Melkite claim on the Patriarchies of Jerusalem and Alexandria

[Nine_Two]

I’m wondering where these claims come from, what is their legitimacy?

 

[twf]

I’m wondering where these claims come from, what is their legitimacy?

I believe these additional titles are added as personal honorifics to reflect the fact that the Melkite Patriarch is the only Byzantine Catholic Patriarch, whose flock extends to the traditional territories of Jerusalem and Alexandria. In a sense, the Melkite Patriarch is the Catholic counterpart to three Greek Orthodox Patriarchs: Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem.

 

[Nine_Two]

That seems quite counter to what their claim of Orthodoxy would suggest. It would also go completely contrary to the basis for their own claims of a working independence from Rome (which is based on the traditional Orthodox concept of the Metropolis). I’m hoping there is something else.

 

[Vico]

I’m wondering where these claims come from, what is their legitimacy?

According to a Melkite site: Patriarch Maximos III Masloum was elected in 1833. In 1838 he obtained from Rome the additional titles of Patriarch of Jerusalem and Patriarch of Alexandria as a result of the movement of the Melkite people throughout the Middle East.
mliles.com/melkite/historyfrjamesvoice.shtml

But the proper eparchy of the Melkite Patriarch is Damas, Syria.

 

[mardukm]

I always thought those extra titles referred to personal jurisdictions, not territorial jurisdiction.

 

[MichaelinMD]

I always thought those extra titles referred to personal jurisdictions, not territorial jurisdiction.

Pardon my ignorance (with which I am blessed in abundance ), but could you explain the difference please?

Thanks!

In Christ,
MinM

 

[mardukm]

Pardon my ignorance (with which I am blessed in abundance ), but could you explain the difference please?

Thanks!

I’m sure our resident Canon expert Vico will chime in with a quote, but until then…

Personal jurisdiction is jurisdiction over a people.

Territorial jurisdiction is jurisdiction over a geographical location (and the people within it).

Personal jurisdiction attaches to the people directly, while territorial jurisdiction is attached to the land.

For example (in the OOC), the Syriac Orthodox Patriarch has territorial jurisdiction in his traditional geographic territory, but has personal jurisdiction on Syriac Orthodox Christians anywhere in the world. The same goes for the Syriac Catholic Patriarch (as far as Catholics are concerned, at least).

Another example (in the CC) are the jurisdictions of Oriental and Eastern bishops in traditional Latin territories (such as the U.S.). The jurisdiction of Oriental and Eastern Catholic bishops in the U.S,. is personal (i.e., Oriental and Eastern Catholics in the U.S are under their jurisdiction). Only Latin Catholic bishops have territorial jurisdiction in the U.S.

Per ancient Tradition, jurisdictions cannot overlap (i.e. a Christian cannot have two proper local bishops). So a Melkite Christian is under the jurisdiction of his Eastern Catholic bishop in the U.S.,and that bishop has a personal jurisdiction. The Latin bishop does not have jurisdiction over that Melkite Christian.

All territorial jurisdiction is also personal, but not all personal jurisdiction is territorial.

I hope I have not confused you.

Personal jurisdictions within territorial jurisdictions is a praxis of the OOC’s and the CC’s. It is unknown among the EOC’s. In other words, the distinction exists only in Communions where there is more than one major Tradition.

Blessings

 

[malphono]

All territorial jurisdiction is also personal, but not all personal jurisdiction is territorial.

Well … most “personal jurisdictions” (except for certain Latin oddities that are extraneous to this thread and which I’m not interestedin discussing anyway) are also territorial. I suppose one could call it a hybrid. IOW, the jurisdiction of, say, the Melkite Eparchy in the US is for Melkites in the US. It doesn’t extend to Mexico or other places which are not specifically included.

 

[mardukm]

Good point.

Well … most “personal jurisdictions” (except for certain Latin oddities that are extraneous to this thread and which I’m not interestedin discussing anyway) are also territorial. I suppose one could call it a hybrid. IOW, the jurisdiction of, say, the Melkite Eparchy in the US is for Melkites in the US. It doesn’t extend to Mexico or other places which are not specifically included.

 

[MichaelinMD]

I’m sure our resident Canon expert Vico will chime in with a quote, but until then…

Personal jurisdiction is jurisdiction over a people.

Territorial jurisdiction is jurisdiction over a geographical location (and the people within it).

Personal jurisdiction attaches to the people directly, while territorial jurisdiction is attached to the land.

For example (in the OOC), the Syriac Orthodox Patriarch has territorial jurisdiction in his traditional geographic territory, but has personal jurisdiction on Syriac Orthodox Christians anywhere in the world. The same goes for the Syriac Catholic Patriarch (as far as Catholics are concerned, at least).

Another example (in the CC) are the jurisdictions of Oriental and Eastern bishops in traditional Latin territories (such as the U.S.). The jurisdiction of Oriental and Eastern Catholic bishops in the U.S,. is personal (i.e., Oriental and Eastern Catholics in the U.S are under their jurisdiction). Only Latin Catholic bishops have territorial jurisdiction in the U.S.

