Talk:Catholic Church hierarchy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the Project's importance scale.

This page should contain the entire list of ecclesiastical offices, and not be limited to those of the clergy, as the tradition and current protocol include non-clergy in this ranking. Although the hierarchical nature of the church refers more to the division of ministries and variety of gifts, it is important to recognize the "ranking" of offices from official sources.

Please cite your supposed official sources. They clearly disagree with what most people would consider to be official. For instance, the [[Annuario Pontificio[]] places Patriarchs, even if they are also Cardinals, after the six Cardinal Bishops, and before other Cardinals. The title "Patriarch of the West" is no longer part of the Pope's titles (see the 2006 Annuario Pontificio). Since "Pope" is used as part of the Pope's official signature, it cannot properly be called "unofficial". Titular bishops are most certainly bishops, not just people honoured with "a purely honorary use of the title bishop." How can anyone seriously imagine that an abbot or an abbess of a monastery is ranked higher than exarchs and vicars apostolic, who are bishops? etc. etc. Lima 20:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
This page is intended to reflect all of the ecclesiastical offices in the church, including those which are not held by the ordained, in order of precedence. The most exhaustive resource for questions of protocol in the English language is "The Church Visible" by James Charles Noonan, though it is dated in some areas.
Obviously, the authoritative text on the hierarchical nature of the church is Lumen Gentium, and derivitively, the Code of Canon Law of 1983.
Though titular bishops are ordained, and thus are "real" bishops, they are named "ad personem", that is, as an honor to their person, and not because they are serving in the actual office of bishop. So it is an honorary title, even if a "real" one.
The problem with some of the latest edits is that it undermines the ecclesiology of the church in favor of merely popular perception. It is for this reason I have tried to revert to the original ranking, but incorporating the work of later editors. Protoclete 02:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

An auxiliary bishop is a titular bishop. He is not named "ad personam", but for the service of a diocese. An apostolic exarch or a vicar apostolic is a titular bishop. He is not named ad personam, as a personal honor, but for the service of an exarchate or vicariate, which he governs as a diocesan bishop governs a diocese. Other titular bishops too are named not ad personam, with an honorary title such as "Monsignor", but for the service of the Church. They are "expected to serve in the office of bishop." This is the teaching of Lumen gentium and the Code of Canon Law and the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches.

Precedence? The 1983 Code of Canon Law omits not only the rules of precedence given in the 1917 Code but the very notion of precedence. If precedence is to be dealt with within this article, it should be given a section of its own, instead of trying to impose some individual's personal ideas on the whole article. What source can be cited for placing the abbot or abbess of a monastery higher than the vicar apostolic of the vicariate where the monastery is situated? For placing a diocesan (correct spelling) scholastic, who may not be an instituted acolyte or lector, higher than an instituted acolyte or lector? For placing an apostolic nuncio, who is usually an archbishop of a titular see, after primates and metropolitans, when the 1917 Code of Canon Law, which did deal with questions of precedence (e.g. canons 106, 280, 347) stated in canon 269 that papal representatives, "even if they are without episcopal character, have precedence over all Ordinaries who have not been granted the dignity of the cardinalate", precedence therefore even over patriarchs who are not cardinals!

In short, what a certain editor proclaimed at 03:09, 19 April 2006 to be the "official order" of precedence is only his own invention. The Wikipedia rule is "Content ... must be verifiable." Reverting is a necessity.

Lima 07:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Bishops

I made minor changes to the bishops section. Bishops are consecrated (not ordained). This is because Italic textsacerdosItalic text refers to both bishops and priests (presbyters). Also I clarified the pontifical mandate, and the question of Validity for consecration (one). This is key as the Lefebre group HAS validly ordained bishops (who aren't in communion with the Roman Catholic Church). I don't know enough (yet) about foot noting to do with without making a bigger mess, so I simply left the relevant canons in text.

