www.byzcath.org
What is the reason the Roman Catholic Church has a "territorial" Latin Patriach seated in Jerusalem?

Ung
I think much has to do with the Status Quo. No one is willing to change anything, just in cause they end up losing in the end.
Why the need? I thought a Particular Ritual Church only has one Patriarch? So this is only a "Patriarchate" in a territorial sense.

Ung
Ung...

The questions you raise make me often wonder why you are with the BCC and not the Orthodox Church???

Job
I just watched a television program about Christmas in Bethlehem.
They always show the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem. It always seems odd having such a Latin prelate by that name.

Ung
The Bishop of Jerusalem is given honour because of Jerusalem's prominence, not because there is any real need. But there is nothing stating that a sui iurus Church can only have one Patriarch, it was quite common in the Latin Church for there to be multiple honourary Patriarchs: Goa, Lisbon, West Indies, etc.
The Orthodox are no exception. The Greek Patriarchates of Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria are all subordinate to the Ecumenical Patriarchate in honour.
The key word is "honourary".

Ung
What do you see as the difference between the honourary Patriarchates elsewhere and the Patriarchate in Jerusalem?
No, I don't think there needs to be duplicate Patriarchs, East or West.

Ung
Michael,

I don't think it's because no one wants to change anything and because it's the status quo; after all, there was, prior to Vatican II I believe, the Latin Patriarch of Constantinople and possibly of Alexandria and Antioch as well.

There is also the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria in addition to the Coptic Patriarch.

There are numerous Latin Patriarchs: Lisbon, Venice, Jerusalem, and formerly Rome, but the Holy Father has since expunged that title.

It is not a "duplicate" patriarch if you're talking about Catholic and Orthodox patriarchs; we are two different Churches and communions and therefore have different patriarchs for the same city, just as the Greeks and the Copts do in Alexandria.

Alexis
Dear Friends,

And the Armenians, too, have more than one patriarchate, all of which are subordinate to the Catholicos of Etchmiadzin.

Alex
So the additional Patriarch is a representative of the Primary Patriarch on that territory for that Particular Ritual Church?

Ung
If you ask them, they will smile inscrutably and assert that the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem exists to look after the Latin pilgrims. They will carefully refrain from mentioning that the majority of their faithful are either proselytes from one or another of the Eastern Churches, or the direct descendants of such proselytes. Remember that the next time that someone asks you to give money "for the missions".

Fr. Serge
Bless, Father Archimandrite!

You mean that the RC's don't consider Orthodox to be Christians? They need to go and proselytize from among them?

What don't the RC's concentrate on North America first? As someone once said, the two largest religious groups here are: Catholics and former Catholics.

Alex
The Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem exists not to look after "pilgrims" to the Holy Land. It is a regular archdiocese of the Latin Church with immediate jurisdiction over all Latin rite Catholics in Israel and Palestine. (The Melkites and the Maronites have separate dioceses/archdioceses.)

The "Eastern" Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, His Beatitude Michel Sabbah, holds this permanent honorific title, like the other 4 honorific "Western" Latin Patriarchs of Venice, Lisbon, the East Indies (Goa and Daman), and the West Indies (vacant since 1963).

His Beatitude Michel Sabbah is the first Palestinian to hold the post of Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem. He will be succeeded by his coadjutor, appointed by the Pope in September 2005, Archbishop Fouad Twal of Tunis, at the earliest on 19 March 2008 when HB Michel Sabbah turns 75 and if his resignation is accepted by Pope Benedict XVI.

On the other hand, the Custos (The Franciscan Custody of the Holy Land) takes care of all pilgrims to the Holy Land.

Amado
Prior to 1964, there were Latin Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch. Since the first three had become nothing more than honorary titles by 1964 -- and these all happened to be vacant on that year -- Pope Paul VI abolished them. Ecumenism -- then a very new and a very hot concept -- was also a major factor in this decision.

