Patriarch of Jerusalem

[Little_Boy_Lost]

What claim does the Roman Rite have to the Patriarchate of Jerusalem? Do any other Eastern Catholic Churches have a Patriarch of Jerusalem?

 

[Diakonia]

The Melkite Patriarch is styled Patriarch of Antioch and All the East, of Alexandria and of Jerusalem. He is the sole Eastern or Oriental Catholic patriarch to bear the title of Jerusalem.

 

[MarkosC]

My impression is that the current “Greek” Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem is the only one who can trace his lineage back to Nicea (and from there back to St. James).

Wikipedia says the Armenian Orthodox Episcopate was established in the 600s (doubtlessly due to the Chalcedonian schism).

I believe the Latin Patriarchate was established when the crusaders took Jerusalem, kicked out the “Greek” Orthodox Patriarch and put their own Latin churchman on it. [before anyone gets upset about this, my impression is that this was unfortunately common practice in Western European warfare due to the bishop’s political value. The east Romans did it too, especially when the Latin-Greek ecclesial controversy stepped up].

In 1772 - or about 50 years after the Melkite-Antiochian schism- Rome extended the Melkite Patriarchate of Antioch 's jurisdiction to cover Jerusalem and Alexandria, to remove the local Melkites from the jurisdiction of the local Latin bishops.

 

[malphono]

My impression is that the current “Greek” Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem is the only one who can trace his lineage back to Nicea (and from there back to St. James).

How? In the first place, Jerusalem was certainly not (ever) Byzantine. In the second place, any claim the Orthodox might have to “lineage” (which would be a stretch in any case) expired with the advent of the Melkite Church.

It seems to me that the Greek Orthodox “Patriarchate” of Jerusalem (as well as their claim to the title “Patriarchate” of Alexandria) is just as artificial as the Latin. And, even though it took centuries, at least the Latins have finally given up the pretense of both Alexandria and Antioch.

 

[MarkosC]

How? In the first place, Jerusalem was certainly not (ever) Byzantine. In the second place, any claim the Orthodox might have to “lineage” (which would be a stretch in any case) expired with the advent of the Melkite Church.

It seems to me that the Greek Orthodox “Patriarchate” of Jerusalem (as well as their claim to the title “Patriarchate” of Alexandria) is just as artificial as the Latin. And, even though it took centuries, at least the Latins have finally given up the pretense of both Alexandria and Antioch.

How? In the first place, Jerusalem was certainly not (ever) Byzantine. In the second place, any claim the Orthodox might have to “lineage” (which would be a stretch in any case) expired with the advent of the Melkite Church.

It seems to me that the Greek Orthodox “Patriarchate” of Jerusalem (as well as their claim to the title “Patriarchate” of Alexandria) is just as artificial as the Latin. And, even though it took centuries, at least the Latins have finally given up the pretense of both Alexandria and Antioch.

Sorry, Malphono, I don’t get this. I’m sure if you go through the history (especially one as problematic as the various bishops of Jerusalem), you can question whether or not any one bishop or synod was canonical. Nevertheless, there were people in Patriarchates of Alexandria and Jerusalem who sided with Chalcedon (and for that matter in Antioch and Constantinople who were against Chalcedon), and I don’t think you can just dismiss them.

And as far as Jerusalem goes (I’d never thought I’d come to apologize on behalf of the JP!), wikipedia has a list of the bishops of Jerusalem (to include the period when Jerusalem was the Roman city Aelia Capitolina). In particular, during the reign of the Emperor St. Constantine, St. Helena found the True Cross when St Makarios was the bishop, someone the current Patriarchate claims direct apostolic succession from. The Latin Patriarch can’t claim that, my Patriarch Gregorios can’t really claim that, and I do not know whether or not the Armenian Patriarch claims this.

Second, according to the 1922 census of Palestinian Christians, the majority were “Greek” Orthodox, making a vast majority “Byzantine Rite” when the “Greek” Catholic were added in. (interestingly, only the Greek Orthodox, Latins - all doubtlessly prostelytes from, and Greek Catholics

Third, Jerusalem and the monasteries around it (especially Mar Saba) played a critical role in the development of the liturgy and theology of the “Byzantine” tradition of Christianity, especially in the period from the Muslim conquest up until the end of iconoclasm. One example is the genre of the Canon, probably the largest component of daily Matins in the “Byzantine” liturgy (the most famous of which is probably St. John of Damascus’ Paschal Canon, attributed to when he was at Mar Saba. The entire “Byzantine” Christian world sings this on Pascha).

