Talk:Jordan (bishop of Poland)

Learn more about this page

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Poland Mid‑importance

	Poland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Poland or Poznan?

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

A bishop is always bishop of a region, not just a city. But a bishop's diocese/bishopric is always called after his seat/see, that is, the place where his actual seat (throne, chair, cathedra, cathedral) is located: in a city. The only source I have on the matter says definitively that Jordan had his seat at Poznan and calls him bp of Poznan. Undoubtedly he was the first bishop of Poland and that in its entirety comprised his see. And he was probably also a missionary bishop, but I can see no reason not to name him after his seat like all other bishops. Srnec 04:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not always, usually. Jordan was most probably missionary bishop. That's why he had so specific title. There are some doubts. Tradition and most part of historians think that he had title "bishop of Poland" (Polish: biskup Polski) with seat in Poznań. Other group thinks that he was rather attached to court of Polish duke, who was "peregrine ruler" moving between main grody (Poznań, Gniezno, Giecz, Ostrów Lednicki). In this case only cathedral and curia were in Poznań. This situation, according to known facts, took place up to year 1000, and estabilishing metropolis in Gniezno and new dioeceses in Kraków, Wrocław and Kołobrzeg (in this year seat of bisops of Poland in Poznań was transformed to seat of bishops of Poznań, that kept for some time his authonomy from new metropolis) Radomil talk 10:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

There are exceptions for bishops without fixed sees, but the only source which has been verified refers to his fixed seat (cathedra) of Poznan. One could be a missionary bishops with a fixed see. I will do some more looking into this. Srnec 19:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I concur with Smec that the statement "Bishop of Poland" is somewhat misleading. To make an analogy- When the first Catholic diocese in the United States was established in Baltimore in 1789, The first bishop (John Carroll, SJ) should not be referred to as "Bishop of The United States". Musicwriter (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

There is difference between Catholic church in 18th century in New World, and 10th century in Central Europe. Any try to find analogy is missleading... Radomil talk 15:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Add topic