R
Robertwilliam
Guest
In Acts, Peter is the one that delivers the speech at the Synod of Jerusalem, not James.
WRONG James is the one who made the final decision.
WRONG James is the one who made the final decision.
- Status
D
Diakonia
Guest
After the year 135, according to Eusebius, those of Jewish ancestry were no longer permitted to hold the bishopric of Jerusalem because Hadrian wanted to eliminate the âJewishnessâ of the city, which he perceived as essential to consolidating his ruleâŠ
V
Vico
Guest
The Catholic Church has these six Circumscriptions: Patriarchates (1), Titular Patriarchates (1), Patriarchal Exarchates (3), Patriarchal Territories (1)
Roman Rite (1): Jerusalem
Armenian Church (1): Jerusalem and Amman
Greek-Melkite Church (2): Jerusalem, Jerusalem
Maronite Church (1): Jerusalem and Palestine
Syrian Church (1): Jerusalem (Palestine and Jordan)
Roman Rite (1): Jerusalem
Armenian Church (1): Jerusalem and Amman
Greek-Melkite Church (2): Jerusalem, Jerusalem
Maronite Church (1): Jerusalem and Palestine
Syrian Church (1): Jerusalem (Palestine and Jordan)
F
Formosus
Guest
Weâll I will correct my statement that Peter makes the first speech, and then James comes out in favor of Peterâs statements at the council, BUT James was not the one who âmade the final decision.â It was a conciliar decision. My point was that Peter took the lead and was considered first among equals. Even If James was in charge of the church in Jerusalem.In Acts, Peter is the one that delivers the speech at the Synod of Jerusalem, not James.
WRONG James is the one who made the final decision.
D
Diakonia
Guest
Only in the mind of giga-catholic, Vico. You need to stop citing it.
Firstly, there is no basis for such a list - it appears nowhere but on that site; besides which âŠ
He lists Jerusalem as a titular patriarchal see and then traces it back past Maximos III Mazloom, of blessed memory. However, Maximos III was the first Melkite Patriarch to be afforded the title of Jerusalem.
Then he lists Jerusalem as a Territory Dependent on the Patriarch of Jerusalem. A see cannot be dependent on a Titular Patriarchate, as a Titular See is without canonical jurisdiction - therefore, it cannot have suffragns, dependencies, etc.
I canât even explain it beyond that. I tried, but the collision of contradictions makes my head spin.
V
Vico
Guest
Itâs good. I think you misunderstood the format, it is for multiple Churches. It gives:
Roman: Patriarchal See (Latin Patriarch Fouad Twal)
Armenian: Patriarchal Exarchate (vacant) of the Armenian Patriarch (Cilicia)
Greek-Melkite: Titular Patriarchal See* of Jerusalem and there is also a prelate for the territory dependent on the Melkite Patriarch (Antioch).
Maronite: Patriarchal Exarchate of the Maronite Patriarch (Antioch)
Syrian: Patriarchal Exarchate of the Syrian Patriarch (Antioch)
- Titular Patriarchal See means jurisdiction over no parishes.
catholic-hierarchy.org/country/bps.html
The Patriarchial Sees are given here:
gcatholic.com/dioceses/data/type-patr.htm
D
Diakonia
Guest
I misunderstood nothing, my friend.
There are 9 Melkite parishes in the Occupied Territory, all of which are under the jurisdiction of the Melkite Patriarch who is himself the Archbishop. His jurisdiction is not titular - if it were, heâd have no jurisdiction. Archbishop Jules is his Vicar Apostolic.
There are no titular patriarchates in the Eastern or Oriental Churches.
M
marlo
Guest
I used Google translate to translate the Latin Vulgate name âIacobusâ to English and it showed âJamesâ
BTW, there is no such name as âJamesâ 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 âJamesâ.