However, the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem could not be abolished for the very simple reason that there IS a Latin - rite flock in Israel who also need to be cared for. I am certain that the Latin rite flock there will not take gently to being told to go and become Melkite Catholic or Greek Orthodox. It is true that the origins of the Latin Patriarchate are less than honorable, in that it was the result of rivalry between the Greeks in Jerusalem and the Franco-German crusaders who ruled Jerusalem from 1099 to 1187 then again for about 20 years in the 13th century. However, this can never be enough reason to advocate the abolition of the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem. Latin-rite faithful are in Jerusalem and have the right to keep their rite.

In the same way, the circumstances of the 1596 Union of Brest can never be used to justify the abolition of the UGCC and its incorporation into an Orthodox body.


Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
Bless, Father Archimandrite!

You mean that the RC's don't consider Orthodox to be Christians? They need to go and proselytize from among them?

What don't the RC's concentrate on North America first? As someone once said, the two largest religious groups here are: Catholics and former Catholics.

Alex

C'mon, Alex! I'm sure you know by now that we Catholics consider the Orthodox to be Christians. Currently, only the SSPX / SSJK look at the Orthodox as potential proselytes.

In contrast, the Orthodox can't even agree on whether Catholics are baptized Christians.
The Roman Catholics certainly consider Orthodox to be Christians. (In fact, in Vatican documents they are often given a special honorary title to acknowledge the apostolic succession.
Dear asianpilgrim and Robert K,

Yes, I've read the places where the Orthodox are acclaimed as Christians etc. by Rome.

So why do RC's proselytize Orthodox in Israel and in Russia? Does that make sense to either of you?

And the Orthodox in those countries are well aware of that activity going on.

Alex
Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
Bless, Father Archimandrite!

You mean that the RC's don't consider Orthodox to be Christians? They need to go and proselytize from among them?

What don't the RC's concentrate on North America first? As someone once said, the two largest religious groups here are: Catholics and former Catholics.

Alex

That's what I'm working on.
Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
x x x. So why do RC's proselytize Orthodox in Israel and in Russia?

x x x.

Alex

No, we don't! wink

Amado

P.S. Have you read the "Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization"?
Dear Amigo Amado,

The question is - have the RC's who proselytize Orthodox Christians read that document?

Can't speak for the Holy Land - that is Fr. Serge's domain (the Holy Land, not Holy Eire, that is).

As for Russia, I've met various people who showed me pamphlets being distributed (by Catholic nuns and male religious) at gatherings at which Orthodox were present that were overt attempts at proselytization. My in-laws saw this themselves and were quite shocked. When they asked the Latin priest why he wouldn't at least "convert the Orthodox to Eastern Catholicism" he replied that "That isn't my tradition."

Again, I don't see what a plethora of Vatican documents has to do with any of this.

Alex
Dear Dr Eric,

Good for you, Big Guy!

Healing to the Masses, and all that!

Alex
Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
x x x.

What don't the RC's concentrate on North America first? As someone once said, the two largest religious groups here are: Catholics and former Catholics.

Alex

North America includes Mexico, the United States, and Canada.

Everyone knows the region is overwhelmingly Catholic. In the US, we still maintain a 23+% of the total population, i.e., we keep pace with population growth. And at 67 million+, Catholics form the largest religious body. "Former" Catholics don't number that much!

However, the Eastern Catholic component of the total Catholic population in this region is on a precipitous decline.

Should we ask you why?

Amado
Dear Amigo Amado,

Well, North America has a strong Catholic culture. Quebec is also "Catholic" but it is hardly a place for Catholics to "live, work and raise a family" as it is really quite "un-Catholic."

How meaningful are the numbers you cite? Are baptismal records good indicators of the number of practicing Catholics there really are around, enough to make an impact on our society or whether they are informed about their faith so as to not join other denominations and sects?

Those statistics really don't say anything.

As for EC decline, there are various reasons for that and I, for one, tend to see it in terms of a cultural process of assimilation pressures for the most part.

A 'former Catholic' is also someone who no longer practices his or her faith, but has his or her name recorded on a parish register for having been baptized there.

If we have so many Catholics in North America - then where is what one would expect to be an analogous, strong spiritual impact of such a thriving, spiritual community of committed Christians?

RC missionaries should stay here and evangelize their own people beyond the practice of Sunday Mass (if that).

