# Talk:Cuthbert of Canterbury

Is it really true to say that he is venerated in Eastern Orthodoxy? Johnbod 02:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The person who wrote this is confused about ordination vs consecration.  A bishop is made a bishop (ordained) only one time.  Such an ordination is for life, even if the bishop subsequently resigns, moves, retires or whatever.  When a bishop moves from one diocese to another (changes his/her jurisdiction) they are said to be "translated".  When a bishop becomes an archbishop he/she is consecrated (anointed) into the position.  Archbishop is simpy an administrative post and nothing more; therefore the person does not get ordained again.  (Ex;  Archbisop of canterbury is primate of England but only bishop of th local diocese.  Archbishop being an administrative job and having no standing within the sacramental holy orders.)
An archbishop can resign and is no longer an archbishop. (It is not a permamnent thing vs bishop which is for life .. even if the person is not functioning as such.)
Consequently, the argument that the two people in the article, bishop and archbishop, could not have been the same is not valid.  A bishop being appointed as an archishop would indeed be "consecrated" as well as "installed" when assuming the job.  That same person would be consecrated again if he/she were to be appointed as archbishop of yet another place.
The original confusion was the difference between being "ordained" a bishop and subsequently "consecrated" as something else.  Once a bisop always a bishop, archbishops come and go, loosing authority along the way, but still remain a "bishop".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.219.194 (talk) 18:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cuthbert of Canterbury/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 12:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 12:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I fixed a few "minor problems" as I reviewed, but I'm not listing them here. I now regard the article as GA-compliant. Pyrotec (talk) 11:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


### Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 
Well referenced.
B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 
Well referenced.
C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 
Not applicable - no illustrations.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 
Not applicable - no illustrations.
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Another "notch" on your long list of GA's. Congratulations on the GA. Pyrotec (talk) 11:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)