Apostolicae Curae is wrong. The Anglican reply (Saepius Officio, linked in replies) explains why. By Leo XIII’s logic, most Roman Catholic orders are invalid as well.
The King and Queen have met Pope Leo XIV in the Apostolic Palace, to begin their State Visit to the Holy See.
Their Majesties will undertake engagements with Pope Leo XIV in celebration of the 2025 Papal Jubilee. This will include a special ecumenical service in the Sistine Chapel.
Later this afternoon, The King and Queen will visit the Papal Basilica and Abbey of ‘St. Paul’s Outside the Walls’.
��� Vatican Media
@AlexanderPHRose@thelegal500 "Driven by a uniquely broad spectrum of research data points" and yet nothing on the breadth of the North. Something is not right. #Legal500
It's funny isn't it. There are Islamists literally throwing non-Muslims off roofs in Southern Syria, and the wokerati are silent. No marches, no cries of "genocide", nothing. It's almost as though their criticism of Israel has less to do with standing up for the oppressed and more to do with, well, racism.
.@WestlawUK We look forward to your case digest for Imperium Trustees Ltd v Jersey Competent Authority [2025] UKPC 28 of 24 Jun 2025, but in the meantime it should be described as being “Privy Council (Jersey)”
NOT “Privy Council (Jamaica)” as at present.
Il est plus que temps de respecter les lieux symboliques en cessant par démagogie de les livrer aux casseurs en absurdes « fan zone» ou en « parades» inconsistantes ameutant les casseurs. Le sport se fête dans les stades. Mais le respect des fonctions et des lieux a t’il encore un sens @BFMTV
@Seanjpmcandrew@holysmoke “made clear” is a tad generous since any form of critical scholarship demonstrates that under the criteria applied by Pope Leo XIII even his own orders were not valid.
@knoweuro@dshensmith No. You don’t appeal a Supreme Court judgment to the European Court. You are entitled to bring a claim to Strasbourg against the State for alleged infringement of a right guaranteed under the European Convention but that requires something to actually be a breach of such a right!
Judgment has been given this morning in the matter of For Women Scotland Ltd (Appellant) v The Scottish Ministers (Respondent) UKSC 2024/0042: https://t.co/QGmrliNOsG
Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller: "We do not know when and how, but we all have to die. There is no eternal earthly life. The Pope has a special task but he is a man like all men. Secularized culture does not speak of death, it is afraid of it, it does not think about it. However, we have the hope that death is not the last word, we have the faith that Christ is the Son of God who died on the cross for all of us, and we believe in eternal life. We must explain this calmly to people."
@TonyAngelUK@zenith_1976 @Protect_ServeUK The law is objective and whether something is lawful does not depend on what a landowner subjectively thinks of the act in question; so whether you approve of or object to an aircraft flying in airspace above some land has no bearing on whether it is lawful. It is up to CAA/DGAC.
@TonyAngelUK@zenith_1976 @Protect_ServeUK There is usually need for line of sight to be maintained rather than a minimum distance, since geographic and atmospheric conditions can impact, but you’re on record contending it is morally wrong to lawfully fly in the airspace above private land without landowner’s permission