Don't go to Russia and other places on the pretext that the Latin peoples there need lots more priests. And if you do go, then have some basic respect for the religion/culture of that place.

Have a great day.

Alex
Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
Dear Amigo Amado,

The question is - have the RC's who proselytize Orthodox Christians read that document?

Can't speak for the Holy Land - that is Fr. Serge's domain (the Holy Land, not Holy Eire, that is).

As for Russia, I've met various people who showed me pamphlets being distributed (by Catholic nuns and male religious) at gatherings at which Orthodox were present that were overt attempts at proselytization. My in-laws saw this themselves and were quite shocked. When they asked the Latin priest why he wouldn't at least "convert the Orthodox to Eastern Catholicism" he replied that "That isn't my tradition."

Again, I don't see what a plethora of Vatican documents has to do with any of this.

Alex

Dear Alex:

There are quite a few Ukrainian Catholics in Russia.

Why are they not "converting" Russian Orthodox to their own tradition?

The recent "Doctrinal Note" reaffirms what the Catholic Church is doing in Russia and in other non-Catholic countries: receiving non-Catholics, who convert on their own volition, into the fold of the Catholic Church.

Amado
Dear Amigo Amado,

Actually, Rome doesn't want the UGCC to have too much sway in Ukraine and Russia, lest this cause protests from the ROC.

But when Latin missions go in, that is another matter. The ROC shouldn't be upset by THAT now, should it?

Once again, I thank you for the reading suggestions!

Pax Vobiscum,

Alex
That's a nice thought, but who should submit their resignation?
The Armenians, the Syriacs, the Latins, the Greeks, the Maronite, the Melkite, etc?

Originally Posted by Ung-Certez
No, I don't think there needs to be duplicate Patriarchs, East or West.

Ung
Originally Posted by Michael_Thoma
That's a nice thought, but who should submit their resignation?
The Armenians, the Syriacs, the Latins, the Greeks, the Maronite, the Melkite, etc?

Originally Posted by Ung-Certez
No, I don't think there needs to be duplicate Patriarchs, East or West.

Ung

Adding to that, which bishop of Cleveland or Pittsburgh should step down? wink
Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
Dear Amigo Amado,

Well, North America has a strong Catholic culture. Quebec is also "Catholic" but it is hardly a place for Catholics to "live, work and raise a family" as it is really quite "un-Catholic."

How meaningful are the numbers you cite? Are baptismal records good indicators of the number of practicing Catholics there really are around, enough to make an impact on our society or whether they are informed about their faith so as to not join other denominations and sects?

Those statistics really don't say anything.

As for EC decline, there are various reasons for that and I, for one, tend to see it in terms of a cultural process of assimilation pressures for the most part.

A 'former Catholic' is also someone who no longer practices his or her faith, but has his or her name recorded on a parish register for having been baptized there.

If we have so many Catholics in North America - then where is what one would expect to be an analogous, strong spiritual impact of such a thriving, spiritual community of committed Christians?

RC missionaries should stay here and evangelize their own people beyond the practice of Sunday Mass (if that).

Don't go to Russia and other places on the pretext that the Latin peoples there need lots more priests. And if you do go, then have some basic respect for the religion/culture of that place.

Have a great day.

Alex


Dear Alex,

Quite sadly, as I see it, you could substitute "North America" and "Catholic" with any continent and church/denomination and the same holds true. Christianity for the most part has taken a back seat to secularism.

Christ help us,
Bill
Originally Posted by asianpilgrim
Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
Bless, Father Archimandrite!

You mean that the RC's don't consider Orthodox to be Christians? They need to go and proselytize from among them?

What don't the RC's concentrate on North America first? As someone once said, the two largest religious groups here are: Catholics and former Catholics.

Alex

C'mon, Alex! I'm sure you know by now that we Catholics consider the Orthodox to be Christians. Currently, only the SSPX / SSJK look at the Orthodox as potential proselytes.

In contrast, the Orthodox can't even agree on whether Catholics are baptized Christians.

Well, this is only relatively true- I know a some RC's (not X's) who do not consider the Orthodox "orthodox." Fortunately, they are in a minority.

