Patriarch of Jerusalem

[Diakonia]

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:

“A **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.”

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.

Vico, your final sentence makes no sense.

A titular see has no geographic, canonical, reality. If Jerusalem of the Melkites were a titular see, it would not have a vicar/protosynchellus (who is titular bishop of another see because he is not ordinary of Jerusalem, but auxiliary of the ordinary - the Melkite Patriarch) because titular sees have no need of a vicar/protosynchellus.

The Archparchy of Jerusalem of the Melkites is not vacant and does not lack faithful. The Melkites are the dominant Eastern/Oriental Catholic Church in Jerusalem*. AP reports no less than 3,000 faithful in any year since 1990 - with 3,300 each year since 2000. For 2010, it cited 8 parishes, 8 presbyters (5 patriarchal - 3 religious), 5 other male religious, 23 female religious, and 2 deacons.

*Numbers of faithful for the same year:
Maronites - 504 (including Jordan);
Armenians - 800 (including Jordan);
Syriacs - 1,500 (including Jordan);
Chaldeans - 0 (7,000 in Jordan).

G-Catholic is, for the final time, not an authoritative source in anyone’s view, except its own and yours.

See CNEWA’s excerpted AP data here

Antioch & Alexandria are dependent on the Patriarchate because the Patriarch is the non-resident Archeparch of both.

Finally, from “History of the Melkite Patriarchates Vol. III - Part 2” by Rev. Cyril Charon (Korolevsky), translated by John Collorafi & Bishop Nicholas (Samra), ed. Bishop Nicholas (Samra), Eastern Christian Publications, 2001.

(Note that Father Cyril, of blessed memory, was consultor to the Congregation for the Eastern Churches, under Eugene Cardinal Tisserant, also of blessed memory, its long-time Prefect)

At page 193, Father Cyril discusses Patriarchal Vicars:

essentially an ecclesiastic who administers in the patriarch’s name a more or less extensive territory over which the patriach has immediate jurisdiction … (emphasis added)

At page 195ff, he quotes, in translation, the authority granted by Maximos III to the patriarchal vicar at Jerusalem. I excerpt:

1. He may carry out episcopal functions and ceremonies in their plenitude throughout the eparchy of Jerusalem, which is immediately under us, … However, he may not sit upon the episcopal throne, nor may he have his diptychs sung or his name mentioned in the Divine Liturgy.
2. He may confer the jurisdiction to administer the sacraments …
3. He is free to reserve to himself the absolution of certain sins, …
4. He has the power to punish by the medicinal censures of the Church, …
5. We grant him the power of dispening from the ecclesiastical impediments of marriage …
6. He has the power to hear trials …He may not, however, render the final judgement about the nullity of any legal marriage, for in this case he must refer it to us and ask our opinion
7. He may confer the clerical state …
8. He has the faculty to take in whomever may want to devote himself to the service of our patriarchal See … He may examine … after having informed us and heard our wishes. He will then do what we have decided …
9. /he may exercise his authority over all the regular and secular clergy …
10. He may collect the patriarchal rights *

Note also that the authority to erect and suppress eparchies within the patriarchal territories is resident in the Patriarch and Holy Synod.

Canon 85

1. For a serious reason, with the consent of the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church and having consulted the Apostolic See, the patriarch can establish provinces and eparchies, modify their boundaries, unite, divide, suppress, and modify their hierarchical status and transfer the eparchial see.

Jerusalem is within the Melkite Patriarchal territories, i.e., the bounds of the former Ottoman Empire.

You can continue to argue this matter with yourself. I’m done explaining it to you.

 

[Vico]

There seems to be a focus on jurisdiction rather than on the term titular. Titular is what I am showing the defintion for, not disputing jurisdiction. There is nothing in the post of Diakonia that I am not familiar with excepting the exact quotation from p. 195. That seems in perfect accord with the current canon law.

What I mean by non-eparchal and non-exarchal is from the following. The canon CCEO 179 states that titular only applies when not an eparchy (elsewhere stating that exarchy is equivalent to eparchy).
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.
CCEO Canon 312
The exarch governs the exarchy either in the name of the one who appointed him or in his own name; this must be determined in the establishment or modification of the exarchy.