Per ancient Tradition, jurisdictions cannot overlap (i.e. a Christian cannot have two proper local bishops). So a Melkite Christian is under the jurisdiction of his Eastern Catholic bishop in the U.S.,and that bishop has a personal jurisdiction. The Latin bishop does not have jurisdiction over that Melkite Christian.

All territorial jurisdiction is also personal, but not all personal jurisdiction is territorial.

I hope I have not confused you.

Personal jurisdictions within territorial jurisdictions is a praxis of the OOC’s and the CC’s. It is unknown among the EOC’s. In other words, the distinction exists only in Communions where there is more than one major Tradition.

Blessings

Uh…okay.

We Catholics do a pretty good job of confusing ourselves, eh? (And then there’s those pesky Orthodox, with a zillion different “jurisdictions”… )

 

[Nestor_kea]

Just a few points:

• Now each EC patriarch has right to bless marriages of members of his church anywhere in the world. This is more “curiosity” but why not to know it…
• As I understand reasoning from Melkite web: It was in times with Latin honorific pariarchs and “interesting” situation of Coptic Catholics, and “patriarch” was not (very probably) by Rome understood to be something so unnormally high, it was more something like “just another title”, maybe “just another title” appropriate for eastern ones because they like it, but surely it was not understood as “nearly Pope” and I doubt it was under “hard consideration” what exactly this would or could do with jurical status (if a problem occurs, there is still possibility to write a bula) or how it would or could be interacting with not-existing Catholic Coptic patriarchate.
• He is patriarch of Alexandria but not of the whole Africa, and of Jerusalem but not of the whole Palestine and so on. And in order of his titles, more honorific Alexandria (No. 3) goes after HIS OWN Antioch (No. 4).
• Another point of view: After split with miaphysitism, there was just one Cat./Orth. patriarch in that area – patriarch of Antioch (well, with OO counterpart but…). And so it is logical to consider him also to be patriarch of other sees which were vacant for Cat./Orth.

 

[mardukm]

Uh…okay.

We Catholics do a pretty good job of confusing ourselves, eh? (And then there’s those pesky Orthodox, with a zillion different “jurisdictions”… )

Okay. I admit I have an unfair advantage having come from the OO communion. The notion of personal jurisdictions within territorial jurisdiction has been a reality among the OOC’s for several centuries before it even existed in the Catholic communion. This is for the simple fact that OOC’s have lived with the reality of more than one major Tradition in its communion for much longer than the CC’s. For a long time, the CC was composed only of the Latin CC. It has only been within the past 100 years that the Catholic communion has lived the reality that the OO communion has lived for much longer.

Blessings

 

[Vico]

I’m sure our resident Canon expert Vico will chime in with a quote, but until then…

Personal jurisdiction is jurisdiction over a people.

Territorial jurisdiction is jurisdiction over a geographical location (and the people within it).

Personal jurisdiction attaches to the people directly, while territorial jurisdiction is attached to the land.

For example (in the OOC), the Syriac Orthodox Patriarch has territorial jurisdiction in his traditional geographic territory, but has personal jurisdiction on Syriac Orthodox Christians anywhere in the world. The same goes for the Syriac Catholic Patriarch (as far as Catholics are concerned, at least).

Another example (in the CC) are the jurisdictions of Oriental and Eastern bishops in traditional Latin territories (such as the U.S.). The jurisdiction of Oriental and Eastern Catholic bishops in the U.S,. is personal (i.e., Oriental and Eastern Catholics in the U.S are under their jurisdiction). Only Latin Catholic bishops have territorial jurisdiction in the U.S.

Per ancient Tradition, jurisdictions cannot overlap (i.e. a Christian cannot have two proper local bishops). So a Melkite Christian is under the jurisdiction of his Eastern Catholic bishop in the U.S.,and that bishop has a personal jurisdiction. The Latin bishop does not have jurisdiction over that Melkite Christian.

All territorial jurisdiction is also personal, but not all personal jurisdiction is territorial.

I hope I have not confused you.

Personal jurisdictions within territorial jurisdictions is a praxis of the OOC’s and the CC’s. It is unknown among the EOC’s. In other words, the distinction exists only in Communions where there is more than one major Tradition.

Blessings

A portion of the faithful is formed * which constitutes a particular church whence they are cared for and therefore subject to ordinary governance. That particular church may be based upon territory or by some other criteria. Since other criteria may determine it, many may exist in a geographical location. The governing ecclesial laws are territorial law or personal law. Ordinary power or governance (jurisdiction) is attached to an office.

• eparchy (diocese), territorial prelature, territorial abbacy, personal ordinariate, apostolic eparchy or exarchy (vicariate), apostolic prefecture, apostolic administration, stauropegiac monastary.