My personal belief is that all of the Catholic, Orthodox, Orientale Orthodox who have valid orders & sacraments are true Churches.

I guess I do not mind the Latin Rite having a Patriarch there. I think it is more strange that we have both a Ukrainian and Ruthenian Archeparchy in the US. And as far as I am concerned, just from a practical standpoint, I would like to see one jurisdiction for all Greek Catholics in the US. to me, that is a geater concern frankly than whether or not there is a Latin Patriarch. We would be much more effective in sharing resources and evangelizing and growing the Byzantine Church in America if we did.
I am a firm believer in freedom of religion. If people wish - voluntarily and without pressure - to join this or that religion, that is their decision. Nevertheless, there is a problem.

By a combination of enticement and coercion, the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem has for many decades enticed and coerced members of other Christian Churches - including Churches already in full communion with Rome! - into the Latin Church. This is not unique to the Holy Land; one could also discuss what goes on in India and in Russia, and in certain other places.

That in turn raises a serious question: why is it that these instances of enticement and coercion of Eastern Catholics to become Latins, while Latins who wish to become Eastern Catholics must practically jump through flaming hoops to accomplish their desire? Freedom of religion must work both ways, or it risks becoming highly dubious and the occasion of grave cynicism.

Fr. Serge
Father Serge,

Bless. I'd say a part of the problem is that many Latin priests are ignorant of the canons regarding the Eastern Churches, while Eastern priests know them quite well. I'd say the practical thing to do, especially regarding the situation in India, where the majority of priests are of the Eastern Churches but are forced to mission for the Latin Church, is to ignore the "law" and create Eastern missions and convert directly into the Eastern Churches. Eventually the "law" will come around, and since the focus of Canon Law is not about the Law but about the good of the faithful, I am sure no one will really care in the long term. If we don't do this, eventually the Eastern Churches will disappear.
And which team should be expelled from Chicago - the Cubs or the White Sox? crazy

Originally Posted by Dr. Eric
Originally Posted by Michael_Thoma
That's a nice thought, but who should submit their resignation?
The Armenians, the Syriacs, the Latins, the Greeks, the Maronite, the Melkite, etc?

Originally Posted by Ung-Certez
No, I don't think there needs to be duplicate Patriarchs, East or West.

Ung

Adding to that, which bishop of Cleveland or Pittsburgh should step down? wink
Quote
As for Russia, I've met various people who showed me pamphlets being distributed (by Catholic nuns and male religious) at gatherings at which Orthodox were present that were overt attempts at proselytization. My in-laws saw this themselves and were quite shocked. When they asked the Latin priest why he wouldn't at least "convert the Orthodox to Eastern Catholicism" he replied that "That isn't my tradition."

Perhaps this is because the majority of the Roman Rite Catholics in Russia are really Polish. We all know that there has been little love lost between the Russians and the Poles over the centuries. wink

I am curious as to why the hierarchy of the Russian Catholic church was disestablished, however. I know it was supposedly done so as to "facilitate" �cumenism...
Originally Posted by Serge Keleher
I am a firm believer in freedom of religion. If people wish - voluntarily and without pressure - to join this or that religion, that is their decision. Nevertheless, there is a problem.

By a combination of enticement and coercion, the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem has for many decades enticed and coerced members of other Christian Churches - including Churches already in full communion with Rome! - into the Latin Church. This is not unique to the Holy Land; one could also discuss what goes on in India and in Russia, and in certain other places.

That in turn raises a serious question: why is it that these instances of enticement and coercion of Eastern Catholics to become Latins, while Latins who wish to become Eastern Catholics must practically jump through flaming hoops to accomplish their desire? Freedom of religion must work both ways, or it risks becoming highly dubious and the occasion of grave cynicism.

Fr. Serge

Father, bless-

yes we not only jump through flaming hoops, but the process takes SO long.
Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
The question is - have the RC's who proselytize Orthodox Christians read that document?

Can't speak for the Holy Land - that is Fr. Serge's domain (the Holy Land, not Holy Eire, that is).

