Talk:Archdiocese of Carthage

The article on Wessex is not turned into a redirect to United Kingdom. Neither should this article on the ancient see of Carthage be turned into a redirect to the much more extensive Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Tunis. Especially not without citing a reliable source that claims an identity between the two entities. Esoglou (talk) 17:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Wessex and UK is irrelevant as one they sure have enough source to stand on their own. Dreamworks SKG Inc. (still owned by Paramount) and DW Studios II, LLC are separate entities, but still have a single article, so having different legal identity with in the RCC isn't relevant, continuity is.

• Archdiocese of Tunis at GCatholic.org:

• 1884.11.10: Restored as Archdiocese of Cartagine (Italiano) / Cathage (English) / Carthaginen(sis) (Latin) (from the suppressed Apostolic Vicariate of Tunis)
• 1964.07.09: Suppressed as Titular Metropolitan See of Cartagine (Italiano) / Cathage (English) / Carthaginen(sis) (Latin) (to establish Territorial Prelature of Tunis)

• Titular Metropolitan See of Cartagine at GCatholic.org:

• 1884.11.10: Restored as Archdiocese of Cartagine (Italiano) / Cathage (English) / Carthaginen(sis) (Latin) (from the suppressed Apostolic Vicariate of Tunis)
• 1964.07.09: Suppressed as Titular Metropolitan See of Cartagine (Italiano) / Cathage (English) / Carthaginen(sis) (Latin) (to establish Territorial Prelature of Tunis)

So, just because the territorial size is different isn't a factor either, as then should we have a different articles for the Metropolitan Archdiocese of Algiers before and after the creation of Apostolic Vicariate of Tunis in 1843, after all some its territory was used to create the Vicariate of Tunis. Perhaps Carthage article should survive with Tunis being a "prologue" section of related information. Spshu (talk) 18:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

GCatholic is only a derivative source, not a wiki-reliable source. What it gives is drawn from older editions of the Annuario Pontificio, which more recent editions have corrected. A note can be put in about the divergent presentations, but it is not for Wikipedia to declare that the present Annuario Pontificio is wrong, and that the presentation that was corrected was instead the correct one. (Sorry, I have to rush this reply.) Esoglou (talk) 18:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I have today added information on the history that I hope you will find acceptable. Esoglou (talk) 15:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know why you continue to make false proclamation about what other people are saying. But the Annuario Pontificio is a primary source and should not be used in abundance. You are torpedoing the articles in doing so. Spshu (talk) 19:46, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Very well, then. Where is your proof that the Archdiocese of Tunis is the same entity as the ancient see of Carthage?

Your first citation says:

1843: Established as Apostolic Vicariate of Tunis / Tunetan(us) (Latin) (from Diocese of Algiers and Diocese of Islas Canarias)

1884.11.10: Suppressed (to establish Archdiocese of Cartagine)

1964.07.09: Restored as Territorial Prelature of Tunis / Tunetan(us) (Latin) (from the suppressed Archdiocese of Cartagine)

1995.05.31: Promoted as Diocese of Tunis / Tunetan(us) (Latin)

2010.05.22: Promoted as Archdiocese of Tunis / Tunetan(us) (Latin)

That does not at all say that the Archdiocese of Tunis is the same entity as the ancient see of Carthage. It says instead that what was "restored" in 1964, after being "suppressed" in 1884, was the Apostolic Vicariate of Tunis.

Your second citation says:

300: Established as Diocese of Cartagine (Italiano) / Cathage (English) / Carthaginen(sis) (Latin)

500?: Promoted as Metropolitan Archdiocese of Cartagine (Italiano) / Cathage (English) / Carthaginen(sis) (Latin)

1000?: Suppressed as Titular Metropolitan See of Cartagine (Italiano) / Cathage (English) / Carthaginen(sis) (Latin)

1884.11.10: Restored as Archdiocese of Cartagine (Italiano) / Cathage (English) / Carthaginen(sis) (Latin) (from the suppressed Apostolic Vicariate of Tunis)

1964.07.09: Suppressed as Titular Metropolitan See of Cartagine (Italiano) / Cathage (English) / Carthaginen(sis) (Latin) (to establish Territorial Prelature of Tunis)

That corresponds to what I have written under the heading "Later developments". Your second citation says that the ancient see was "restored" in 1884 for the first time since about 1000. That same see was then "suppressed" in 1964, your second citation says, in order to establish the Territorial Prelature of Tunis. If it had become the Territorial Prelature of Tunis, as you seem to think, it would not have been "suppressed", any more than the territorial prelature was suppressed, when instead it became the Diocese of Tunis, or any more than the Diocese of Tunis was suppressed, when instead it became the Archdiocese of Tunis. So this citation too does not at all say what you seem to think it says.

