Will there be Another Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem?

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

catholic03

Well-known member
Pax Christi:

I think it is a beautiful treasure that there is a Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem. Since 2016, however, it has been vacant sede vacante, although Archbishop Pierbattista Pizzaballa has been Apostolic Administrator since then.

I trust our Holy Father - if another Patriarch is not appointed - or if the Patriarchate is demoted to an Archdiocese etc - then I trust this is the best option.

However, I think that it is great that we have a Patriarchate there. Is it likely that the Holy Father will appoint a new Patriarch, or is it possible that there shall not be another?
 
Eastern Christians, Catholic and Orthodox, react in horror to the idea.

From the creation of this “patriarchate”, it was an undermining of the Patriarch of Jerusalem, and a denial of his legitimacy.

Sure, there should be a latin bishop about for are of the western faithful–but that just isn’t what a Patriarch is!

Hopefully, there will never be another.

Effort instead should be put on working with the actual Patriarch of Jerusalem, and the other Orthodox, on solving the actual problems that led to this situation.
 
Rumors heard from time to time on the internet suggest that Archbishop Pizzaballa is likely to remain in his present post for a few more years, and then move either to Milan or to Venice. The current Archbishop of Milan, Mario Delpini, turns 75 in 2026, and the current Patriarch of Venice, Francesco Moraglia, turns 75 two years after that. What will then happen to the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem is anybody’s guess. It might even carry on as is, with a new patriarch being appointed in due course.
 
David_Catholic said:
There is a difference between an Patriarch of a Church Sui Iuris and a titular patriarch. A titular patriarch is NOT a patriarch, rather just a bishop with no more authority than any other.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that is why I dislike Latin Titular Patriarchs. I wish Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem returned, but in more than titular fashion. After all, Latin Catholics are one of largest religious communities in Jerusalem IIRC.
dochawk said:
From the creation of this “patriarchate”, it was an undermining of the Patriarch of Jerusalem, and a denial of his legitimacy.
Click to expand...
How so? We have 3 Patriarchs of Antioch in Catholic Church. Having two Patriarchs of Jerusalem doesn’t seem that bad… and given situation of Latin Catholics in Jerusalem it isn’t uncalled for. But I think that either Titular Patriarchs should be abolished or made into real Patriarchs. Otherwise there is no point to them. Latin Church is larger than all other Churches combined and yet it has only one real Patriarch… I don’t get why. Having more Latin Patriarchs could contribute diversity in the Church… if done properly.
dochawk said:
Effort instead should be put on working with the actual Patriarch of Jerusalem, and the other Orthodox, on solving the actual problems that led to this situation.
Click to expand...
I was under impression that Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem works with Eastern Catholic Patriarch. But Melkite Patriarch holds triple Patriarchate and does not even reside in Jerusalem afaik. Having at least one Catholic Patriarch in the city seems nice.
 
Today, Jerusalem is just a Latin metropolitan see with a fancy title. He could very well be the Latin Archbishop of Jerusalem with no practical impact.
 
twf said:
Today, Jerusalem is just a Latin metropolitan see with a fancy title. He could very well be the Latin Archbishop of Jerusalem with no practical impact.
Click to expand...
I believe that is equally true of the patriarchs of Venice and Lisbon.
 
catholic03 said:
Do you believe that it is fine to have the Melkite Patriarch (ex officio held by the Patriarch of Antioch)?
Click to expand...
The Melkite patriarch is an actual patriarch, leading an actual patriarchal church.

The church of Antioch has had four schisms that left a Patriarch on each side of the schism.

The “patriarch” of Jerusalem, however, is a simple appointment by the Pope to a see that is not part of the RCC.
OrbisNonSufficit said:
How so? We have 3 Patriarchs of Antioch in Catholic Church. Having two Patriarchs of Jerusalem doesn’t seem that bad…
Click to expand...
But each of them leads an actual, sui juris, church. It can be argued as to which is which at each schism, and each had bishops with flocks.

that just isn’t the case when the Pope announces a title into existence.
OrbisNonSufficit said:
I was under impression that Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem works with Eastern Catholic Patriarch
Click to expand...
I don’t think that there is an EC counterpart to the Jerusalem Patriarchate . . .
OrbisNonSufficit said:
But Melkite Patriarch holds triple Patriarchate and does not even reside in Jerusalem afaik.
Click to expand...
🤔
Why would the Patriarch of Antioch reside in Jerusalem?

And he doesn’t hold a “triple patriarchate”; he is one of the three patriarchs from that city in communion with Rome.
 
I think abolishing the Latin patriarchate of Jerusalem, or allowing it to fall into desuetude, would be a logical extension of the abolition of the Latin patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch in 1964. There is no need for the Latin Church to maintain a patriarchate in Jerusalem. It could simply be an archdiocese providing pastoral oversight for Latin Catholics in Israel, Palestine, Jordan, and Cyprus, which is what it already is. We Latin Catholics do not need to have patriarchates that replicate the titles held by Eastern Catholic and Eastern and Oriental Orthodox patriarchs.
 
David_Catholic said:
Unless the Pope creates a Latin-rite Sui Iuris Church of Jerusalem, there is no need for a patriarch. In fact, there IS NO PATRIARCH other than in name only.
Click to expand...
Yes, exactly my point. Latin Church is far too centralized and some Sui Iuris Latin Patriarchs would be nice (not necessarily in Jerusalem).
dochawk said:
Why would the Patriarch of Antioch reside in Jerusalem?
Click to expand...
Why would Patriarch of Jerusalem and Alexandria reside near Antioch? Same thing.
dochawk said:
And he doesn’t hold a “triple patriarchate”; he is one of the three patriarchs from that city in communion with Rome.
Click to expand...
He does. Melkite Patriarch is Patriarch of Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria. Look it up.
 
No, he’ not.

Those are titular, not actual jurisdiction there.
 
Yes, they are titular. My mistake.

I am sure you know more on the topic than me and it was wrong to make claims like that.

Out of interest: which sui iuris Church are you a member of?
 
Last edited:
Legally, I’m RC. I’m waiting for enough melkite presence here to change to that, and in the meantime I’m in a Pittsburgh nee Ruthenian parish.
 
dochawk said:
Legally, I’m RC. I’m waiting for enough melkite presence here to change to that, and in the meantime I’m in a Pittsburgh nee Ruthenian parish.
Click to expand...
So you attend a Ruthenian parish, but you are hoping to be Melkite. Very interesting. I hope you are able to make the change to the Melkite Church.

Byzantine Catholicism is so beautiful.
 
Last edited:
dochawk said:
Those are titular, not actual jurisdiction there.
Click to expand...
Oh I see. So Catholic Church only has titular Patriarchs of Jerusalem. Oh well…

Anyway why is Melkite Titular Patriarch fine if Latin isn’t?
 
OrbisNonSufficit said:
Technically, but then that would take primacy out of EP…
Click to expand...
So as a Roman Catholic you would be ok with the Orthodox placing a bishop and Rome and calling him the Greek Orthodox “Patriarch” of Rome? You wouldn’t see that as contentious?

ZP
 
ziapueblo said:
You wouldn’t see that as contentious?
Click to expand...
Not at all, if that was all according to Orthodox canons. There is small community of Orthodox people in Istanbul and Ecumenical Patriarch is still there. After all, we are not one Church with Eastern Orthodoxy so rival jurisdictions do not bother me. Probably would result in giving Orthodox Patriarch of Rome new autocephalous Church though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top