Talk:Daniel Dolan

Style Box
A recent edit removed the style box with the rationale "'He is not a licit bishop and none of the other traditionalist bishops get the style box, so I'm deleting it'" Deciding to remove the style box because of the Roman Catholic magisterium's position on Dolan is using the POV of the Roman Catholic magisterium, not Neutral Point of View.

Asserting that only bishoips viewed as "licit" by the Roman Catholic Church can have style boxes is a blatant violation of WP:Neutral Point of View.

Keep in mind illict does not mean invalid. Illict simply means in volation of church law. The Roman Catholic Church recognizes Dolan as a valid bishops, just one ordained against canon law. Dgf32 (talk) 06:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

My main reason for getting rid of the style box is that, because most of the other illicitly consecrated traditionalist bishops don't have it, this one probably shouldn't either--or they all should. I also believe that a Bishop's rights to be greeted with a certain style are dependent on his being licitly consecrated or in communion with the Vatican--that the Vatican is the source of the style, not the consecration. However I am not sure about this. I do suspect that most Catholics would probably not refer to him as "Excellency"--meaning that there would be very few people indeed who would. TallNapoleon (talk) 06:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "'I also believe that a Bishop's rights to be greeted with a certain style are dependent on his being licitly consecrated or in communion with the Vatican--that the Vatican is the source of the style'"
 * "'I do suspect that most Catholics would probably not refer to him as 'Excellency'"
 * Again, both of those statements depend upon Vatican POV. The entire Orthodox episcopacy is "illict" according to the Vatican, not to mention Anglican or Lutheran bishops, who the Vatican considers to be laity. And Dolan and other sedevacantists don't recognize the Vatican as having any authority what so ever. They don't even think the Pope is a valid bishop.
 * This shows just how easy it is for POV to creep into Wikipedia articles. We ofter don't even realize we're writing our own POVs into articles. Dgf32 (talk) 19:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Anglican bishops derive their title (Lordship, I believe) from their relationship to the Crown of England. I'm not sure if Episcopalian or Lutheran bishops get any special title at all. The question is: whose point of view is most relevant/objective? Does he get to be styled "Your Excellency" when in fact only a very few people would refer to him as such? Or is anyone consecrated a bishop automatically "Your Excellency"? It's an open question--my proposal is to simply accept what most people would do. Since most people would not call him "Your Excellency", he shouldn't get the style box. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I will also point out again that this is not in keeping with what appears to be standard practice on the pages of the other illicitly ordained sedevacantist bishops. Finally, see Your_Excellency.TallNapoleon (talk) 20:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

"Traditional Catholic Bishop" Change
"Traditional" is subjective. The term seems to be used in sedevacantist circles in preference, for some reason, to "traditionalist." Either way, they are subjective adjectives and this is not an in-house biog for members of the church. There could be an argument to replace it with "Sedevacantist Catholic Bishop" or "Sedevacantist Bishop." Apollinari (talk) 16:31, 28 November 2020 (UTC)