Will there be Another Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why should there be? There is already a Patriarch in Jerusalem whose office dates back to the Apostles.

I fear such a thing would complicate things with the Orthodox. Remember that we should be working towards reuniting the Church, which means that any Latin Patriarchate formed will have to give way to the original Orthodox one in the event of reunion.

I think it’s more prudent not to needlessly aggravate the Orthodox.
 
Why should there be? There is already a Patriarch in Jerusalem whose office dates back to the Apostles.

I fear such a thing would complicate things with the Orthodox. Remember that we should be working towards reuniting the Church, which means that any Latin Patriarchate formed will have to give way to the original Orthodox one in the event of reunion.

I think it’s more prudent not to needlessly aggravate the Orthodox.
Nice to see you back, @Salibi.
 
Technically, but then that would take primacy out of EP…
That’s an interesting point . . .
Anyway why is Melkite Titular Patriarch fine if Latin isn’t?
The latin titular patriarch is an undercutting of the actual patriarch as part of, for back of a better term, the schism Cold War.

I believe (but could be wrong) that the Patriarch of Antioch used that phrasing since before the schism. I’ve always jut accepted it as an oddity . . .
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?
I presume rather than being “Greek Orthodox patriarch” it would be orthodoxy (purporting to be ) installing an incumbent to the western patriarchy . . . but given the premised therein, I don’t see how orthodoxy could deny his primacy . . .
 
I can only talk for myself here, but I wouldn’t care much, or at least not more than if there was a Lutheran “bishop of Rome” installed. It is just not relevant for me.
 
Should there be a Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Rome?
No. Unless you want a totally Byzantinized Latin Rite (if the Latin Rite was allowed at all) tied to the corruption of the US State Department vis-a-vis the Phanar…not to mention the scuttling of any chance of Reunion and healing the Schism…and forget liturgical Latin (or Italian) it would be liturgical Greek…Oh and Rome would be subject to Constantinople this time round…Because as one poor, confused Greek-Canadian once asked me, when I said I was Orthodox, “but are you Greek?”

[Steps down from grandstand]
 
Last edited:
…and forget liturgical Latin (or Italian) it would be liturgical Greek
heh , heh . . .we start by undoing the unholy change to the vernacular, and go back to greek. But only as a starting point, until we can get rid of these greek innovators and use Aramaic . . .

:crazy_face: 🤔 🤣
 
Now wait a minute . . . you can’t like that, @salibi–you Maronites already use Aramaic!

🤣 😝
 
@Salibi

Although I am a Roman-rite Catholic (and have no intention of changing that!), I have been quite interested in different Eastern Catholic Churches lately.

I watched some of a stunning Divine Liturgy celebrated by His Beatitude Moran Mor Bechara Boutros al-Rahi. He is a very holy man and and good Patriarch of the Syriac Maronite Church of Antioch. God bless His Beatitude.
 
Last edited:
@Salibi
@catholic03
@dochawk
@OrbisNonSufficit

For me, this has turned out to be a highly informative thread. I knew nothing at all about the history of the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem. In fact I still don’t know very much, since I don’t have any books that deal with it and on the internet I haven’t found more than a few isolated scraps of information. If any of you can help to fill in the gaps, I will be most grateful. For a start, I’d like to find out what happened, exactly, on two separate occasions, more than seven centuries apart, that seem to hold the key to all the rest.

The first date is 1099. That was when the first Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, Arnulf of Chocques, was elected, according to Wikipedia. But it doesn’t say who elected him. My guess would be all the ordained Catholic clergy then resident in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, the formal name of the political entity usually known as the Crusader State. But that’s only a guess. I have no idea what kind of hierarchy, if any, may have been in existence at the time. The Knights Hospitaller, aka the Knights of Malta, also apparently date back to the same year of 1099, and the Knights Templar weren’t constituted as an order until about twenty years later.

And what was the situation of the Orthodox Patriarchate at the time? I found the name Simeon II, who was patriarch from 1084 until his death (or exile?) in 1106. When the Latin Kingdom, or its clergy, chose to give Arnulf the title of “patriarch” rather than “bishop”, it can hardly have been their intention that the two patriarchates should continue to exist side by side. On the contrary, they must surely have been proclaiming that Simeon had been deposed and Arnulf appointed to replace him. Is that correct?

The other date is 1847, when Pope Pius IX sent Giuseppe Valerga to Jerusalem as the first resident patriarch since the collapse of the Crusader State. In the first half of the nineteenth century the Holy Land had gradually become more accessible to European travellers, partly because the Industrial Revolution had brought steamships to the Mediterranean and partly, also, because the Ottoman Empire was seeking to modernize its administration, which included relaxing the older restrictions on travel and on the practice of religions other than Islam.

Among the Christian churches, the Greek Orthodox were the first to take advantage of the new freedom to engage in missionary activity in the Holy Land, soon followed by the Lutherans and other Protestant churches. The Vatican showed no such enthusiasm at first,

[cont.]
 
[cont.]

though that seems to have changed in 1843, when Giovanni Brunelli was appointed Secretary of the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith. Brunelli failed, however, to persuade Pope Gregory XVI to act on his advice. That had to wait until Gregory died in 1846 and was succeeded by Pius IX. Within a year of his election, in February 1847, Pius had opened negotiations with the Ottoman Empire, and by the end of the year Valerga, then aged 34, was on his way to Jerusalem to take up his appointment. Valerga already spoke fluent Arabic, having spent five years as a young missionary in the Middle East, mainly in Mosul.

Valerga is credited with achieving outstanding success in his twenty-five years as Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, but I have found nothing in the way of a comparison with the missionary achievements of the other churches, nor anything that might shed light on what kind of relationship, if any, Valerga maintained with the Greek, Armenian, and Coptic Patriarchates.

Anybody?

 
These are interesting questions, Bartholomew, but I regret to say that I’m not sure of the answers. I hope someone can come along and enlighten us both, as I also feel curious as to the answer now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top