Patriarch of Jerusalem

  • Thread starter Thread starter Little_Boy_Lost
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ByzCathCantor said:
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 …
Click to expand...
I want all of Christendom to share Jerusalem… 😃
 
socialcath101 said:
I beg to differ 🙂
… It is only right and fitting that the Western Church have a patriarch there 🙂
Click to expand...
This is just your opinion. Please try not to make “all-encompassing declarations” that others here may take offense to. :tiphat:
 
Prospector said:
This is just your opinion. Please try not to make “all-encompassing declarations” that others here may take offense to. :tiphat:
Click to expand...
I’m not but we are the “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church” 🙂

And Jerusalem is the holy city… We should have a patriarch there just as much as the orthodox Churches do…

All Christians have claim to the holy city and if you look at my post above yours you will see I stated that 🙂

You misunderstood my statement friend 😉

PS My apologies if I offended you 🙂
 
Vico said:
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.
Click to expand...
Hi Vico,

Looked over the charts in the other threads - nice work. Thanks! I think what I’d like to focus on is a similar diagram that shows the organizational hierarchy of jurisdictions within each of the 2 Churches (East and West) and how they interrelate with one another.

Something that shows the organizational hierarchy like this for example: “Diocese (West) headed by Bishop = Eparchy (East) headed by Patriarch” and so on.

Is this something that has been posted up before or is available somewhere?
 
Prospector said:
Hi Vico,

Looked over the charts in the other threads - nice work. Thanks! I think what I’d like to focus on is a similar diagram that shows the organizational hierarchy of jurisdictions within each of the 2 Churches (East and West) and how they interrelate with one another.

Something that shows the organizational hierarchy like this for example: “Diocese (West) headed by Bishop = Eparchy (East) headed by Patriarch” and so on.

Is this something that has been posted up before or is available somewhere?
Click to expand...
Vico’s very good with this subject matter, so I’ll let him get at it when he comes back on line.

That said, in the meanwhile, it’s Eparchy (East) headed by Eparch (formal usage) or Bishop (common usage).

A Patriarch would preside over a Patriarchiate, made up of one or more Archieparchies, Eparchies and / or Exarchates.

Peace!
 
socialcath101 said:
I’m not but we are the “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church” 🙂

And Jerusalem is the holy city… We should have a patriarch there just as much as the orthodox Churches do…

All Christians have claim to the holy city and if you look at my post above yours you will see I stated that 🙂

You misunderstood my statement friend 😉

PS My apologies if I offended you 🙂
Click to expand...
No offense taken by me, it’s just your choice of using the term “Patriarch” to describe the “Latin-Rite Catholic Episcopal Leader of Jerusalem”. I don’t think anyone is saying emphatically that there shouldn’t be a Latin-Rite Episcopal Leader installed to serve the Latin-Rite Catholics of Jerusalem - but the term / title of “Patriarch” is generally thought of as an Eastern-Rite and Orthodox term. So in stating unequivically that there should be a “Latin Patriarch” in Jerusalem, could be considered divisive or offensive to our Eastern and Orthodox brothers and sisters. Some are more sensitive than others to this - hence our ongoing discussion. 🙂
 
ByzCathCantor said:
That said, in the meanwhile, it’s Eparchy (East) headed by Eparch (formal usage) or Bishop (common usage).

A Patriarch would preside over a Patriarchiate, made up of one or more Archieparchies, Eparchies and / or Exarchates.

Peace!
Click to expand...
Hence my need for someone to help me shed my ignorance. 👍
 
Prospector said:
Hence my need for someone to help me shed my ignorance. 👍
Click to expand...
No worries! We’ll worth through it together.

A grounding question for you - how comfortable are you with your understanding of the Latin Church hierarchical structure? It would be easiest perhaps to analogize if that were the case.

Most American-born Latin Rite Catholics I know (including my mom) would tend to think that it stops at the Archdiocesan level. Archdioceses these days tend to be bounded geographically within a specific country. This has helped the Roman Church avoid (or work around) some of the geopolitical issues that have challenged both the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Churches organizationally, as you’ll hopefully come to appreciate. Larger Archdioceses (those around major cities) are sometimes organized as Metropolitan Archdioceses, and it is customary that the Archbishop also be a Cardinal of the more significant ones. From this point (Archdiocese or Metropolitan Archdiocese), the next level is Rome.

In the East, you may have Patriarchiates and / or Major Archiepiscopal Churches that sometimes can and do cross political borders and divides. In the case of the UGCC example I cited earlier, all global Ukrainian Greek Catholic churches are united under one hierarchical structure (with Archeparchies, Eparchies and Exarchates). Think of these as multinational Archdioceses, if you will. From either of these points, the next level is Rome.

For smaller Eastern Catholic Churches like my Ruthenian Church in the US, while we have close spiritual and traditional ties to our sister Churches in Eastern Europe, we are organized as a separate, nationally based Metropolitan Church (one Archeparchy and three suffragen Eparchies). This also becomes a bit of a source of confusion for some, especially in comparison to the much larger UGCC with which we also share many similarities. Although we all share the same Rite and specific form of Liturgical expression as our sister churches in Eastern Europe, we are organized as separately. In the US, the Ruthenian Church is a separate sui juris (self governing) Metropolitan Church, whereas our Eastern European counterparts are separately organized. In the case of a sui juris Metropolitan Church like that of the Ruthenians in the US, the next level is Rome.

So, if you are standing in front of a Patriarch, a Major Archbishop, a Metropolitan Archbishop and an Eparch (Bishop) - all of Eastern Byzantine Rites and fully vested, how do you tell who’s more senior? Look at their individual omophor.

5 bars = Patriarch or Major Archbishop (so you’d have to do some more homework, but each can be called Your Beatitude)

4 bars = Metropolitan Archbishop

3 bars = Eparchial Bishop

Hope this helps, and I’m sure Vico will add (more coherently than I in all likelihood)!
 
My apologies… Set there be a Latin “Archbishop” of Jerusalem 🙂
 
ByzCathCantor said:
No worries! We’ll worth through it together.
Hope this helps, and I’m sure Vico will add (more coherently than I in all likelihood)!
Click to expand...
Good stuff and it does help my understanding - but now I need to go off and do more homework to find out what an “omophor” is…🙂
 
Prospector said:
Good stuff and it does help my understanding - but now I need to go off and do more homework to find out what an “omophor” is…🙂
Click to expand...
A pallium, just much bigger, and worn by all bishops (not just Archbishops, as is Latin custom)
 
Prospector said:
Good stuff and it does help my understanding - but now I need to go off and do more homework to find out what an “omophor” is…🙂
Click to expand...
His Beatitude Major Archbishop Sviatoslav of the UGCC (notice the five bars on the white omophor) …

 
ByzCathCantor said:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/Sv_shevchuk.jpg
Click to expand...
DERAIL ALERT

I don’t want to appear the fashion snob … so I hope no one takes this the wrong way … but I notice the omophor is a sewn ‘pre-fold’.

It looks elegant.

I was just hoping to see the younger bishops return to the old-style omophor, I know a few of the UGCC bishops do (I’ve seen the pictures). He could set quite the example. I think the most of the Melkite bishops use them, and bishop John [Kudrick] of the Metropolia of Pittsburgh at Parma has started wearing them.

I know the UGCC has subdeacons, so putting it on would not be a problem …

I am sure His Beatitude would really appreciate it if the people donated a set.

http://www.saintelias.com/foto/big/bpvest9omfor3_hierxelia.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-NJ--PvwMLyE/TecsNI31fwI/AAAAAAAAAEc/8zeFYWgf3K4/s1600/synod-bishops-1.jpg
http://www.melkite.org/Patriarch/Intronisation1.jpg

NOW BACK TO TOPIC …
 
Prospector said:
Hi Vico,

Looked over the charts in the other threads - nice work. Thanks! I think what I’d like to focus on is a similar diagram that shows the organizational hierarchy of jurisdictions within each of the 2 Churches (East and West) and how they interrelate with one another.

Something that shows the organizational hierarchy like this for example: “Diocese (West) headed by Bishop = Eparchy (East) headed by Patriarch” and so on.

Is this something that has been posted up before or is available somewhere?
Click to expand...
Thank you, it did take several revisions to get where it is. The Ukrainian Greek Catholics have produced a diagram that you are looking for:

archeparchy.ca/documents/EcclOrgChart.pdf

archeparchy.ca/

archeparchy.ca/docs.htm

Also some of my notes:

CCEO & CIC

Church sui iuris = Ritual Church
Hierarch = Ordinary
Eparchy = Diocese
Apostolic Exarchy = Apostolic Vicariate
Exarchate = Apostolic Vicariate
Protopresbyter = Vicar Forane
Protosyncellus = Vicar General
Syncellus = Episcopal Vicar

Types of churches

Missionary areas — governed in the name of the Supreme Pontiff:
  1. Apostolic Prefecture (next step after mission sui iuris) – usually not a bishop
  2. Apostolic Vicariate/Exarchy (next step after Apostolic Prefecture) – usually a bishop
  3. Apostolic Administration (Stable) – as needed, with defined (limited) powers
    Established
  4. Diocese/Eparchy – governed by bishop/eparch
  5. Territorial Prelature – territory governed by prelate
  6. Territorial Abbacy – territory governed by abbot
Non-Local ordinaries/hierarchs:
  1. Patriarchs, major archbishops, and metropolitans of a sui iuris Church
  2. Superiors of religious institutes and societies of apostolic life
Local ordinaries/hierarchs:
  1. Supreme Pontiff
  2. Diocesan/eparchial bishop (eparchs) and prelates who head a particular church or a personal prelature
  3. Apostolic vicars, exarchs, apostolic prefects, and ecclesiastical superiors who head a mission sui iuris
  4. Administrators sede vacante, apostolic administrators, and diocesan administrators
  5. Vicars general and protosyncelli
  6. Episcopal vicars and syncelli
 
DERAIL ALERT (temporarily continued …)

pre-sewn omophor, or gigantic pallium?

As for Bishop John, his passion for authentic vestiture among other traits are very admirable. I very much enjoyed being in his Eparchy for several years before returning back East to Eparchia Passaicensis Ruthenorum. Now if we could just convince him to move to Pittsburgh …

AND NOW, BACK TO OUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED PROGRAMMING
 
Vico said:
Thank you, it did take several revisions to get where it is. The Ukrainian Greek Catholics have produced a diagram that you are looking for:

archeparchy.ca/documents/EcclOrgChart.pdf

Well done, Vico! I knew you’d come through!

Never saw these UGCC docs before, but they are really quite good.

The second page in the file from the link above was exception - didn’t think it was possible on an 8.5x11 page.

👍
Click to expand...
 
ByzCathCantor said:
Well done, Vico! I knew you’d come through!

Never saw these UGCC docs before, but they are really quite good.

The second page in the file from the link above was exception - didn’t think it was possible on an 8.5x11 page.

👍
Click to expand...
Yes, very nice and puts things much better into perspective. I also found this document on the current state of the Christian Churches in Jerusalem: catholicchurch-holyland.com/?p=3391 which briefly describes how there came to be a “Latin Patriarch” installed in Jerusalem (don’t know how authoritative this is, though). So it seems to me that the current “Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem” is, hierarchically speaking, the “Latin Metropolitan of Jerusalem” and the term “Latin Patriarch” is the title given to him as a special circumstance of the Diocese’s (Patriarchate’s) formation. For this I am referencing Code of Canon Law, Chapter II, Canons 435 through 438. I also think it is clear according to Canon 438 that if a Metropolitan is titled “Patriarch” or “Primate” within the Latin-Rite, that the title is honorific unless otherwise approved by the Pope in accordance with historic tradition or any special circumstances of the See the Metropolitan is attached to.

So, I think my opinion still stands that it is proper for the Latin Metropolitan of Jerusalem to be titled “Patriarch” without causing scandal or somehow diminishing the legitimate authority of the other 5 Catholic-Rite Patriarchs (Greek Catholic, Maronite, Syrian, Armenian, and Chaldean).

Is this a correct interpretation or am I missing something else?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top