Talk:List of bishops of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Christianity / Anglicanism (Rated List-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (marked as High-importance).
 
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Questions[edit]

Was the Bishop of Ross, from Ireland or Scotland. I found Ross's in both places. Eluchil404 06:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Ross in Scotland.CJJDay 21:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Something wrong?[edit]

What is the Primus of Brazil doing on here as "H" but not taking part in any listed consecrations? And why is Henry Scriven listed as being consecrated by George Carey and as a number which is chronologically out of order for 1995?--Bhuck 13:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not certain where the Primus of Brazil came from, but with regards to Henry Scriven, he was ordained by Carey to be a bishop in Europe but then was received into the Episcopal Church as bishop, thus the odd date sequence. He is currently an assisting bishop in the Epicopal Diocese of Pittsburgh. I have contacted him with attempts to get clarification regarding his ordination, so as to make that more clear and to add a page on him specifically. CJJDay 21:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Completing the Table[edit]

I've just checked in revisions to 1-100. Comments are welcome. If somebody else plans to take a section of the table, make a note here. Bpmullins 19:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

101-200 was updated today. I'm starting on the next section. Again, please leave a note here if you want to start work on a section. Bpmullins 19:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

201-300 - I finished adding the names of the bishops and the consecrator numbers. The consecrator numbers aren't wikilinked - this is an editing job that can be done without the Red Book in hand. Contributions welcome! -- Bpmullins 20:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I have been working on the table in alphabetical order rather than numerical order. I have completed the bishops through Bishop Hines, using the web pages on the San Joaquin Apostolic Succession project. Rhoadsh 16:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Very good. Your work hasn't been unnoticed! Be aware that the San Joaquin pages are occasionally problematic (but then so is the Red Book!). In particular, I know that they're wrong about the enumeration of the Bishops of Hawaii. They have Edmond Browning as VIII Hawaii by starting their count with the CoE bishops, before the Hawaiian church was transfered to PECUSA. In fact you have to begin counting only when the American diocese is established. Hawaii is currently searching for their fifth bishop. -- Bpmullins 17:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I just added some wikilinks for #919 (+Paul Bethlehem) but I don't have a current Red Book to complete the succession numbers for his consecrators. Anybody? -- Bpmullins | Talk 20:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is the 1000-1099 table appearing at the bottom of the article, below references, etc.?? InkQuill 19:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
There were a couple of vagrant characters on the last line of that table section. s/b okay now. -- BPMullins | Talk 03:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I figured it out. I hope we haven't been editing over each other again! InkQuill 06:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Consecrators Needed![edit]

Here is a list of bishops whose consecrators are needed. I don't have them because I have an old Red Book:

  1. 985: Joe Goodwin Burnett, 2003 InkQuill 02:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. 986: Johnncy Itty, 2003 InkQuill 17:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. 990: George Edward Councell, 2003 InkQuill 04:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. 992: Samuel Johnson Howard, 2003 InkQuill 02:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. 993: V. Gene Robinson, 2003 InkQuill 02:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. 994: Dean Elliott Wolfe, 2003 InkQuill 00:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. 995: Gary R. Lillibridge, 2004 InkQuill 02:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. 996: Kirk Stevan Smith, 2004 InkQuill 03:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  9. 997: Mark Hollingsworth, Jr., 2004 InkQuill 03:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  10. 998: Michael G. Smith, 2004 InkQuill 04:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  11. 1001: Edna B. "Nedi" Rivera, 2005 InkQuill 03:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  12. 1005: David M. Reed, 2006 InkQuill 02:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  13. 1008: Barry L. Beisner, 2006 InkQuill 18:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: Red book is online IRing2s (talk) 01:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Changed names of dioceses[edit]