• CCEO Canon 313
  What is said in the law concerning eparchies or eparchial bishops applies also to exarchs or exarchies, unless otherwise expressly provided or otherwise evident from the nature of the matter.
  The normal progression is mission, exarchy, eparchy. When an established eparchy or exarchy looses its exarch or eparch it may still have parishes there. Those faithful are then taken care of by the Patriarch, even though he is the hierarch of a different eparchy. It is not the patriarch’s proper eparchy however, but he has the rights and obligations of the eparchal bishop. The Patriarch may designate a titular bishop to care for the faithful in such a place. A titular bishop designated would be a vicar for the Patriarch, but would become the local hierarch. See these canons
  CCEO Canon 984

1. Besides the Roman Pontiff, a hierarch is understood to mean, first of all, a patriarch, a major archbishop, a metropolitan who presides over a Church sui iuris, and an eparchial bishop, as well as one who for a time succeed these in governance in accordance with the law.
2. Besides the Roman Pontiff, local hierarchs are the eparchial bishop, the exarch, the apostolic administrator, as well as those who for a time legitimately succeed them in governance in their absence, also the protosyncellus and the syncellus; however, the patriarch, the major archbishop, the metropolitan who is head of a Church sui iuris, as well as those who for a time succeed them in governance in accordance with the law, are local hierarchs only with regard to the eparchy which they govern, with due regard for can. 101.
3. Major superiors in institutes of consecrated life, who have ordinary power of governance, are also hierarchs, but they are not local hierarchs.
   CCEO Canon 987
   Those things which are in the realm of executive power of governance either by common law or by particular law of a Church sui iuris are attributed by name to the eparchial bishop, are understood to belong only to the eparchial bishop and to the exarch, to the exclusion of the protosyncellus and the syncelli, unless there is a special mandate.
   There is the use of the term titular see to mean a defunct diocese/eparchy with no faithful residing there.

There is the use of the term titular see so to avoid political conflict.

 

[John_oxios]

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 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…

The Gospel of Matthew was very probable written in Hebrew for the Jewish Christians, they may have spoken Aramaic, but Holy Scripture was read aloud in Hebrew and then explained.

ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/10057A.TXT

abu.nb.ca/courses/NTIntro/Matt.htm Below,

1.2.2. There are other early sources that also claim that Matthew wrote a gospel in Hebrew or Aramaic.

A. Irenaeus (130-200) (Adv. Haer. 3.1.1; also quoted by Eusebius, H.E. 5.8.2): “Now Matthew brought forth among the Hebrews a written gospel in their language, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and founding the church.” By “Hebrews” Irenaeus probably meant Palestinian Jews. The language that Jews in Palestine would have spoken was Aramaic, although many Jews had a literary knowledge of Hebrew.

B. Origen (185-254) (as quoted by Eusebius, H.E. 6. 25.3-4) asserts, “Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a tax collector, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism, and published in the Hebrew [or Aramaic] language.”

C. There is a tradition cited by Eusebius, alleged to have originated with a man named Pantaenos (died c. 190), who was associated with the church in Alexandria, that there once existed a Gospel of Matthew written “in Hebrew letters” (H.E. 5.10.1-4): “One of these was Pantaenos, and it is said that he went to the Indians, and the tradition is that he found there among some of those there who had known Christ the Gospel of Matthew had preceded his coming; for Bartholomew, one of the apostles, had preached to them and had left the writing of Matthew in Hebrew letters, which was preserved until the time mentioned” (see H.E. 3.24.5-6). According to Jerome, Pantaenos brought back a copy of this Hebrew version of Matthew to Alexandria (De vir. ill. 36).

Greek was the language of the Roman Empire, pious Jews would not speak it. Nor use Roman coins with Caesars head on it. The fact that the Pharisees had Roman coins in their possession (Matt 22:19), in which Jesus rebukes the hypocrisy of the pharisees and herodians.

