MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1978814029 · doi:10.1353/jur.2012.0061

Particular Churches and the Authority Established In Them: Commentary on Canons 368-430 by John A. Renken (review)

2012· article· en· W1978814029 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Siobhan M. Verbeek

Notice bibliographique

Revue˜The œJurist/˜The œjurist · 2012
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueTheology and Canon Law Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPolitical scienceLaw

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Particular Churches and the Authority Established In Them: Commentary on Canons 368-430 by John A. Renken Siobhan M. Verbeek Particular Churches and the Authority Established In Them: Commentary on Canons 368-430, by John A. Renken. Ottawa: Faculty of Canon Law, Saint Paul University, 2011. Pp. 9-411. This recently published addition to the series of commentaries on the 1983 Code of Canon Law published by the Faculty of Canon Law at Saint Paul University offers a juridical and theological commentary on canons 368- 430, treating particular churches, bishops, the impeded see, and the vacant see respectively. Imitating the style of earlier volumes in the series by Rev. William H. Woestman, O.M.I., the author's commentary consists primarily of summaries of the law, followed by pertinent, but at times lengthy and repetitive, quotations from conciliar and post-conciliar texts. The quotations have the effect of illustrating the doctrinal foundations of the Church's legislation, as well as subsequent clarifications from the Holy See following the promulgation of the Code. Modern readers will especially appreciate the provision of internet addresses for the cited documentation. While the commentary is attentive to cite, where applicable, the parallel references from the 1917 Code of Canon Law, unlike other works by the same author it does not always retrieve the rich canonical tradition associated with distinct juridical concepts. This is the case, for example, with the [End Page 691] foundational principle for the governance of a diocese during a vacant see, "Sede vacante, nihil innovetur" (c. 428, §1). For this reason, the volume should not be viewed as a stand-alone text; rather, it should be read in conjunction with other available scholarly commentaries. Readers would be impoverished were they to overlook the footnotes that accompany the main commentaries, since it is there that one finds important explanations not contained in the main text. The footnotes, moreover, provide a wealth of information for researchers who have a special interest in the legislative history undergirding the 1983 norms, and it is there where the author offers occasional musings for future emendations to the law based upon his extensive experience implementing it on the local level. Characteristic of other volumes in the series, the appendices and bibliography within this commentary provide extensive documentation that will be of interest to both scholars of the law and practitioners in the identified areas. In some instances, documents are being made readily available in English translation for the first time, e.g., the formula of the oath of fidelity that is approved by the Apostolic See for the installation of a bishop. Regrettably, the volume was published just prior to the erection of the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter in the United States, a structure that will likely be scrutinized in a future edition to complement the commentary's extensive treatment of the apostolic constitution Anglicanorum coetibus, and its complementary norms. If the text can be faulted it would be because of the unevenness, in both length and depth, of the various commentaries for the individual canons. One hopes, moreover, that a second edition will remedy the frequent and distracting editorial oversights. A revised edition will also provide an occasion to integrate the reflections found in the 2009 study of the Congregation for Bishops, Il Vescovo Emerito, and the 2011 modifications instituted by Pope Benedict XVI to the format to be observed during the mandated ad limina visits. [End Page 692] Siobhan M. Verbeek United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Secretariat of Doctrine and Canonical Affairs Washington, DC Copyright © 2012 The Catholic University of America Press

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Études des sciences et des technologies, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,672
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,003
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,022
Tête enseignante GPT0,237
Écart entre enseignants0,215 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2012
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revue˜The œJurist/˜The œjuristMême sujetTheology and Canon Law StudiesTravaux en français237 207