Anyway, apologies for making this sound like a lecture, but I’d say Jerusalem does have a strong “Byzantine” (if that’s what you want to call it) tradition.

 

[Diakonia]

The Patriarchate of Jerusalem traces to St James the Just

33 - 135 an independent bishopric, as were most first century Sees
135 - 325 - suffragn of the Caesarean Metropolitan
325 (First Nicea) - 451 Jerusalem granted precedence, despite not being a Metropolitan See
325 - 451 suffragn to the Patriarchate of Antioch
451 (Chalcedon) - denominated a Patriarchate
451 - resident (Greek) Patriarchate, suffragn to the Patriarch of Constantinople
638 - Armenian Patriarchate established, suffragn to the Supreme Patriarch & Catholicos of Etchmiadzin for All the Armenians
638 - present resident Armenian Patriarchate
1033 - Latin Patriarchate erected
1033 - 1187 resident Latin Patriarchate
1033 - 1187 Greek Patriarchate in exile at Constantinople
1187 - resident Greek Patriarchate reinstituted
1187 - present - resident Greek Patriarchate
1187 - 1291 Latin Patriarchate in exile at Akka
1291 - 1374 Latin Patriarchate in exile at Cyprus
1374 - 1847 titular Latin Patriarchate at Rome
1838 - His Beatitude Maimos III Mazloum, Patriarch of Antioch & All the East of the Melkites, accorded the title ad personam of Alexandria and of Jerusalem
1838 - present each Melkite Patriarch holds that same title ad personam
1847 - Latin Patriarchate reinstituted
1847 - present resident Latin Patriarchate

The valid line of succession of the patriarchal title “of Jerusalem” among Eastern & Oriental Christians belongs to the Greek Orthodox Church of Jerusalem. Neither the Melkites, Latins, nor Armenians can assert a claim of anywhere near the validity of that held by the Orthodox.

 

[mardukm]

What claim does the Roman Rite have to the Patriarchate of Jerusalem? Do any other Eastern Catholic Churches have a Patriarch of Jerusalem?

AFAIK, the Latin Catholic Church does not have or claim to have any Traditional jurisdiction in the See of Jerusalem. The Church universal has always worked under the principle of TERRITORIAL jurisdiction. What the Latin Church possessed or possesses in Jerusalem is simply PERSONAL jurisdiction - the same type of jurisdiction that Syriac Orthodox have in the See of Alexandria, or the Eastern and Oriental Catholics have in the diaspora. Personal jurisdiction within territorial jurisdiciton seems to be an unknown concept in Eastern Orthodoxy.

During the Crusades, the Latin civil authorities replaced the Jerusalem Patriarch with one of their own, but this action did not have papal approval (though it was tolerated). So Latin jurisdiction, to repeat, in the See of Jerusalem - from the very beginning - has never been more than a personal jurisdiction, and proper territorial jurisdiction has always belonged to a non-Latin Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Diakonia,

I believe there was a line of Miaphysite Patriarchs in Jerusalem during the Muslim occupation after St. Sophronius? I’m not 100% sure, but I believe the Oriental Orthodox through the Armenians and Syrians have laid claim to the See of Jerusalem since the 7th century during the tumultuous period of Muslim occupation.

It should be noted that, in relation to the OP, the bishop of Rome, after the death of St. Sophronius, had appointed an apostolic administrator to temporarily govern the affairs of the Jerusalem Church in the name of Chalcedonian orthodoxy in the absence of a Patriarch. But the Pope of Rome has always recognized the See of Jerusalem to be a distinct self-governing territorial jurisdiction.

