Talk:Order of Saint Lazarus/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Corrections and revisions to be made

Here is a run-down of the changes that are in store for the article. Weigh in here with your views over the next couple of weeks, before I make them in the article itself.

1. First section: I will add the fact that the original order appears to have fallen into obscurity or even extinction in the 19th century. This is supported by both documented legal edicts proscribing the order, and a conspicuous lack of documentation supporting claims to the contrary.

2. First section: I will add that the new/reformed Order seems to have begun in the early-20th century. This is non-controversial.

3. First section: I will add that a number of groups and expert individuals dispute the validity of the Order. These will be appropriately sourced.

4. Under "Royal House of France", I will remove the claim that "Henri V was "protectors of the order". Henri, Comte de Chambord, was never "King Henri V", and his alleged "rule" was for one week, when he was ten years of age, so he could not have offered "protection" for the Order (he couldn't even protect himself!)

5. Under "Royal House of France", I will change the following claim: "after this period the order did not enjoy the explicit protection of the French crown until 2004 when the fons honorum was renewed by HRH prince Henri d'Orléans, Count of Paris, Duke of France, as the head of the Royal House of France". This is for two reasons: because Henri d'Orleans is NOT "the head of the Royal House of France" (there are in fact THREE heads of THREE rival houses), and because a fons honorum must be sovreign; i.e., they must have authority within their realm, or at least permission from the state to act as fons honorum. Henri d'Orleans lacks any authority, and the state expressly forbids him from any official duties. Furthermore, the actual authority of France -- the State -- has explicitly rejected claims of the Order being legitimate, and it not only outlaws the wearing of Order regalia in public, but it doesn't even allow it to call itself an "order"! At the very least, a fons honorum should be able to provide protection for his subjects to wear the Order's regalia and call it an order! So I will change it to "after this period the order did not enjoy the explicit protection of the French crown. In 2004, Prince Henri d'Orleans, a third-great-grandson of the deposed King Louis-Philippe, and the Orleanist pretender to the French Throne, assumed titular leadership of the Order." Calling Henri d'Orleans "the head of the Royal House of France" makes him sound like a "king in waiting"; he's far from that.

6. The entire first paragraph of "The Order After 1930" is problematic. It makes a number of claims, but it provides just two sources, neither of which are of much use. The first source is a website ("MaineWorldNewsService") with a page written by one James J. Algrant. Mr. Algrant is, apparently, a former diplomat as well as a former member of the Order. On the cited page, he writes of the revived Order "they (the Order) should admit their murky past, not dwell on it but put it behind them and continue their good works." Hmmm... The other "source" cited in the first paragraph is Guy Coutant, or, as he now calls himself, Guy Coutant de Saisseval, who happens to be a Grand Chancellor of the Order in question. So we're still lacking an authoritative, third-party source for the claims in the first paragraph. I'd welcome a complete rewrite of this paragraph, including only information that can be reliably sourced and cited.

7. Under "The Order Today: Recognition", I will rewrite the first sentence to reflect reality. It claims "The Order of Saint Lazarus has the protection of Henri d'Orléans..." In reality, "protection" is only possible when someone holds temporal power. This, Henri d'Orleans utterly lacks. As one of three pretenders to a nonexistent throne, he cannot offer protection for any order. I'll changed it to "The titular head of the Order of Saint Lazarus is Henri d'Orleans, Count of Paris, Duke of France, one of three pretenders to the French Throne, should France ever reinstate a monarchy."

8. The second paragraph is also problematic. It reads "In Spain the order has received recognition from the State through a number of legal documents", but the three "citations" are just blank claims like "In a governmental order dated 9 May 1940 the order became an institution of official character of public utility for all the national territory." This is not a citation. If a source is going to be used as support for a claim, it must be wikified, with either complete text or a link to complete text, or link to a published document with full information about its title, author, page, etc. I'll remove the claim. If anyone can supply proper sources, they're welcome to put it back.

9. The very next sentence reads "King Juan Carlos I of Spain allowed his kinsman don Carlos Gereda y de Borbon to accept the position of Grand Master of the order (Malta obedience) in 2008". This looks like nonsense to me. First, how did King Juan Carlos "allow" something? Did he issue a decree or a patent? If so, that document would exist, and it needs to be cited. Second, "kinsman" is not an academic term. King Carlos IV (1748-1819) was the fourth great-grandfather of the present King Juan Carlos, and the fifth great-grandfather of don Carlos Gereda, so that would make them fourth cousins, once removed; the term "distant cousins" would be more accurate. The paragraph continues "Within the Kingdom of Spain many nobles are members of the order..." This is irrelevant since, no matter how "many nobles" one might list, they cannot provide recognition. It continues "...and the Cronista de Armas de Castile y León allows the use of the cross and insignia of the Order of Saint Lazarus when certifying coats of arms to members of the order." First, it's "...Armas de Castilla y Leon". Second, in 1995, the Spanish Council of State ruled that the authority of the current Cronista (active since 1991) was solely in the area of provincial and municipal heraldry within the Autonomous Community of Castile and Leon, and that his certifications of personal arms were invalid. So there's no support for the "recognition of Spain" there.

10. The first sentence of the third paragraph reads "The Vatican can only formally recognise orders of chivalry that are under papal jurisdiction or that of the Holy See." In reality, the Vatican accepts the validity of many other orders that are NOT under papal jurisdiction or that of the Holy See (cf. the Venerable Order of the Hospital of St. John in Jerusalem, a chivalric order under the patronage and protection of the *Protestant* Queen of England, which the Vatican has expressly recognized as legitimate). The Vatican explicitly called out a number of so-called orders as "self-styled", and among the twenty or so named, is the Order of St. Lazarus. Note that the Vatican did *not* list any legitimate NON-Catholic orders, such as the Garter, Star, Bath, Golden Fleece, etc.

11. The next paragraph begins "In the United Kingdom the order has counted several senior aristocrats among its membership." Again -- membership, no matter how supposedly illustrious, has nothing to do with "recognition". The next sentence states "The Rt. Hon. Earl Ferrers was the grand prior of England and Wales..." -- it's worth mentioning that Lord Ferrers was also the Vice-President of the Royal Stuart Society, a Jacobite group which claims that Franz, Duke of Bavaria, is the rightful heir to the Throne of Great Britain! The paragraph goes on to state "The Baron of Fetternear is grand prior of Great Britain". Who is the "Baron of Fetternear"? One Martin Thacker, an MP from Derbyshire who, in 2001, purchased a Scottish feudal barony (basically a title that comes with buying a piece of property) based in Argyllshire; he is not an actual baron (peer). Indeed, in 2004, Scotland outlawed the buying and selling of feudal baronies due to abuses like this. The paragraph closes with this gem: "In 2007, king Kigeli V Ndahindurwa of Rwanda accepted the honour of knight grand cross in the order." Not so fast. "King Kigeli" wasn't king of Rwanda in 2007. Indeed, he only became king after his older brother, King Mutara III mysteriously died at age 47, and he ruled for a grand total of 18 months until his country overthrew him in 1961, 46 years before he was so "honored" by the OSL. His Wiki lists ten so-called orders that he belongs to, four of which are fake (and I've removed). I wonder if the WP editor who decided to include him here presumed that no one would bother to look him up, they'd just be so impressed that the OSL had a "real live king" as a member. Or perhaps they simply forgot to add "...former king..."

12. The "Recognition" section closes with "The Order is also recognised by the governments of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Croatia, the Republic of Hungary and South Africa." What does "recognized" mean in this context? Just that these nations recognize that an organization called the OSL exists? Germany recognizes that Scientology exists, but it also bans it as a "dangerous cult". Again, primary sources are lacking for all but one of those nations claimed.