The original âGospel according to Matthewâ, 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 âlostâ (or perhaps destroyed!) If it is ever recovered I wonder if it will have âupon this Rock I will build my Churchâ in it written in Hebrew? If so, it would be the only place that the word âchurchâ was ever used in a Jewish context! And also BTW, the word âassemblyâ found in James 2:2 is mistranslated, it should be âSynagogueâ.
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!
J
JohnVIII
Guest
I will concede that the probability is that it was Aramaic, but every reference made to it says that it was in Hebrew.
As for the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchate and the Holy Fire, I have nothing against the Patriarchate but the Holy Fire has come down to others besides the Patriarch. On one occasion it came to a nun who was in the Holy Sepulchre.
M
mardukm
Guest
Brother Formosus is correct. St. Peter is the one who delivered the most important speech, the doctrinal one.Formosus:
WRONG James is the one who made the final decision.
You are also correct that St. James made the final decision. But letâs not forget that the purpose of the Jerusalem Council was to decide on a point of discpline, not doctrine. St. Peter had already established the doctrinal basis for the decision long before this, in the first ex cathedra decree of the Church by the coryphaeus of the Apostles as recorded in Acts 11.
Blessings,
Marduk
J
JohnVIII
Guest
âiakObosâ is the first word in James 1:1 in Greek and it is Jacobus. The same word is translated as Jacob in, for example, Mark 12:26. âiakObâ is Jacob. James is not a variant of Jacob, they are two different names, but everywhere you look they are treated as if they were the same. But the fact is that this all started because King James wanted his name to be in the Bible, so âiakObâ was deliberately mistranslated as James, and the whole world followed suit!
V
Vico
Guest
The Vicar Apostolic what it shows at that second link I gave:
gcatholic.com/dioceses/diocese/jeru2.htm
Nowhere in these posts nor on the site I gave is it represented that only eastern terminology is used. You are saying that Patriarch Gregorios III (Laham) isnot all the following, since he was chosen and accepted his current office in 2000**:**
Patriarch of Antioch of the Greek-Melkites (Syria) ([2000.11.29] 2000.12.05 â âŠ)
Titular Patriarch of Alexandria of the Greek-Melkites ([2000.11.29] 2000.12.05 â âŠ)
Titular Patriarch of Jerusalem of the Greek-Melkites ([2000.11.29] 2000.12.05 â âŠ)
President of Synod of the Greek-Melkite Catholic Church (2000.12.05 â âŠ)
President of Assembly of Catholic Ordinaries in Syria (A.H.C.S.) (2000.12.05 â âŠ)
D
Diakonia
Guest
What I am saying that HB is not is: Titular Patriarch of Alexandria or Titular Patriarch of Jerusalem. The titles of Alexandria and of Jerusalem are conferred ad personam on each Melkite Patriarch at the time of extension of Communion to him. That has been the case since HB Maximos III, of blessed memory. And, yes, there is a decided difference between a bestowal ad personam and the accordance of a titular title.
One who is titular in a See can not have a vicar, as he lacks canonical jurisdiction over that See. Without jurisdiction, one is titular - title only! I am not sure why you do not understand the distinction - it is more than the difference between de jure and de facto - a titular hierarch is neither - he is illusory, he holds a title that is imaginary on its face.
The Melkite Patriarch exercises ordinary jurisdiction over Greek-Catholics in both Jerusalem and Alexandria, thus he is not titular.
V
Vico
Guest
Perhaps there is a difference between the Melkite and the Roman tradition at the root of this. The question is the area of Jerusalem and Alexandria a Melkite eparchy? If not then it is a titular see.
Jerusalem and Alexandria are not Melkite eparchies or exarchies. According the the Annuario Pontifico, those two areas are dependent territories.
CCEO Canon 179
Bishops to whom an eparchy has not been entrusted for governing in their own name, whatever other function in the Church they exercise or exercised, are called titular bishops.
H
Hesychios
Guest
I am not sure I understand this.
