker owes his fame to circumstances rather than to personal qualifications." http://www.nndb.com/people/579/000096291/<br />He was also married. If his marriage, John Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04705606458418222924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8940364093450837549.post-79749740112842526542009-01-14T14:44:00.000+00:002009-01-14T14:44:00.000+00:00Professor Tighe: 1948 (I did put the date in my pr...Professor Tighe: 1948 (I did put the date in my prefatory note).<BR/><BR/>Isn't Dix's point in 1948 that while the English bishops wanted Edwardine Orders condemned, Rome was unwilling to do this unequivocally because of the complications that might be caused at Trent by a recent magisterial document deining the porrection of the instruments as the Matter? <BR/><BR/>Not that I think the idea is Fr John Hunwickehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17766211573399409633noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8940364093450837549.post-29452039255351178902009-01-13T19:56:00.000+00:002009-01-13T19:56:00.000+00:00"What rather staggers me is that Elizabeth bothere..."What rather staggers me is that Elizabeth bothered to get Parker consecrated at all! She might very well have simply nominated him - as Lutheran princes were doing."<BR/><BR/>Well, I'm not so sure about this, and I fear Dix's knowledge here may have been rather limited. In Denmark, when Lutheranism was introduced by royal fiat in 1537 and the Catholici bishops (most of them unconsecrated electiWilliam Tighehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16634494183165592707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8940364093450837549.post-60504746289561770772009-01-13T19:04:00.000+00:002009-01-13T19:04:00.000+00:00I share your wonder that Elizabeth did not simply ...I share your wonder that Elizabeth did not simply nominate Parker, but doubt your explanation as to why she decided to have bishops and to go through a form of service to ordain them. Was her preferred form of church government perhaps adopted for political reasons as being more amenable to royal control and more likely to produce order out of an increasing chaos?Independenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08199774656279385253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8940364093450837549.post-89732055713597523112009-01-13T14:44:00.000+00:002009-01-13T14:44:00.000+00:00Recalling the letter you wrote to me in October 20...Recalling the letter you wrote to me in October 2003, including its citation of Bonner's homilies, plus my own reading, the last paragraph of this letter of Dix's doesn't seem wholly accurate.<BR/><BR/>In what year was it written? I ask because in *The Question of Anglican Orders* (1944) Dix seems to be suggesting, or implying (pp. 68-72) that the "Romanist" rejection of the validity of AnglicanWilliam Tighehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16634494183165592707noreply@blogger.com