13. Conspicuously lacking in the "Recognition" section is the fact that the OSL is not recognized in France, where it is ostensibly based! The French Government, through the Grand Chancelier de l'Ordre National de la Legion d'Honneur, has prohibited the OSL from calling itself an "Order" in France (it must instead use a term like "Association", and that is exactly what the OSL does in France; it calls itself the "Association of St. Lazarus"). Furthermore, members of the OSL are expressly prohibited from wearing regalia in public in France. I think that pretty overwhelmingly puts "recognition" in France into the realm of fiction.

14. The OSL is considered "self-styled" by the Holy See, and this should be made clear in the "Recognition" section.

15. The OSL is also explicitly declared "self-styled" by the Government of Italy.

16. There should be a new section titled "Fount of honor" or "Fons honorum", to state the condition in which the OSL stands in relation to a fons honorum -- an essential for any chivalric order. The OSL lacks a fons honorum in the accepted definition of the term.
Again, the UK, Denmark, etc., which have monarchs who act as fontes honorum, clearly express official views that only a regnant monarch can be a fons honorum, with the exception of a few former Princely states where the fontes honorum are not only princes or grand dukes, but also the states authorize them to act as fontes honorum; entirely different from the situation with the OSL in France.

17. There should also be a section titled "Controversies" in which to state some of the more relevant controversies over the OSL that don't directly relate to fons honorum, re-formation, recognition or other previously addressed topics.

