Talk:Roman Catholic Diocese of Orlando

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "d0408" :
  • {{>{{cite book | author = Dodson, Laura |title = Forty years of growth and social change will mark women's convention | publisher = Florida Catholic | year = April 18-24, 2008}}
  • {{cite book | author = Dodson, Laura |title = Forty years of growth and social change will mark women's convention | publisher = Florida Catholic | year = April 18-24, 2008}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Catholic population

The estimate of 800,000 is either a hacker or a terrible misguess. A large church in Indialantic has 11,000 members. It is one of the largest in the diocese. If all 80 churches had 10,000 members, that would equal 800,000 members. The figure is wrong since there is no way that could be true! Student7 (talk) 00:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Roman Catholic Diocese of Orlando. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090909164131/http://www.floridatoday.com:80/article/20090905/NEWS01/909050314/1086/MCC%20ponders%20moving%20school? to http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20090905/NEWS01/909050314/1086/MCC+ponders+moving+school

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Map of Diocese

The claim to the territory of The Moon seems legitimate. The map of the diocese's location should be changed to include this territory.

165.156.40.49 (talk) 17:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

"Roman Catholic Diocese of The Moon" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Roman Catholic Diocese of The Moon. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Bishop Gregory Parkes area updated

"Gregory Parkes, a priest of this diocese, was appointed Bishop of Pensacola-Tallahassee in 2012. later in 2017, he was appointed Bishop of Saint Petersburg." Out of this World Adventure (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

July 2021 Latin Church revision

As of July 2021, this article was modified to eliminate the nondescript term "Roman Catholic" in favor of the more precise distinction of "Latin Church" (the sui iuris church) and "Catholic Church" (the denomination). If you believe this edit to be in error or improper, please make the relevant reversion and open discussion on this talk page or my personal talk page. Thank you. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Moon Claim Canonical Citation

I've heard the factoid about the Diocese having jurisdiction over the moon many times, but never with a citation to an actual canon of the 1917 code that grants jurisdiction to the country of origin of the expedition. Anyone have an actual citation? Maximilian775 (talk) Maximilian775 (talk) 13:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Moon

Any edits to the information on the moon claims should be discussed here before the edits are made.

Some notes:

• Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia and the infobox should not be edited to included a map with the moon, area reflecting the moon, or that the moon is "claimed", as this story is anecdotal and has no actual canonical weight as it was not formally confirmed by the Pontiff.
• The 1917 Code of Canon Law contains no such statement about explorers and new territory. I have looked into this but WP:NOR prevents me from adding this. I hope that one day a reputable publication will write about this to put the nail in the coffin.

~Darth Stabro^{Talk/Contribs} 16:27, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is indeed a serious encyclopedia, but some of the things we document are definitely not serious – and this is one of them. Bishop Borders's claim to jurisdiction over the moon was tongue-in-cheek (the cited article says as much), and needs to be described in a less serious way. By the same token, his legal argument doesn't need to described in detail, much less critically examined. So maybe let's try something like this:

In 1969, Apollo 11 was launched from the Kennedy Space Center, which is within the diocese. Bishop Borders joked to Pope Paul VII that he was now Bishop of the Moon, citing canon law about newly discovered territories. (Other bishops made similar claims, notably Archbishop Terence Cooke who had jurisdiction over the Kennedy Space Center as vicar of the Military Ordinariate).

Tagging @Pbritti and @Maximilian775 Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 14:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Still waiting for a response on this I particularly want to hear from @Pbritti and @Darth Stabro, since they obviously know more about things Catholic than I do. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 14:48, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The problem is, even the story of the bishop claiming it is anecdotal and not well-sourced. We have to be careful about how it's worded because of that. I'm not saying we should eliminate it entirely from the article, but the wording needs to be careful and people need to stop edit warring it to make it sound more credible than it is. Your phrasing is good, but I'd still like something more along the lines of "There is a popular account that Bishop Borders joked to...", etc. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk/Contribs} 15:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Good point. What if I change "Bishop Borders joked" to "According to an anecdote in a diocesan publication, Bishop Borders joked"? Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 15:25, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I'd rather put the kibosh on this altogether. Not to be a killjoy, but any DYK concerning this would only further validate and propagate what is essentially a myth.

~~~ Maximilian775 (talk) 16:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

It a good story, which means it's not going to go away. If the origin is dubious, then that's all the more reason to mention it, so we can document the fact that it is dubious. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Precisely. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk/Contribs} 19:15, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough.

~~~ Maximilian775 (talk) 02:33, 31 July 2024 (UTC)