Talk:Hierarchy of the Catholic Church/Archive. Old Page

Dispute
According to structure of this article, Patriarchs and Major Archbishops outrank Cardinals. This is not correct. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia "In the Catholic Church since Eugene IV (1431-47) cardinals have precedence over patriarchs" http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11549a.htm (first sentence of the second to last paragraph). I have attempted to correct this by putting the section about Cardinals directly below that of the Pope, however it has always been changed back to the way it is now. This is not correct! The structure of the article should be Pope, Cardinal, Patriarch, Major Archbishop, etc. In addition, in the "styles" section, Cardinals should be after Pope and before patriarch. --Msl5046 03:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Your source is the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia. It's outdated. Many elements of the relationship between Eastern patriarchs and the Holy See have changed since then. We would be better off to find a modern reference. Perhaps Inferno or Lima could assist? Majoreditor 03:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Quoting from Lima's comment above: "For instance, the Annuario Pontificio places Patriarchs, even if they are also Cardinals, after the six Cardinal Bishops, and before other Cardinals." I'm guessing that he's correct. Is so, the procession is: the six suburbicarian bishops; patriarchs of the Eastern churches (including those who are cardinal-bishops); cardinal priests; and cardinal deacons. I don't know where major archbishops fall. In any case, all Eastern Catholic patriarchs would rank before most cardinals.  Majoreditor 03:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I cannot imagine why six suburbican bishops should outrank Patriarchs, who head autonomous churches sui juris. I've been snowed under in real life marking exam papers alas, and haven't even been able to work on disputes from months ago... InfernoXV 08:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Inferno, one would expect heads of autonomous churches to outrank cardinals of any order. Unfortunately, I can't lay may hands upon an authoritative source, so Lima's cite is as good as we have for the moment. Assuming that it's correct, it  suggests that a patriarch heading an autonomous church outranks a garden-variety cardinal.
 * I'm sorry if I'm harsh with the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia, but it's out of date and riddled with factual errors, particularly regarding Eastern Christianity.
 * Can anyone help with facts?Majoreditor 12:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I just posed this question on the "All Experts" forum. It would seem that my initial assumption was incorrect. Here is the answer I received: "There are two kinds of hierarchy in the Catholic Church: Hierarchy of Order and Hierarchy of Jurisdiction. The hierarchy of order exercises its power over the Real Body of Christ in the Eucharist; that of jurisdiction over His Mystical Body, the Church. The Hierarchy of Order is the episcopate (bishop), priesthood, and diaconate, in that order of rank. The Hierarchy of Jurisdiction is the governing hierarchy. To describe this governing hierarchy is rather complicated. Of the rankings below there may also be sub-rankings within ranks. The generalized ranking is as follows (top to bottom): 1) The Pope: who is also the Patriarch of the West, Primate of Italy, Metropolitan of the ecclesiastical province of Rome, and Bishop of the Diocese of Rome. 2) Patriarchs: in charge of a patriarchate which are liturgical territories of a particular liturgical tradition; second in jurisdiction only to the Pope. There are six patriarchates: 3) Major Archbishops: in most cases has the same jurisdiction/rank as a Patriarch. There are four Major Archbishops: 4) Cardinals: pope's advisors, similar to the Cabinet to the President, who exercise jurisdiction in the various congregations, tribunals, and offices instituted by the pope for the government of the universal Church (Roman Curia). 5) Primates: in charge of geographic area like a country, but normally have no greater jurisdictional authority than a Metropolitan. Primates are generally found in older Catholic Countries. In the United States, where never an official primacy was awarded, the Archbishop of Baltimore is sometimes called "honorary primate" since Baltimore was the first diocese in the United States. 6) Metropolitans/Archbishops: in charge of a Province (two or more dioceses) 7) Bishops: in charge of a diocese." http://www.allexperts.com/user.cgi?m=6&catID=955&qID=4639808 In light of this, it would seem that this article should either be split into two, one for each type of hierarchy, or both should be explained.--Msl5046 15:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The Coptic Catholic Patriarch of Alexandria
 * The Syrian Catholic Patriarch of Antioch
 * The Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarch of Antioch
 * The Maronite Patriarch of Antioch
 * The Chaldean Catholic Patriarch of Babylonia
 * The Armenian Catholic Patriarch of Cilicia
 * The Major Archbishop of Kyiv-Halych (Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church)
 * The Major Archbishop of Ernakulam-Angamaly (Syro-Malabar Church)
 * The Major Archbishop of Trivandrum (Syro-Malankara Catholic Church)
 * The Major Archbishop of Fãgãraº and Alba Julia (Romanian Greek Catholic Church)