Any additions to these would be appreciated. Let's Wikify this mess! Bricology (talk) 07:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Bricology, thank you for all of your work! I'd actually like to see the article for the reinvented Order of St. Lazarus was split off to a separate page, and this one kept just for the historic order that died out in the 18th century, with the other Orders having mentions and links. After all, the York Rite group that calls itself "Knights Templar" (by far the largest so-called Templar group today) has a separate article from the one on the original Templar Order. Regardless, we should also deconstruct "The Order after 1830" section with attention paid to this particular claim: "a council of officers who in 1841 invited the Patriarch of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church Maximos III Mazloum to become Spiritual Protector of the order, thence re-establishing a tangible connection with the Order's early roots in Jerusalem". There's much that's suspicious and outright wrong about that claim. Also, there were some very dodgy men involved in the re-invented Order, such as Paul Watrin (why doesn't the article already mention this man who figures so prominently in the Order?) More disturbing than Watrin are Fritz Hahn who falsely claimed to be "Count Guige de Champvans" AND the "Marquis de Faremont", Charles Otzenberger who also falsely claimed to be a count, Gabriel Inellas who claimed to be "Prince de Calzomene y Rodosto" (as well as the Grand Master of the fictional "Order of St Sebastian and William"), Edmund Walker who claimed to be "Monsignor Francis John Edmund de Barwell-Walker, Archimandrite", "Prince-Abbot of Saint Louis", Grand Master of the Order of the Crown of Thorns" and "Grand Master of the Order of the Black Lion", Émile Isaac who claimed to be "Baron de Saint-Louis", or Louis Cirscuolo who claimed to be the "Duke of Antivari"? These are all documented early members of the reinvented Order, and they're con-men, all. Guy Stair Sainty has done exhaustive research on these matters, and he's widely accepted as an expert on them. It's hardly surprising that there is so much controversy about the legitimacy of the reinvented Order, given the fact that so many of its core members in the early-20th century were frauds. Occam's Shaver (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Occam -- I met a man here in San Francisco who is a member of the St. Lazarus Order. Although he was born and raised here, he affects a plummy English accent, claims to be a Count of the Holy Roman Empire, and has hyphenated one of the great British family names onto his own. Perhaps he's just carrying on the tradition established by the charlatans you mentioned. Bricology (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
@bricology - hah! Anyway, here is the justification for splitting off this page from the original Order's page: For the modern Order to be legitimately connected to the original Order, at least three things have to be proved.
  • First, that the original Order was not expressly ended in 1830 or thereabouts. But in fact, all of the surviving documentation shows that it _was_ abolished. First, in 1791 by order of the French Republic. Then, in 1824, during the reign of Louis XVIII (who called himself the "protector", but not the "grand master" of the Order) the Grand Master of the Legion of Honor, who is the national authority on chivalric orders, issued an order declaring that the Order "...has not been awarded since 1788 and is to be allowed to become extinct". Louis' successor, Charles X, continued in the role as protector of the Order. On March 12, 1825, his Minister issued a statement that "the Order of Saint Lazarus...as an Order which has not been conferred since 1788 and which will be left to become extinct." I am not aware of any legitimate claims that Louis-Philippe, the last King of France, ever intended or attempted to revive the Order. So, lacking any authentic, objective documentation to the contrary, it can only be concluded that the final legitimate royal protectors of the Order intended for it to become extinct.
  • Second, that the reinvented Order has a legitimate lineage from the original Order. Proponents of the modern Order make all kinds of elaborate claims about its miraculous survival, but have never produced any documents to substantiate their claims. The claim basically goes like this: in 1841, a group of members of the original Order met in Paris with the visiting Melchite Patriarch of Antioch and convinced him to become "protector" of the Order, thus bridging the gap between the disappearance of the Order and its re-emergance in about 1910. This is patently absurd for at least two reasons. First, because a Patriarch of one of the branches of the Greek Catholic Church cannot act as a "protector" for an order of chivalry, because his position is subordinate to the head of that Church, i.e., the Holy See. The Holy See can and does act as protectorate for chivalric orders, but that's because they are a sovereign state; none have authority over them. One document does exist relating to this matter, and that is a letter published in 1930 in the Catholic newspaper "La Croix", in which the then Patriarch of the same branch of the Greek Catholic Church, one Cyril IX Moghabghab, stated that neither he nor his branch of the Church could serve as patron for the modern Order, because that Order was not recognized by the Holy See, or by the government of France.
  • And third, that the reinvented Order embodies the "essence" of the original Order. For just one example of how it _doesn't_, consider this: during the time in which the Kings of France served as fons honorums for the original Order, it was always required that members be noble, and that they be Catholic. King Louis XVI instituted a royal act on March 20, 1773 that made the requirements even more stringent, requiring not just four but _eight_ degrees of paternal nobility in a candidate; in 1778, this provision was re-enforced by royal edict. Those requirements were never changed. The notion that some commoner from Chicago (or whatever) can instantly become a "knight" or a member of a chivalric order by sending $1,500 to its headquarters is utterly contrary to the essence of the original Order. The modern Order shares two legitimate links to the original Order: it is nominally Christian, and it is philanthropic. But many Christian philanthropies exist without styling themselves a "chivalric order", so there's no reason (other than the unsubstantiated claims made by the reinvented Order) to accept their claim to be the modern continuation of the original Order.
  • The claims that the original Order was not extinguished, that the modern Order is a lineal continuation of the original Order, that the modern Order embodies the spirit of the original Order are extraordinary ones and, as Carl Sagan pointed out, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. NONE has ever been produced by the claimants. By continuing to allow the reinvented Order to be contained within the same article as the historic one, we lend credence to those claims. Therefore, I suggest we split off the page. Occam's Shaver (talk) 19:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Occam -- do you have a primary source for that La Croix letter?
I think that the revision has to state two facts unquestionably clearly. First, that the "Royal House of France" ceased to exist long ago, and anyone who claims to head such a thing now is, by legal definition, nothing more than a pretender. And second, that Henri d'Orleans cannot serve as a fons honorum for any chivalric order, nor can he offer any group "protection" in the sense of a chivalric order. He has neither de jure nor de facto sovereignty, no temporal authority beyond the boundaries of his own property, no legal claim to any monarchy, no power to make a man a knight or to award titles (other than those he already possesses). Rival claimants to the Royal House of France (and there have been many) have traditionally settled these sorts of disputes on the battlefield. Today, the courts are used to decide such cases, and indeed, they have: in the late-'90s, Henri d'Orleans attempted to persuade the French courts to side with him against his "Legitimist" rival, and give him the right to use an "undifferenced" coat of arms (thus making him appear to be the head of the Royal House of France). The court declined, stating that the matter was not within its jurisdiction. Since the French courts do not believe that they have jurisdiction, and clearly no other group does, we're left with three rival claimants to the same title, and an impasse that will likely be with us forever. The article, as written gives a very different spin; practically claiming that some modern-day King of France authorizes the OSL. That intentional distortion must go. Bricology (talk) 00:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Oh, and I understand your point on splitting off the modern OSL onto its own page, but referencing it in the original Order's page. That seems like the ideal solution, and there are many precedents to draw from. Bricology (talk) 00:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, like the modern day Masonic group called the Knights Templar. Also, the article as it is now, makes claim after claim without providing primary, third-party sources. To wit: under "Purpose", the article claims "Because of this experience, the European Community commissioned the order to transport more than 21.000 tons in food to the hungry in Russia", but the three citations given to substantiate this claim are just links to the home pages of the three branches of the Order! I don't believe for a minute that this was an innocent mistake, but we are all going to have to demand that ANY claims made on behalf of the Order are backed up with solid _third-party_ primary sources, and not just links to claims made on their own websites. Occam's Shaver (talk) 00:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
  • An additional point about the lack of recognition in France for the reinvented Order: a letter written on April 30, 1998 from General Gilbert Forray, the Grand Chancellor of the Legion of Honor in France (that nation's highest authority on chivalric orders and related groups) to Guy Stair Sainty, which reads, in part "I would like to confirm that the association constituting the French branch of the 'Military and Hospitaller Order of Saint Lazarus of Jerusalem' has, since 1982 and at the express request of the Grand Chancellery, taken the name of 'the Association of the Hospitallers of Saint Lazarus of Jerusalem'. Thus, it has, in France at least, definitively abandoned the qualification of an 'order' which it appears they used improperly under the national legislation." The Grand Chancellor goes on to cite the specific part of the law that applied: Book IV of the Code of the Legion of Honor and the Military Medal from Decree No. 81-1103 of December 4, 1981. General Forray continues: "The observance of these penal provisions, requires, in particular, that the association in question is definitely prohibited to organize, especially in France, public events and to confer distinctions which may create confusion, one hand with official ceremonies and secondly, with decorations regulated by France or foreign sovereigns." (Translation -- GoogleTranslate, bolding -- mine) (source: http://www.chivalricorders.org/orders/self-styled/leglett.htm ) Occam's Shaver (talk) 03:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
  • And an additional point about the extinction of the original Order: as the entry above states, as an order of holy knighthood, the original Order was under the aegis of the Holy See. Two of the three modern Lazarite bodies now claim that the original Order was formed "under the jurisdiction of the Greek-Melkite Patriarchs of Jerusalem" ( http://www.orderofsaintlazarus.com/ordre.php?lng=en&id_rub=1 , http://www.oslj.org/index.php?id=orderhistory&L=6 ); a tactic to try to enable the transferring of the Order's "protection" to the Melkite Patriarchs in the 19th and 20th centuries. Somehow, it seems that one of the "obediences" ( http://www.st-lazarus.net ) didn't get the memo and it's website states "Later he and his companions left and created a special congregation, adopted a Rule, took vows and were accredited by the Popes. The first bull in their favor is dated 15 February 1113 and refers to 'Gerard, Founder and Governor of the Hospital at Jerusalem and his Legitimate Successors'." Clearly, the original Order was not only dependent upon the Vatican, but at various points in history, was profoundly shaped by it. For example, all holy orders in Jerusalem at the time were under the Rule of St. Augustine, administered by the Holy See, which precludes the original Lazarites from being under the aegis of Greek Melkites or the Eastern Orthodox leaders. Indeed, Pope Alexander IV explicitly recognized the Order under the Augustinean Rule, as did Clement IV and Urban IV. After the fall of Acre and the expulsion of the original Lazarite order (indeed, all Christian forces) from Palestine, they retreated to their hospitals, essentially using them as residences, since the Order had become largely military, rather than ministering to lepers. In 1490, Pope Innocent VIII suppressed the Order and transferred their property to the Knights of St. John. Pope Julius II renewed the suppression in 1505. For the next 67 years, the Order was successively restored and suppressed a number of times by Popes, while at the same time, leprosy gradually disappeared in Europe. In 1572, Pope Gregory XIII assigned what was left of the Order to the Duchy of Savoy. It's head, Duke Emmanuel Philibert combined the Lazarite Order with that of St. Maurice, calling the new unit the Order of Saints Maurice and Lazarus. The French members of the Order at the Boigny Commandery resisted the transfer of their autonomy (and property). King Henri II, attempting to quell this rebellion, appointed a Knight of Malta as the Grand Master of the Lazarites. A few years later, Henri appointed a replacement Grand Master, also from the Knights of Malta. Pope Pius IV confirmed him as Commander, but not as Grand Master. A year later, Pius IV appointed Giannotto Castiglione as Master-General. In 1603, Pope Clement VIII issued the Bull Decet Romanum Pontificum, confirming the Duke of Savoy as the Grand Master of the combined Order of Sts. Maurice and Lazarus. In 1608, Pope Paul V issued Bull Romanus Pontifex, which established a new order: Our Lady of Mount Carmel, with the French king given the right to nominate a Grand Master, but the Pope the power to confirm or reject them. King Henri IV, by letters patent and parliamentary confirmation, combined the Order of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel with the previously combined Sts. Maurice and Lazarus into one single Order: "The Royal, Military,and Hospitaller Order of Our Lady of Mount Carmel and St. Lazarus of Jerusalem". A Bull issued by the Cardinal de Vendôme in 1668 confirms the view of the Holy See that approved and confirmed the combination of the three Orders into one. That Order grew and prospered over the next century until it was abolished by the National Assembly in 1791. * w h e w ! * I list all of this (and yes, it's all properly sourced) to demonstrate beyond any doubt that the Order of St. Lazarus began as a military-religious order which derived its original legitimacy from Papal Bulls. It was combined with other orders under Papal authority. Its fortunes and fate were profoundly shaped by various Popes and the decisions of the Holy See over the course of seven centuries. Indeed, the reinvented Order has gone to great lengths to curry the favor of Popes and the Holy See. They actively recruit retired Catholic clergy and it's transparently clear that they would dearly love to receive recognition (or even a fons honorum) from the Vatican. But also they seem to want to have it both ways since, at the same time, they refuse to accept the rulings of the Popes and the Holy See that have gone *against* the original Order (from which they claim descent) over the past millennium, and they also refuse to accept the official position of the Holy See, proclaimed many times over the past century, that their reinvented Order is illegitimate. Occam's Shaver (talk) 07:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
  • More about the justification for splitting off the reinvented Order from the original one: there are a number of organizations today, besides the reinvented Order of St. Lazarus, that claim descent from historic Orders of chivalry. For example, the Venerable Order of Saint John, the Order of Saint John (Bailiwick of Brandenburg) and the Sovereign Military Order of Malta all claim direct descent from the Knights Hospitaller. Each admits to having been revived in the 19th century, and each has its own Wiki, with an introductory paragraph on the Wiki of the historic Order they claim descent from. The Teutonic Knights of today share a Wiki with the Teutonic Knights of history, but this is only logical because there has never been a break in their history, nor a lapse in their grand mastership, nor a loss of a fons honorum. None of those can be said about the modern Lazarite Order. The the three St. John Orders listed above, all at least have legitimate fons honorums, and two of them have much more complete recent histories than does the Lazarite Order, so if any groups deserve to stay combined with their parent Wikis, those have greater justification for it. There is another international philanthropic, Christian chivalric order that claims (to some degree) descent from an original Order of chivalry: the Knights Templar (Freemasonry), who claim descent from the original Knights Templar. They use many of the same emblems, devices, titles, etc., of the original Order, and are probably as well known in the West today as the original Order is. And yet, their Wiki is split off of the original Order's Wiki. Consequently, it is only logical to treat the modern Lazarites like them -- split them off from the historic Order, and leave an introductory paragraph and link to that new Wiki on this page. Occam's Shaver (talk) 18:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the reinvented Lazarites belief in the legitimacy they think being attached to senior Catholic clergy convey: this can be seen in each of the branches by their using retired Catholic bishops, cardinals, etc., as "spiritual protectors". The French branch, who has Henri d'Orleans as their supposed fons honorum, has retired Roman Catholic Cardinal László Paskai as "Spiritual Protector". They even quote Pope Benedict XVI on their website's homepage! The Spanish branch, under Don Carlos Gereda ( http://www.st-lazarus.net/international/index.html ) had, until 2001, Greek Melkite Catholic Patriarch Maximos V Hakim as "Spiritual Protector". The branch under the leadership of Vittorio Galoppini, the fake "Duke of Carpenedolo" ( http://www.orderofsaintlazarus.org/ ) has Philippe Bär, the former RC Bishop of Rotterdam (who resigned due to a molestation scandal -- http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/inquiries-and-interviews/detail/articolo/olanda-netherlands-holanda-pedofilia-pedophilia-10958/ ) as their "Grand Spiritual Prior". Even the German branch ( http://www.lazarus.de/ ) -- by far the most dignified and restrained of all of the branches -- uses Melkite Patriarch Gregory III Laham as "Spiritual Protector". So there can be no doubt that the modern Lazarites try to tie themselves as closely as possible to the highest levels of the Catholic Church. And yet they are one of the few groups that the Vatican has explicitly and repeatedly denounced -- BY NAME -- as being illegitimate. Occam's Shaver (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