Hi - I notice that you changed my entry for Starkey from Northern New Jersey to Newark. My choice there was deliberate: when he was consecrated the diocese was indeed called Northern NJ. I've been attempting to track the various changes in the names of the dioceses in the table. In my sources, he was identified as NNJ. There are many other changes as well; Northern California and Northern Michigan were known by those names when they were missionary districts but General Convention imposed the see city's name (Sacramento and Marquette) when they became dioceses. Both later reverted to their original names. -- BPMullins | Talk 18:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I think using the previous names of dioceses can be problematic, though I can see the reason to do it, too. If one bishop is I Northern New Jersey, and the next is II Newark, does it confuse the reader? Maybe the solution is in what I did with Jackson Kemper, when I was apparently thinking more like you. I made him I Wisconsin (Milwaukee) to show what the diocese is called now. This is all assuming that the boundaries haven't changed at all and it's just a name change. How do you like that convention? InkQuill 21:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I had hoped that the differing names behind the link would make it clear what was going on. If the table said Newark, but the link was to Northern NJ (and the article for the diocese noted the name change) we'd get the best of both worlds. The only boundary change combined with a name change that I'm aware of is when the diocese of Illinois was divided. Quincy and Springfield became new dioceses while Illinois changed its name to Chicago - but in the history Chicago continues to begin its history with the initial creation of the diocese. The south Florida dioceses are another complication - they split up, but all three (I think!) of the current dioceses continue to claim the history of the original diocese. -- BPMullins | Talk 22:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
When the Diocese of Indiana was split, the northern third of the state became the Diocese of Michigan City. The southern two-thirds of the state continued as the Diocese of Indiana, but with its name changed to the Episcopal Diocese of Indianapolis. John Hazen White, the then bishop of Indiana elected to become bishop of Michigan City. The second bishop, Campbell Gray, though moved the cathedral to South Bend and I think that is when the diocese became the Diocese of Northern Indiana. It may have been earlier. I am intrigued by the thought that it was the General Convention that sought to name dioceses after their see cities rather than their geographical territories. The use of city names causes much confusion when there is a Roman Catholic diocese in the same city, e.g. Chicago, where the RC diocese is now an archdiocese, but there are still many historical records calling it the diocese of Chicago. clariosophic (talk) 10:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be the other way around? The table would say Northern New Jersey but the link would be to Newark, wouldn't it? InkQuill 00:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Numbering diocesan bishops[edit]

I've been trying to complete dioceses in the order formed, adding the number of the diocesan in succession (I Connecticut, etc.). I'm having a problem with Arkansas Bpmullins has said (above) that missionary bishops should not be included in the numbering, but Arkansas considers Larry Benfield as its 13th, which would mean including four missionary bishops. Here's the list (dates omitted) from the diocesan Web site:

Bishops of the Diocese of Arkansas

Leonidas Polk, Missionary Bishop

James Hervey Otey, Provisional Bishop

George Washington Freeman, Missionary Bishop

Henry Champlin Lay, Missionary Bishop

Henry Niles Pierce, Missionary Bishop and first Diocesan

William Montgomery Brown, Coadjutor, Diocesan

James Rideout Winchester, Coadjutor, Diocesan

Edwin Warren Saphore, Suffragan, Diocesan

Edward Thomas Demby, Suffragan for Colored Work

Richard Bland Mitchell, Diocesan

Robert Raymond Brown, Coadjutor, Diocesan

Christoph Keller, Jr., Coadjutor, Diocesan

Herbert Alcorn Donovan, Jr., Coadjutor, Diocesan

Larry E. Maze, Diocesan

Larry R. Benfield, Diocesan

Other sources list Benfield as 13th and Winchester as 6th. I assume this means Otey is not considered in the list, although The Tennesse Encyclopedia of History and Culture calls him a missionary bishop rather than provisional. What to do? InkQuill 20:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It is common for dioceses to list missionary bishops and even bishops of parent dioceses, but in my experience only the diocesan bishops rate numbers (usually Roman numerals). clariosophic (talk) 20:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Note on Morehouse Publishing[edit]

Contributions I have made to this page have come from the "Red Book" Morehouse Publishing's Church Annual for the Episcopal Church. So far there have been a few errors found, so if you can verify information with other sources, please also do that.