Blessings,
Marduk

The Patriarchate of Jerusalem traces to St James the Just

33 - 135 an independent bishopric, as were most first century Sees
135 - 325 - suffragn of the Caesarean Metropolitan
325 (First Nicea) - 451 Jerusalem granted precedence, despite not being a Metropolitan See
325 - 451 suffragn to the Patriarchate of Antioch
451 (Chalcedon) - denominated a Patriarchate
451 - resident (Greek) Patriarchate, suffragn to the Patriarch of Constantinople
638 - Armenian Patriarchate established, suffragn to the Supreme Patriarch & Catholicos of Etchmiadzin for All the Armenians
638 - present resident Armenian Patriarchate
1033 - Latin Patriarchate erected
1033 - 1187 resident Latin Patriarchate
1033 - 1187 Greek Patriarchate in exile at Constantinople
1187 - resident Greek Patriarchate reinstituted
1187 - present - resident Greek Patriarchate
1187 - 1291 Latin Patriarchate in exile at Akka
1291 - 1374 Latin Patriarchate in exile at Cyprus
1374 - 1847 titular Latin Patriarchate at Rome
1838 - His Beatitude Maimos III Mazloum, Patriarch of Antioch & All the East of the Melkites, accorded the title ad personam of Alexandria and of Jerusalem
1838 - present each Melkite Patriarch holds that same title ad personam
1847 - Latin Patriarchate reinstituted
1847 - present resident Latin Patriarchate

The valid line of succession of the patriarchal title “of Jerusalem” among Eastern & Oriental Christians belongs to the Greek Orthodox Church of Jerusalem. Neither the Melkites, Latins, nor Armenians can assert a claim of anywhere near the validity of that held by the Orthodox.

 

[Diakonia]

I believe there was a line of Miaphysite Patriarchs in Jerusalem during the Muslim occupation after St. Sophronius? I’m not 100% sure, but I believe the Oriental Orthodox through the Armenians and Syrians have laid claim to the See of Jerusalem since the 7th century during the tumultuous period of Muslim occupation.

You may be referring to the allegation that the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Antioch all held Miaphysite beliefs in the late 5th and early 6th century - matters that St Sophronius debated with them in their own Sees, before he himself took the See of Jerusalem.

The Armenians established their patriarchate in Jerusalem less than a half-dozen years after the Saint’s repose.

The Syriacs claim 14 or 15 early bishops of Jerusalem to have been Syrian - those are probably the ones who served between First Nicea and Chalcedon, during which time Jerusalem was under Antioch. After Chalcedon, it became subject to Constantinople. But the Syriacs have not had a continuous episcopal presence there and never a patriarchate.

 

[Little_Boy_Lost]

So whose see is it properly? The Syriac Catholic Church?

 

[malphono]

So whose see is it properly? The Syriac Catholic Church?

Properly, at this point in history, it’s no one’s see. It’s merely titular and has been for well over a millennium. Some claim it as “their own” but the Syriac Church doesn’t claim it at all. I’m not sure about the Copts, but I seem to think they don’t either.

 

[Hesychios]

Interesting post!

The Patriarchate of Jerusalem traces to St James the Just

33 - 135 an independent bishopric, as were most first century Sees
135 - 325 - suffragn of the Caesarean Metropolitan
325 (First Nicea) - 451 Jerusalem granted precedence, despite not being a Metropolitan See
325 - 451 suffragn to the Patriarchate of Antioch
451 (Chalcedon) - denominated a Patriarchate
451 - resident (Greek) Patriarchate, suffragn to the Patriarch of Constantinople …

I am particularly interested in this period, at the moment:

325 - 451 suffragn to the Patriarchate of Antioch

How is it that this happened ?

Thanks

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

My impression is that the current “Greek” Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem is the only one who can trace his lineage back to Nicea (and from there back to St. James).

Wikipedia says the Armenian Orthodox Episcopate was established in the 600s (doubtlessly due to the Chalcedonian schism).

I believe the Latin Patriarchate was established when the crusaders took Jerusalem, kicked out the “Greek” Orthodox Patriarch and put their own Latin churchman on it. [before anyone gets upset about this, my impression is that this was unfortunately common practice in Western European warfare due to the bishop’s political value. The east Romans did it too, especially when the Latin-Greek ecclesial controversy stepped up].

