Jump to content

Talk:Martin Seeley

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Confirmation of election

Look it up. DBD 09:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He is NOT a bishop until he is consecrated. Study some theology! Anglicanus (talk) 09:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I never asserted that he is a bishop (because, as you correctly point out, he is not in bishop's orders.) I even inserted a note at the top of the infobox to that effect. He is, however — READ THE SOURCE: [1] — THE Bishop of Eds & Ips, because the legal ceremony (confirmation of election) which makes the man (regardless of what orders he is or isn't in) legally the holder of the office has occurred. Do the research, educate yourself (try this [2]) and then let me know that we can unrevert. (Also, btw, I performed other edits on that page at the same time; I don't know why you felt you needed to throw the baby out too!) DBD 10:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether he is legally the holder of the office he still is NOT a bishop. Your edits, as they far too frequently are, are in clear violation of the principles of WP:CRYSTAL. You are the one who is constantly causing these problems on multiple articles. The sooner you stop doing so and wait until something is actually factual the better it will be for everyone. So don't blame others for attempting to correct your problematic editing. The problem is solely your responsibility. Anglicanus (talk) 10:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even read what I wrote above? Would you like to do that now? I have not affirmed that he is a bishop. What I have affirmed (AND SOURCED!) cannot possibly be CRYSTAL because 7 May is in the past. It's 12 May now. 7 May comes before 12 May, doesn't it? DBD 10:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I read them and they didn't change a thing. The first reference indicates that he was only now confirmed as the "Bishop-Elect" with "authority" as a diocesan bishop (but not actually a bishop). The second is not relevant since Welsby was already a bishop. Anglicanus (talk) 10:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How about "It is the confirmation of his election which makes the Archbishop-elect into the Bishop of the diocese." [3] (p3) or "It is the confirmation of the election which actually makes the candidate bishop of the diocese" [4] (5.24)? DBD 10:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And indeed "9.2.2 The legal process whereby the person nominated by the Crown Nominations Commission becomes the bishop of the diocese (beginning with congé d’elire and letter missive signed by Her Majesty and concluding with the confirmation of election by the Vicar General of the Province) cannot legally begin until the diocesan see exists." [5] DBD 11:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is that enough to convince you that an episcopal ordinand can become The Bishop of X through her confirmation before she is in episcopal orders? DBD 11:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Discussion copied from User talk:Anglicanus DBD 14:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC))[reply]

If it's any help, the St Eds & Ips diocesan website refers to him as Canon Seeley, but also states that his now their bishop: [6] - so it does appear that the situation, though anomalous, is as DBD reports it. It does indeed appear that you don't strictly need to be in bishops' orders to be bishop of somewhere. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And even more supporting evidence just today: "Under section 1(4) of the Act it is the date of her confirmation of election that determines eligibility." [7] DBD 13:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion seems to have stalled, since (after several prompts) Anglicanus has declined to join us. What do we do in this case, when one party to a discussion will not engage? DBD 20:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Martin Seeley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Martin Seeley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]