As for Russia, I've met various people who showed me pamphlets being distributed (by Catholic nuns and male religious) at gatherings at which Orthodox were present that were overt attempts at proselytization. My in-laws saw this themselves and were quite shocked. When they asked the Latin priest why he wouldn't at least "convert the Orthodox to Eastern Catholicism" he replied that "That isn't my tradition."

Again, I don't see what a plethora of Vatican documents has to do with any of this.

Alex


No I am not still kicking my puppies! I mean yes I have quit... I mean, I never did...

Such a question to ask! Anyone here currently proseltizing Russian Orthodox or Greek Orthodox in Jerusalem, please raise your hand and answer our venerable and esteemed brother's question...

Anyone?

As it stands now, jurisdictions overlap in places, both sides proezelitize, and sometimes a Palestinian prelate called a patriarch is just a Palestinian prelate...

Has Patriarch Michael gone on record attempting to assert he is the rightful heir to the Pentarchy and the only true and legitimate Christian patriarchal authority in Jerusalem?

How many folks call themselves Patriarch of Jerusalem? (I think 5)

Heck, how many call themselves bishop of Chicago? (I think more still! For fun do we want to count the Episcopal and Lutheran bishops?)
Originally Posted by Michael_Thoma
And which team should be expelled from Chicago - the Cubs or the White Sox? crazy

Originally Posted by Dr. Eric
Originally Posted by Michael_Thoma
That's a nice thought, but who should submit their resignation?
The Armenians, the Syriacs, the Latins, the Greeks, the Maronite, the Melkite, etc?

Originally Posted by Ung-Certez
No, I don't think there needs to be duplicate Patriarchs, East or West.

Ung

Adding to that, which bishop of Cleveland or Pittsburgh should step down? wink

As a St. Louisan I'd say both! wink
I must apologize to everyone. I've been feeling under the weather since Sunday evening and failed to notice the exact wording of the question addressed in this thread:
Quote
Why does the Latin Patriach of Jerusalem exit?


I was unaware that the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem is exiting, but I sincerely wish him a pleasant (one-way) trip! Vale!

Fr. Serge

Well, if that is true, I know a quick way to end the schism! :-) Have the EOC elect a Bishop of Rome and have the RCC elect a Patriarch of Constantinople and let both sides proclaim themselves winner.

On a more serious note, in the case where there there are multiple jurisdictions (Antioch, Alexandria, etc.), some one above got it right: each group believes itself to be the true church and each wants to be the winner (however each group defines winning) when the dust clears!
With all due respect, folks, if we're going to talk about freedom of religion, then, yes, it needs to work in all directions.

When I sought to convert from Eastern Orthodoxy to Catholicism, I was compelled to enter Byzantine Ruthenian Catholicism, as opposed to my choice of the Roman Latin Catholic church. I am also required now to undergo an official change of rite, if I wish to switch. I'm not seeing that this is any easier for me then it is for folks going in the other direction.

Also, I don't think there is nothing wrong with Catholics seeking to bring non-Catholics into the Catholic Church, and I've had a curial priest at the Vatican confirm that for me.

Just to take one example, the Coming Home Network seeks to bring all sorts of folks into Catholicism. While most of their work is directed toward Protestants, they also include Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox in their mission, and they take credit for bringing a number of Eastern Orthodox into Catholicism.

Best to all,
Robster
Originally Posted by lanceg
yes we not only jump through flaming hoops, but the process takes SO long.

How come I wasn't told about it taking a long time?

smile

hawk, batting down the flames on his pants
Originally Posted by robster
When I sought to convert from Eastern Orthodoxy to Catholicism, I was compelled to enter Byzantine Ruthenian Catholicism, as opposed to my choice of the Roman Latin Catholic church. I am also required now to undergo an official change of rite, if I wish to switch. I'm not seeing that this is any easier for me then it is for folks going in the other direction.

It goes the other way, too: we have someone converting from Lutheran to EC in my parish, and he has to first convert to RC, then change rite.

The local RC bishop (Pepe) doesn't seem to think much of that requirement, and these leave his desk (signed) about as soon as they get there . . .

hawk
© The Byzantine Forum