In 1772 - or about 50 years after the Melkite-Antiochian schism- Rome extended the Melkite Patriarchate of Antioch 's jurisdiction to cover Jerusalem and Alexandria, to remove the local Melkites from the jurisdiction of the local Latin bishops.

Marcus??? A.K.A. Reader Macarios??? Seriously?! I’m a little shocked… and very happy to see you here!

ICXC + NIKA,
Phillip

 

[Diakonia]

Interesting post!

I am particularly interested in this period, at the moment:

325 - 451 suffragn to the Patriarchate of Antioch

How is it that this happened ?

Constantinople was not created a Patriarchate until 381 (at the 1st Council of Constantinople) and, even then, its incumbent was effectively ranked after the Patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome - despite the Council’s declaration that Constantinople was ‘New Rome’ and that it should hold a primacy of honor after that of Rome.

Alexandria’s reach did not then extend to Jerusalem and the Latins had no real presence there. The earliest Patriarchs of Constantinople were ordinarily appointed by their Antiochian counterparts. The true ascendancy of Constantinople began in 451, when the relationship between it and Antioch was reversed.

 

[Diakonia]

So whose see is it properly? The Syriac Catholic Church?

Not sure where you would come by that notion from what’s been posted. As I already said and Malphono has reiterated, neither the Catholic nor Orthodox Syriacs have any claim there. To follow up on Malphono’s other observation, the Copts likewise have no real claim to it - an episcopal presence on the part of the Orthodox, not even that on the part of the Coptic Catholics.

 

[Diakonia]

So whose see is it properly? The Syriac Catholic Church?

hmm, spent too long editing, forgive the repetition of a bit of the last post.

Not sure where you would come by that notion from what’s been posted. As I already said and Malphono has reiterated, neither the Catholic nor Orthodox Syriacs have any claim there.

The Syriac Catholics have a Patriarchal Exarchate of Jerusalem and Amman (Jordan), headed up by a presbyteral vicar. The exarchate consists of 3 parishes (1 actually in Jerusalem) served by a single priest (who also serves Bethlehem, I believe; a second priest is in Jordan). In its entirety (Israel and Jordan), the exarchate provides pastoral care to about 1,500 faithful.

The Syriac Orthodox have a small monastery there (4 monks, at last report) and a single priest (2 others serve in Jordan and Bethlehem). They didn’t have a resident bishop until the late 15th century and their jurisdiction is a Patriarchal-Vicarate (also of Jerusalem and Jordan), headed by an episcopal vicar. Their lay census is similar to that of their Catholic counterparts.

To follow up on Malphono’s other observation, the Copts likewise have no real claim to it. There is a Coptic Orthodox Metropolitan, styled as Metropolitan of the Holy and Great City of Our Lord, Jerusalem, Holy Zion, Archbishop of the Holy Archdiocese of Jerusalem, All Palestine, Philadelphia of Jordan and all the Near East. That jurisdiction dates only to the 15th century (when its creation sparked a dispute between the Copts and Syriacs). Not sure what the numbers are on the ground - the Copts do have a fair number of parishes scattered throughout Israel.

The Coptic Catholics might have a parish there, can’t speak with certainty to that, but they have not even a patriarchal vicar there.

The Ethiopian Tewahado Orthodox have an Archbishop, but the post is of relatively recent vintage compared to most of the other ecclesia. However, they’ve had a monastic and presbyteral presence there for about 1500 years - but nothing on a scale or standing that would accord them a claim. The Eritrean Orthodox there are relatively few in number, mainly refugees, and are ordinarily served by their Ethiopian counterparts.

The Ethiopian & Eritrean Catholics have, if anything, a very minor presence there.

In short, everyone likes to have a piece of the Holy City*, but large slices are hard to come by. The Greek Orthodox Patriarch, the Armenian Patriarch, and the Latin Patriarch are recognized by the civil authorities as the ‘Guardians of the Christian Sites’ - or somesuch title. They can rarely agree on much of anything and the result is the seemingly annual monastic rumbles among and between clergy of the three Churches with sideshows involving clergy of the other Churches.

