Talk:Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Utrecht

No history?

There seems to be no history linked to this list, that would make some of the hints like "Pro-Apostolic Vicar" comprehensible. --Wetman (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I added a skeletal history section with hatnotes to other articles, the corresponding article in the Dutch Wikipedia should be translated and incorporated into this article.

Lists of bishops

Relevant discussion at

→ Talk:Archdiocese of Utrecht (695–1580)#Lists of bishops → Talk:Bishopric of Utrecht#Lists of bishops → Talk:Dutch Mission#Lists of bishops → Talk:Old Catholic Church of the Netherlands#Lists of bishops → Talk:Old Catholic Archdiocese of Utrecht#Lists of bishops

I think that this article, as well as the related articles found in the relevant discussion box above, can be improved by:

• moving all the lists of bishops during the period before the suppression of the original archdiocese into either Archdiocese of Utrecht (695–1580) article or List of bishops and archbishops of Utrecht (695–1580) or List of bishops and archbishops of Utrecht, as is done in the corresponding article in the Dutch Wikipedia
• moving all the lists of bishops and administrators during the period of the missions into either Dutch Mission or List of apostolic vicars and officials of the Dutch Mission, as is done in the corresponding article in the Dutch Wikipedia
• moving all the lists of Old Catholic archbishops into either Old Catholic Archdiocese of Utrecht or a separate List of Old Catholic archbishops of Utrecht, as is done in the corresponding article in the Dutch Wikipedia
• The Bishopric of Utrecht existed from 1024 to 1528. The only those bishops who were in the ecclesial office between 1024 and 1528 were also in the contemporaneous secular office of prince ruling over secular feudal estates. This should either be noted in a list of bishops or be contained in a separate List of prince-bishops and prince-archbishops of Utrecht.

–BoBoMisiu (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

For the Catholic Church, the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Utrecht was founded in the 7th century, became a metropolitan see in 1559, and was restored in 1853, keeping the same identity (p. 769 of the 2013 Annuario Pontificio). The article on Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Utrecht should therefore give all the names. Whether the article on different periods of its existence also give the names of the ordinaries of those periods is a matter of taste. They should not be treated as if they were distinct entities. The Dutch Mission is not identified with the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Utrecht, any more than it is identified with any other single diocese of the country. Esoglou (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@Esoglou: you are wrong and contradict what Pope Pius IX stated in Ex qua die arcano, see my comment at Talk:Catholic Church and ecumenism#Diocese of Utrecht in 1703. We went through this about an ancient diocese where I could not find sources for that time period, this is not the same case and all I cited then is pertinent here. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

You mean the Annuario Pontificio is wrong. For my part, I have no opinion to be right or wrong about. I came here because of the general appeal that you made on the talk page of another article. Esoglou (talk) 08:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

@Esoglou: I apologize and do appreciate your input. I don't have a copy of a 21st century Annuario Pontificio to comment, does Annuario Pontificio include a historical sketch about the diocese that says it is a continuation of the suppressed diocese? Or just lists the ordinary? It would not make sense for Annuario Pontificio to contradict Ex qua die arcano. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I have easy access to several editions from that of 1964 to that of 2013. The text in both the 1964 and the 2013 editions begins:

Utrecht (sec. 7; Metr. 12 magg. 1559; rist. 4 mar. 1853). Ultraiecten(sis – Ord. d'app.: Haarlem – (Indirizzo: Aartsbisdom, ...

Only after that are there differences: the 2013 edition shows that the archdiocese offices have taken over two neighbouring houses it now has numbers 38–40 on Maliebaan, while in 1964 it only had number 40; and the 2013 edition gives postal code, post box, telephone and fax numbers and e-mail ... Sorry, now I see that "Ord. d'app." has become "Trib. d'app." (appeal tribunal, instead of appeal ordinary).

After that comes information on area, population, number of Catholics, of parishes, etc. and then information on the ordinary and on auxiliary bishops and vicars general.

So it is not a historical treatise. The only part that interests you is the first line. The rest I gave only so that you will see exactly what very limited information is given in the publication. I am sure you don't need help to understand that "sec." stands for "secolo" (century); "Metr." for "Sede metropolitana" (metropolitan see); "rist." for "ristorata" (restored); "magg." for "maggio" (May); "mar." for "marzo" (March), and that "Indirizzo" means "Address".

I am not saying that the Annuario Pontificio is necessarily correct. I can only report what it says. You will probably find interesting the information on what the Annuario Pontificio used to say of the see of Carthage and what it now says. It is given in the article Carthage (episcopal see), under the heading "Later developments".

By the way, I was not in the least offended. What I wrote, I wrote with a smile. As I have written this. Esoglou (talk) 16:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The first sentence Utrecht (sec. 7; Metr. 12 magg. 1559; rist. 4 mar. 1853). is literally true, but shows an omission of centuries about its nature between Metr. 12 magg. 1559 and rist. 4 mar. 1853. It states the diocese was raised to an archdiocese; it states that the archdiocese was restored. Just reading that shows an important fact about its nature is missing: something existed, yet, after centuries, that something needed to be restored. In other words, if it continued to exist it would not need to be restored. Annuario Pontificio's sentence is the truth but not the whole truth. So, in my opinion, Annuario Pontificio is not wrong but is misleading by an omission that implies a continuum. Annuario Pontificio may only contain positive events and omit negative events. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)