claims of distribution of humanitarian aid

Under "Purpose", the article makes this claim: "Millions of dollars worth of food, clothing, medical equipment and supplies have been distributed in Poland, Hungary, Romania and Croatia. Because of this experience, the European Community commissioned the order to transport more than 21.000 tons in food to the hungry in Russia." The three references cited are nothing more than links to the home pages of the three branches of the Order. I searched around the "Grand Priory of Carpathia's" website ( http://www.lazarusorder.net/Lazarus_Order_History_of_the_Order.htm ) and found this statement: "During the Winter of 1991/92, the European Community in Brussels earmarked US$ 125,000,000.00 worth of aid for food for the starving population in Russia. Transport and distribution were to be provided by organisations chosen by the European Community...Of this sum the European Community allocated half to the International Red Cross, and half to the Order of St. Lazarus of Jerusalem as represented by the Lazarus-Hilfswerk." Apparently, that's not quite impressive enough, so their Facebook page ( https://www.facebook.com/orderofsaintlazarus.org/info ) inflates that claim to "Because of this expertise, the European Community commissioned the Order to transport more than one and a half billion dollars in food to the starving in Russia..."! I did a Google search for "Lazarus-Hilfswerk" and "transport", "food" and "russia". There were only 308 results, and most of them led directly to OSL websites or sites quoting them. One of the few that didn't was to a spreadsheet from the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs ( http://fts.unocha.org/onlineReport/onlineReport.aspx?RepID=&Param=&Year=&Type=XLS&URL=daily/ye5xatbssdmexd1wjh5rcwux_130122060014.xls ) That spreadsheet lists "other humanitarian funding, Caucasus" (which is in Russia). I can't be certain that this is the event that's being referred to in the article, but indeed, Lazarus-Hilfwerk is listed as having contributed. Under "description", it states "To provide families in need in the two areas with 10,500 supplementing food packages (8 kgs each containing honey, tea, milk powder, tined fish, tomato puree, etc.)" It lists the value of the "funding, contribution or commitments" as $142,213, out of a total of $45,873,414 (or about 0.3%). It also lists the actual weight of the goods delivered by Lazarus-Hilfwerk as 42 tons. Finally, the spreadsheet shows no less than 85 contributing agencies, of which Lazarus-Hilfwerk is merely one. So it appears as if the Order is wildly inflating its claims of humanitarian aid from 42 tons of food delivered to 21,000 tons, from $142,000 to $62.5 million, to "over one and a half billion dollars"! It also did a tiny percentage of the actual value of work, but claims to have done half of the work, with the Red Cross doing the other half! I don't suppose any of the Order's supporters here could address this and provide primary third-party sources to back up their claims, could they? Because if they can't, that entire passage needs to be removed. Occam's Shaver (talk) 01:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Occam, it's worth noting that Lazarus-Hilfswerk (note correct spelling) has a subsidiary (or some other legally structured relative) called Lazarus-Hilfsdienst who provide nursing home care, home-nursing for seniors and disabled people, ambulance and paratransit, etc. It's likely that it's registered as a "not-for-profit" organization, although my grasp of German isn't good enough to tell. That division/group in turn has a subsidiary (or whatever) called "Bundesfreiwilligendienst or Federal Voluntary Service" ("Federal" in the sense that it's a nationally registered charity, not that it's under the direction of the Federal government). That group describes itself thus: "The Federal Voluntary Service is a service to men and women of all ages to get involved outside of work and school for the common good - the social, environmental and cultural field or in the field of sport, as well as the integration of civil protection and disaster relief." That volunteer group is not a limited-membership soi-disant chivalric Order like the Lazarus-Hilfswerk or a care-giving company like the Lazarus-Hilfsdienst (it's open to just about anyone over the age of 16) but apparently it interfaces with those groups and is under their direction.

My guess is that the food transporting you referred to above was probably using the Lazarus-Hilfsdienst's vehicles, and the manpower provided by the Bundesfreiwilligendienst, under the direction of the Lazarus-Hilfswerk's leadership. (If that is the case, then the Order's pretenses of doing great charitable works is even more exaggerated than I thought.) I know that a group of muckety-mucks from the German OSL visited the Vatican, hoping to get an audience with the Pope. In the words of Guy Stair Sainty -- "The Pope recognized the German legal incorporated organization the Lazarus Hilfsdienst and rightly thanked them for the humanitarian work. Nothing was said at the audience about the Order of Saint Lazarus which was not the organization he was thanking. Indeed, it was made clear to these individuals that they were being received in their capacity as representatives of the Hilfsdienst...Condemning the pretensions of the 'Order of Saint Lazarus' and acknowledging that certain individual members may also do good works as part of another organization, is not any kind of conflict." (source: rec.heraldry, thread: "fons of sovereignty", posted Nov. 6, 1996) Bricology (talk) 22:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Ah, that makes sense. Thanks for clearing that up! Occam's Shaver (talk) 08:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The Melkite Protectorate Problem

The article claims "After 1830 the French foundation of the Order of Saint Lazarus continued under the governance of a council of officers who in 1841 invited the Patriarch of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church Maximos III Mazloum to become Spiritual Protector of the order, thence re-establishing a tangible connection with the Order's early roots in Jerusalem." The source for this claim is Peter Bander van Duren's 1995 book "Orders of Knighthood and of Merit-The Pontifical, Religious and Secularised Catholic-founded Orders and their relationship to the Apostolic See, Buckinghamshire, ss. 495-513, XLV-XLVII.
However, there is a serious (perhaps fatal) problem with this claim. First, there has never been any _evidence_ for it being factual. Despite repeated requests from Guy Stair Sainty and others, neither the Melkite Patriarchy nor any branch of the OSL has EVER produced ANY documents to corroborate this claim. Consequently, the claim must be considered to be hearsay. Nor can Peter Bander's 1995 edition of "Orders of Knighthood and Merit..." be considered a reliable source. Until the late-1980s, Bander was consistently critical in print of the Lazarites, declaring them to be a self-styled order. But he had a significant change of opinion by 1995 when he edited his final edition of "Orders of Knighthood and Merit..." Is it mere coincidence that just before then, he had become a member of the Lazarites, being awarded their Grand Cross in 1994? (source: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Bander_van_Duren ) It's clear that the Lazarites want (some might say "desperately") to be considered a legitimate Order. So why is it that they can't come up with one scrap of evidence that Maximos III Mazloum had the role of Protector for the Order?
The article links the title of "Protector" to Cardinal protector. This is a non sequitor, for the following reasons:

  • It is extremely unlikely that Pope Gregory XVI or his successor, Pope Pius IX would've allowed it. Cardinal protectors are appointed by the supreme head of the Catholic Church (i.e., the Pope who, for example, appointed St. Francis as Protector of the Franciscan Order), or under their authority. It is unbelievable that either Pope would have have approved of the leader of a (minor) branch of the Catholic Church claiming to afford Cardinal Protector status to a group that he knew had already been merged with another Order and dispensed with, and that the French king had determined to let die out.
  • For Maximos III to do such a thing would've been a direct challenge to the authority of the Pope. For a Melkite Patriarch to have taken on the responsibility of Cardinal Protector for the OSL would be rather like if a Scottish earl awarded a Royal Warrant of Appointment to a company that the Queen had already explicitly rejected as sub-standard!
  • Why would a group of Frenchmen seek Protection from the head of a branch of the Church that was based more than 2,000 miles away, and unable to do anything to actually "protect" them from anything?!
  • Why would the head of a branch of the Catholic Church based in Beirut, be willing to give his Protection to a group of Frenchmen, when there was absolutely no necessity for it? It might've been one thing if it was during the Crusades and a group of men needed to quickly be unitized by a local authority in order for them to defend pilgrims. But such was NOT the case here; there was NO necessity. The Lazarites had long since ceased to be a military group, nor were they hospitallers anymore. The only purpose that the Order had at the time was to aggrandize its members.

Even if, for the sake of argument, we were to accept that the claim Maximos HAD agreed to act as Protector for the Lazarites in France, we're still left with two more very troubling questions.

  • First, the article states "In the years that followed new knights were admitted including in 1853 admiral Ferdinand-Alphonse Hamelin and admiral Louis Édouard Bouët-Willaumez...The order continued to attract members from the French nobility and by the early 20th century it was attracting knights from further afield notably Spain and Poland." In other words, the Order was making new members. But without a fons honorum, what gave the members of the Order the power to do so? A knight cannot create another knight. A nobleman, no matter how noble, cannot ennoble a commoner unless he is given power to do so by his monarch. Authority rests upon legitimacy and sovereignty, and neither of those were available to the members of the Lazarite rump. So if any members of the Order actually were created during this period when there was no fons honorum, they were _illegitimately_ created.
  • And second, if having the Protection of a Melkite Patriarch was sufficient to sustain the Order during a century or so of undocumented history, why do the Lazarites feel the need for any higher of an authority than that today? Why do they attach so much importance to having "the Head of the Royal House of France" as their alleged fons honorum? Indeed, why should *any* chivalric Order care about having a regnant monarch, a pope or the Holy See as a fons honorum? Why not just go out and find the head of a minor church somewhere and get them to sign on as your "Protector"? The answer is obvious: because no one would recognize that Order as legitimate, and legitimacy is at the very heart of the matter here.

Either Maximos was the Order's legitimate Protector or he wasn't. There's zero evidence that he was, so we cannot accept it as factual, and the claim must be changed to something like "According to the traditions of the Order..." And even if Maximos DID try to function as some sort of Protector, he had no temporal authority to do so, so the statement must be changed to something like "The Order claims that Maximos acted as..." And setting the question of Maximos aside, the existing members of the Order, when they lost their fons honorum, could NOT create new members, in order to "tide it over" until they could get someone to step in as a fons honorum, so that part must be entirely rewritten to reflect it.
The claimed Melkite Protectorate, which I presume was seen by members in the early-20th century as a convenient (and unexaminable) way to connect the end of the original Order to their reinvented Order, does nothing to solve the problem; indeed, it just begs _more_ questions. Occam's Shaver (talk) 01:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

How many branches are there today?

As if the byzantine background of the soi-disant Order of St. Lazarus wasn't enough, we're left with a bewildering variety of splinter groups today. The article mentions only three branches, but there are certainly more than that. Too many people who read this article draw the mistaken conclusion that there is just one cohesive Order with three regional jurisdictions, rather than a host of bodies that largely do not recognize each other. Here's a list of the ones I've been able to find (I've listed their names the way they're given on their websites):

Saint Lazare, which is registered in Switzerland, and is presently "between Grand Masters", as its former GM, Charles-Philippe d'Orleans, jumped ship to the group below (their "Administrator General" until they get a new GM is Richard Garrard, a retired Anglican bishop). It is "under the Spiritual Protection" of retired Cardinal László Paskai. It claims to have "Grand Magisterial Commanderies" in Germany, Great Britain, "The Holy Land" (!), Ireland and Romania, as well as "representation" in about 15 other countries.

the Military and Hospitaller Order of Saint Lazarus of Jerusalem, which appears to be based in France, although it states that it was chartered in the Czech Republic in 2006, and their website is registered in Luxembourg. Its the branch that claims to have the "Temporal Protection of the Royal House of France" in the person of Henri d'Orléans, Count of Paris, whose nephew, Prince Charles-Philippe, Duke of Anjou is "Grand Master Emeritus", and "real" Grand Master is Jan, Count Dobrzensky. Apparently, they've parted ways with Cardinal László Paskai, and now Cardinal Dominik Duka is their "Spiritual Protector". They claim "Grand Priories" in 8 countries.

the Military and Hospitaller Order of Saint Lazarus of Jerusalem, which describes itself thus: "This is the only legitimate presentation of the reunited order, successor of the two former Obediences Malta and Paris reunited and legitimated under one Grandmastership since 2008." Its Grand Master is "His Excellency Don Carlos Gereda de Borbón, Marquis of Almazán", one of the 5th great-grandsons of Charles IV of Spain. Their "Spiritual Protector" is Gregory III Laham, the Patriarch of the Greek Melkite Church. Perhaps ironically, they're based in the US. They claim to have "Grand Priories" in no fewer than 21 countries around the world, as well as Priories and Delegations in a further 13 countries.

the Military and Hospitaller Order of Saint Lazarus of Jerusalem, which is ostensibly based in Malta. Instead of having a Grand Master, they have a "Grand Vicar", the modestly self-described "His Serene Highness, Doctor hc Vittorio Galoppini, 37° Duca di Carpenedolo, Principe del Sacro Romano Impero di Germania, GCCLJ-J, GCMLJ, HCLJ, GCrLJ, GMLJ, Don1LJ, MMSLJ". The group's "Grand Spiritual Prior" is "H.E. Monsignore Ronald Philippe Bär O.S.B". (This is the same Dutch Catholic bishop who had to resign due to a child molestation scandal involving priests under his command.) They claim to have "jurisdictions in 25 countries or areas".

