Talk:Shelton Fabre

–

Not bishop of the new diocese until his installation
Code of Canon Law: ''Can. 382 §1 A person who is promoted to the episcopate cannot become involved in the exercise of the office entrusted to him before he has taken canonical possession of the diocese. However, he is able to exercise offices which he already held in the same diocese at the time of his promotion, without prejudice to can. 409 §2.''
 * §3 A Bishop takes canonical possession of his diocese when, personally or by proxy, he shows the apostolic letters to the college of consultors, in the presence of the chancellor of the curia, who makes a record of the fact. This must take place within the diocese. In dioceses which are newly established he takes possession when he communicates the same letters to the clergy and the people in the cathedral church, with the senior of the priests present making a record of the fact.
 * §4 It is strongly recommended that the taking of canonical possession be performed with a liturgical act in the cathedral church, in the presence of the clergy and the people.
 * Until there is evidence of his taking canonical possession of the new diocese, it is improper and inaccurate to say that he is no longer the auxiliary bishop of New Orleans and titular bishop of Prudentiana. He holds this post until his liturgical installation. Elizium23 (talk) 21:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * What remains, is Bishop Fabre IS in fact Bishop Designate of Houma Thibodaux and has left his position as Auxiliary in New Orleans. This can be proven by a quick google search or by checking the USCCB. I see you added it to the end of the paragraph, that is fine. I do think users who frequently edit this site could do with a bit of tact. It seems to me to be very inflammatory to change a correct edit without discussing it first. Kjrjr (talk) 22:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Your edits were incorrect; you have not provided a reliable secondary source documenting that he has left his post as auxiliary bishop; he has not taken canonical possession, he has not lost his titular see, he has not attained the post of ordinary, and no reliable source has been produced to back up your assertion. I have provided ample discussion and documentation for you in my opposing view, and I have meticulously observed WP:CIVIL, while you have told me to "get over myself" and "who appointed you czar?" so I would say that the onus of tact is not on me but you. Elizium23 (talk) 23:04, 20 October 2013 (UTC)