Why isn't there a Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem yet?

  • Thread starter Thread starter imo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ziapueblo said:
I don’t think anyone said there could not be a Latin bishop in Jerusalem.

ZP
Click to expand...
Then I don’t understand what the objection is about. There are a handful of Latin patriarchs in the Latin Church.

You mean to tell me that if the name was changed to the Archdiocese of Jerusalem everything would be perfectly fine? On what basis would this be done after nearly 1000 years?
 
The Latin Church would be ok with a Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Rome?

ZP
 
I assume there is such a person in Rome, or with jurisdiction over Rome, to minister to any orthodox there.
 
Last edited:
I don’t understand your responses in this thread as you seem to think the position of Latin Patriarch doesn’t exist. There has been a Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem since 1099 and there are several other ordinaries of eastern rites in communion with Rome overseeing their respective dioceses and eparchies. None of them should be confused with any of the heads of Eastern churches based in Jerusalem or the Holy Lamd.

The original post here was simply asking why the existing position of Latin Patriarch hasn’t been filled three years after the last patriarch retired. I don’t have an answer for that but do note that the Apostolic Administrator, Archbishop Pizzaballa was the Franciscan Custos of the Holy Land previously so has great experience there.
 
I am not blaming nobody for the schism, just saying the authority will always be with Christ’s Vicar, the Bishop of Rome. His Holiness can create any patriarchate if His Holiness considers it fit. I think you, as Catholic, should agree with me. There is a Latin Patriarch for 1000 years. In your opinion, as a Catholic, the Church and the Popes have being wrong all this time?
 
Last edited:
In an ideal world (ie, where we are all in communion) there is only one Bishop in a diocese. If, for instance, a person of the Latin rite lives in an area with an Eastern Bishop, the Bishop would bring into the diocese Latin clergy to serve them, under his authority.
 
mrsdizzyd said:
Then, what is the solution when a group of Catholics in an orthodox area finds themselves in need of a shepard? Tough luck this is an apostolic orthodox patriarchate?
Click to expand...
They have their own bishop, right? That’s different from creating a Patriarch only to serve as a rival to the Orthodox one. It embeds the schism rather than solve it.
 
Last edited:
Salibi said:
40.png
mrsdizzyd:
Then, what is the solution when a group of Catholics in an orthodox area finds themselves in need of a shepard? Tough luck this is an apostolic orthodox patriarchate?
Click to expand...
They have their own bishop, right? That’s different from creating a Patriarch only to serve as a rival to the Orthodox one. It embeds the schism rather than solve it.
Click to expand...
… he is the metropolitan to which their bishops are beholden…
 
Right, and if the title Patriarch of Jerusalem causes tension with the East, why not simply appoint a Latin Metropolitan Archbishop of Jerusalem?
 
Would a change of terminology really make a discernible difference?
 
Yes. The title Patriarch is important especially from an Eastern perspective.

This is why, despite the fact the Ukrainians internally call their primate a patriarch, Rome has refused to recognize the Major Archbishop of Kiev as a Patriarch. For Rome to formally recognize him as a Patriarch would cause even more tension with Moscow. That’s my understanding.
 
twf said:
This is why, despite the fact the Ukrainians internally call their primate a patriarch, Rome has refused to recognize the Major Archbishop of Kiev as a Patriarch. For Rome to formally recognize him as a Patriarch would cause even more tension with Moscow. That’s my understanding.
Click to expand...
I can understand that from a 2019 perspective, but I cannot understand it from a 1099 perspective.
 
How about a Maronite patriarch of Rome? Or a Melkite patriarch of Rome? I find it offensive that the west thinks the world is their territory and the eastern churches should stay in their place.
 
It was always a titular patriarchate, but it has been downgraded to an archiepiscopal see, and the title quietly retired.

ZP
 
There is no evidence that the Eastern Churches have any issue with the title of Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem or of the position itself, which has existed for nearly a 1,000 years. The position exists but is simply currently vacant with an apostolic administrator serving in the interim.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top