It is clear that the Patriarchate at Antioch was reaching in this period, it got blocked by an Ecumenical Council (Ephesus) for very consciously and deliberately trying to dominate the church on Cyprus. The reason Antioch was reprimanded was because the church on Cyprus could demonstrate itâs Apostolic origins. Cyprus constituted itâs own synod.
I do not understand how Caesarea Maritima and Jerusalem could have become suffragans of Antioch, when together they appear to have been a synod in their own right from the beginning.
I am not saying you are wrong in your assertion (it may in fact be the case), but I donât see how that can have happened.
D
Diakonia
Guest
Vico,
CCEO Canon 179
Bishops to whom an eparchy has not been entrusted for governing in their own name, whatever other function in the Church they exercise or exercised, are called titular bishops.
A bishop is titular if he holds no ordinary office of jurisdiction - find me a bishop who holds any office of jurisdiction and, at the same time holds a titular title. There are none. Itâs one or the other. A âfunctionâ is not the exercise of ordinary jurisdiction.
A patriarch cannot be both a patriarch and be a titular patriarch. By reason of being a patriarch (which is not a âfunctionâ), he exercises ordinary jurisdiction in every place over which he has canonical jurisdiction.
In the case of the Melkite Patriarch, he has direct canonical jurisdiction of Jerusalem and Alexandria - both of which are Patriarchal Archeparchies (meaning that they are archeparchies to which a patriarch holds ordinary canonical title, both ex officio and de facto .
They are denominated as âdependentâ on the Patriarchate because the jurisdiction is ex officio and because the Patriarch is not physically resident there, despite his de facto jurisdiction. Archbishop Joseph Jules Zerey is Titular Archbishop of Damiata of the Greek-Melkites (holding a titular title because he exercises a âfunctionâ at Jerusalem and does not exercise ordinary jurisdiction in any place) and Protosynchellus (his âfunctionâ) of Jerusalem of the Greek-Melkites, a position that he exercises under the ordinary jurisdiction of its Archeparch, HB Gregorios III.
And, before you tell me that HE Zerey is actually the Archeparch,
CCEO Canon 179
Bishops to whom an eparchy has not been entrusted for governing in their own name, whatever other function in the Church they exercise or exercised, are called titular bishops.
A bishop is titular if he holds no ordinary office of jurisdiction - find me a bishop who holds any office of jurisdiction and, at the same time holds a titular title. There are none. Itâs one or the other. A âfunctionâ is not the exercise of ordinary jurisdiction.
A patriarch cannot be both a patriarch and be a titular patriarch. By reason of being a patriarch (which is not a âfunctionâ), he exercises ordinary jurisdiction in every place over which he has canonical jurisdiction.
In the case of the Melkite Patriarch, he has direct canonical jurisdiction of Jerusalem and Alexandria - both of which are Patriarchal Archeparchies (meaning that they are archeparchies to which a patriarch holds ordinary canonical title, both ex officio and de facto .
They are denominated as âdependentâ on the Patriarchate because the jurisdiction is ex officio and because the Patriarch is not physically resident there, despite his de facto jurisdiction. Archbishop Joseph Jules Zerey is Titular Archbishop of Damiata of the Greek-Melkites (holding a titular title because he exercises a âfunctionâ at Jerusalem and does not exercise ordinary jurisdiction in any place) and Protosynchellus (his âfunctionâ) of Jerusalem of the Greek-Melkites, a position that he exercises under the ordinary jurisdiction of its Archeparch, HB Gregorios III.
And, before you tell me that HE Zerey is actually the Archeparch,
from the Vatican listing of participants in the Special Assembly for the Middle East. Note that HE is denominated an Auxiliary, as are the Patriarchal Vicars in all juridictions in which HB is the ordinary.
V
Vico
Guest
Note below that the Annuario Pontifico used the term "Patriarchal Depencency: not Archeparchy. I believe that those two territories are called patriarchal depencencies by Rome and that the protosyncellus is a territorial prelate to administer to the faithful of the Church sui iuris that live there, and that no eparchy or exarchy is established there. In that case, titular is applicable.