Lazarus Hilfswerk, which is based in Germany. They describe themselves foremost as a Christian charity founded in 1973, which is commendible, although the description of their founding is confusing, as they say that they were "founded by Teutonic Knights of St. Lazarus International". They have no "Grand Master" that I could find, but they must be in some form of amity with the Borbon group above, as they share a "Spiritual Protector" in Melkite Patriarch Gregory III Laham. They seem to confine their territory to Germany.

the Hospitaller Order of Saint Lazarus of Jerusalem Not to be contented with a ordinary Grand Priory, this group claims a "Supreme Grand Priory", based in Edinburgh. The "Supreme Grand Prior" is "His Excellency, Richard Comyns of Ludston GCLJ GCMLJ", and their "Grand Chaplain" is "The Most Reverend Monsignor Anton Gauci ECLJ CMLJ". I'll say one thing for them: they're not bashful about posting the prices for each grade prominently on their website!

The United Grand Priories of The Order Of Saint Lazarus of Jerusalem This British group is very curious. On the one hand, their website states the following: "The end of Saint Lazarus as an Order of Chivalry...The King could not ‘abolish’ the Order in 1814 (anymore than could the National Assembly earlier), although the government of Louis-Philippe suppressed it in 1831, but under canon law it could only become extinct through lack of canonical admissions. This is eventually what happened. The Grand Chancery of the Legion of Honour issued a statement in 1824 to the effect that '...of the united Orders of Our Lady of Mount Carmel and Saint Lazarus of Jerusalem, the latter has not been awarded since 1788 and is allowed to extinguish itself'." (emphases in the original) So they acknowledge that no so-called Order of St. Lazarus today is a real chivalric Order, or the direct descendent of the original Order! But on the other hand, their "Master-General" is one "Frà John Baron Dudley von Sydow von Hoff OStJ GCTS GCLJ GCMLJ SCLJ KV CMV", thus maintaining the over-the-top pretense of so many in the OSL. Their "Reverend Canon", likewise, is described as "Frà Michael St. John-Channell EGCLJ ECTS CMLJ SCLJ". Very oddly, under "links", three of those they supply are to sites that declare the OSL to be "self-styled"! The group also maintains a Priory in Denmark.

If anyone knows of more, please add them here. Bricology (talk) 02:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

  • You missed this one: http://www.lazarus-union.org/ What's weird about them is that they say that they began in 2006 as a subsidiary of the Lazarus-Hilfswerk in Austria, but split off because of some disagreement. The website says, under the heading "Self-Portrayal of the Lazarus Union" -- "The Lazarus Union is open for all people who are able to identify themselves with the mission statement of the Lazarus Union and does NEVER ask for the denomination of its members. The Lazarus Union considers and respects this right of freedom as the sole and personal moral issue of every single member. After all, most religions in the world are represented in the Lazarus Union. The Lazarus Union vigorously resists any and all 'assimilation' efforts from certain religions and their representatives and stresses the full neutrality of the Lazarus Union against all religious communities. The Lazarus Union never puts any form of pressure on its members and leaves participation in religious activities solely in the conscience of the single member. The Lazarus Union is therefore NEITHER a religious NOR a secular order and as such neither indebted to ANY particular religious group, nor does it allow itself to be taken in by any religious group. This self-portrayal is valid for the complete Lazarus Union as for the Lazarus Union Knighthood of Honour as a knightly association." ( http://www.lazarus-union.org/?lang=en ) So, they're ecumenical to the point of "don't ask, don't tell", but they still consider themselves a "knightly order", whatever that's supposed to mean. But if they don't have a fons honorum, who is doing the knighting? My guess: another "knight" who was himself made a "knight" five years before, by another "knight" who was... Occam's Shaver (talk) 07:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The Recognition Problem

As relates to Orders of chivalry, there are two distinct types of "recognition". The first is "big 'R' recognition", which is the official acceptance of the legitimacy of an Order by a specific sovereign state. This a serious legal status, and it's something that can be (and sometimes is) officially revoked. As an example, recently the United Nations Recognized Palestine as an "observer state", something it had refused to do in the past. The second type is "small 'r' recognition", which can be the acknowledgement of a group or an individual, such as when a Chamber of Commerce "recognizes" the charitable efforts of a group or individual. This can be an official recognition or an informal one, but in either case, it should be verifiable. Unfortunately, both types are being conflated in the "Recognition" section. (The third type of "recognition" -- meaning "I see you standing over there and I recognize you as Fred" -- has no relevance to this matter.
Under the section titled "Recognition", four different kinds of claims are made. I'll address each of them in turn.

  • The first is a claim that is wrong-headed and irrelevant: "The Order of Saint Lazarus has the protection of Henri d'Orléans, Count of Paris, Duke of France." The head of an Order doesn't "Recognize" his own Order. This has nothing to do with "Recognition" in the sense of an Order of chivalry being Recognized, so it should be moved to a different section.
  • The second type of claim is one of Recognition from sovereign nations: "In Spain the order has received recognition from the State through a number of legal documents...In the United Kingdom the order has counted several senior aristocrats among its membership...", etc. There are two problems with these sorts of claims. First, the claims are not sourced; they just have a vague comment in the footnotes. Second, for a nation to Recognize an Order, they would have to have made a statement or ruling to that effect, which would produce documentation. No such Recognition has ever been granted by any nation to the Lazarite Order, as far as I can tell. The closest to it is a statement from the Czech Army that they're cooperating with a branch of the Lazarites for the transportation of humanitarian aid.
  • The third kind of claim is that of tacit approval from the Vatican: "The Vatican can only formally recognise orders of chivalry that are under papal jurisdiction or that of the Holy See." This is both untrue and misleading. First, because it's untrue because the Vatican can and does recognize Orders that are _not_ under Papal jurisdiction. For example, the Venerable Order of St. John, under the jurisdiction of the Protestant Queen of Great Britain, has been expressly recognized by the Vatican as legitimate. And second, it's misleading because it suggests that the Vatican's position on the Lazarites is merely one of "non-recognition". The reality is that the Vatican has explicitly denounced the Lazarite Order by name, in print, at least five times in the past 80 years. Non-recognition from the Vatican (meaning tacit approval) would mean that one could attend a function under the auspices of the Holy See wearing, for example, the Order of the Garter, and no one would object. I'm quite sure that if one showed up wearing the Lazarite medal, the hosts would not be amused.
  • The fourth kind of claim is that of "Recognition" (meaning authorization from a position of sovereign authority) from an individual -- in this case, the (late) former head of the Holy Roman Empire: "In Austria the order enjoys the favour of the Imperial and Royal House of Habsburg. Until his death HIRH archduke Otto von Habsburg (1912–2011) held the title of protector of the grand priory of Austria." This claim has been made again and again, but no evidence for it has ever been produced. One would think that the Austrian branch of the Order would prominently display evidence of this on their website, but apparently not. In some sources, I've seen claims of a branch receiving a letter on Otto's stationary that spoke of the Order favorably; that's it. As far as I'm aware, Otto NEVER served as "protector" of the Order; there's never been any proof provided for the claim, and frankly, for a man who held just about every (far more exalted) title and award in existence, it beggars the imagination that he would've bothered to become involved with a very minor Order, much less one of questionable status. Also, considering his position within the Catholic Church, it's hard to believe that he would become involved with an Order that had been explicitly denounced by the Vatican. If this cannot be substantiated, it must be removed.