Thanks for the extra effort. At some point it would be useful to find out what particular document the expert cited so we can avoid WP:OR issues. I'd recommend explaining both hierarchies within the article. Majoreditor 18:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the factual dispute is over -- can we remove the tags? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Majoreditor (talk • contribs) 05:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC).
 * I think so, but someone should restructure the article to include both the Hierarchy of Order and the Hierarchy of Jurisdiction. --Msl5046 17:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The "hierarchy of order" is not a term in common use anymore. It can, however, be covered in a paragraph since it consists simply of the three levels of ordination: Deacon, Priest, Bishop. Perhaps a simple link to the page on Holy Orders would be enough, since that already covers it.


 * As to the list order provided above - I disagree. I would use the order which the Catholic Church herself uses in its official publication Annuario Pontificio. That order is: 1) Pope; 2) Cardinal Bishops; 3) Eastern Rite Patriarches that are Cardinals; 4) Cardinal Priests; 5) Cardinal Deacons; 6) Patriarches; 7) Major Archbishops; 8) Archbishops/Bishops; 9) Titular Archbishops/Bishops


 * One further point of clarity. The hierarchy as described above does not mean and should not imply that anyone in group 2 (Cardinal Bishops) can override a decision made by anyone in lets say group 7 (Major Archbishops). An analogy for folks in the US: the Secretary of Agriculture (a cabinet member) can't give an order to the head of the IRS (a lower ranking position, but under the Department of the Treasury). For any given location, there is a local diocese or the equivalent (might be an archdiocese, an apostolic vicariate, etc.). That diocese has an ordinary - usually a bishop. He is the one with primary jurisdiction. If its an Eastern Rite, then over him you have a Patriarch or a Major Archbishop. And then there is the Pope whose has jurisdiction over all locations and all rites. Everything else is window dressing (i.e., fancy titles, secondary duties, etc.).--Dcheney 20:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

For clarity, please cite a specific page and section in Annuario Pontificio. Majoreditor 21:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Its the 2007 edition of the Annuario Pontificio. Begins on page 23* (Pope), pages 25* to 27* (cardinals & patriarches that are cardinals), pages 3 to 9 (patriarches), pages 10 to 11 (major archbishops), pages 17 to 832 (bishops and archbishops), pages 835 to 1041 (titular bishops and archbishops). The page numbers for the 1st section of the book have an * behind them. For the second part they do not.--Dcheney 01:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for providing the reference. This is helpful. Majoreditor 01:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

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 . 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. 

no consensus. --liquidGhoul 00:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)
 * Gareth/Garzo, You are not really qualified to speak for Catholics, especially Eastern Rite Catholics. You don't seem to understand their perspective and have misrepresented it which is either malicious or incomptent.  How about you speak for Anglicans and let Catholics speak for Catholics. For an authentic reference on the matter, see: this page explains why Eastern Catholics are not "Roman" Catholics and also why there is really no such thing as the "Roman Catholic Church".  --Vaquero100 18:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "Roman Catholic Church" is often used by Eastern Catholics to refer to the Roman patriarchy, and they are simply not Roman in that meaning. I understand the Anglican issue here; this is not all that dissimilar. Gimmetrow 18:32, 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. — Mi ra  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)

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. — Mi ra  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.

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)

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)

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.

