www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Patriarch Michel Sabbah of Jerusalem steps down tomorrow

How about using "Major Archbishop" instead?

The Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem and the "Custos" (the Franciscan Custody of the Holy Land) are separate and distinct institutions in the Catholic Church.

The LPJ is a "regular" archdiocesan entity which takes care of the Latin faithful in the Holy Land (Israel, Palestine, Jordan, and Cyprus) and archdiocesan properties not included in the "Status Quo" provisions. Thus, the LPJ rules over schools, Churches within its jurisdiction, hospitals, social services, etc. Its archbishop is granted the dignity of a "Patriarch" and is directly responsible to the Pope.

The "Custos" is responsible for the care of the ancient properties recognized as belonging to the Catholic Church under the provisions of the "Satus Quo." Additionally, it takes care of pilgrims to these Holy sites. This arrangement has been "as is" since the 18th century and other apostolic Christian Churches, like the Orthodox and the Armenians, have their own "mandates" to take care of their "share!" The Custos reports directly to the Holy See.

The similarity between the Latin Patriarch and the Custos is that they are both in the Holy Land. But there is no intermingling of their respective duties and responsiblities.

Amado

What is noticeable immediately is that the Latins are native Palestinians. Why don't the Greeks ever have Palestinian hierarchs?

Amadeus, thank you for the clarification.


But this still begs the question: why? I thought that the Second Vatican Council was supposed to open up an new respect and understanding between Catholic and Eastern Orthodox. I often hear many Eastern Orthodox Christians on here complain that Rome won't accept them just the way that they are. The opposite could be said as well. In fact, I often get the impression from this forum that the new ecumenism is very one-sided, with Rome often capitulating on everything.


Unless a decision was required, I would think that you would naturally agree to have your own opinions since you are different people with different personalities, i.e. agree to disagree. The marriage bond would help you overcome the divergent views. The situation regarding the title of patriarch doesn't require a decision.


Again, in the "give and take" I often see Rome giving, and much taking by Eastern Orthodoxy (or at least certain groups thereof).

As well, someone pointed out above that there are currently multiple Patriarchs of Jerusalem, with the Latin Patriarch actually having jurisdiction. As well, multiple people claim to be Patriarch of Antioch. Is this also a major offending issue that needs to be reconciled? Or is this simply reflective of the imperfect world we live in? What seems to be the issue is not really the existence of multiple patriarchs, but that Eastern Christians see this title (Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem) as a holdover from the Crusades.

And even after following this debate I (personally) still see no good reason to abolish the honorific title of patriarch in the west. If Eastern Orthodoxy can bestow the title of patriarch on the chief bishop of autocephalous churches (Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania), then the West can surely bestow it as an honorific. The Western understanding is that outside of the five original patriarchates, the Holy Father (i.e. the pope) is the only one who can bestow that title. Thus, we have the situation in Ukraine where the Major Archbishop has not been confirmed in his title of Patriarch. Personally, I don't agree with the Holy See dragging its feet on the matter, but I understand that there are political considerations (i.e. Rome not wanting to offend the Russian Orthodox--another example of capitulation on the part of the Holy See.)

I understand that in every good relationship that there must be some "give and take", as well there should also be understanding of different modes of thinking. But if there is ever to be re-union between the Catholic Church & Eastern Orthodoxy it will be, not from capitulation to the demands of the other, but from a mutual understanding and respect for each other's divergent views and ways of practicing the same "faith delivered once, and for all, to the saints".

An interesting idea. Please tell us:

1. When did Rome finally remove the interpolation from the Nicene Creed as recited in the Roman Liturgy?

2. When did Rome stop celebrating the Immaculate Conception?

3. When did Rome restore the traditional Paschalia?

Shall I continue the list?

Fr. Serge

If no decision causes discord, as this does, then it does require a decision to improve the relationship.


Again, Christian charity is not about "give and take" - it is simply "give". We do not track how much each "side" has given or taken, we simply give, and then give some more. This is not "capitulation", it is love. If God kept track of our offenses and counted them against us, who could stand? He gave us the model in His Son: we give of self without any thought of return.

Of course, one does not give what one does not own. Thus, something we feel is a God-given part of the deposit of faith (such as the primacy of the pope) we cannot give. However, a man-made custom such as the use of the title of Patriarch as an honorific is under no such constraints. It is simply a man-made title and thus should be quickly jettisoned if it causes any pain or discord (which it does).

It is my opinion that we should be willing to give up EVERYTHING non-essential for the greater good of a unified Church. And we should not wait for the "other side" to give things up, we should just do so on our own initiative.

Fr. Serge,

Why are these even issues though? 1. was settled at an ecumenical council and it was decided that both forms were acceptable, 2. was solemnly proclaimed as doctrine, and 3. is used by Eastern Orthodox even in the West.

Some things the Holy See has conceded: 1.) the abolishing of the titular Latin Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch, 2.) the Byzantine-Russian Catholic hierarchy not been reconstituted, 3.) the title of Patriarch has not been confirmed for the head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church &c.


If this were the case then we might be left with none of our traditions. Tolerant understanding and an appreciation of differences is the path to an equitable and lasting reunion.

Dear Byzantophile,
Please bear with me because I seem to have lost the points you are trying to make. It may be because I am dense and thus need a more extensive answer from you.

1. Please tell me at which of the 7 Ecumenical Councils, it was decided that the Filoque would be accepted? Or maybe that is not what you are saying and I am indeed lost.
2. The point is that the Eastern Orthodox Church does not accept this doctrine and it is always cited as a bone of contention. I think that is what Fr. Serge is saying and that the Catholic Church has not given it up.
3. I am really confused by your answer here. Are you claiming that we Orthodox living in the West such as North America have abandoned the Orthodox date of Easter? Because that is not true.

It should be pointed out that the term Patriarch is used differently in certain Oriental Churches, such as the Armenian, than it is in the Eastern Orthodox. The Armenian usage is more akin to the Latin, and they use "Catholicos" as the Eastern Orthodox would use Patriarch. So this isn't a Latin-only issue.

Peace and God bless!

Ghosty,

You make an interesting point.

The Oriental usage varies between it's own churches and is neither Roman nor Byzantine, and the Church of the East usage is different from all of these.

Yeah, I think we get too caught up in the Latin usage of things versus the Eastern Orthodox usage, without considering the fact that both represent only part of the Apostolic tradition. One side seems always expected to conform to the other, without looking at the wider context of the matter.

Another example, unrelated to this particular issue, is the fact that the Latin Church isn't the only one that uses a Creed that is slightly different from the Greek version, but the Latin version is always the one brought up for change.

Peace and God bless!

Byzantophile,

Like Orest, I'm lost. Are you suggesting that in refusing to budge on 2 and 3, Rome is acting in a positive way?

Many years,

Neil, who would be happy to see the West restore the use of "Primate" (in non-Eastern jurisdictions) should they consider it necessary to somehow distinguish certain hierarchs with a particular dignity

No, and I stated so in a previous post. I think all three decisions are bad. What I am saying is simply that the Holy See has made more than a few unpopular decisions to alleviate tension with certain seperated Eastern brethren; but the ball's now in their court and they don't seem to be doing anything but holding onto it...

abolishing the titular patriarchs of alexandria, constantinople and antioch is in no way a concession -they should never have existed in the first place.

time to abolish the entire latin patriarchate of jerusalem and subject the latins to the easterns.

in fact, all latin hierarchs in eastern territories should be subject to the nearest eastern hierarch. all of africa, for example, north africa excepted, should be subject to alexandria etc. the polish hierarchy in ukraine should be made subject to the ukrainian, and so on. the romans in india should be under the indians...

how lovely that would be.

Well, that is indeed true. Why the double standards? If Easterns, by default of canon law, are subject to Latin hierarchs in the event an Eastern hierarch is not available, why can't the same be done vice-versa?