Notice bibliographique
Résumé
One of the first external assignments given me after coming to Sewanee as a new ABD (All But Dissertation) instructor in 1977 provided the first inkling for me of the importance of the topic of our forum-theologies of and community. Bishop William Sanders of the then still undivided diocese of Tennessee asked me to be his resource person in the negotiations with the Roman Catholic diocese of Nashville, putting together the agreement on mixed marriages between Episcopalians and Roman Catholics. His opposite number, Bishop James Niedergeses, was (and is) a well-known Vatican II liberal, and relations were cordial. Hopes were high for a solid and commodious agreement. As came entirely naturally to him, Bishop Niedergeses tapped as his resource person the chancellor of the diocesan marriage tribunal. This was an older priest with a doctorate in canon law. I had never met such a creature before, but was too naive to know it. Being very polite, they asked us Episcopalians to initiate the conversation, and Bishop Sanders turned to me. I was still in the midst of finishing a doctorate at a distinguished Roman Catholic school, St. Michael's College of the University of Toronto, completing a dissertation on the ends of marriage and the spirituality of parenting. So I launched confidently into a summary of the doctrinal agreements achieved in ARCIC, and the new sacramental theology of Vatican II as embodied in the work of Rahner, Schillebeeckx, and Kasper. I suggested we now had two fundamental building blocks for an agreement-a theology of marriage as a sacrament on which we could both agree, and a shared theology of the primacy of a common baptism. On that basis, I suggested the outlines of an agreement that would treat the faith communities of the matrimonial couple in a mixed marriage as nearly in inter-communion, based on Vatican II's recognition of Anglicanism as having maintained more Catholic theology and structures than any other reformed church.1 When I paused for breath, my opposite number very politely said, Father Hughes, everything you have said is correct from a theological point of view. Nevertheless, according to the General Law of the Church of Rome, we can't do that. End of discussion for the time being. At a later meeting, with a new, younger chancellor, oriented more theologically and towards the Vatican II reforms, we got a happy agreement. But several things stayed in the back of my consciousness-the weight of this thing called the General Law of the Church of Rome, and the existence in their system of these persons with doctorates in canon law. I did not know of any Anglicans with earned doctorates in canon law,2 and I suspected that if you had one, it would count against you. These thoughts stayed on a back burner of my brain until a few years later I was invited to be a resource for the Nashville session of a series of meetings on lay spirituality held around the country by the National Council of Catholic Bishops. That very weekend the new code of canon law, revised along Vatican II lines, was published.3 There was great excitement, because this new code was expected to ease the way for many further reforms, or the implementation of reforms already suggested by the Council. Most exciting to those gathered were the new canons on the laity, which embodied the new place given the members of the whole people of God in Vatican II ecclesiology. Even I could see it was a major step forward. I was more surprised, however, when it came time for Vespers, and the decision was made, meeting no resistance, to read from the new canons on the laity as a lesson. What struck me was the vast cultural divide revealed. It is not that an Episcopalian would think of reading from the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church as a lesson at Evensong and then reject the idea, but that it would never occur to us. I began to see this deep and largely unspoken difference about what we meant by law and how we believed it formed and shaped the community of faith as a hidden pitfall in all our relationships with the Roman Church. …
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».