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)


 * I note, for example, the link on footnote 41 - click it and it takes you back to this same article. I hesitate to make the change(s) myself because of my association with the website in question.--Dcheney (talk) 17:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it's already covered in the "External Links" section. I don't think we need to do much more. Let me add that Catholic Hierarchy is a wonderful resource (thanks, Mr. Cheney!) Many of the articles I've created are wiki-linked to it. Majoreditor (talk) 19:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Right, I realize that. But if someone clicks on the link in footnote 30 or 41, they most likely assume it will take them somewhere else - it doesn't - via redirection it takes them precisely back to where they already were.  Probably the best solution is to get rid of the links in footnotes 30 and 41 (and any similar links).--Dcheney (talk) 20:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Military dioceses
There are a lot of Military dioceses, archdioceses, ordinariates, and vicarates in the world. For this article to properly cover its subject it doesn't really need to cover each one in detail. We already link to the military ordinariate article, which lists a lot of them, and could be expanded to include them all. Each one's structure is best placed in their own article, such as Roman Catholic Archdiocese for the Military Services, USA, and Roman Catholic Military Ordinariate of Australia. If we take what is currently happening out to its logical conclusion, we'd have a section for each of the several thousand dioceses in this article explaining their internal structures, offices, and procedures, which I hope we can all see is not a good idea. Gentgeen 05:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

With no reply, I'm going to delete the sections. Gentgeen 22:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Reorganization
I slightly reorganized the page so that the "Styles" and "Positions analogous to that of bishop" sections fell under the "Episcopate" section instead of being sections on their own. This makes sense to me because both of these sections deal with the Episcopate within the Church, and it doesn't make sense for them to be sections on their own. No information was changed within these or any other section.--Msl5046 16:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Order of Precedence
Cardinals get their dignity from sharing in that of the Patriarch of Rome. The rights and dignity of the Eastern Patriarchs is their own. The Patriarchate is of apostolic foundation, the Cardinalate is not. Is anyone actually going to suggest that Cardinals rank before Patriarchs? InfernoXV 15:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to add: Does a Patriarch of a particular church outrank a Latin cardinal? In terms of the Church as a whole, absolutely. Why? Because the Latin cardinal is not the head of a particular church, he has his own Patriarch above him. InfernoXV 21:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems that there is no consensus. Lima and Dcheney both refer to the Annuario Pontificio but come to different conclusions on precedence (see above.) I have no authoritative sources at my ready disposal. Majoreditor 17:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mitrescola.jpg
Image:Mitrescola.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The Laity
I moved the section on the laity to the bottom of the page since this is a page on the hierarchy, and the laity are at the bottom of said hierarchy, if they may even be considered a part of it at all. In addition, I added the sources tag due to the fact that this section cites none. The statements regarding lay ministers replacing priests in certain instances should be cited.--Msl5046 (talk) 23:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this section should be either removed or limited. Lay ministers are not a specific part of the hierarchy of the Church. Either it is the whole laity or none at all. --Saint-Louis (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed:
 * What is particularly objectonable is the assertion that they "have a vocation to ecclesial ministry more similar to that of deacons and priests than to that of most laity". I'm removing the section. They may be wonderful people but they're certainly not closer to a priest or deacon than to the rest of the laity. --Lo2u (T • C) 17:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What is particularly objectonable is the assertion that they "have a vocation to ecclesial ministry more similar to that of deacons and priests than to that of most laity". I'm removing the section. They may be wonderful people but they're certainly not closer to a priest or deacon than to the rest of the laity. --Lo2u (T • C) 17:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Old Dispute - Moved
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)

