Talk:Bishopric

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Christianity High‑importance

	Christianity portal This redirect 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
High	This redirect has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

"Bishopric" as territory[edit]

Whether a bishop has civil power over his bishopric/diocese or does not, it is still a diocese. There was no prince-bishopric that was not a diocese, subject to the religious as well as the civil authority of its bishop. The territory referred to as a bishopric is always a diocese or episcopal see regardless of the subcategories into which the term may be divided, all of which are dioceses.

If you want to disambiguate "bishopric", you should indicate the only existing sourced distinction between meanings of the word, perhaps adding information on subcategories of the territorial ("diocese") sense of the word:

Bishopric refers either to;

the office of a bishop; or
the territory over which he has jurisdiction, the diocese.

NOTE. Sources: Oxford Dictionaries; Merriam-Webster; American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language; Macmillan Dictionary;World English Dictionary.

In the territorial sense, a bishopric is always a diocese. It may also be one or more of the following:

an archbishopric, if the bishop presiding over it is an archbishop;
a metropolitan bishopric, if the bishop presiding over it is a metropolitan archbishop;
a prince-bishopric, if the bishop presiding over it is also the civil ruler of the diocese;
a titular bishopric, if the diocese is no longer functioning in the normal way, so that the bishop's jurisdiction over the territory is only notional. Esoglou (talk) 12:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disentangling Diocese from [Prince-]Bishopric[edit]

If I understand you then, a diocese is a geographical area over which a bishop has ecclesiastical power/jurisdiction and a bishopric is one over which he has secular or civil power as well. If that's the case, I don't think Diocese (to which bishopric redirects) makes this at all clear. This begs the following questions:

Are two separate articles - Diocese and Bishopric - needed? Clearly the "bishopric" article would be purely historical.
Do we need to split articles on e.g. the Bishopric of Mainz and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Mainz since they are not the same, yet the former redirects to the latter despite a hatnote saying that it's about the modern diocese?
Do we retitle all articles called "Bishopric of Foo" to "Prince-Bishopric of Foo" if they fall into case 3 above.

--Bermicourt (talk) 20:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There has long been a faction on Wikipedia that wants to separate the words "bishopric" and "diocese" so that they are non-overlapping: a diocese is a territory under the spiritual jurisdiction of a bishop and a bishopric is a territory under the secular jurisdiction of a bishop. This is incorrect. While the word "diocese" is used almost exclusively for spiritual territories, the word "bishopric" is used both ways. What is confusing is that the territory of spiritual jurisdiction and the territory of secular jurisdiction, when a bishop had both, were rarely coextensive. There are many cases at Wikipedia where this situation is boggled. Srnec (talk) 13:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think my definition agrees with yours - a bishopric is both. Perhaps the answer is to find a middle course between slavishly separating the two and slavishly combining them. For example, it may make sense to have one article if the modern "Diocese of Foo" coincides with the historic "Prince-Bishopric of Foo". The latter is covered in the historic section and the redirect "Prince-Bishopric of Foo" points to the historical section. But in cases where the modern diocese and historic bishoprics are sufficiently different, or where there is enough material to warrant two articles, they could be split. Certainly, cases like Mainz above are a nonsense and need sorting out. --Bermicourt (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is more complicated than that. For example, many prince-bishoprics continued to exist after they introduced the reformation. Secular rulers overtook the territory and ruled with the title of administrator. Although the religious diocese ceased to exist and became a titular see, the territory lived on for some time. (examples: Merseburg or Verden) Also, the prince-bishops started to appoint auxiliary bishops for dealing with almost all religious matters in their diocese while they themselves retained the secular power. Thus, there shouldn't be a general rule to separate or join these articles. We have to look at each case and decide based on the circumstances. Regarding the title of those articles: These should conform with the scientific sources on the subject. --Saint-Louis (talk) 00:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]