There are two other important things that the section never addresses. First, the section treats "Recognition" as if it's something that can be accrued through a sufficient number of favorable comments or opinions, associations with prominent individuals, etc., enough of which can add up to a general state of being Recognized (i.e., declared to be legitimate); it's NOT and it CAN'T. And second, the section makes NO mention of the various states that expressly, by name refuse to recognize the Lazarites. Those states include France, the Holy See, Italy and others. Without that information being included, the section is misleading and gives an inaccurate sense of the Order's acceptance among sovereign states. Occam's Shaver (talk) 21:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The Fons Honorum problem

Underlying this entire matter is that of the fons honorum, or "fount of honor", from which ALL modern chivalric orders derive legitimacy. There are only two kinds of legitimate fons honorums. The first (and most common) is provided by a regnant monarch, which is to say a king, queen or other monarchic head of state who has temporal sovereignty over the land that recognizes them as monarch. This is the case with all of the European nations with monarchies. The second kind is that which is provided by the head of a royal house WITH the permission of the state in which they operate. This is the case with the Hapsburg, Savoyard and similar Orders. Without the permission of the state, they cannot be chivalric orders, and they certainly would not be recognized as legitimate by any _other_ state who authorizes such Orders. Otherwise, there could be an infinite number of so-called chivalric Orders awarded by an infinite number of descendents of former monarchs throughout the world's history. To the point: not one of the modern Lazarite Orders has a legitimate fons honorum. None of them. The best that any of them has come up with are two of the descendents of French kings, whose primacy is disputed by rival claimants. And in all cases, not only does the French state refuse to recognize their authority as legitimate, but it has explicitly named the Order as ILLEGITIMATE, has banned the wearing of Lazarite medals in the usual manner, and requires the group to call itself an "association" or "organization" within France, rather than an Order. Not one member state of the United Nations recognizes Henri d'Orleans (or any of the other so-called fons honorums used by Lazarite Orders) as having any sovereignty, authority or temporal power. The headship of the "Royal House of France" has been hotly disputed between multiple rivals since the monarchy was abolished in France, and it shows no signs of ever being decisively settled. So for him, or for a branch of the Lazarite Orders to declare him "the head of the Royal House of France", and thus a legitimate fons honorum, is a flat-out LIE. As Christopher McCreery, an internationally-recognized authority on honors and Orders wrote -- "Before the Royal Charter of Incorporation of 1888, the Order of St. John had no official status in Britain or throughout the British Empire as an honour. The situation was not unlike that now experienced by bodies using the name designation The Order of St. Lazarus. The Order of St. John was simply a charitable organization that involved itself in the teaching of first aid ambulance duties that happened to have attached to it an order of chivalry; on that was unrecognized by all relevant authorities--the Order of Malta, Papal officials, and, most important, the government of the United Kingdom...The involvement of the Prince of Wales was central in affording legitimacy to the Order as it evolved from what was little more than a private club to an official British order of chivalry engaged in important charitable works" (source: The Maple leaf and the white cross : a history of the Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem in Canada, p. 26 -- Toronto, Ont.: Dundurn. ISBN 9781550027402 Occam's Shaver (talk) 20:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Occam -- see waaaaay up the page where I've argued these very points. Some people here are just determined to keep misrepresenting what a fons honorum is, and continue to cling to the notion that one of a number of pretenders to a nonexistent throne can serve as one. "Nearly a king" doesn't count for anything when it comes to legitimacy. One either is a regnant monarch, or one isn't. The head of a non-regnant royal family either has the approval of the state, or they don't. An order either is accepted as legitimate by regnant monarchs, or it isn't. (Oh and BTW, just so you know: the plural of fons honorum is fontes honorum, not fons honorums.) Bricology (talk) 08:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Ah. Thanks for the correction. What I don't know about Latin declension could fill a codex. By the way, I'm still looking for that original "La Croix" letter to include. Occam's Shaver (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

History, the real issue

For me, the legitimacy dispute is secondary and more difficult to argue. There would be much less controversy, if the Count of Paris revived an order, or created a new one with the same name. The issue here is not fons honouram, but that the modern order claims to be an uninterrupted continuation of the old order, which is simply not true. It is similar to expecting us to believe the Freemasons were started by the builders of Solomon's temple. Additionally, this article reads a bit like an advertisement. Tinynanorobots (talk) 23:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I put cited information about the order in the lead, and removed the part about twitter and facebook, because it is advertising. Among those who know what the modern order is there is considerable controversy, this should be noted in the lead. Also, there is some dubious usage of citations. Most are from the websites of the various modern obediences, which isn't always invalid, but more other sources would be better. The 1911 encyclopedia is cited in a way that makes it appear to be saying the Count of Paris is protector of the order. The encyclopedia makes no such mention.

The recognition section is more a list of prominent members, than anything about recognition. Tinynanorobots (talk) 20:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Split

In order to deal with the fact that there are several entities with the same name, some with disputed continuity, I suggest spliting the article, this article would focus on the ancient and independent order, well other articles can focus on the two order that were merged with Lazarus (these already exist), and a final for the modern day associations. Thoughts? Tinynanorobots (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I split it.
  • Disagree, because you dont have sources for it.--Yopie (talk) 00:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
sources for what? Anyway, both the St. Maurice and Mount Carmel orders both have separate articles. Tinynanorobots (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
  • "Several entities with same name" - in every good book about the chivalric orders is only one article about Order of St. Lazarus. Please see World Orders of Knighthood and Merit by Guy St. Sainty, Orders of Knighthood, Awards and the Holy See by van Duren, Oestereichisches Ordenshandbuch by von Prochazka, and many others.--Yopie (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Infobox

The Infobox seems to support the dubious survival theory, should it not be edited, so it no longer does? Tinynanorobots (talk) 02:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Disagree. --Yopie (talk) 00:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Is there any reason? I will just delete the infobox for now. Tinynanorobots (talk) 22:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Is there reason for deleting of the infobox? This infobox is in line with Help:Infobox and MOS:INFOBOX. Rule is that, whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article. We can discuss about facts in the infobox, but deleting is simply wrong.--Yopie (talk) 17:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I deleted un-sourced information. As you can see I have attempted discussion, but only receive responses when I make changes and then they are only to prevent changes. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Unrecognised order

The problem about so-called commentators regarding the history of the Order of Saint Lazarus is that they do not go to the original sources and hence keep repeating all the wrongs and misinterpretations that have been written - including the biased unreferenced works and assumptions of Art Dealer Guy Stair Sainty. History MUST be based on fact and not fiction written by individuals who have an agenda. One should make the effort to read the original Papal Bulls - after all using primary sources is what serious research is all about! The historical evidence is very clear in regards to the order of Saint Lazarus. This Order was a clearly documented Vatican-dependent laicized Order functioning under Royal patronage in France until 1830. Then it lost its Royal protection BUT remained under the jurisdiction of the Holy See since no decree was forthcoming from the Vatican abolishing the Order [see what happened in the case of the Templar Order in the 14th century!]. The Order is clearly documented by contemporary texts to have continued to function way into the mid-nineteenth century shifting its activities towards Haifa which had been placed by the Pope under the jurisdiction of the Melkite Patriarch. This was when relations with the Patriarchy are said to have been established. Unfortunately, the history of the late 19th century period is poorly documented since all the records of the Patriarchy were destroyed by the tumultuous events in the Middle East though contemporary biographies of several European individuals during this period do however mention membership in the Order of Saint Lazarus. Clear documentation takes off again after 1910 when a reorganization secularized the Order completely. At this stage it was no longer dependent on the Holy See but fell totally under the Melkite Patriarchy [to be fair - this may have happened earlier in the mid-19th century but there is no documentation for this].

The Vatican as a formal State is bound by protocol like all other states. It can and will only recognize Orders that directly belong to the Vatican State or are dependent upon it [see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_Orders_of_Knighthood], and other National or Dynastic Orders. All other Orders, whatever their legitimacy, CANNOT be accepted by the Vatican State [see http://www.news.va/en/news/note-of-clarification-from-the-secretariat-of-stat]. This includes the modern Order of St Lazarus. This does NOT mean that the Order does not enjoy Papal approval for its charitable works and Pope Paul John II had very close relations with the Order actually accepting to receive the Order's Poland Medal of Gratitude [see http://www.stelling.nl/vrijmetselarij/ridders/lazarus_bander.html].