Errors found[edit]

Perhaps any errors found could be put here, so as to be sent to Morehouse to update their publication. (Note: I've noticed list of bishops in succession tends to be accurate, while lists on diocesan pages have more errors. InkQuill 03:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC))

  1. #113 Thomas A. Jaggar in succession list, but spelled Jagger on Diocese of Southern Ohio page. InkQuill 04:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. #125 George K. Dunlop in succession list, listed as Dunlap on Arizona diocese page. InkQuill 03:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. #166 William Morris Barker listed as Baker under Western Colorado on Previous Bishops page. InkQuill 03:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. #185 William Neilson McVickar listed as William M. McVickar on Rhode Island diocesan page. InkQuill 03:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. #201 Cameron Mann listed as Cameran under South Florida on Previous Bishops page. InkQuill 03:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. #227 Bishop Frederick Foote Johnson spelled Frederic in list of bishops, "Fredk" in diocesan listing. InkQuill 03:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. #313 Bishop Granville G. Bennett, listed as as bishop of Episcopal Diocese of Duluth from 1922-23 in diocesan listing but most likely served 1922-33. InkQuill 02:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. #328 Harry Roberts Carson listed as 328 in succession list but as 327 in Haiti diocesan page. InkQuill 02:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  9. #515 Bishop Noland of Louisiana is in table in the Red Book as Iverson, but dio sources appear to have him as Iveson. -- BPMullins | Talk 04:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. Bishop Henry B. Delany (North Carolina suffragan, 1918-28) misspelled "Delaney" in diocesan listing.
  11. #509 Martin J. Bram spelled with one M in succession list but as Bramm in Southeast Florida entry. InkQuill 04:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC) as well as under South Florida on Previous Bishops page. InkQuill 03:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  12. 529 Joseph M. Harte in succession list and on Arizona diocese page is named John J.M. Harte on Dallas diocese page. InkQuill 03:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  13. William A. Dimmick consecrated 1975, not 1984, as listed under Diocese of Alabama.
    Actually, Dimmick was consecrated as Bishop of Northern Michigan. His listing as an assistant bishop in Alabama is a tipoff - an assistant in ECUSA is usually an existing bishop who serves in another diocese. -- Bpmullins | Talk 05:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  14. Katharine Jefferts Schori was not consecrated by 968 but by 868.

Codes for other Anglican and Old Catholic consecrators[edit]

I've been adding letters in sequence as I've come across bishops who are listed with Red Book codes AAI, AAJ, etc. I skipped the letter I to avoid confusion with 1. But I'm wondering if it wouldn't be better to make them the same as the Red Book, to make it easier to figure out who is who. Instead of changing AAI to H, it would just be AAI. What do you think, bp? InkQuill 06:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been avoiding making that decision :). Actually, I think going with the Red Book precedent is probably best - that has at least semi-official status. -- BPMullins | Talk 16:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've been thinking about this. If we use AAA, AAB, etc., what becomes of the individual names, now A1, A2, etc. It would probably be unwieldy to use AA1, AA2 under AAA. AAA1, AAA2? Hmmm ... InkQuill 06:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Naming[edit]

Is "Succession of" the proper name for this page. Should it be "List of Succession of"? -- Mbisanz (talk) 17:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I think "Succession of" is fine. This isn't really a list in the sense that most WP articles so named are. I start twitching to the AfD button whenever I see an article titled "List of..." anyway. -- BPMullins | Talk 19:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
What about renaming it Succession of Episcopal Church Bishops (U.S.) if only to shorten a long title and make it more coherent across multiple nations. Mbisanz (talk) 06:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the naming of Anglican bodies around the world isn't coherent. The subjects aren't Episcopal Church Bishops; they're bishops of the body known as The Episcopal Church (unfortunately IMO), or bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States. I might go for "Succession of Bishops of The Episcopal Church (U.S.). Opinions, please? -- BPMullins | Talk 19:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I like "Succession of Bishops of The Episcopal Church (U.S.)" The first one including the term Protestant might be a bit misleading, since I don't think any of the churches usually called "Protestant Churches" actually refer to themselves at that. Mbisanz (talk) 20:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Splitting[edit]