I presume you agree that at any one time only one bishop can be the bishop of a Latin-Rite Catholic see. If you claim that the see of Carthage is the same as that of Tunis, how do you explain that (after the "suppression" of the residential see of Carthage) Agostino Casaroli was Titular Archbishop of Carthage from 1967 to 1979, while Michel Callens was Bishop-Prelate of Tunis from 1965 to 1990? How do you explain how at this moment Ilario Antoniazzi is Archbishop of Tunis, as your first citation confirms, and at the same time the see of Carthage is vacant, as your second citation confirms? Esoglou (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

As I have stated in edit summaries:

21:24, 14 November 2014‎ Spshu:‎ "not relevant that RCC considers it a separate see"

09:22, 15 November 2014‎ Esoglou: "The claim that the Archdiocese of Tunis is identical with the ancient diocese of Carthage is unsourced"

17:46, 15 November 2014‎ Spshu: "never said that, Cartage was suppressed to make Tunis"

I do not agree that only one bishop can hold a single Catholic see, see Coadjutor bishop, even though they are granted titular bishop titles to function.

Suppression and the use of the same name just indicates that the Tunis and Carthage sees are intertwined. When you removed Carthage from Tunis, you left an unnotable article, where as there was more to Carthage being the African Primate and a longer history.

The rules of the Catholic Church are not the rules of WP. Even though there are new election districts for US Representatives every 10 years, WP treats the district of the same name as the same. Spshu (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The Catholic Church, which has the power to erect and suppress Catholic sees, considers the two sees distinct. Perhaps you can cite some church or other authority that considers the Catholic Archdiocese of Tunis to be the ancient see of Carthage. So far, you can only cite yourself.

It is still true that "The claim that the Archdiocese of Tunis is identical with the ancient diocese of Carthage is unsourced".

You "never said that, Cartage was suppressed to make Tunis", but GCatholic does say that the Archdiocese of Carthage was suppressed to make the Territorial Prelature (now Archdiocese) of Tunis.

The Coadjutor Bishop of Anytown (who does not nowadays hold a titular see) is not Bishop of Anytown: only when the incumbent Bishop of Anytown dies or resigns does he become Bishop of Anytown. An Auxiliary Bishop of Anytown (who does hold a titular see) may never become Bishop of Anytown, but he can become Bishop of Anothertown, a see distinct from that of Anytown. At any particular time, there iBs only one (Latin Catholic) Bishop of Anytown. Casaroli was Archbishop of Carthage at the same time as Callens was Bishop-Prelate of Tunis.

Suppression and resumption of a name indicates that the two are intertwined, not identical. The article on the Archdiocese of Tunis is as notable as the subject deserves.

WP:OR is a rule of Wikipedia. Esoglou (talk) 07:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but you keep on claim that my positions is that they are one and the same which is not the case for the umpteen time. Any ways, a source for them being the same is the Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Archdiocese of Carthage: "After eight centuries of abeyance the archiepiscopal See of Carthage was restored by Leo XIII (19 Nov., 1884)..." You are now stating what I have been point out along: "Suppression and resumption of a name indicates that the two are intertwined, not identical." which is reason enough under WP to have subjects done in the same article. Also, then you will be nominating the Archdiocese of Tunis for deletion since you accept it fate. Spshu (talk) 16:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The Catholic Encyclopedia article described the situation as it then stood: the see of Carthage (which was not the Apostolic Vicariate of Tunis) had been restored, in 1884, as an Archdiocese, and the Apostolic Vicariate of Tunis (which was not the see of Carthage) had on the same date been suppressed to make way for it. In 1964, the Archdiocese of Carthage (which was not the Apostolic Vicariate of Tunis) was suppressed, and the Apostolic Vicariate of Tunis (which was not the see of Carthage) was restored as the Territorial Prelature of Tunis. The Tunis entity and the Carthage entity were thus distinct, but were intertwining in the 19th and 20th centuries, with each in turn suppressed so that the other could be restored. We are now in the post-1964 era: two unrelated sees exist at the same time, each with its own distinct ecclesiastical head. Exactly as in the pre-1884 situation, when the Vicariate of Tunis and the see of Carthage were unrelated entities existing at the same time, each with its own distinct ecclesiastical head – as again now. The intertwining is over. As before 1884, the Tunis entity is now related to the see of Carthage no more than it is to the sees of Avitta Bibba, Bavagaliana, Bonusta, Hippo Diarrhytus, Hirina, Mactaris, Materiana, Naraggara, Obba, Ruspae, Scilium, Segermes, Sicca Veneria, Sufes, Sufetula, Tabbora, Taparura, Thala, Thapsus, Thelepte, Thignica, Thizica, Thuburbo Maius, Thuburbo Minus, Thugga, Thysdrus, Tusuros, Usula, Uthina, Utica, Uzalis, all of which sees, like that of Carthage, were within the territory of the Vicariate of Tunis before 1884, the Archdiocese of Tunis today. Esoglou (talk) 20:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Esoglou's comment:

The Catholic Encyclopedia article described the situation as it then stood: the see of Carthage (which was not the Apostolic Vicariate of Tunis) had been restored, in 1884, as an Archdiocese, and the Apostolic Vicariate of Tunis (which was not the see of Carthage) had on the same date been suppressed to make way for it.

These were two separate administrative structures, of different types, that existed at different times within generally the same geographical area. A pope exercises jurisdiction in an apostolic vicariate through a revokable jurisdiction delegated to an apostolic vicar; but a bishop exercises jurisdiction in a diocese through his own direct jurisdiction. I read that Pope Leo XIII decreed, in his 1884 apostolic letter Materna Ecclesiae caritas,^[1] that natural persons and juridical persons within the apostolic vicariate jurisdiction and within the specific geographical area "wherein Carthage formerly was" ("in quibus olim Carthago erat"),

1. to exit the jurisdiction of the apostolic vicar of Tunetanus (i.e. stop being the subject of the apostolic vicar)
2. to comply with and be subject to any provisions in the future
3. to enter the jurisdiction of the archbishop of Carthage (start being the subject of the archbishop)

This is analogous to having two containers, and pouring the contents of the first container (e.g. apostolic vicariate) into the second container (e.g. archdiocese).

I also find, the 1886 La gerarchia cattolica shows one entry:

• a metropolitan archdiocese – "Cartagine, Carthaginen. – Metr[politana]. – Tunisia, – Africa – Ristabilita da Sua Santità"^[2] Ristabilita is reestablished.

Two earlier directories, the 1867 Annuario Pontificio and the 1882 La gerarchia cattolica, each only show one entry:

• a titular archiepiscopal see – "Cartagine, Carthaginen. – Arciv[escovo]. – Africa."^[3][4]

This is analogous to having one container (e.g. archdiocese), and the container is empty.

These editions of Annuario Pontificio and La gerarchia cattolica are only lists of bishops and not lists of particular churches. This is analogous to being a person who is holding only a certain type of container (e.g. archdiocese), to the exclusion of all other types of containers (e.g. apostolic vicariate). This arguement should be about the containers and not about the various people holding the containers. The ancient archdiocese of Carthage, in reality, ceased to exist at least over eleven centuries ago; it should be the subject of a separate article. Then for several centuries a titular see of Carthage existed; it should not be the subject of a separate article since it only exists as a title without jurisdiction in reality; this is analogous to having one container (e.g. archdiocese), the container is empty, and the person cannot hold the container but can only point at the container and claim they can hold it. The modern archdiocese of Tunis should be the subject of a separate article since it exists in reality. In my opinion, listing the group of men who are assigned a titular title is just irrelevant since what these men was related to their office and not their title.

In 1964, the metropolitan archdiocese was suppressed and replaced with a prelature to comply with the bilateral agreement between the Holy See and the Tunisian government. The concordat stipulated that a "prelate nullius" is the legal representative of the church. This is a prelate of a null diocese, and this would conform to the 1917 Code of Canon Law in effect. The 1995 and 2010 changes would conform to the 1983 Code of Canon Law in effect. According to 1983 CIC canon 3, "canons of the Code neither abrogate nor derogate from the agreements entered into by the Apostolic See with nations or other political societies. These agreements therefore continue in force exactly as at present, notwithstanding contrary prescripts of this Code." So the 1964 concordat, unless it was abrogated by a later agreement, would govern the 1995 change. There is not enough information in the cited sources to determine what process took place in 1995. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

—BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carthage (episcopal see). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150615185439/http://www.vatican.va/archive/aas/documents/AAS-57-1965-ocr.pdf to http://www.vatican.va/archive/aas/documents/AAS-57-1965-ocr.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 10:00, 16 November 2016 (UTC)