unclear
This article makes it very unclear and difficult to discover a system of rank within the church. One can eventually derive it from this overbloated article, but it does remain quite a chore. While the unsummarized, lengthy paragraph form is undoubtedly professional, it is unattractive, and makes it a daunting task to try and discover the system of rank. In addition to all the unnecessary information, this article also needs a condensed list of the level of rank. Beginning with the highest rank and ending with the lowest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.253.215.137 (talk) 11:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the Catholic Church doesn't really have a "rank" system where there is a clear pecking order, like you'd see in the military. For example, if the "highest ranking" member of the Church in my home state of California, the Cardinal Archbishop of Los Angeles, were to show up at my local parish in Saratoga, California, he would have to ask my bishop, the Bishop of San Jose in California, for permission before he could perform any liturgical function, even though Cardinal Mahony is both a Cardinal and a Metropolitan Archbishop while Bishop McGrath is just a diocesan ordinary. Additionally, there's more than one "chain of command", making it difficult who exactly would "out rank" who. Is a diocesan ordinary higher in rank than a provincial superior of a religious order? Does the cardinal prefect of a curial congregation outrank a cardinal major archbishop? Where exactly does the Bishop of Urgell, who is a head of state, fit into the Church's rank structure? Unfortunately, the Church's vast size and organizational complexity are going to make this type of article inherently unclear to some extent, or overly simplified.Gentgeen (talk) 22:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Canon Law gets even murkier than many know. In the case mentioned above, Cardinal Mahony has the right to perform a liturgical function outside his archdiocese and without informing the local ordinary provided it is in his province and it is not the Cathedral. (See Canon 436§3). I should note the right is because he is a Metropolitan, not because he is a Cardinal. It is rare, however, to invoke that right.--Dcheney (talk) 03:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * While a metropolitan archbishop might have the "right" to perform a liturgical function in a non-cathedral church of a suffragan see (without informing the latter see's diocesan bishop), it would be considered "poor form" for him to not inform the diocesan bishop of that suffragan diocese in advance, as a courtesy, so the said diocesan bishop doesn't learn from the grapevine that the metropolitan was in a church of his diocese, i.e., without the bishop being aware of such a visit. Being a member of the "college of bishops" assumes a certain collegiality, courtesy, etc. Eagle4000 (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the Canon Law is very specific specially in Canons 349-359 in regards to the functions of the Cardinals. Although the Cardinals can function in two ways, either as a college or as an individual, their function depends upon how the Pope calls upon them. Thus any authority that they have does not come from their position as Cardinals but from the Pope. Which is the reason why they could not be placed in the actual Hierarchy since the function that they perform is either very specific as prescribe by law in a "special manner" or as delegated by the Pope. A good example is when they are given a function as legates of the Supreme Pontiff as covered by Can 362-366. Just a thought, hope it helps.Kylyne (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 11:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC).

Personal Ordinariate(s)
While the new text regarding the recently announced new structure is entertaining it is factually wrong on several points. However, given that the document which actually creates the new structure has not yet been published, its difficult to provide good sources for the correct information.--Dcheney (talk) 14:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced table
This table originally appeared in the "Hierarchy, personnel and institutions" section of Catholic Church. I have moved it here because this is the primary topic to which it applies, and the article on Catholic Church is too long and requires summary style. Please help source it if you can. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 02:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

In-Universe Perspective
Several sections of this article need to be rewritten. As written, the article primarily conveys an "in-universe" perspective which is complete inaccessible to the non-catholic reader. For example, consider the first sentence of section 1.1:

The bishops, who possess the fullness of the priesthood, are as a body (the College of Bishops) considered the successors of the Apostles[4] and are "constituted Pastors in the Church, to be the teachers of doctrine, the priests of sacred worship and the ministers of     governance."

What does "who possess the fullness of the priesthood" mean? The rampant use of undefined, specialized jargon throughout the article renders it virtually impenetrable to the non-catholic reader. Currently, the article reads not unlike a poorly written Wikipedia article about a science fiction topic. For example, consider the following "mad libbing" of the preceding example sentence"

The gharnals, who possess the fullness of nipflankhoood, are as a body (the College of Gharnals) considered the successors of the Cornaks and are "constituted Velpas in the Goofwrak, to be the teachers of doctrine, the nipflanks of scared worship and the gooflabs of     governance."

To the non-catholic there is no semantic difference between these two sentences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phaeolus (talk • contribs) 04:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Odd Recent Addition with Bad Footnotes
There was a recent change (the last paragraph before the "contents" box) that is rather odd. Also a number of the footnotes are bad.

