Why is there a Latin Rite Patriarch of Jerusalem?

[jcfw01]

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?

 

[Cluny]

Let me put it like this:

How would some people feel about the establisment of an Orthodox Patriarchate of Rome?

 

[tampasteve]

For right or wrong I believe it was started during the crusades in the 1100’s. After the Kingdom of Jerusalem fell they moved to Cyprus. It was re-established in Jerusalem in the 1800’s. If the churches were to fully re-unite it is likely, IMO that the Orthodox would “keep” the patriarchate.

As a side note there were also Latin Patriarchs in Antioch and Alexandria until 1964 - so there is president for abolishing them in favor of other Catholic Christian Churches (in this case the Coptic Catholic and Maronite churches).

Steve

 

[Seamus_L]

I’ve seen alot of people online who’d love to see an Orthodox Patriarch in Rome.

 

[Hesychios]

I’ve seen alot of people online who’d love to see an Orthodox Patriarch in Rome.

The Orthodox are not interested in setting up a rival Patriarch in Rome. It has not been seriously contemplated outside of the possible musings of some on the internet.

The desire is that the sitting Patriarch, and those who follow him, become Orthodox. As close as we are already, it seems possible.

 

[Hesychios]

…there were also Latin Patriarchs in Antioch and Alexandria until 1964 - so there is president for abolishing them in favor of other Catholic Christian Churches (in this case the Coptic Catholic and Maronite churches).

Steve

There was a Latin Patriarch of Constantinople for a long time as well.

One thing that surprised me a few years back was that (as I recall) His Holiness Pope John Paul II of blessed memory erected an Israeli diocese (of Hebrew speaking Latin rite Catholics) and separated it from the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, over the objections of the Patriarch.

Michael

 

[Seamus_L]

Exactly. Sincere Orthodox want to see Catholics convert to Orthodoxy and sincere Catholics want to see the Orthodox become Catholics. The sillyness occurs when people try to pretend it’s not true.

 

[malphono]

One thing that surprised me a few years back was that (as I recall) His Holiness Pope John Paul II of blessed memory erected an Israeli diocese (of Hebrew speaking Latin rite Catholics) and separated it from the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, over the objections of the Patriarch.

Why doesn’t that surprise me? Perhaps to name an Apostolic Vicar for the handful of Hebrew-speaking Israeli Catholics, but to erect a diocese? That’s just silly, but of course it’s typical. No wonder the long-suffering Latin Patriarch objected. I rather feel for whoever gets stuck with that honorific.

 

[Amadeus]

There was a Latin Patriarch of Constantinople for a long time as well.

One thing that surprised me a few years back was that (as I recall) His Holiness Pope John Paul II of blessed memory erected an Israeli diocese (of Hebrew speaking Latin rite Catholics) and separated it from the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, over the objections of the Patriarch.

Michael

Why doesn’t that surprise me? Perhaps to name an Apostolic Vicar for the handful of Hebrew-speaking Israeli Catholics, but to erect a diocese? That’s just silly, but of course it’s typical. No wonder the long-suffering Latin Patriarch objected. I rather feel for whoever gets stuck with that honorific.

I cannot find any document that shows Pope John Paul II erected a separate diocese for the Hebrew-speaking communities in Israel.

As it is, the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem is still administered as a diocese/archdiocese itself with 5 vicariates: Jerusalem (Auxiliary Bishop Kamal Bathish as Patriarchal Vicar), Israel (Auxiliary Bishop Giacinto-Boulos Marcuzzo as PV), Jordan (Auxiliary Bishop Salim Sayegh as PV), Cyprus (Fr. Umberto Barato, OFM, as PV), and Fr. David Neuhaus, SJ, as PV for the Hebrew-speaking communities in Israel.

The LPJ serves about 70,000 faithful of the Latin Rite.

 

[Hesychios]

I cannot find any document that shows Pope John Paul II erected a separate diocese for the Hebrew-speaking communities in Israel.

As it is, the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem is still administered as a diocese/archdiocese itself with 5 vicariates: Jerusalem (Auxiliary Bishop Kamal Bathish as Patriarchal Vicar), Israel (Auxiliary Bishop Giacinto-Boulos Marcuzzo as PV), Jordan (Auxiliary Bishop Salim Sayegh as PV), Cyprus (Fr. Umberto Barato, OFM, as PV), and Fr. David Neuhaus, SJ, as PV for the Hebrew-speaking communities in Israel.

The LPJ serves about 70,000 faithful of the Latin Rite.

I cannot either.

(Unless I can find something later, though it looks doubtful) I will have to withdraw my original contention.

Perhaps the idea was dropped after all, or perhaps what I remember was the Patriarchal Vicariate for Hebrew speakers being erected by the Pope. I cannot recover any news items from the time to refresh my memory.

