Why is there a Latin Rite Patriarch of Jerusalem?

[mardukm]

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.

The ousting of Patriarch Simeon was not supported by the Pope at all. But what could he do after Simeon fled? The residents in Jerusalem still needed a spiritual head, and it was for this need whereby the Pope approved the Latin Patriarchate.

From an ecclesiastical perspective, it would be wholly false, as brother Volodomyr suggested, that the Latin Patriarchate in Jerusalem was set up with papal approval for the purpose of opposing the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchate. However, from the perspective of the secular rulers, his statement would have merit.

During the time of the Crusades, I’m pretty sure no Latin Patriarch was ever appointed in any of the Patriarchal Sees while there was an Eastern Orthodox Patriarch in residence. It’s probably true that the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs either were driven out or themselves felt they could not effectively serve a large Latin Catholic populace and thereby volutarily left their See (an indication of abdication, I guess). I think that of all the Patriarchs, the Patriarch of Antioch had the most long-lasting relations with the Latins, and stayed on for some time during the Latin occupation.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Hesychios]

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

Patriarchs in the Latin church have always been somewhat symbolic, and the title usually conferred for political reasons. They essentially have a grand title but function no differently than a Metropolitan. (The title gives them a more honorific place in processions.) The Patriarch of Venice is another example, the Patriarch of Lisbon would be yet another.

In other words, it would be possible stop conferring this title on the Latin Archbishops of Jerusalem and the office would remain. The Archdiocese itself is rather small, about 60,000 persons altogether.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Michael,

Patriarchs in the Latin church have always been somewhat symbolic, and the title usually conferred for political reasons. They essentially have a grand title but function no differently than a Metropolitan. (The title gives them a more honorific place in processions.) The Patriarch of Venice is another example, the Patriarch of Lisbon would be yet another.

In other words, it would be possible stop conferring this title on the Latin Archbishops of Jerusalem and the office would remain. The Archdiocese itself is rather small, about 60,000 persons altogether.

That sounds about right.

Comment: Earlier, you mentioned some complaints about a dioceses being separated from the omophorion of the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem. I was wondering if such tension occurred when the Latin Patriarchate in Jerusalem was first established in the 19th century - especially from the viewpoint of the Melkite Patriarch who claims Jerusalem under his jurisdiction. I know that among the OO, there were tensions in the Middle Ages when one Church wanted to have their own bishop within the jurisdiction of another Church. I guess such situations are par for the course among family members.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[pipper]

This begs the question:

Why are there Greek Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch?

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?

 

[mardukm]

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

There are several in the early Church (though I don’t have time to look for it now). The purpose of the Canon was originally to prevent heretical bishops from intruding upon the see of an orthodox bishop.

My personal belief is that it also has to do with the idea of having each local Church be representative of the heavenly kingdom, which only has one head (recall St. Ignatius teaching - treat your priests as Jesus, and the bishop as God Himself).

There is the idea of RITUAL jurisdiction or jurisdiction by Tradition, instead of territorial jurisdiction, which permits for more than one bishop in a geographical area. This is common in both the Oriental Orthodox and Catholic Churches, where there are distinct Traditions in unity. So the fact of more than one bishop in one city is not really a problem for the OO and CC. It is, however, problematic for the EO, who, I think, only have one Tradition among the EO Churches.

Blessings

 

[twf]

Mardukm:
In addition, all Catholic bishops, regardless of tradition, recognize the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, who provides unity under a single head regardless of the number of bishops in any given geographical locale. The EO lack such an arrangement so the importance of maintaining the unique status of the local bishop is, perhaps, more strongly felt.

 

[BobCatholic]

Let me put it like this:

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

romanorthodox.com/

 

[Hesychios]

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

I could be mistaken but it seems that this group of Benedictine vagantes doesn’t have a bishop in the city of Rome.

It looks like His Excellency with the nice duds lives near I-10 in the Florida panhandle.

 

[Hesychios]

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

I could be mistaken but it seems that this group of Benedictine vagantes doesn’t have a bishop in the city of Rome.

It looks like His Excellency with the nice duds lives near I-10 in the Florida panhandle.

 

[Zabdi_Premjit]

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?

Is there not only one EO Bishop of Antioch?

 

[SonofMonica]

I could be mistaken but it seems that this group of Benedictine vagantes doesn’t have a bishop in the city of Rome.

It looks like His Excellency with the nice duds lives near I-10 in the Florida panhandle.

Also appears that his Cathedra sits in his living room…

 

[Hesychios]

Also appears that his Cathedra sits in his living room…

Facing the TV!

 

[SonofMonica]

Facing the TV!

 

[malphono]

The only photo I was able to see on that website was of some sort of home chapel and a “bishop” holding just about the ugliest crozier I’ve ever seen. Is there something else that I missed?

 

[SonofMonica]

The only photo I was able to see on that website was of some sort of home chapel and a “bishop” holding just about the ugliest crozier I’ve ever seen. Is there something else that I missed?

Nah, Hesychios and I were just sort of implying the rest and having our grins…

 

[malphono]

Nah, Hesychios and I were just sort of implying the rest and having our grins…

OK gotcha. Shame we don’t have that little green “barf face” smiley on here. It would help describe that crozier-thing. Oy, but I can just imagine the rest.

 

[pipper]

romanorthodox.com/

Bob, did you actually read the Roman Orthodox website? I did and it is obivious that not only is this vagante 'Old Catholic, Old Orthodox" church located in the US instead of Rome, but they are not canonical, or in communion with anyone but themselves.

There are likely hundreds of these Old Catholic, Old Orthodox churches in existence, most of them exist in cyber-space only, they have names like Old Catholic, Orthodox Catholic, etc. Many of them seem to cater to homosexuals, divorced and remarried Catholics, people who have been rejected by or have placed themselves out of their regular churches, and still feel a need for some sort of religion, but on their own terms.

For a time consuming but very interesting experience. look up Old Catholic on Google and have fun following the links.

 

[BobCatholic]

Facing the TV!

I thought it was the porcelain one

 

[Hesychios]

I thought it was the porcelain one

You can mount those flat screens anywhere these days

 

[bobzills]

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.

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.