God bless,
John

 

[Prospector]

Hello All,

It seems to me that the simplest answer of all is that each Rite has its own independent leadership within their own juridical confines which are regulated by the flock they are serving.

In other words, the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem is the head of the Latin-Rite Church in Jerusalem and to the extent of his Latin-Rite territorial diocese. Each of the other Rites - Catholic or Orthodox have their own Rite-centered dioceses and as such they are the respective heads of their flock of faithful within their Rite and the geographical limitations of their own territorially defined diocese.

So, the headship of a diocese is based not merely on territorial claim, but on the Rites the faithful are practicing within the defined territorial diocese, and whom require that particular ecclesial leadership. Each Rite’s “claim” to the “Patriarchate” or other title recommending a certain territorial area is co-equal in that it is out of the flock of a particular Rite that the leadership arises and serves.

The Latin-Rite Patriarch only has jurisdiction over his Latin-Rite faithful, the Greek-Orthodox Patriarch has jurisdiction over the Greek-Orthodox faithful and so on.

I would submit that the actual jurisdiction any claimant to leadership of a Patriarchate holds resides primarily with the people he serves, and only secondarily to the physical property he stands on. If there is no flock of faithful for the leader to serve, what is the purpose for holding on to some ecclesial territorial title - could it be pride and ego?

At the point when the flock of a particular Rite disappears, there is no longer a “Patriarchate”, and therefore no need for a “Patriarch” or someone with that title to lead it. If the flock returns, then the Patriarchate and Patriarch may return with it, but again, only as far as it is recognized within it’s own Rite, and through its own Rite, from the juridical and ecclesial respect given to it from other Rites.

 

[Hesychios]

Hi Prospector,

Welcome to the forum

Hello All,

It seems to me that the simplest answer of all is that each Rite has its own independent leadership within their own juridical confines which are regulated by the flock they are serving.

The basis is territorial.

In other words, the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem is the head of the Latin-Rite Church in Jerusalem and to the extent of his Latin-Rite territorial diocese. Each of the other Rites - Catholic or Orthodox have their own Rite-centered dioceses and as such they are the respective heads of their flock of faithful within their Rite and the geographical limitations of their own territorially defined diocese.

As I see it there should not be a Latin rite patriarch of Jerusalem. The Eastern churches do not place patriarchs in Latin territory, the Latin church should not place patriarchs in eastern lands.

The Eastern Catholic Patriarch of Jerusalam can serve as the local ordinary and the Latin Catholics can be served by that church.

 

[Prospector]

Hi Prospector,

Welcome to the forum

Thanks and peace be with you!

The basis is territorial. As I see it there should not be a Latin rite patriarch of Jerusalem. The Eastern churches do not place patriarchs in Latin territory, the Latin church should not place patriarchs in eastern lands.

I do not disagree that territorial delineations play an important role, and maybe I’m naive in terms of the historical, organizational, and political motivations of claiming ownership of a specific regional title, but I still assert that given the imperfect and sadly fragmented state of God’s Universal Church, the primary purpose of a Shepherd is to lead his own flock and therefore each flock requires a Shepherd to tend to it’s own sheep. If there are Latin-Rite Catholics in Jerusalem, then there should be a Latin-Rite Patriarch of Jerusalem to tend to their spiritual needs, and the same for all of the other Christian Rite Churches. They should all be given equal ecclesial respect that is due their office as Shepherd of their flock.

The Eastern Catholic Patriarch of Jerusalam can serve as the local ordinary and the Latin Catholics can be served by that church.

Hmmm, now that is a question for the faithful in the area to decide for themselves don’t you think? If I am a Maronite Catholic and there is a Maronite Bishop available to lead me, why shouldn’t I look to him as my local Shepherd rather than a Coptic Catholic Bishop even though both Rites look to the Bishop of Rome as their highest leader? Could the same be said of the Orthodox faithful? Why would a Greek Orthodox member place themselves under the leadership of a Russian Orthodox Bishop if there is a Greek Orthodox Bishop available?