With effect from 1772, as Orientalium Dignitas reminds us, the Patriarch of Antioch became the «Administrator of Alexandria" for the Melkites. It was when H.B. Maximos III Mazloum was recognized as Patriarch of Antioch and of all the East , of Alexandria and of Jerusalem, that there began the autonomous existence of the Melkite-Greek Catholic Patriarchate of Alexandria, in 1838.
pgc-lb.org/english/Church3.shtml#Pat_Cairo
In 1772, the Patriarch of Antioch became Administrator for the Melkites of Jerusalem, and since 1838 H.B. Maximos III Mazloum and his successors have borne the title of Patriarch of Jerusalem as well as of Antioch and all the East and of Alexandria.
pgc-lb.org/english/Church3.shtml#Pat_Jerusalem
Melkites (from Annuario Pontifico 2010):
1 Eparchy of Damas, proper Eparchy of the Patriarch *2 Archeparchy Akka
3 Archeparchy Baalbek
4 Archeparchy Ganiyas
5 Archeparchy Lattaquid
6 Archeparchy Petra-Philadelphia
7 Archeparchy Saida
8 Archeparchy Tripoli
9 Archeparchy Zahleh-Furzol
10 Eparchy Newton
11 Eparchy Sao Paulo
12 Eparchy Mexico
13 Eparchy Sydney
14 Eparchy Montreal
15 Apo. Exarchate Argentine
16 Apo. Exarchate Venezuela
17 Pat. Exarchate Iraq
18 Pat. Exarchate Kuwait
19 Pat. Ter. Egypt and Sudan (Protosyncellus) **
20 Pat. Ter. Jerusalem (Protosyncellus) **
- The patriarchs are heads of their Church sui iuris and of itâs synod and also have a proper eparchy/exarchy. Patriarch H. B. GrĂ©goire III LAHAM is the ordinary of the Archeparchy of Damascus.
C
cmforte
Guest
From the Jerusalem Patriarchateâs web site at: jerusalem-patriarchate.info/en/hystorical_an.htm and a list of the Patriarchate of Jersulaemâs Bishops/Patriarchs: jerusalem-patriarchate.info/en/patriarx_iero.htm
As for the Latin Patriarchate: lpj.org/newsite2006/patriarch/history_patriarchate.html
-Chris
As for the Latin Patriarchate: lpj.org/newsite2006/patriarch/history_patriarchate.html
-Chris
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Vico,
âPatriarchal dependenciesâ is another term for PERSONAL JURISDICTION. It is to be distinguished from TERRITORIAL jurisdiction., but it is TRUE AND REAL JURISDICTION nonetheless. It is NOT titular.
I hope that helps.
Blessings,
Marduk
BIshops of titular sees have NO jurisdiction in those sees. It is merely honorary.
âPatriarchal dependenciesâ is another term for PERSONAL JURISDICTION. It is to be distinguished from TERRITORIAL jurisdiction., but it is TRUE AND REAL JURISDICTION nonetheless. It is NOT titular.
I hope that helps.
Blessings,
Marduk
V
Vico
Guest
It is the use of titular, not jurisdiction that I am referring to. It is in this way that the Giga-Catholic site uses the term:
âA **Titular See **is a diocese that is no longer in existence. In Asia Minor and North Africa, many dioceses became defunct over them when they became schismatic, or when they were swept by other religions, or when they disappeared simply because the importance of the cities declined. The Apostolic See can also suppress a diocese when the number of Catholics in the diocese has declined sharply.â
gcatholic.com/dioceses/dioc-tit.htm
It appears that canonically the Protosynchellus administers with the rights and obligations of a vacant eparchy. See CCEO 220, and:
CCEO Canon 129
The administrator of the patriarchal Church in the eparchy of the patriarch, in stauropegial monasteries and in those places where neither an eparchy nor an exarchy is erected, has the same rights and obligations as the administrator of a vacant eparchy.
To be non-titular requires non-eparchal and non-exarchal.
- Status