Footnote 4 is claimed to indicate that there were 2,795 dioceses in 2008. I'm looking at that page and that number is not on it. Nor can I find any way to add up the various numbers on that page to arrive at that figure. Regardless of that, the text would make one think that the Church is composed of dioceses and nothing else - which is simply untrue. At the end of 2008, according to the footnote reference, there were 13 Patriarchal Sees, 4 Major Archbishophorics, 539 Metropolitan Archdioceses, 77 non-Metropolitan Archdioceses, 2170 Dioceses, 48 Territorial Prelatures, 11 Territorial Abbeys, 35 Military Ordinariates, 1 Personal Prelature, 80 Apostolic Vicariates, 44 Apostolic Prefectures, 9 Apostolic Administrations, 1 Personal Apostolic Administration, and 9 "sui juris" Missions.

Footnotes 6 and 10 are simply labeled "Barry" and a page number without suggesting who or what is "Barry".

All in all, this whole addition seems inappropriate for this article. Most of the information is either already contained in the article or not relevant.--Dcheney (talk) 03:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * On what is now footnote 4: the Wikilink was to the Wikipedia article on the annual publication which was online; the material that the annual document contained in 2009 was hardcopy. I furnished another link which is a copy of the information online. And removed the link to the annual publication to avoid future confusion.


 * And yes, there are multiple historic groups, but Councils, for example, are comprised mostly of bishops or their equivalent, representing dioceses, or their equivalent. Patriarchs, for example, usually run the equivalent of archdioceses. They may be metropolitans which carries prestige, but little weight. Bishops/archbishops or their equivalent run most everything, from the Vatican's pov. Plus some order-Generals which may rank as high as bishops, I suppose. The rest are maintly interesting, curious, archaic titles carried along by mostly near-Eastern and some Indian hierarchs. But generally, from an administrative pov, you either run a diocese, or it's equivalent or you don't. And that includes cardinals, metropolitans, and the like. Titular sees (for example) don't really count, administratively. There is probably some double counting with military ordinates. Some of the rest have vast expanse but few people.
 * The intent was to provide a real cornerstone for the true hierarchy of the church which is Pope-Diocese-Parish-Member, which constitutes 95% or more of the world's Catholics, not a inventory of interesting titles. Student7 (talk) 14:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The footnotes I questioned are now numbered 7 and 11 - both remain "Barry" with a page number without the slightest hint as to who or what "Barry" is. No "Barry" is mentioned in the article or in any of the other footnotes.


 * The point of my first question is how did you arrive at the magical number of "2,795", since it is not in the source cited (yes, I know its a book, and I have a copy beside me as a I type this).


 * As to your other comments, perhaps you should read the article. You seem to have little understanding of the hierarchy of the Church.


 * One last note on your apparent favorite topic of "mission" dioceses. Don't you find it odd for something that is so fundamental to the nature of those dioceses (which seems to be your view) isn't even mentioned in the Annuario Pontificio? I mean the listing of dioceses is right there, they could have just added a mark after their name. But apparently they didn't think it was that important. --Dcheney (talk) 00:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't recognize the "Barry" reference. I agree that it needs to be questioned and properly explained. Student7 (talk) 14:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * According to the Wikipedia logs _you_ added them on 17 Dec 2010 at 21:24. Thanks for removing the bit about missions. --Dcheney (talk) 01:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I must have copied them from another article. Erase them, if you sure they are false. I am not. I'll see if I can find the data to get the "Barry" reference.
 * The problem with "mission" diocese, is they don't "belong" anywhere. 30% of the dioceses in the world are "mission", but because this is defined as "hierarchy", they don't go here. Neither do they go into the RC article which has to be vague because of its size. Because Wikipedia articles were defined from two directions, bottom up, and top down, with a fake "outline" constructed to reflect what has already been done, there are gaps in coverage. This generally affects governance, of which this article is one. Student7 (talk) 15:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The clip was from the RC article which was well examined, I think, while undergoing FA scrutiny. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church#Hierarchy.2C_personnel_and_institutions. It could be changed to a footnote. Also explains where the number of dioceses came from. Note that this article was missing that information. Student7 (talk) 15:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The Laity
This section of the page has been completely without proper citations for two and a half years now, and there was material added today, again without sources. I've put tags where I think a source is needed. Per Wikipedia guidelines, because this section is not about a living person, I will not remove the material immediately, but this cannot stay without reliable sources forever. Can anyone give spend some time and properly cite this section?--Msl5046 (talk) 14:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)