 

[Hesychios]

Hi prospector,

I am enjoying this conversation. I am just giving my opinion here, so naturally the church is not going to do what I think, or what you think, but what the succession of Supreme Pontiffs think or have thought.

Still, it is good to talk about it.

I do not disagree that territorial delineations play an important role, and maybe I’m naive in terms of the historical, organizational, and political motivations of claiming ownership of a specific regional title, but I still assert that given the imperfect and sadly fragmented state of God’s Universal Church, the primary purpose of a Shepherd is to lead his own flock and therefore each flock requires a Shepherd to tend to it’s own sheep. If there are Latin-Rite Catholics in Jerusalem, then there should be a Latin-Rite Patriarch of Jerusalem to tend to their spiritual needs, and the same for all of the other Christian Rite Churches.

I disagree.

They can have a bishop, if necessary, but that bishop should ideally report to the patriarch of Jerusalem, who would ordinarily be an Eastern Catholic (in an ideal world).

Now if that is not acceptable I suppose the Latin rite Catholic bishops can report directly to the Pope, or an ordaining bishop can be provided for them. Perhaps a Latin rite ordinariate can be established to replace the patriarchate, but the office of Patriarch should be an eastern Catholic.

All Sui Iuris churches are equal, there should not be any special privileges for one over any other. For example, just because a lot of Eastern Catholics have settled into Italy, one does not see Eastern Catholic churches installing their own Popes in Rome. That is not how it is done.

They should all be given equal ecclesial respect that is due their office as Shepherd of their flock.

They should respect the legitimate church authority for that place. The Latin Catholic church does not have a legitimate right to install patriarchs outside of it’s own canonical home territory. That it has done so is an accident of history, some would consider an abuse.

Why should there be a worldwide exception for Latin rite Catholics?

 

[Vico]

One thing to keep in mind is that a Patriarch in the Latin Church (a title of honor) does not have the meaning that it has in the eastern Catholic Churches (jurisdiction). Rome favors, since ancient times, the triple Petrine See rather than patriarchates, but did for a time establish Patriarchates in Constantinople, Antioch, and Jerusalem. These became titular (no jurisdiction) after the Crusades.

 

[Prospector]

I think I can agree in terms of the different aspects of “local leadership” here. Obviously there are certain political and organizational aspects (whether we like them or not) of the Church Universal that are just as real as the need for a local Shepherd to be of the same flock, spiritually and liturgically.

Maybe it’s just my lack of knowledge in this area (the political and organizational) that is clouding my vision on this. Could someone point me to a listing of the various Titles and organizational units (diocese, arch-diocese, eparchy, patriarchate etc. etc.) within the Church (East and West) that could clarify this a bit more for me?

For instance, is a “Patriarchate” equal in terms of the organizational hierarchy to an “Arch-Diocese” - or are they completely not related? Stuff like that.

I too am enjoying this conversation as I think everyone is being respectful and it provides us all with an avenue for learning and growth.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I think I can agree in terms of the different aspects of “local leadership” here. Obviously there are certain political and organizational aspects (whether we like them or not) of the Church Universal that are just as real as the need for a local Shepherd to be of the same flock, spiritually and liturgically.

Maybe it’s just my lack of knowledge in this area (the political and organizational) that is clouding my vision on this. Could someone point me to a listing of the various Titles and organizational units (diocese, arch-diocese, eparchy, patriarchate etc. etc.) within the Church (East and West) that could clarify this a bit more for me?

For instance, is a “Patriarchate” equal in terms of the organizational hierarchy to an “Arch-Diocese” - or are they completely not related? Stuff like that.

I too am enjoying this conversation as I think everyone is being respectful and it provides us all with an avenue for learning and growth.

Indeed, this is a proving to be a very good dialogue - hopefully we can all contribute, listen and learn as it progresses.

