Talk:Diocese of Eichstätt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article seems to be mostly about the former state, rather than the present-day diocese. The state is a Bishopric, not a Diocese. What's the deal here, exactly? john k 12:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Two deals: one clear (correct Eichstätt vs. incorrect Eichstädt), and one unclear (diocese vs. bishopric). The article is neither here nor there about the topic (currently diocese, previously bishopric AFAICT). I moved it judging that Chl is knowledgeable on the subject, and the spelling was wrong anyway; Duja 13:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

We really ought to have an article called Diocese of Eichstätt about the history of the Diocese from its establishment to the present day, and an article called Bishopric of Eichstätt about the ecclesiastical principality within the Holy Roman Empire (which never, of course, had the same boundaries as the diocese). This should be our general practice with all ecclesiastical principalities. Unfortunately, it seems to be done only rarely. john k 15:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

We could also, arguably, have an article on the Principality of Eichstätt, which was what the bishopric was known as after it was secularized and given to the former Grand Duke of Tuscany (along with the Archbishopric, now Duchy, of Salzburg, and some other ecclesiastical territories). This was, however, extremely short-lived. It is rather awkward, though, for an article on a Roman Catholic diocese to list the secular Prince of Eichstätt, but not the Prince-Bishops who preceded him. I'm not sure how that came about, exactly. john k 15:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

1) Concerning a split into an article on the church subdivision and an article on the state: Yes, this would ultimately be the best way to do it -- the German Wikipedia is already doing it (see de:Bistum Eichstätt and de:Hochstift Eichstätt). The reason why it is currently done rarely is because the articles on former prince-bishoprics are pretty short or don't exist at all yet, and so splitting them up would create many stubs. Even where we have an article, it often isn't much more than the list of bishops, which would mostly be the same for both articles, and should probably ultimately be at "List of bishops of X".

2) Concerning diocese/bishopric: I suggested "diocese" for this article because it seems to be the term used for current subdivisions of the Catholic church, under the naming convention that current usage prevails. But as far as I can tell there is no consistent difference in meaning between "bishopric" and "diocese". According to Merriam-Webster's, they are the same [1]. Prince-bishoprics always seem to be called "bishoprics", but, at least in historical contexts, the term bishopric is also routinely used for dioceses that were not prince-bishoprics. So it is confusing, and the question would arise how to name articles that are exlusively on political states ruled by bishops.

3) Why does the article not list the prince-bishops? Because the list is kind of long and so it seemed better to move it to List of bishops of Eichstätt. Chl 18:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

What is weird is that the list of Prince-Bishops has been removed, but poor old Archduke Ferdinand is still listed. That is awkward and strange. john k 23:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)