From what I recall the Patriarch considered it harmful to divide the community.

My apologies for the false reporting.
*
Michael*

 

[Hesychios]

I hate quoting Blogs, especially Blogs quoting other Blogs. It is just not reliable journalism.

However, in this case I have little choice. Attached is a news item from what year I don’t know describing the event I thought I remembered. It more precisely calls the bishop an Auxiliary, which means he would still have been subject to the Patriarch if I read this correctly.

It is interesting to see that this structure does not seem to exist any longer, at least with a bishop in charge. Some how the whole thing has disappeared (as an episcopal level structure), or possibly the original reporting was inaccurate…

The most recent appointment has been father Neuhaus, and he succeeds father Pizzaballa. Bishop Gourion is not mentioned anywhere I can find today.

** Two Catholic Communities in the Holy Land: Jewish and Arab **

**From Leon Hadar’s blog “Global Paradigms”

“Israel’s Demographic Dilemma:
Can Israel Remain a Jewish State?”** which includes a discussion of the new Israeli minority: Hebrew-speaking Christians.

TEL AVIV—They are Hebrew-speaking Israeli citizens who wave the national flag bearing the six-point Star of David. They sing the national anthem that celebrates the return of the Jewish people to their historic homeland. Their kids attend Hebrew public schools and after graduation serve in the Israeli Defense Force. They are proud Israelis who seem an integral part of Hebrew culture and, unlike many Arab citizens of Israel, they don’t have any ambivalent feelings about Israeli identity. They are Israeli patriots who love their country and are willing to die for it.

But these Israeli Hebrews are not Jewish. In fact, they are observant Catholics, members of what the Vatican calls the “Hebrew-Speaking Catholic community in Israel.” Indeed, recognizing the significance of this small but growing community of Catholics, the late John Paul II announced in 2003 that he was placing beside the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem, Michele Sabbah, an auxiliary bishop with a special task of “the pastoral care of the Catholic faithful of Jewish expression” living Israel. Jean-Baptiste Gourion, who was ordained as the new bishop at the Catholic Church in Kiryat Ye’arim near Jerusalem, is a converted Sepharadic Jew who was born in Algeria, received baptism at the age of 24, became a Benedictine monk, and moved to Israel in 1976. Since 1990, he has been responsible for the pastoral care of the Hebrew Catholics.

The appointment of Father Gourion (“lion cub” in Hebrew) as a Hebrew-speaking Catholic bishop in Israel is certainly a milestone considering that since the middle of the second century, no Hebrew Catholic was named a Bishop of Jerusalem. The move ignited opposition among some Catholics who suspected that it is part of a strategy, backed by Israel and its allies in the Vatican to divide the Church in the Holy Land into two parts, denying its predominantly Arab character and weakening Patriarch Sabbah, an Arab who has been an ardent champion of the Palestinian cause and who resisted the idea of creating within Israel a separate Church for Israel’s Hebrew-speaking Catholics.

More…

 

[Volodymyr]

Why is there a Latin Rite Patriarch of Jerusalem?

?

Because of crusaders (crosss-bearing soldiers) who seemed both in Jerusalem and later in Constantinople to want to or have been instructed to humiliate and belittle Orthodox christianity.

. In December 1099 forty years into Latin Kingdom of Holy land on feast of birth of Christ in Bethlehem was a meeting at which the Jerusalem patrich against all canonic laws was proclaimed by papal legate Daibert. This occured wtih a living Orthodox patriarch Simeone (died 1006). This was an act of injustice and disrespect to Simeon but also a most grevious breaking of canons of the church. The fate of first Latin patriarch was horrible: in 1117 such Daibert, Latin patriarch, was beaten to death by the King Beaudoin who was his enemy. After Daibert the Latin Patriarchs in Holy City were Embremarus, Gibelin, Arnylf, Kvaramudus, Stefan, Vilgelm I, Pulherios, Amalrich, Iraklios, Toma de Lentino, Ilija and Nicolai de Anapiis. All of these were at odds with political power in Ierusalem and with the Antioch Patriarchate. .
Orthodox monks did not accept placement of Latin Patriarch in Holy City. The Orthodox brotherhood of Holy Tomb of Christ struggled constaintly with this Latin Patriarch whose flock were French and German crusader soldiers.

 

[Jimzz12]

Whatever happened to the old name: Oriental Churches?

At what point does an Orthodox become Catholic vice versa?

 

[Hesychios]

Hello Jimzz,

Whatever happened to the old name: Oriental Churches?