To attempt to answer a part of your question (underlined above), a Patriarchiate is generally a higher order of organization, and can be comprised of one or more Archdioceses (Archeparchies, as they would be called in Eastern usage). Remember, in Latin Church usage, practice and custom, you do not normally have Patriarchs (except in a few instances where the title had been conferred historically). The Papal title “Patriarch of the West” was recently suppressed. That said, it would not be unusual for the Archbishop of a major Metropolitan Archdiocese to also be a Cardinal, conferring an elevated status to that jurisdiction, in lieu of Patriarchial designation. The notion of the Pope being the supreme head of the Latin Church sui juris is inherent in this structure and these designations. In the ancient church, the Pope would be recognized as the Patriarch of Rome, the first among equals in relation to the Patriarchs of the other major jurisdictions (Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem).

Currently in the East, there are Patriarchates, but there is a similar organizational concept to the Metropolitan Archdiocese (with Cardinal as episcopal prelate) exhibited in the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (UGCC) structure today. They have a Major Archbishop as the head of the Church globally, comprised of suffragen Archeparchies, Eparchies and Exarchates around the world. Although not technically a Patriarch for sundry reasons, he is styled as such given his responsibility for a significantly large Church (over 4 million clergy and faithful) and is referred to as His Beatitude (same as Patriarch).

A good way to grasp all of this is to skim through the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches - Title IV - The Patriarchal Churches through Title VIII - Exarchates and Exarchs. You can skip the details once you’ve gotten the gist from the opening subsections of each. The “Titles” describe the various possible hierarchical organizational levels in descending order of superiority. Levels generally depend on the size on the Church congregation, among other factors.

In the example I gave above, the UGCC falls under Title V - The Major Archiepiscopal Churches. You will note from the opening subsections of Title V that it is appropriate to style the Major Archbishop of the UGCC and His Beatitude.

Hope this helps!

 

[Vico]

I think I can agree in terms of the different aspects of “local leadership” here. Obviously there are certain political and organizational aspects (whether we like them or not) of the Church Universal that are just as real as the need for a local Shepherd to be of the same flock, spiritually and liturgically.

Maybe it’s just my lack of knowledge in this area (the political and organizational) that is clouding my vision on this. Could someone point me to a listing of the various Titles and organizational units (diocese, arch-diocese, eparchy, patriarchate etc. etc.) within the Church (East and West) that could clarify this a bit more for me?

For instance, is a “Patriarchate” equal in terms of the organizational hierarchy to an “Arch-Diocese” - or are they completely not related? Stuff like that.

I too am enjoying this conversation as I think everyone is being respectful and it provides us all with an avenue for learning and growth.

The basic territorial unit of jurisdiction in all 23 Catholic ritual churches is the eparchy, exarchy, or diocese. The non-titular eparch or diocean bishop (or superior), and non-titular exarch, has personal jurisdiction, even if not a head of the ritual Church. Titular bishops do not have personal jurisdiction. In the Latin Church, a Patriarch is titular, but a Metropolitan bishop is not.

In the eastern Catholic Churches the heads of the Churches, have personal jurisdiction over their own eparchy or archeparchy or patriarchal territory (outside of the eparchies and exarchies). The metropolitan of a metropolitan church has personal jurisdiction. The metropolitan of a non-metropolitan church has a role defined by the synod of the patriarchal or major archepiscopal church.

In the Modern Catholic Dictionary (Fr. John Hardon) we see what suffragen means for the Latin Church:

SUFFRAGAN. The relationship expressed between a bishop and his archbishop. As suffragan, a bishop yields precedence of honor, even in his own diocese, to his archbishop. But in the government of his diocese a bishop is independent of archiepiscopal jurisdiction. Along with other suffragans, a bishop has equal votes in provincial councils, held under the presidency of the archbishop.

 

[socialcath101]

Hi Prospector,

Welcome to the forum The basis is territorial.
As I see it there should not be a Latin rite patriarch of Jerusalem. The Eastern churches do not place patriarchs in Latin territory, the Latin church should not place patriarchs in eastern lands.

The Eastern Catholic Patriarch of Jerusalam can serve as the local ordinary and the Latin Catholics can be served by that church.

