Why is there a Latin Rite Patriarch of Jerusalem?

[JohnVIII]

Very good question indeed, are the Greeks trying to push all Orthodox into the Greek Orthodox church? This defies my limited understanding of Orthodoxy.

I know that Antioch already has it’s own Patriarch, there is an Antiochian Orthodox church near my town.

Is their not a canon that limits one city to one bishop?

Cannon number eight of the First Ecumenical Council. Only one “catholic” Bishop in a city. Very strictly follow the earliest days of Christianity. Hardly important to anyone today!

 

[pipper]

Cannon number eight of the First Ecumenical Council. Only one “catholic” Bishop in a city. Very strictly follow the earliest days of Christianity. Hardly important to anyone today!

OFF TOPIC ALERT

I see you have an icon of St Seraphim of Sarov. He is my patron saint.

 

[Hesychios]

Would this mean then that the Pope would convert to the Eastern Orthodox Church. Unfortunately, I read somewhere that according to an Orthodox commentator, it would not be enough for the Pope of Rome to convert to Eastern Orthodoxy, Each Roman Catholic would then have to convert individually, and only after that, would union between Catholics and Orthodox be achieved.

I don’t know.

I would think that if the Pope and bishops declare for Orthodoxy that would be significant, but would the laity understand? Usually when small groups of Orthodox went into union with Rome the laity had nothing to say about it. The church waited for the second and third generations to mature with catechesis including the new particular Latin doctrines, and that seemed acceptable at the time. In other words, it was often the children who got the new theological training and mystified their parents when they came home from catechism class and talked about it. In some villages the new doctrines were not specifically taught at all for many generations, it was considered enough to be “under the Pope” whatever that meant to them.

When the notorious early heresies were suppressed it was sometimes enough to replace bishops, or accept local priests through some ceremony. I remember reading about just such a ritual that was prescribed in Gaul for accepting Arian priests ( this was necessary when the Catholic Franks finally dominated the Arian Burgundians and Lombards, also when the Goths of Spain converted). The issue of what happened with the parishioners is not entirely clear. I suppose the bishops expected a change in preaching from the pulpit would be sufficient. It had to have been similar in the east because Arianism was rampant among eastern bishops for a while.

When the Latin church took control of the Methodian churches in Bohemia and southern Poland it took a few generations before the eastern rite was largely gone. Likewise in southern Italy, but it eventually happened. Today most people in those areas are essentially unaware that their ancestors were in the “Greek Rite”. They could not have all been taught Latin theology in one night, but that is what their descendants profess today.

I don’t know if that approach is acceptable from an Orthodox standpoint, but it seems to be what happened in the past in the east as well as the west.

 

[Melchior]

Why is there a Latin Rite Patriarch of Jerusalem?

I have read the history of the Patriarchs in Jerusalem, but it only explains when and never explains exactly why Rome felt the need to establish a Latin Rite Patriarch in addition to the Orthodox Patriarch.

Is this a challenge to the Orthodox claim to the Successor of James, or does the office exist just to serve the Latin Rite Catholics in Jerusalem?

If the East-West Schism was ever healed, who would lose their job: the Latin Patriarch or the Orthodox Patriarch?

Why wouldn’t they be there? The Greek Orthodox are there. And they were put there by the Muslim Turks in place of the Latin Catholics. I can’t see any reason for their presence from a theological or historical perspective. At least the Latins fought to liberate Jerusalem. So really why is anyone there. I mean it is not like, contrary to respectable, but unlikely, myth that there was an Eastern Orthodox presence in it’s current form since Pentecost. Everyone who is there now, got there at various times in Christian history. None of them perfectly represent the original Hebrew Christians who started the Church in 1st century Judea. So really all this who has the right to a kingdom of this world is somewhat parochial. Neither Greeks, Arabs or the Irish were their in the first century. It was a Jewish population under Roman rule (hey I guess Rome does have a claim ). So who can be there is irrelevent since none there now were there then in the exact same form. Of course either side can argue they were there first. Peter being a Jew and his successor being in Rome I would say that Latins at least have as much right as any Eastern Church (by way of argument anyway - I think claiming Israel and the Palestinian territories as the church’s is a clear violation of Scripture and Tradition. To protect holy sites from pagans? Sure. Anything else? No.

 

[mardukm]

Why wouldn’t they be there? The Greek Orthodox are there. And they were put there by the Muslim Turks in place of the Latin Catholics. I can’t see any reason for their presence from a theological or historical perspective. At least the Latins fought to liberate Jerusalem. So really why is anyone there. I mean it is not like, contrary to respectable, but unlikely, myth that there was an Eastern Orthodox presence in it’s current form since Pentecost. Everyone who is there now, got there at various times in Christian history. None of them perfectly represent the original Hebrew Christians who started the Church in 1st century Judea. So really all this who has the right to a kingdom of this world is somewhat parochial. Neither Greeks, Arabs or the Irish were their in the first century. It was a Jewish population under Roman rule (hey I guess Rome does have a claim ). So who can be there is irrelevent since none there now were there then in the exact same form. Of course either side can argue they were there first. Peter being a Jew and his successor being in Rome I would say that Latins at least have as much right as any Eastern Church (by way of argument anyway - I think claiming Israel and the Palestinian territories as the church’s is a clear violation of Scripture and Tradition. To protect holy sites from pagans? Sure. Anything else? No.

That’s a cool and refreshing POV.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[bobzills]

I don’t know.

I would think that if the Pope and bishops declare for Orthodoxy that would be significant, but would the laity understand? Usually when small groups of Orthodox went into union with Rome the laity had nothing to say about it. The church waited for the second and third generations to mature with catechesis including the new particular Latin doctrines, and that seemed acceptable at the time. In other words, it was often the children who got the new theological training and mystified their parents when they came home from catechism class and talked about it. In some villages the new doctrines were not specifically taught at all for many generations, it was considered enough to be “under the Pope” whatever that meant to them.

When the notorious early heresies were suppressed it was sometimes enough to replace bishops, or accept local priests through some ceremony. I remember reading about just such a ritual that was prescribed in Gaul for accepting Arian priests ( this was necessary when the Catholic Franks finally dominated the Arian Burgundians and Lombards, also when the Goths of Spain converted). The issue of what happened with the parishioners is not entirely clear. I suppose the bishops expected a change in preaching from the pulpit would be sufficient. It had to have been similar in the east because Arianism was rampant among eastern bishops for a while.

When the Latin church took control of the Methodian churches in Bohemia and southern Poland it took a few generations before the eastern rite was largely gone. Likewise in southern Italy, but it eventually happened. Today most people in those areas are essentially unaware that their ancestors were in the “Greek Rite”. They could not have all been taught Latin theology in one night, but that is what their descendants profess today.

I don’t know if that approach is acceptable from an Orthodox standpoint, but it seems to be what happened in the past in the east as well as the west.

I beleive that the opinion is not unanimous on this.

 

[JohnVIII]

OFF TOPIC ALERT

I see you have an icon of St Seraphim of Sarov. He is my patron saint.

OFF TOPIC REPLY

That’s not an icon of St Seraphim of Sarov, is a sign that says, “Happy Easter to our Christian friends, Happy Passover to our Jewish friends, To our atheist friends…Good Luck”.

• Just a little humor! I change my signature from time to time; I was very tempted, because of your post, to change the icon of St. Seraphim of Sarov to picture a Father Guido Sarducci, but I resisted the urge.