Originally posted by Irish Melkite:
These are the Patriarchs (excluding the Latin Patriarchs ad honorem)
Originally posted by Francis:
Are there currently Latin Patriarchs in the other four Patriarchies as well?
Francis,
In the Latin Church, there are presently 4 Patriarchs, other than the Pope as Patriarch of the West. There is only a single Major Latin Catholic Patriarch (other than the Patriarch of the West) - that of Jerusalem. The position is the only extant Latin Catholic Patriarchate of the Orient. The patriarchal title is largely ceremonial, as his exercise of authority is in his archepiscopal capacity. The incumbent is:
His Beatitude Michel Sabbah, Patriarch of Jerusalem for the Latin Catholics & Archbishop of Jerusalem of the Latins
There are 3 Minor Latin Catholic Patriarchs of the West. For each of them, the title is honorific or ceremonial (although only 1 of the 3 is actually styled
ad honorem). The titles carry with them no jurisdictional authority; those who hold the seats derive their authority from their archepiscopal roles. The incumbents (and a bit of the history of each title) are:
His Eminence Jos� da Cruz Cardinal Policarpo, Patriarch & Archbishop of Lisbon
The Patriarchal title currently held by the Cardinal Archbishop of Lisbon was created in response to secular, rather than religious, need. King John of Portugal asked for (and was granted) it as a condition of supplying troops to assist in fighting the Turks - so, I guess he can be said to have bartered for it, rather than "bought" it. He wanted a patriarch for Portugal because Spain had one (more about that below). The position originally was attached to the King's chapel and was separate from the Archbishopric of Lisbon; the churches and other religious institutions of the city were divided between the two. That situation changed about 25 years later when Pope Benedict XIV merged the 2 positions.
His Eminence Angelo Cardinal Scola, Patriarch & Archbishop of Venice
Frequently, people presume that the Venetian Patriarchate exists because the See traces its origins to Saint Mark. Actually, its history isn't much more noble than that of Lisbon. In the early centuries, it wasn't uncommon that the title "Patriarch" was loosely used to honor bishops who were thought of highly or who ruled Sees that were especially extensive or had a particularly venerable history. In one northern Italian diocese (Aquileia, which Andrew cited above), the bishop began to take his patriarchal title seriously enough that he decided that he and his jurisdiction should be subject to neither Rome nor Constantinople. So, for about 150 years, from the mid-6th century to around 700 AD, the Church was plagued by two successive schisms in that region. In about 605-606, the newly-elected successor to the patriarchal title of Aquileia (who by then had fled to and was residing on the island of Grado) decided to make peace with Rome; however, one group of suffragn bishops refused to submit and elected their own patriarch, who was installed back at the original site of Aquileia (sometimes referred to as "old Aquileia"). It took another 100 years to resolve that schism. For some bizarre reason, even after the schism ended, Rome not only tolerated continued use of the title but, for a long time, it was used in both canonical jurisdictions. Ultimately, the 2 dioceses came to be merged into the See of Udine, part of the Venetian Republic, and in 1750 (or thereabouts), Pope Benedict XIV declared the title changed to Patriarch of Venice (for something like 300 years prior to that, the incumbency of the post had been limited to Venetians).
His Excellency, The Most Reverend Filipe Neri Ant�nio Sebasti�o do Ros�rio Ferr�o, Patriarch
ad honorem of the East Indies & Archbishop of Goa & Daman
This patriarchate was actually created late. Leo XIII established it around 1885, reportedly as a balance to that of the West Indies (see below). (There's a compelling reason :rolleyes: ). This was another instance of balancing Spanish and Portuguese sensitivities. There has been speculation that when the See is next vacated, the title will not be granted to the successor archbishop and the patriarchate will be suppressed
de facto, if not
de jure.
The Patriarch
ad honorem of the West Indies is the fourth and only other Minor Latin Catholic Patriarchate of the West. It was erected in the Spanish hierarchy in the early 16th century, as a consequence of Columbus' discovery of America. The expectation was that the patriarch would reign over America, which never happened. The position was ultimately joined with a Spanish military hierarchical post and never exercised any jurisdiction. It has been vacant since 1946 and is generally considered to be suppressed,
de facto, though not
de jure.
The Minor Latin Catholic Patriarchates of the Orient have been formally suppressed and it is inconcievable that they would be re-erected. Ultimately, suppression was recognition of the affrontery attached to the appointment of Latin Patriarchs to traditional Oriental Patriarchates - reminiscent of the period in which unity was synonymous with Latinization.
The Patriarchate of Constantinople of the Latins was canonically erected in 1204. It actually had jurisdictional authority for a time, encompassing a couple dozen archdioceses and about 60 suffragn dioceses. After the Latins lost control of the city in 1261, the Patriarchs resided variously in Greece or at Rome and were allowed to be represented in Constantinople only by priests designated as patriarchal vicars. Four hundred years passed before permission was granted for a resident bishop as the Patriarch's vicar. For all practical purposes, the office was ultimately suppressed in 1772. I don't believe that the titular title has been granted since Antonio Anastasio Rossi, Archbishop of Udine (IT), who held it from 1927 until his death, reposed in 1948.
The Patriarchate of Alexandria of the Latins was established in 1215, although the earliest documentation of an appointment to it is of a Patriarch Athanasius in 1219, of whom nothing else is known. The next recorded name is that of a Dominican named Giles, enthroned in 1310. After the mid-16th century, when Latins ceased to have any influence in the Byzantine Empire, it was reduced to a titular See. Archbishop Luca Ermenegildo Pasetto was the titular patriarch from 1950 until he reposed in 1954; I am unaware that any successor was ever named.
The title of Patriarch of Antioch of the Latins Catholics was first held by a Bernard, appointed in 1100. Cristiano (Christian) Opizo, OP, of thrice-blessed memory, was the last incumbent. Dominicans believe, but cannot confirm with certainty, that he was "Father Christian", a documented contemporary of St. Domenic. He likely succeeded to the See in 1247, the year of his predecessor's repose. A contemporaneous account reports that when the city was overrun in 1268 by the Tartars, Patriarch Cristiano donned full pontifical vesture and prostrated himself in prayer at the cathedral's main altar. He was joined by 4 of his fellow Dominicans, also vested; they waited there for the invaders and were martyred. After that date, Rome continued to appoint Patriarchs to the See, but none of them was able to take possession of it and, by the end of the 14th century, it was reduced to titular status. Archbishop Roberto Vincentini held the titular title from 1925 until he reposed in 1953; I don't believe it has been granted since that time.
There is a basic difference between the office of Patriarch in the Western and Eastern Churches. All bishops in the Western Church, regardless of what office they hold, are subject to the Pope in both his papal role and his patriarchal role. A true patriarch cannot be the subject of another patriarch. A true patriarch rules territory which is solely subject to his jurisdiction, and not subject to any other patriarch. The "patriarchates", so-called, in the Western Church, lack these critical points of distinction.
Eastern Patriarchs directly rule the faithful of their Particular Churches, who are not simultaneously subject to any other Patriarch. It is in the exercise of his papal role that the Eastern Patriarchs are subject to the Pope; as Patriarch of the West, he is - to them -
primus inter pares, first among equals.
Many years,
Neil