Latin and Eastern Churches are different… Eastern Churches have Bishops and separate dioceses here in the states… There is a latin patriarch of Jerusalem serving Western Catholics…

 

[Hesychios]

Latin and Eastern Churches are different… Eastern Churches have Bishops and separate dioceses here in the states… There is a latin patriarch of Jerusalem serving Western Catholics…

I realize that, but there is no need to call him a patriarch.

 

[Prospector]

A good way to grasp all of this is to skim through the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches - Title IV - The Patriarchal Churches through Title VIII - Exarchates and Exarchs.

Is this available for review online? Thanks!

Thanks also Vico for your detailed explanation. I’m a visual learner, so I’d like to be able to create some sort of hierarchical tree diagram for both East and West Church organizational structures - unless there is already one available somewhere online? I think that would go a long way to assist myself and others who may be a little perplexed as to the nuances of language involved here.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Is this available for review online?

intratext.com/X/ENG1199.HTM

Thanks also Vico for your detailed explanation. I’m a visual learner, so I’d like to be able to create some sort of hierarchical tree diagram for both East and West Church organizational structures - unless there is already one available somewhere online? I think that would go a long way to assist myself and others who may be a little perplexed as to the nuances of language involved here.

Vico has posted his chart in another thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=630599

 

[Prospector]

intratext.com/X/ENG1199.HTM
Vico has posted his chart in another thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=630599

Great, thanks! I’ll check it out.

 

[socialcath101]

I realize that, but there is no need to call him a patriarch.

I beg to differ

It’s Jerusalem where Christ was crucified… It is only right and fitting that the Western Church have a patriarch there

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I beg to differ

It’s Jerusalem where Christ was crucified… It is only right and fitting that the Western Church have a patriarch there

But therein lies the rub …

The ancient Church of Jerusalem is debatably an Eastern church. In an earlier post, Hesychios suggests that the Catholic faithful of Jerusalem be tended to by a bishop of the Eastern Rite. It would be presumptuous to state so definitively, as we are not Orthodox, but we’d suppose from his suggestion and other comments that this would be more consistent with Orthodox thinking.

This is certainly something that would have to be worked out if true unity with our Orthodox brothers and sisters is to be achieved. Pray and beg mercy that you consider these and similar comments from our Orthodox brothers and sister posting here with that in mind.

We pray for the unity of Christ’s Church. Amen!

P.S. And, of course, we all are in a long line of parties claiming rights and privileges over Holy Jerusalem …

 

[socialcath101]

But therein lies the rub …

The ancient Church of Jerusalem is debatably an Eastern church. In an earlier post, Hesychios suggests that the Catholic faithful of Jerusalem be tended to by a bishop of the Eastern Rite. It would be presumptuous to state so definitively, as we are not Orthodox, but we’d suppose from his suggestion and other comments that this would be more consistent with Orthodox thinking.

This is certainly something that would have to be worked out if true unity with our Orthodox brothers and sisters is to be achieved. Pray and beg mercy that you consider these and similar comments from our Orthodox brothers and sister posting here with that in mind.

We pray for the unity of Christ’s Church. Amen!

P.S. And, of course, we all are in a long line of parties claiming rights and privileges over Holy Jerusalem …

Practically every Eastern Catholic Church and Orthodox Church has their own patriarch in Jerusalem… :crying: The west has a right to the same Look at this list lol en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarch_of_Jerusalem

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Practically every Eastern Catholic Church and Orthodox Church has their own patriarch in Jerusalem… :crying: The west has a right to the same Look at this list lol en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarch_of_Jerusalem

With the exception of the Melkite Patriarch, by extended title only, there is no Eastern Catholic Church with a Patriarch seated in Jerusalem. There are many other Orthodox and sui juris Catholic Churches that make no such claim, so its not “practically every …”, but surely “several”.

That said, no one’s arguing that you don’t raise a valid point, as this is clearly an issue.

My comments were related to the assertion that it must be a Western patriarch, for the reasons cited in your post, praying for some degree of understanding on our [Catholic] part with our Orthodox brothers and sisters on this particular issue.

Peace!

P.S. And again, we’re in a long line of those claiming sole rights to Jerusalem …