Talk:Sylvester (Haruns) of Montreal

From OrthodoxWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

I notice that Metr. Theodosius is listed as Abp. Sylvester's successor as "Bishop of Montreal". Metr. Theodosius, I believe was the administrator, and as Archbishop of Canada, Abp. Seraphim was his successor, with the title of Abp. of Ottawa. I don't know how that should be shown in the succession blocks other than show a blank for the succession in Montreal, as I think, no successor was made there, but that would lead to a break of succession in Canada. The same situation may appear in the Abp. Seraphim's predecessor in his succession block. Wsk 17:18, May 29, 2008 (UTC)

You bring up some good points. There are two sections here ("ARCHBISHOP SYLVESTER (Haruns), 1963 – 1981" and "1981 – 1989") and a listing here on the Canadian Archdiocese site which back you up in terms of Metr. Theodosius being the administrator. As to the succession boxes, I think it would be appropriate to list the predecessors and successors of the responsibility, so that an OrthodoxWiki user can navigate the line of things more easily. I do think that the appropriate title should be used for each person, though. Would that be too confusing? I think we already do something similar when the see changes from a bishopric to a metropolitanate or when the seat of a see moves to another city. I think that in the succession box for Metr. Theodosius under "Locum tenens of Ottawa and Canada (OCA)" the predecessor should be Abp. Sylvester. —magda (talk) 19:19, May 29, 2008 (UTC)

Magda, I think your suggestion for the predecessor in Metr. Theodosius' page's succession box for locum tenen has merit. My only comment would be that Abp. Sylvester's title should be included to provide a clue that the see had changed. But, your comments bring up another succession question that I have been punting on. You will notice that in the ruling hierarch sections I added to some of the OCA diocese pages that I have "ignored" locum tenens. At the time I debated to add or not add. I took the "strict constructionist" path as the locum tenen is not THE ruling bishop, only an administrater until the new ruling bishop is elected. (Perhaps not a proper ecclesiastical interpertation!) So, the question I pose is should we include or not include locum tenens in succession boxes? Wsk 20:38, May 29, 2008 (UTC)

I think we shouldn't, since they don't officially hold the office. By "office," I have in mind the actual office as the ruling bishop of an area (even if the title has changed!), or simply the title itself if it's not a ruling bishop's title. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 20:47, May 29, 2008 (UTC)

I agree. That's idea was behind my "strict constructionist" approach.Wsk 13:26, May 30, 2008 (UTC)

It may be a good idea to continue this conversation (if needed) here. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 13:38, May 30, 2008 (UTC)