tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8940364093450837549.post4274488339736047748..comments2024-03-29T09:39:50.604+00:00Comments on Fr Hunwicke's Mutual Enrichment: HierarchyFr John Hunwickehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17766211573399409633noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8940364093450837549.post-60870582192609776752009-09-17T22:55:30.438+01:002009-09-17T22:55:30.438+01:00Hughes was conditionally ordained to the priesthoo...Hughes was conditionally ordained to the priesthood in 1968 (when he was a postgraduate student in Germany) by the Bishop (or Archbishop) of Muenster. He alludes the circumstances of his conditional ordination in the preface to one of his books on Anglican Orders, whether *Absolutely Null and Utterly Void* (1968) or *Stewards of the Lord* (1970) I can't recall, but I do recall it was "William Tighehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16634494183165592707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8940364093450837549.post-73450548921768551292009-09-17T21:34:07.924+01:002009-09-17T21:34:07.924+01:00To add another fly to the ointment, John Jay Hughe...To add another fly to the ointment, John Jay Hughes was conditionally ordained to the Catholic priesthood in the 1960s. The Episcopal bishop who ordained him seems to have been Bishop Washburn of Newark. There is no evidence that I am aware of that the PNCC had anything to do with any of Washburn's consecrators (at least the 3 principal ones). I would be most curious to know the basis for Disgusted in DChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15099497236740569956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8940364093450837549.post-35234434889156930302009-09-15T11:57:00.229+01:002009-09-15T11:57:00.229+01:00Mr Tighe,
You also omit to mention that there ca...Mr Tighe, <br /><br />You also omit to mention that there can be some doubt as to weather the "Dutch Touch" would be valid when given in the context of an *Anglican* Liturgy. If the Anglicans do not have valid orders then their liturgies are not liturgies in the technical sense. Thus the performance of their rites does not constitute the correct context for an ordination or consecrationUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12813595031543071453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8940364093450837549.post-21239385088013971882009-09-14T19:32:14.166+01:002009-09-14T19:32:14.166+01:00(I presumed that Christian's "1558" ...(I presumed that Christian's "1558" was a humorous/pedantic reference to the convention whereby the Act of Uniformity is dated 1558, when that session of Parliament began, even tho' the Act was passed in 1559 ....)<br /><br />I agree that the Dutch Touch is not an open and shut case. (Is an Anglican matter ever so? Indeed is anything this side of Eternity - <i>Videmus nunc perSir Watkinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02000106556898498656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8940364093450837549.post-46429492195579012972009-09-14T16:41:12.009+01:002009-09-14T16:41:12.009+01:00And, Sir Watkin, I have not forgotten your query a...And, Sir Watkin, I have not forgotten your query about Ruthin, posed elsewhere, but I am trying to contact my travelling companion, now a fellow of Sidney Sussex College, to see if he can refresh my memory about the "Marian monument" that we saw there, placed in the inner side of the Churchyard wall, somewhat to the left (as one exits) of the entrance to the Churchyard.William Tighehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16634494183165592707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8940364093450837549.post-42514304773058700462009-09-14T16:36:42.079+01:002009-09-14T16:36:42.079+01:001559, please, not 1558.
It would be pleasant, and...1559, please, not 1558.<br /><br />It would be pleasant, and perhaps profitable, to have a discussion about the pros and cons of the Dutch Touch. I'm sure that Fr. Hunwicke recalls the private letter he wrote to me in October 2003, just after the death of Bishop John Richards, setting out the "sed contra" position (i.e., does the intent "to join the two streams" of William Tighehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16634494183165592707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8940364093450837549.post-3386135729227810042009-09-14T14:01:58.362+01:002009-09-14T14:01:58.362+01:00Leaving aside Fr Hunwicke's deliberate tweakin...Leaving aside Fr Hunwicke's deliberate tweaking of Christian's tail (and that of others) ....<br /><br />"it is not the 1662 that is at issue; it is the 1558"<br /><br />Actually, it is 1662 that is the issue, because the "Dutch Touch" introduced a new element.<br /><br />Assuming (for the sake of the hypothesis) that 1558 was an invalid form but 1662 was not, the Sir Watkinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02000106556898498656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8940364093450837549.post-50759901654894820192009-09-14T12:10:47.857+01:002009-09-14T12:10:47.857+01:00I am sure you know very well that the deficiencies...I am sure you know very well that the deficiencies of the New Rite Ordination and the Prayer Book are quite incomparable. Let us not forget that it is not the 1662 that is at issue; it is the 1558. There is nothing in the New Rite which could possibly make it invalid. The 1558 Prayer Book however...Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12813595031543071453noreply@blogger.com