Talk:Coadjutor bishop

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Coadjutor bishop is part of WikiProject Anglicanism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
WikiProject Anglicanism To-do:

	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.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.

[edit] Relevance of Turku?

To me, the position of Bishop of Turku does not seem at all relevant to Coadjutor Bishops. In Anglican terms, the role is similar to that of a suffragan bishop (or assistant bishop), who assists a diocesan bishop, often over a defined geographical area, but has no expectation of succeeding to the main see. There is an even more direct parallel in the office of the Suffragan Bishop of Dover, who is also called "Bishop in Canterbury" and runs the diocese of Canterbury on behalf of the Primate. Myopic Bookworm 16:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

If anything, the Bishop of Turku should go in an article about auxiliaries or suffragans, unless someone can show that the bishop has a right of succession and not just a mere likelihood or that in the usage of the church the bishop is referred to as "coadjutor". From the text removed from the article, it seems that neither of these are the case. Pmadrid 22:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

To point out a technicality: the "coadjutor" post is not inherently linked to succession. Before the new code of Canon Law, a coadjutor need not (and often didn't) have the right of succession, and in theory someone else might have without being coadjutor. Today, with the enhanced understanding of the role of bishop, a bright line has been established between anauxiliary who is also VG and a true coadjutor. I'm not familiar with the Turku Lutheran situation, however just because he does or doesn't have a right of succession doesn't mean he is or isn't a coadjutor -- that's a separate issue. HarvardOxon 03:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct that coadjutor is not historically linked to succession. My point, however, is that since it is now linked to succession post 1983 code it would be a saving point that would allow an office not specifically called "coadjutor" to appear in this article. Pmadrid 05:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

In fact, this article could use a history of the coadjutor in addition to the current explanation of its modern usage. Pmadrid 05:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)