PS, thanks to LIMA for all the great work as well as all those who have worked so hard on this section.DaveTroy 18:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. --liquidGhoul 00:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Catholic Church hierarchy → Roman Catholic Church hierarchy – In keeping with the name of the main article page (Roman Catholic Church), this article refers specifically to that denomination and not to churches in the Catholic tradition generally. Fishhead64 00:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
  • Support per nom. Fishhead64 00:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. — Gareth Hughes 11:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Renaming to include "Roman" is ambiguous in regard to the Eastern Catholic churches, who are covered in this article but are not Roman. Better to address content by incorporating Anglican content, as other encyclopedias do. Gimmetrow 18:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment — the Eastern Catholic churches are in communion with Rome, and hence are Roman, but do not use the Latin Rite, and refer to themselves as non-Latin Roman Catholics. The opposite holds true: Roman Catholic churches that are not sui juris are defined as 'Latin Rite' churches. Even though a number of churches use a similar hierarchical system to the Roman Catholic Church, there are sufficient differences in governance for them warrant seperate articles, as this article is 100% to do with the Roman Catholic Church Latin and other rites. — Gareth Hughes 18:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment — including Anglican content here is rather difficult, since the Roman Catholic church does not even recognize the validity of Anglican ordinations. There would be no connection in the article between the Roman Catholic and the Anglican part. If that is what other encyclopaedias do, they are not being encyclopaedic on that point.--Pan Gerwazy 08:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Content inclusion might involve noting terminology ("suffragen bishop" to Anglicans), a separate section, or a dab link to Anglican Church hierarchy. Gimmetrow 16:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article is not named "Hierarchy of churches of the catholic tradition", but is "Catholic Church hierarchy", and the title "Catholic Church" redirects to the main article mentioned above. -SynKobiety 01:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - There is nothing presented to substantiate that most (or even any) English speakers would look for information about Anglican hierarchy (or any other denomination's hierarchy) in an article titled "Catholic Church hierarchy." The title is reasonably unambiguous as it is. -SynKobiety 01:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment - Rather funny that in a heading above where the Lefebvre group is mentioned, the expression "Roman Catholic" is used. If I follow your reasoning, that means that the Eastern Rite does recognize them. --Pan Gerwazy 08:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. --Pan Gerwazy 23:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose I have a friend who is a Ukrainian Catholic Priest. He tells me that the Orthodox use the terms "uniate" and "Roman" as a slur to imply being traitors to the East. They would never call themselves "Roman Catholic," but members of the Catholic Church. It seems that Wikipedia honors self identification--and therefore should in this case as with others. --Vita Dulcedo et Spes Nostra 05:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Remember the words "I believe in one holy, apostolic, catholic church"? I am sorry, but this sort of self-identification is unencyclopaedic. Like "Nazi Germany" and "Germany" are not the same thing either. To me, this looks like one faction wants to annex the word "catholic". --Pan Gerwazy 08:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose This move is in direct violation of WP naming conventions and policies. For a thorough discussion of this and other related naming issues based entirely on WP policies, please see: CC vs. RCC--Vaquero100 16:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose This article discusses more than only the Roman Catholic Church. —Mira 17:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose This article includes Eastern Catholics as well as Western Catholics, and the church in question calls itself "the Catholic Church" anyway. Cheyinka 20:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose --WikiCats 07:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

The sections dealing with churches other than the Roman Catholic Church might somehow be spun of into their own article(s), as I do think a page dealing solely with the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church is warranted. If this were to happen, I would change my opinion to support. —Mira 18:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


[edit] Consecration of a bishop

The two terms (at least in English) are now used interchangeably although "Ordination" seems to be the preferred. For example, the Ceremonial of Bishops (paragraphs 563-597) clearly calls the ceremony the "Ordination of a Bishop" while still refering to the "consecrating bishops" through-out.--Dcheney 03:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The CCC uses the term "Consecration" instead of "ordination" of a bishop. Of course, both are correct, but as consecration is particular to bishops, it is a better illustration of appropriate terminology. Vaquero100 06:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Wrong-o. Consecration is an archaic survival. After SCV, ordination is normative, its all one sacrament, in three orders, which is the point. It is not a "better" illustration -- why do people think they are more qualified to determine what is better than the Congregation for Divine Worship, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the faith, and the Pope?HarvardOxon 06:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The CCC in the glossary defines Ordination as "The rite ... by which the bishop ... confers the order of bishop, priest, or deacon..." (p. 890). In the same glossary it defines Consecration as "The dedication of a thing or person to divine service..." (p. 872). Within the text of the CCC the issue of consecration and ordination is addressed in paragraph 1538 (p. 384). Essential it suggests that both terms are correct. Ordination is more specific than consecration - one can also consecrate things, like altars, but the same is not true of ordination which only refers to the consecration of a man to serve as bishop, priest, or deacon.Dcheney 03:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other Titles

How do brothers, sisters, mothers, mother superiors, and archdeacons fit into this?

Religious brothers and sisters, mothers superior, etc. are described in the section on the Religious. I do think that section could be expanded and better organized. note to self Archdeacons have fallen into disuse after most of their authority was stripped by the Council of Trent, and are no longer significant in the hierarchy of the church; in fact the office no longer exists in most dioceses. Their functions were assumed by the vicar general and vicar episcopal. Gentgeen 06:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theological basis

May I suggest a section on the theological basis of the catholic hierarchy, ie. scriptural basis, from the fathers of the church, theological reasoning, quotes from the CCC.

[edit] Catholic-Hierarchy

As there are a few links through Catholic-Hierarchy, which originally came from the now deleted page about the catholic-hierarchy.org website, could we put a see also template on the top of the web page directing people to that website? JASpencer 18:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/a/t/Talk%7ECatholic_Church_hierarchy_0bf7.html"