*Russian Orthodox (MP), Ukrainian Orthodox, Ukrainian Catholic - you name it, they have some presence - although, as memory serves me, the UCs are served by their own clergy but are under the spiritual omophor of the Melkites by reason of a pastoral agreement crafted by representatives of the two Byzantine Churches.

 

[ag_vn]

The Syriac Catholics have a Patriarchal Exarchate of Jerusalem and Amman (Jordan), headed up by a presbyteral vicar. The exarchate consists of 3 parishes (1 actually in Jerusalem) served by a single priest (who also serves Bethlehem, I believe; a second priest is in Jordan). In its entirety (Israel and Jordan), the exarchate provides pastoral care to about 1,500 faithful.

The Syriac Catholic Patriarchal Exarchate of Jerusalem is actually headed up by a bishop, currently Bishop Pierre Melki.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Diakonia,

You may be referring to the allegation that the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Antioch all held Miaphysite beliefs in the late 5th and early 6th century - matters that St Sophronius debated with them in their own Sees, before he himself took the See of Jerusalem.

The Armenians established their patriarchate in Jerusalem less than a half-dozen years after the Saint’s repose.

The Syriacs claim 14 or 15 early bishops of Jerusalem to have been Syrian - those are probably the ones who served between First Nicea and Chalcedon, during which time Jerusalem was under Antioch. After Chalcedon, it became subject to Constantinople. But the Syriacs have not had a continuous episcopal presence there and never a patriarchate.

You bring up an Interesting point which I have never really thought about. IIRC, Jerusalem was established as a Patriarchate by the 4th Ecum, and since Oriental Orthodoxy did not sign on, I think the See of Jerusalem has always been viewed as suffragan to one of the other major Sees, and - to the OO - does not have Patriarchal status like Alexandria or Antioch.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[JohnVIII]

The first bishop in Jerusalem was Jacob (James) the Just. It was not then called a “church”, but rather a (Christian) Synagogue. The bishopric there remained in the hands of men who were all relatives of the Holy Virgin Mary for several centuries. Jacob (and hence Jerusalem) ruled over all including St Peter himself, though out of respect for Roman (and early Eastern) teachings I need to point out that this is not a Catholic teaching, but it is a fact nevertheless.

BTW, there is no such name as “James” anywhere in canonized scripture. King James wanted to have a name that was in the Bible, but rather than changing his own name to a name in the Bible he ordered that his name be put into the Bible, so Jacob was replaced by James in the King James version of the Bible, and sadly every English translation of the Bible that I know of (except for only one done by a Orthodox nun in Colorado) followed the lead of the King James version and left the name as “James”.

The original “Gospel according to Matthew”, which was written in Hebrew, was there in Jerusalem and was seen by St Jerome I think it was. I often wonder how it was “lost” (or perhaps destroyed!) If it is ever recovered I wonder if it will have “upon this Rock I will build my Church” in it written in Hebrew? If so, it would be the only place that the word “church” was ever used in a Jewish context! And also BTW, the word “assembly” found in James 2:2 is mistranslated, it should be “Synagogue”.

So St Jacob, the Brother of God, lost his main apostle Peter to Rome. He lost his synagogue to a Greek church. He lost his leadership, and thanks to King James, he even lost his name!

 

[Formosus]

I find the idea of a “Hebrew Gospel of Matthew” to be a little far fetched. No one spoke Hebrew at the time, aside from the Priests and Pharisees. It was already a dead language much akin to Latin and Sanskrit today. The Jewish people in Palestine spoke Aramaic, and the ones outside of Palestine spoke Greek.

The beauty of the Greek Gospels is that they are written in the people’s Greek. Not in the high attic/ionian imitation like other “Koine” writers of the time wrote in, but in the everyday language of the people. The reference Jerome made is vague and could be referring to a Gospel used by Hebrew people. The only reason I can see for a Hebrew gospel (in those days) would be ceremonial value.

The constant Tradition of the Church (in all Apostolic Churches) was that Peter held primacy among the Apostles. In Acts, Peter is the one that delivers the speech at the Synod of Jerusalem, not James.

As for Jerusalem, I think its fair to say that the current Eastern Orthodox Patriarchate is probably the authentic patriarchate of Jerusalem. I beleive that he is the only one that the Holy Fire miracle works for…