That is a term Rome uses for the non-Chalcedonian churches, which parted from the Orthodox/Catholic churches in 451AD. The modern Orthodox and Catholic churches are considered Diaphysite, the non-Chalcedonians are considered Miaphysite and sometimes called “Oriental”. Since ‘oriental’ and ‘eastern’ are synonyms I don’t think they are really good ways to distinguish the two.

At what point does an Orthodox become Catholic vice versa?

Orthodox have always considered themselves Catholic, and Latin Catholics have always considered themselves orthodox, so the labels aren’t all that helpful. Some people of the Eastern Catholic traditions sincerely desire to bridge the two and call themselves ‘Orthodox-Catholics’.

For our purposes here on CAF I suppose we should assume that Catholics are under the Pope. As I understand it, there are three major points of difference, and some minor ones. Others may have a differing perspective.

Catholics believe in, or somehow acknowledge Purgatory, as is required of them. Most Eastern Catholic Traditions did not teach this dogma originally, and some do not teach it explicitly today, but the Eastern Catholics are not supposed to deny it as a true dogma.

Catholics must accept the filioque as a legitimate expression of theology, although not all Catholics are required to recite it in the Creed. There seems to be a bit of fuzz as to what the phrase means, from what I have seen not all Catholics agree.

Catholics must agree to the dogmas of Papal Universal Jurisdiction and Papal Infallibility, both promulgated officially in 1870AD. Orthodox are not bound to this theology.

 

[Jimzz12]

Catholics believe in, or somehow acknowledge Purgatory, as is required of them. Most Eastern Catholic Traditions did not teach this dogma originally, and some do not teach it explicitly today, but the Eastern Catholics are not supposed to deny it as a true dogma.

Catholics must accept the filioque as a legitimate expression of theology, although not all Catholics are required to recite it in the Creed. There seems to be a bit of fuzz as to what the phrase means, from what I have seen not all Catholics agree.

Catholics must agree to the dogmas of Papal Universal Jurisdiction and Papal Infallibility, both promulgated officially in 1870AD.

I suppose the best way to get a grip on these is approach it as St. John of the Cross would; that is, to enter into the darkness and be in love with God, surrendering the will, after the will has been trained by the intelligence.

Perhaps this was off topic.

 

[SyroMalankara]

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?

This begs the question:

Why are there Greek Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch?

 

[Ghosty]

This begs the question:

Why are there Greek Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch?

I’m glad someone else mentioned this, especially after Volodymyr’s post.

I would add the question: why is there an Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch now, since the original Byzantine Patriarchate and Synod left the Orthodox Communion for the Catholic in the 1700s.

Obviously these are rhetorical questions, and are merely meant to highlight the fact that these problems aren’t unique to the Catholic Communion by any stretch.

Peace and God bless!

 

[mardukm]

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?

Probably the same reason that there is an OO Patriarchate in Jerusalem (Armenian).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

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?

I’ve read somewhere that the first Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem at the time of the Crusades was installed against the orders of the Pope. It was the secular military forces who ousted the Orthodox Patriarch and installed their own, and the Pope couldn’t do anything about it. When the Patriarchate was re-established in the late 19th century, it was only for the purpose of serving the needs of the Latin Catholics living in the area, not to replace the original Patriarchate. I think that at the end of the 19th century, the idea of ritual patriarchy, instead of geographical patriarchy, was well-established in the Catholic Church. The notion was not unknown among the OO at this time as well.

The EO Patriarchate in Jerusalem has historically shown animosity towards the Catholics and OO in Jerusalem.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[malphono]

Ghosty:

… why is there an Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch now, since the original Byzantine Patriarchate and Synod left the Orthodox Communion for the Catholic in the 1700s.

That there is a Byzantine Patriarchate of Antioch (“Catholic” or “Orthodox” not withstanding) is itself a question: it’s very existence represents nothing other than Byzantine imperialism, or at least an Imperial attempt at same.

mardukm:

I’ve read somewhere that the first Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem at the time of the Crusades was installed against the orders of the Pope. It was the secular military forces who ousted the Orthodox Patriarch and installed their own, and the Pope couldn’t do anything about it.

How could it be that a Latin ecclesiastical jurisdiction was established against the express wishes of the then-reigning Pope? In such a case, one word from him would have abolished it in a minute. But that didn’t happen, so one has to presume that the establishment of such “Patriarchate” was accepted.

mardukm:

When the Patriarchate was re-established in the late 19th century, it was only for the purpose of serving the needs of the Latin Catholics living in the area, not to replace the original Patriarchate. I think that at the end of the 19th century, the idea of ritual patriarchy, instead of geographical patriarchy, was well-established in the Catholic Church. The notion was not unknown among the OO at this time as well.

mardukm:

The EO Patriarchate in Jerusalem has historically shown animosity towards the Catholics and OO in Jerusalem.

Now there’s a big surprise.