Talk:Suffragan bishop

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Christianity / Catholicism / Anglicanism (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (marked as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (marked as Low-importance).


The tag {{bishop-stub}} makes it sound like "Suffragan bishop" is the name of a particular bishop; this is not the case. I am not sure if it's that the tag needs editing or that a different one should be used here. --Haruo (talk) 08:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Sophus Bie (talk) 08:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Catholic suffragans[edit]

This section seems woolly and pointless: it's essentially saying "they don't exist", but seemingly lacks the sources that say so. "If the phrase "suffragan bishop" exists in the Catholic Church, it would apply [...]" That would be OR, if there were any actual "R" involved. Perhaps best just to delete the whole section, and make the scope of the article clear in the lede. (talk) 05:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that was badly written. I can understand why you deleted it. But "suffragan" is surely a term with continuing use in the Latin Rite (analogous roles exist in the Eastern Rite of the Catholic Church, but may be called different things). I put something there to get the ball rolling. Wonderbreadsf (talk) 20:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Admittedly as suffragan redirects here, it probably is necessary after all. Your rewrite is vastly better (if that's not damning with faint praise), and certainly seems to address my above concerns. Smartiger (talk) 17:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Jurisdiction over episcopal see[edit]

I'm having trouble making sense of this edit (log comment = Unlinking: Catholic bishops don't have jurisdiction over Episcopal sees.) What I find puzzling is that the very definition of a diocesan bishop is that he has jurisdiction over his episcopal see:

[A diocese] is also referred to as a bishopric or ... episcopal see, though strictly the term episcopal see refers to the domain of ecclesiastical authority officially held by the bishop...

— Wikipedia article "Diocese"

I think we need to link the word "see" to something (or jettison it altogether). Wonderbreadsf (talk) 18:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as "episcopal" is concerned, as soon as I read your note I realized what you meant. I had seen the capital-E "Episcopal" in the wikicode for the link and interpreted it as "Episcopalian". I've undone my change. Meanwhile, I found yesterday that Catholic see redirects to Holy See, and I'm thinking that that isn't a good idea since any episcopal see is just as much a Catholic see as the Holy See is. Also, are there "sees" that are neither the Holy See nor an episcopal see? —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I see wonderbreadsf has just taken care of this. Thanks! —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Those darn Episcopalians! Good catch on the Catholic see redirect. I just changed it to Episcopal see, as that is the more general Catholic treatment. Wonderbreadsf (talk) 18:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)