Naming issue semi-resolved, I'd like to split this article into 2 articles. The sequence 1-501 ends with those created to 1950. So it could be made into 2 new articles, which would shorten this very long page. Like "Succession of Bishops of The Episcopal Church (U.S.) 1784-1950" and the other would be "Succession of Bishops of The Episcopal Church (U.S.) 1951-Present". This page would be retained as a disambig Mbisanz (talk) 06:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see the point. It's just a list, not a long narrative text. What is the negative effect of keeping it as one? On the other hand, splitting it will mean that following the links of consecrators, as an example, will require going from one article to another. InkQuill 00:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Splitting it doesn't seem to have any real value. Rhoadsh 00:06, 15 January 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.74.166 (talk)
I also agree. It is much more user-friendly to have one list. JamestownArarat (talk) 03:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that this article should not be split. I think we have a consensus here against the split, so I'm going to remove the tag. Dgf32 (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Consecrating bishops[edit]

I was trying to fill in the blanks at the bottom for consecrating bishops, but the news reports I found kept listing more than three. Is this normal? Should we add them all to the list? For example, for David M. Reed, I found this [1], which lists six bishops consecrating him. Same for Todd Ousley, here [2]. What should I put on the list? Coemgenus 22:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

We list the first three, as they are found in, for example, the Episcopal Church Annual. Tb (talk) 22:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
(I noticed the previous comment after I had posted mine; hence the change): Previously, the number was limited to three, the canonical requirement. Beyond three, the number of consecrators is more related to a new bishop's desire to honor or please his/her colleagues than anything else. In actuality, there are at times numerous bishops with their hands on or near the new bishop. Where does it stop? The problem, of course, is that the only place where the official consecrators are listed is in the General Convention office or somewhere. But I'd prefer to keep the list to the three official consecrators.  ~ InkQuill  02:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I think three is right, for the reasons stated above. -- BPMullins | Talk 13:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
It stopped, IIRC, at 65 for Barbara Harris. I have no idea if that's a record, but it was a whole lot of men around one little woman.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talkcontribs) 16:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
If you have a reference for the 65 co-consecrating bishops, that's an interesting fact that should be mentioned in the article on her. Obviously, this was a special case. Jonathunder (talk) 17:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
We seem to no longer be following the rule for just listing 3 co-consecrators. If we are listing all co-consecrators, and not just the three official ones, what about ELCA bishop Bjornberg co-consecrating Bishop Vono--how do we make links to non-Anglican bishops? Bjornberg is bishop of the Rocky Mountain Synod.--Bhuck (talk) 11:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Not sure how you want to correct all the consecrator links that are going to the wrong article vs a William A. Brown (bishop) yet to be created ~concerned 15:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.248.66 (talk)

Page title[edit]

By definition, all bishops are episcopal; many denominations and provinces style themselves as episcopal. The title of this article, therefore, needs to describe more specifically its contents. I propose List of bishops of the Episcopal Church (United States) (i.e. being precise about the name of the church), but let's get a proper consensus this time, rather than the "bold" previous changes. Kevin McE (talk) 10:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

We were already being precise about the name of the church when people started moving the page. I've given up this fight. (Good luck!) -- BPMullins | Talk 17:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

What are the "a"'s in the numbers?[edit]

Some numbers are 906a (following 905 and preceding 907) or 1004a -- these are bishops of Venezuela or Puerto Rico -- the consecutive numbers run normally, but what is the "a" for?--Bhuck (talk) 11:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)