Talk:Episcopus vagans

message: Question: can anyone give me a precise canonical reference (or precedents) of RCC's recognition of the ordinations done by episcopi vagantes? thanks
—Ouital77 21:32, 24 September 2005.
:
:This is the general principle but not specific to episcopi vagantes. The diligent inquiry would be about each of the above sacraments for each incremental non-Catholic minister (a male who was not in full communion with either the Latin Church or one of the other 22 sui iuris Eastern Catholic Churches within the Catholic Church, or as some prefer, within the ) in the proposed sequence of ordinations and consecrations. It would also investigate the intentions of those ministers and recipients, and their publicly manifested divergence in doctrine. For an example of divergent doctrine leading to prudent doubt, see talk here (). I have not read even a single – reliable and verifiable – source about any case where a "diligent inquiry" was conducted into an ordination, not by a non-Catholic minister in whose non-Catholic Church these sacraments are valid. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 00:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: RCC recognition of ordinations by ''episcopi vagantes''

message: Should he be added to the list of vagrant bishops?
—Ausseagull (talk) 18:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Richard Williamson

message: I do think it would be beneficial to:
*Have an historical background from the Early Church reference the original "phenomena" of wandering bishops and the relevant Canons that were later agreed.
*Followed  by the development in the Western Church of validity, ref Augustine and the Donatists, etc., with links to relevant Wiki articles.
*Then the development of RC legislation to prevent wandering bishops at the Council of Trent.
*Then the development of the phenomena ref Old Catholics etc and the 19C episcopi vagantes.
*The 20C and the increasing phenomena of episcopi vagantes, the emergence of "Independent Catholicism" as distinct from Old Catholicism and their origins. Including individual OC and RC "EV's" canonical and circumstantial and Gnostics, Lib Cath's, Continuing Anglicans, etc.
*The 21C and an overview of the differences between EV's, whether and to whom the term might still refer, and the appropriateness or not of its application to bishops of differing jurisdictions or none.
—Periti 12:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article structure 

message: I'm sorry, I cannot understand at all this radical change of the talk page we are on.  Some parts seem to have disappeared completely, not being moved to Talk:Historical episcopate.  May an editor play around with what other editors have written? – or have I misunderstood what was done?  A section marked "Do not modify" seems to have disappeared entirely.  If the intention was just to tidy the page, why not archive the older parts?  And is it acceptable to move a very old discussion away from here to the talk page of another article, where it will seem to be a new intervention and cause confusion?  I have not undone the addition to that talk page, but I wonder whether I ought to. —Esoglou (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I could not follow the discussions on this page. Read the history about where content was moved, everything is linked together. What I forgot to do was add the  tag. That is the reason why you couldn't find your discussion about jurisdiction. Nothing was deleted. Open up both versions in two browser windows and compare. You will see that my WP:REFACTOR made the page much more readable and may improve the chance that a discussion will take place. Moving unanswered discussions to a different talkpage actually got a response. It is not  and did not . I will manually revert this back to my version in a few days. Do you believe your discussion about jurisdiction should be on the talk instead of in the archive where it is located currently?—Esoglou, next time just post a comment on User talk:. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but I think I must restore what others wrote to how they wrote it.  You are of course free to reorganize the text for your own private reading, but I don't think it is right to interfere with the work of others. —Esoglou (talk) 19:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: What is contentious about my WP:REFACTOR? —BoBoMisiu (talk) 04:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just that I failed to see how it was a true refactoring.  Perhaps others will judge it to be evidently correct, and if some other editor disagrees with my reverting, and undoes my action, I will raise no objection whatever.  I see that the refactoring norms say: "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted. Nevertheless, if the page is larger than the recommended size, then archiving of the talk page, or sections with no recent contributions, without refactoring can still be done." —Esoglou (talk) 06:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't know how to explain what is contentious, I will redo it step by step (several hours apart) with clear summery in the history. If you see what you feel is contentious, please comment on that here and we can build consensus (see WP:CONSBUILD). I believe the long 2007 discussion between Periti and Lima is a good discussion and should be made more readable, include a summery of the points covered in the conversation, and have good citations for future contributors. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  In that way, even I should be able to understand.  Previously, your move of different parts of the content away from here to more than one other page, together with other changes here, meant I could not see the correspondence between the before and the after even by "Open up both versions in two browser windows and compare".  By the way, I was not thinking of any particular discussion.  I just failed to understand what had happened. —Esoglou (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radical edit of talk page 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Episcopi vagantes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080327064146/http://www.vatican.va:80/archive/ENG1104/__P54.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P54.HTM
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080329021837/http://www.vatican.va:80/archive/ENG1104/__P4X.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P4X.HTM
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/pheidas_limits_1.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/pheidas_limits_2.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/medny/halsall2.asp
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vatican.va/archive/aas/documents/AAS%2003%20
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19760917_illegitimas-ordinationes_en.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100210163332/http://www.vatican.va:80/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070527_china_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070527_china_en.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:08, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Episcopi vagantes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vatican.va/archive/aas/documents/AAS%2003%20%26
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090210023439/http://212.77.1.245/news_services/bulletin/news/18881.php?index=18881&po_date=26.09.2006 to http://212.77.1.245/news_services/bulletin/news/18881.php?index=18881&po_date=26.09.2006
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.marxists.org/archive/higgins/1997/locust/chap14.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified