What is the Role of Constantinople?

[Hesychios]

The Latins set up Patriarchs in Jerusalem and Constantinople ? do they still exist?

The Latin patriachate in Jerusalem still exists.

One might have thought that the Latins would be placed under the Melkite patriarch in that area, but the Latin church is special that way.

 

[Hesychios]

… the Cath Church is resistant to set up other Patriarchates?

but it set up Jeru and Constan Patriarchs?

An Apostle didnt start that particular Latin Jerusalem Patriarchate did they?

It also has patriarchs for Venice (derived from the Patriarchal See at Grado), and of Lisbon, and of Goa and the East Indies.

They are all established for political reasons. It seemed like a good idea at the time.

Interestingly, the Latin patriarchate of Constantinople was established by election of the Crusaders (all under the ban of excommunication for the sack of Zara) occupying the city at the time. They did not submit their choice (or suggestion) to Rome, they simply installed him!

The Pope was presented with a fait accompli.

 

[malphono]

The Latin patriachate in Jerusalem still exists.

One might have thought that the Latins would be placed under the Melkite patriarch in that area, but the Latin church is special that way.

Under the Melkites? Any claim they might have to the old Patriarchate of Jerusalem is quite as dubious (perhaps “spurious” is more accurate) as that of Rome.

 

[malphono]

You have to understand I am coming from an Oriental perspective. I imagine all Oriental Catholics have the same perspective (if my Oriental brother Malphono is reading this, I would appreciate his (name removed by moderator)ut). And I imagine there would be a difference of opinion on this matter with my Eastern Catholic brethren, so I would love their (name removed by moderator)ut, as well.

I seriously doubt that in a united Church with the Oriental Orthodox, any Apostolic Patriarchal Oriental Church will view Constantinople as having a higher appellate authority than their own Patriarchate. The fact that the Chalcedonian Schism is often viewed by Orientals as a political conflict with Constantinople is going to be a definite factor. We will recognize Rome as court of final appeal, as Popes St. Athanasius and St.Cyril affirmed, according to the Council of Sardica.

Well, mardukm, you were right: I quite agree. The very idea of “appeal” to Constantinople is quite unappealing (bad pun intended).

 

[twf]

Well knock me over with a feather. I had never heard of any primate in America as a Roman Catholic. Does he actually have any authority? He’s not prayed for during the Mass apparently.

QUOTE]

I’m not sure what the current situation is, but I don’t believe it was ever more than a primacy of honor. I believe in the past the national Latin primates could convene national synods (and maybe in theory they still can?) to discuss matters of importance to the entire national church. Since Vatican II, this has been, for all practical intents and purposes, replaced by the national episcopal conferences. Under the guidance of the national episcopal conferences, the individual “national churches” within the Latin Church are, to answer your question, autonomous to a certain extent. In England and Wales, for example, as per a recent decision of the national conference of bishops, Latin Catholics are required to abstain from meat on every Friday during the year…in Canada and the United States, on the other hand, Latin Catholics may substitute meat abstinence with another form of penance. In the United States, all Latin Catholics, as per the decision of their national conference of bishops, must kneel throughout the Eucharistic Prayer; in Canada, the individual bishop determines when the faithful will kneel (for example - in the Archdiocese of Vancouver it is throughout the EP, as in the US, but in the neighbouring Diocese of Nelson the faithful kneel only during the consecration itself). In Canada, the primate of the Latin Church is the Archbishop of Quebec. He exercises no real authority outside of his metropolia/archdiocese, but he is honored as “first” among the Canadian bishops. When the Archdiocese of Vancouver celebrated its 100th anniversary a couple years ago, for example, the Cardinal Archbishop of Quebec, as Primate of Canada, celebrated the anniversary mass, taking precedence over the metropolitan archbishop.

 

[Aramis]

There is, properly, no primate of American presence of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church… the Roman Rite presence in North America is neither autonomous nor autocephalous nor Sui Iuris. Nor is it a discrete Ritual Church. Therefore its primate is the Pope.

Unless, of course, you mean the Sui Iuris church that has 4 american Eparchies… but the primatial see is vacant at the moment.

Or the schismatic and heretical group whose website is accus.us/ … their primate is Bp Lawrence J Harms.

Or HOCNA, a schism from ROCOR, under Bp. Ephraim.

 

[pablope]

The ranking of the Ancient Sees in the Canons of the Councils obviously puts Rome first and Constantinople second. Putting aside why this may be for both, I’m curious:

How then does Constantinople, in your church, exercise her “second in primacy”? Would she be allowed, so long as it didn’t conflict with Rome, to do any of these things?

Rome’s position is argued often, but I can’t see how Constantinople’s place fits in the Roman view of things.

Good discussions, everybody…i am learning alot about our Orthodox brothers.

Question though: What is the role of the Patriarch of Constantinople today? Is it recognized as the first among equals, or the head (akin to the pope) of the Orthodox not in communion with Rome?

 

[Hesychios]

Under the Melkites? Any claim they might have to the old Patriarchate of Jerusalem is quite as dubious (perhaps “spurious” is more accurate) as that of Rome.

You are entitled to your opinion, and I respect that.

It seems to me (not sure) that the Melkites are the majority of eastern Catholics in Israel, Jordan and the west bank. It also seems to me that no other Catholic church has claimed the title. Perhaps I am wrong, but the neither the Maronites nor Jacobites seem to have ever had a Patriarch of Jerusalem [and following that the Syriac Catholics (not very numerous to begin with) have not claimed one and probably could not support one].

As I understand it the Maronites are not originally from the region and neither are the Copts, although there may be some small communities in the area today.

However the Melkite church claims the patriarchates of Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem. I have always thought that if they were more numerous they could have and support three separate Melkite regional Patriarchs, but today the offices are held concurrently by the same person.

If you are of the opinion that the Latins should be supervised by the Maronites or some other group, I can see the sense to that too. It is a reasonable agument and I can concede the point if it can be shown that more of the eastern Catholic Christians in Israel, the west bank and Jordan are Maronites.

 

[malphono]

Rawb;8173045:

Well knock me over with a feather. I had never heard of any primate in America as a Roman Catholic. Does he actually have any authority? He’s not prayed for during the Mass apparently.

I’m not sure what the current situation is, but I don’t believe it was ever more than a primacy of honor. I believe in the past the national Latin primates could convene national synods (and maybe in theory they still can?) to discuss matters of importance to the entire national church. Since Vatican II, this has been, for all practical intents and purposes, replaced by the national episcopal conferences. Under the guidance of the national episcopal conferences, the individual “national churches” within the Latin Church are, to answer your question, autonomous to a certain extent. …

I could be mistaken, but I seem to think that, technically at least, it remains the same.

The interesting thing is that “Primates” really didn’t have much authority beyond a place of honor, at least not since Rome diluted the prerogatives of Primatial Sees in the West starting sometime in the 12th or 13th century. Prior to that, the Primatial See was of great importance, and the Archbishop-Primate himself had some real authority. (For example, Canturbury is the ancient Primatial See of England, so think of Thomas Becket.) The Primatial Sees were basically Synodal in structure, with the Archbishop-Primate being elected locally and confirmed (as an acknowledgment of communion) by Rome. Likewise, bishops were elected locally and confirmed by the Archbishop-Primate. The unfortunate thing is that secular politics intervened, with kings and various other “nobles” imposing their own candidates on the Synods, and Rome slowly but surely began to dilute the prerogatives of the Primates. (And, of course, nepotism was also a problem.)

The US was still considered “mission territory” anyway, but by the time Baltimore became a Primatial See, the prerogatives were mainly honorary. And even those have since been diluted, in favor of the so-called “bishops’ conferences” which themselves have limited authority.

 

[ciero]

There is, properly, no primate of American presence of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church… the Roman Rite presence in North America is neither autonomous nor autocephalous nor Sui Iuris. Nor is it a discrete Ritual Church. Therefore its primate is the Pope.

Unless, of course, you mean the Sui Iuris church that has 4 american Eparchies… but the primatial see is vacant at the moment.

Or the schismatic and heretical group whose website is accus.us/ … their primate is Bp Lawrence J Harms.

Or HOCNA, a schism from ROCOR, under Bp. Ephraim.

The Cardinal Archbishop of Baltimore is the primate (although just honorary) of the LATIN Rite Catholic church in the USA…has been for quite a few years now…like since 1789.

 

[malphono]

You are entitled to your opinion, and I respect that.

And you are entitled to yours as well.
Hesychios;8174491It seems to me (not sure) that the Melkites are the majority of eastern Catholics in Israel:

.

As I understand it the Maronites are not originally from the region and neither are the Copts, although there may be some small communities in the area today.

What little Syriac, Coptic, Maronite, Armenian, and Ethiopian presence (or Chaldean/ACoE either, for that matter, if those even have a presence at all) there may be in Jerusalem has no bearing. And whether the Melkites/AOC together form a majority of Christians in the area equally has no bearing. The fact is that Jerusalem, as an active Patriarchate, passed into oblivion very early on. Just because its name remains in the listing of the Ancient Pentarchy doesn’t mean that any current Church has claim to the See or the title.

However the Melkite church claims the patriarchates of Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem. I have always thought that if they were more numerous they could have and support three separate Melkite regional Patriarchs, but today the offices are held concurrently by the same person.

The Melkites and EO have as much claim to Alexandria and Jerusalem as does Rome. Which is to say none. I will grant the claim to Antioch only because of the fait accompli of Byzantine Imperial interference in establishing a “Greek” Patriarchate there. But even so it is not “the” Patriarchate of Antioch.

If you are of the opinion that the Latins should be supervised by the Maronites or some other group, I can see the sense to that too. It is a reasonable agument and I can concede the point if it can be shown that more of the eastern Catholic Christians in Israel, the west bank and Jordan are Maronites.

I have absolutely no clue what the repeated mention of Maronites in this is supposed to mean.

 

[Rawb]

Good discussions, everybody…i am learning alot about our Orthodox brothers.

Question though: What is the role of the Patriarch of Constantinople today? Is it recognized as the first among equals, or the head (akin to the pope) of the Orthodox not in communion with Rome?

First among equals.

An interesting discussion, overall.

 

[MyJuliet]

I think the problem is that modern low-Peter’s view, “only the supreme honor” aberration, that is so popular in the Orthodox Church to overthrow the godfather of science, and so many of the “EO”, can not even imagine things as a head bishop wit…

---

Tera Online Gold|Tera Items |RS Gold

 

[Vico]

I don’t mean to propagate a straw man, but ultimately yes I am referring to Patriarchates (or even Metropolitans).
…

Patriarch is only titular in the Latin Church.

The eastern Catholic Patriarchal type churches are Patriarchal and Major Archepiscopal. Their Patriarch or Major Archbishop truly represent their Church sui iuris in all juridical matters. (As does the Metropolitan for Metropolitan churches.)

Coptic, Ukrainian, Romanian, Melkite, Maronite, Syrian, Syro-Malankar, Chaldean, Syro-Malabar, Armenian. (Constantinople: Ukrainian, Romanian, Melkite)

HBE Patriarch Cardinal Antonios Naguib (Coptic)
HB Major Archbishop Sviatoslav Schevchuk (Ukrainian)
HB Major Archbishop Lucian Mureşan (Romanian)
HB Patriarch Gregorios III Laham (Melkite)
HB Patriarch Béchara Pierre Raï (Maronite)
HB Patriarch Ignace Youssif III Younan (Syrian)
HB Major Archbishop Baselios Cleemis Thottunkal (Syro-Malankar)
HBE Patriarch Cardinal Emmanuel III Delly (Chaldean)
HB Major Archbishop George Allencherry (Syro-Malabar)
HB Patriarch Nersès Bédros XIX Tarmouni (Armenian)

 

[anora]

Patriarch is only titular in the Latin Church.

The eastern Catholic Patriarchal type churches are Patriarchal and Major Archepiscopal. Their Patriarch or Major Archbishop truly represent their Church sui iuris in all juridical matters. (As does the Metropolitan for Metropolitan churches.)

Coptic, Ukrainian, Romanian, Melkite, Maronite, Syrian, Syro-Malankar, Chaldean, Syro-Malabar, Armenian. (Constantinople: Ukrainian, Romanian, Melkite)

HBE Patriarch Cardinal Antonios Naguib (Coptic)
HB Major Archbishop Sviatoslav Schevchuk (Ukrainian)
HB Major Archbishop Lucian Mureşan (Romanian)
HB Patriarch Gregorios III Laham (Melkite)
HB Patriarch Béchara Pierre Raï (Maronite)
HB Patriarch Ignace Youssif III Younan (Syrian)
HB Major Archbishop Baselios Cleemis Thottunkal (Syro-Malankar)
HBE Patriarch Cardinal Emmanuel III Delly (Chaldean)
HB Major Archbishop George Allencherry (Syro-Malabar)
HB Patriarch Nersès Bédros XIX Tarmouni (Armenian)

Hello…

I want to say thanks to all of you. All of you have a good discussion in this topic. And shared a very useful, authentic information with all of us…

 

[Hesychios]

Patriarch is only titular in the Latin Church.

I agree, but I am not so sure that it has always been the case, at least in the case of Grado. And for the others it seems there may have been privileges of authority as well (I would like to study this further).

 

[Vico]

I agree, but I am not so sure that it has always been the case, at least in the case of Grado. And for the others it seems there may have been privileges of authority as well (I would like to study this further).

But since that Bishop was schismatic, his Patriarch status was not valid.

I think Patriarch became titular about 1261 with the capture of Constantinople of the Latins (BaldwinII) by Niceasn emperor Michael (VIII) Palaeologus.

One interesting occurance is Patriarch Jacques Pantaleon who later became Pope Urban IV.

– Born:1195 (France)

1. Bishop of Verdun (France) (1253 – 1255.Apr.09)
2. Patriarch of Jerusalem (Palestine) (1255.Apr.09 – 1261.Aug.29)
   – Elected Pope:1261.Aug.29
   – Installed Pope:1261.Sep.04
3. Pope of Roma (Italy) (1261.Aug.29 [1261.Sep.04] – 1264.Oct.02)
   – Died:1264.Oct.02 († 69)

 

[Hesychios]

But since that Bishop was schismatic, his Patriarch status was not valid.

I believe that the Roman Catholic church is of the opinion that schism does not in and of itself invalidate a church office. The church (Papacy) had no qualms about transferring that patriarchate to Venice, and most scholars I am sure will also agree that the patriarchate of Venice descends from Grado.

So it seems that basically the patriarchate of Venice originated as a real patriarchate in schism. Once it was absorbed by the Papacy it lost all of it’s native authority.

 

[Vico]

I believe that the Roman Catholic church is of the opinion that schism does not in and of itself invalidate a church office. The church (Papacy) had no qualms about transferring that patriarchate to Venice, and most scholars I am sure will also agree that the patriarchate of Venice descends from Grado.

So it seems that basically the patriarchate of Venice originated as a real patriarchate in schism. Once it was absorbed by the Papacy it lost all of it’s native authority.

The schism (544-699) occurred from the Three Chapters. The bishopric of Aquelia was not then a patriarchate, yet the schismatic Paulinus I (557-569) assumed the title of patriarch. Pope Gregory II granted the pallium to Patriarch Serenus (715-730) of Aquileia in 723. This patriarchate ended in 1751.

The Bishop of Grado Candidianus (606-612) was in communion with Rome so that would be the earliest possible Catholic date. The patriarchate was supressed in 1451 to elevate the existing Diocese of Castello to Patriarchate of Venezia. So in 1457 the bishop was granted the title of Patriarch. They are metropolitan (western sense) in jurisdiction. There is also another political patriarch title.

 

[anora]

Hello…

I want to say thanks to all of you. All of you have a good discussion in this topic. And shared a very useful, authentic information with all of us…

Cycling Shorts