Talk:Suffragan bishop

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Christianity: Catholicism / Anglicanism Low‑importance 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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (assessed 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)[reply]

Fixed. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 08:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. 84.203.78.225 (talk) 05:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I see wonderbreadsf has just taken care of this. Thanks! —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Suffragan bishop. 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/20120607020502/http://www.churchofengland.org/media/40670/chapter4.pdf to http://www.churchofengland.org/media/40670/chapter4.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.churchofengland.org/media/1279366/gs1445.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140828112439/http://www.lincoln.anglican.org/pdf_view.php?id=1156 to http://www.lincoln.anglican.org/pdf_view.php?id=1156
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140424033828/http://www.lincoln.anglican.org/pdf_view.php?id=1159 to http://www.lincoln.anglican.org/pdf_view.php?id=1159
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151117024155/http://www.manchester.anglican.org/bishop/news/1278/bishop-of-manchester-has-retired to http://www.manchester.anglican.org/bishop/news/1278/bishop-of-manchester-has-retired

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:53, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]