tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8940364093450837549.post62600926087520071..comments2024-03-29T09:39:50.604+00:00Comments on Fr Hunwicke's Mutual Enrichment: Reordination (4); Consummatio; AnglicansFr John Hunwickehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17766211573399409633noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8940364093450837549.post-11723456736019074022014-02-06T09:03:07.647+00:002014-02-06T09:03:07.647+00:00Read: doesn't say!Read: doesn't say!Fr John Hunwickehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17766211573399409633noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8940364093450837549.post-36842748365968309122014-02-06T09:02:24.765+00:002014-02-06T09:02:24.765+00:00But Alan: the whole point of Ad tuendam Fidem was ...But Alan: the whole point of Ad tuendam Fidem was itself to distinguish between the different levels of magisterial statement and the different degrees of assent required by each. Basically, it indicated three levels. However ... I suppose there's a paradox here! ... it does say what level dicasterial commentaries belong to!Fr John Hunwickehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17766211573399409633noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8940364093450837549.post-80242344318218991292014-02-06T04:12:27.127+00:002014-02-06T04:12:27.127+00:00You're right, I apologize. It was rude...
But...You're right, I apologize. It was rude...<br /><br />But it's tautology to ask what the magisterial status of a document that comes from the heart of the magisterium...CDF, I mean it was written by Ratzinger and released with Professio Fidei...I don't know what else you want in way of primary sources. It's also a *doctrinal* commentary not a dicasterial commentary, which to be Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01894810641942393424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8940364093450837549.post-10228238194156380022014-02-04T09:41:34.980+00:002014-02-04T09:41:34.980+00:00Hmmm. I wonder how much angry denunciations really...Hmmm. I wonder how much angry denunciations really help. I notice that you don't condescend to answer the question which, in good faith, I asked in my piece about Canonisation: what is the Magisterial status of a dicasterial Commentary, such as the one that linked together Canonisation and Apostolicae curae? Perhaps you would like to do so now, giving - please - precise references to Fr John Hunwickehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17766211573399409633noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8940364093450837549.post-26662360718217846222014-02-04T04:54:28.350+00:002014-02-04T04:54:28.350+00:00With regard to those truths connected to revelatio...With regard to those truths connected to revelation by historical necessity and which are to be held definitively, but are not able to be declared as divinely revealed, the following examples can be given: the legitimacy of the election of the Supreme Pontiff or of the celebration of an ecumenical council, the canonizations of saints (dogmatic facts), the declaration of Pope Leo XIII in the Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01894810641942393424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8940364093450837549.post-24798546093325137042014-01-27T15:33:23.107+00:002014-01-27T15:33:23.107+00:00Dear Fr Hunmwicke. Firstly, I mmust say that I do ...Dear Fr Hunmwicke. Firstly, I mmust say that I do indeed like your blog very much. Congratulations on the time you spesnt on it. I hope we can learn together !<br /><br />You said "It was Bishop Graham's conviction that they deliberately declined to consider the validity of his Episcopal Consecration because of an unwillingness to find themselves possibly saddled with a married but D. Haroldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11279366922175276159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8940364093450837549.post-66535801903053669672014-01-26T19:01:17.189+00:002014-01-26T19:01:17.189+00:00Father,
Your last four letters have been slightly...Father,<br /><br />Your last four letters have been slightly above me. I’m only a simple retired scientist after all.<br /><br />But they reminded me of a chat I had with a young Jesuit priest some ten years ago when I was upbraiding the Church for its hard attitude to the Anglican orders. Surely I argued, there was unbroken continuity (laying of hands) from valid pre-Reformation Catholic Jacobihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04743062941733814176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8940364093450837549.post-79885404666648717142014-01-26T17:48:03.885+00:002014-01-26T17:48:03.885+00:00Certainly the judgement that Graham Leonard's ...Certainly the judgement that Graham Leonard's priestly orders were, very possibly, valid implies that Anglican Bishops are (equally possibly) capable of imparting valid episcopal Orders. I shall continue to refer to (and pray for) Bishop Keith, Bishop Andrew, Bishop John et. al.Don Camillo SSChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15181985690276317480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8940364093450837549.post-57632694588336565292014-01-26T11:09:13.220+00:002014-01-26T11:09:13.220+00:00In my last contribution a few minutes ago but forg...In my last contribution a few minutes ago but forgive me for I forgot to say that Bishop Graham did in accordance with Canon Law receive the Sacrament of Confirmation, disreetly.<br /><br />Can. 1033 A person is promoted licitly to orders only if he has received the sacrament of confirmation.<br /><br /> D. Haroldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11279366922175276159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8940364093450837549.post-26285072766828628632014-01-26T11:00:33.333+00:002014-01-26T11:00:33.333+00:00For me there is no mystery about the re-ordaintion...For me there is no mystery about the re-ordaintion of Bishop Graham sub conditione to the presbyterate. True , he did not receive the diaconal ordination. Why ! I believe that he was exempt from this because the greater Order contains the lesser, so in receiving the sub conditione ordaintion to the priesthood he also received the diaconal at the same time ! This, I belive was done out of respectD. Haroldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11279366922175276159noreply@blogger.com