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.42.105 (talk) 09:19, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, do you have independent, reliable sources? If not, it is called original research and is forbidden here. --Yopie (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I think this article is unfairly biased. There are large sections on how this order is recognised yet no reference to how the order is unrecognised by the Holy see the SMOM and the French government. There is no reference to the controversy of the Order's continuity which is held by prominent academics in the field. For fair balance and to allow people reading the article to make up thier own mind a section highlighting this state of affairs is necessary 176.26.126.186 (talk) 13:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Dear Anon, do you have other sources for your POV than self-published blogs?--Yopie (talk) 16:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I suggest that this information be included into the article. There is need for correction, especially in the part were it seems the order has support from the Catholic church. The Vatican has made it very clear that the order should not be allowed to use its churchs and chapels as it is unrecognised90.198.49.25 (talk) 19:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
The recent posts and amendments are meant to correct the repeated historical mistakes that were being perpetuated by the biased errors that have been written on the original article. All facts MUST be referenced and based on documentation and not bias. Many reversions were made by contributors without even an attempt at reading the new text or requesting clarification. The individual is simply engaging in an "edit war" without even attempting to verify the text reverting automatically even bonafide attempts to provide references for statements. This is contrary and an abuse of Wikipedia policy. CSavonaVentura (talk) 17:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Please use talk page of the article and we can talk about various points of your opinion.--Yopie (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Definitely. I can give you a contemporary reference to all the statements made within the text BUT this would put the article on the level of an original article. All the statements can be supported by definite scholarly research papers. This includes the period for the time in the Holy Land [see reference: The origins of the Military and Hospitaller Order of Saint Lazarus in the Further Reading], the European period during the later centuries until the 16th century, the legal aspect of the state of the Order in France after the mid-16th century [cf C. Savona-Ventura and M.W. Ross: The Heraldry and Development of the Order of Saint Lazarus of Jerusalem. Published in 'Double tressure: The Journal of the Heradry Scoiety of Scotaland, Summer 2013, 36:+28p.], the existence during Bourbon Restoration Period, the 1830-1850 period [Savona-Ventura C. The French Revolution's mark on the annals of the Order of St Lazarus of Jerusalem. Journal of the Monastic Military Orders, 2010, 3:51-70], and the post 1910 period. The only shadowy period to date is the 1850s - 1910 period since documentation is poor since most has been lost. This is clearly stated in my amendments for fairness sake! You have opted to arbitrarily remove the most referenced work which shows all this documentation from the Bibliography list [incidentally the fruits of my academic researches over the last 10 years utilizing original documents going back to the 12th century and including all the Papal Bull in Latin - * Savona-Ventura, Charles (2014) The History of the Order of Saint Lazarus of Jerusalem, Nova Press, New York. ISBN: 978-1-62948-563-8] but have opted to retain the unreferenced and very biased text by Sainty, Guy Stair, ed. (2006) World Orders of Knighthood and Merit. You have FURTHERMORE also removed the link I have prepared making available ALL the original texts relating to the Order made available for bonafide serious investigators which I added under External links [* Research Library maintained by the Office of the Grand Archivist & Historian of the united MHOSLJ This source provides access to the full original cartulary of the Order with original documents, including all the relevant original Papal Bulls, dating back to the 12th century.] The removal of these links suggests either that you yourself are biased or more likely that you do not even bother to look through the notes presented in the "Difference between revisions" provided by Wikipedia preferring to retain wrong concepts and even spelling mistakes! CSavonaVentura (talk) 08:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Let me comment in detail about what you persist to retain.
  1. "It is believed to have given rise to the use of the green cross as the universal symbol for retail pharmacies worldwide." This uis rubbish and there is absolutely no documented link between the two crosses. Somebody started this myth which the article keeps perpetuating. Incorrect & misleading.
  2. "Orléanist, under the Temporal Protection of the Count of Paris". Again this is in error since the Count of Paris has actually withdrawn his protection in a statement ["Communiqué de Monseigneur le Comte de Paris" (in French).]
  3. "From its foundation in the 11th century, members of the Order of Saint Lazarus dedicated themselves to two ideals". The foundation of the Order was in the early decades of the 12th century NOT the 11th!
  4. "The first mention of the order in surviving sources dates from 1106-16". This is in error based on a document wrongly ascribed by Sibert to Henri I when it was written during Henri II period. The Order's cartularly starts in the 3rd decade of the 12th century not the first or second. This revision is presently being prepared for publication in a scholarly article.
  5. "It is unknown when the order became militarised but militarisation probably occurred before the end of the twelfth century due to the large numbers of Templars and Hospitallers sent to the leper hospitals for treatment." This again is in error since only the knights Templar regulations specified the rule to transfer Templar leprous knights to the Order of St Lazarus. The Knight Hospitaller regulations never included this provision - Hospitaller leprous knights were kicked out of the community.
  6. The name "Royal, Military and Hospitaller Order of Our Lady of Mount Carmel and St. Lazarus of Jerusalem" is incorrect. The true name should be placed in the original French since this reflects the true status of different separate Orders with same management stricture. 'Ordres Royaux, Militaires & Hospitaliers de Saint Lazare de Jérusalem & de Notre-Dame du Mont-Carmel réunis' reflects a plurality "Ordres" not "Ordre".
  7. "The French fons honorum was renewed in 2004 by Henri d'Orléans, Count of Paris, as a claimant to the headship of the Royal House of France." Again the fons honorum by the French crown was really renewed in 1969 when a member of the French Bourbon Family became GM of the Order. Henri d'Orleans actually has withdrawn the fons honorum from the so-called Orleanist group even though their webpage [see above] continues to state his protectorship.
  8. I cannot understand why you opted to exclude the following text: "After 1830 the French foundation of the Order of Saint Lazarus continued under the governance of a council of officers.[1] Unfortunately documentation of to the subsequent decades is unavailable, but the Order is documented to have been active philanthropically in Haifa, while contemporary biographies do mention late 19th century individuals as having been members of the Order of St. Lazarus. Traditionally it is believed that around 1841, the Council of Officers invited the Patriarch of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church Maximos III Mazloum to become Spiritual Protector of the Order, thence re-establishing a tangible connection with the Order's early roots in Jerusalem. By 1850, under the authority of the Patriarch, the Order had consolidated and numbered about twenty knights supporting the rebuilding of the Mount Carmel Monastery in Haifa, Israel, then under the responsibility of the Melkite Patriarch. On 27 May 2012, the Greek Melchite Catholic Patriarch of Antioch signed a declaration at Kevelaer in Germany confirming the continuity of the Order under the Patriarchs of Antioch since his predecessor Maximos III Mazlûm had accepted the role of Spiritual Protector of the Order in 1841.[2]" The Haifa connection is found in a text dating to the late 1840s. It clearly states "Unfortunately documentation of to the subsequent decades is unavailable" to emphases that this period is poorly documented.
  9. Again I cannot understand why you arbitrary excluded the new division which I introduced to separate the undocumented "Dark Ages" with the Modern Priod after 1910 when documentation is quite readily available.
  10. Again, I cannot see your reasoning for reverting the text I amended reading "The Vatican State can only formally recognise orders of chivalry that are under papal jurisdiction or that of the Holy See [1][3]; or are formally-constituted Dynastic Orders [2] or formally-constituted National Orders of Merit. The Order of Saint Lazarus does not fall under either of these categories. This has not precluded Catholic prelates from joining the Order." This now given reference links to what is meant by the different groups of authors.
  11. The use of the term "Spanish" does not exist. This was the Malta Obedience until the reunification and now is simply known as the United Order.
  12. Arbitrary exclusion of added references as endnotes or in bibliography and web links added to give academic credence to the text.
CSavonaVentura (talk) 09:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CSavonaVentura (talk • contribs)
Just a quick note on the importance of primary sources. We are an encyclopedia, a tertiary source. Our job is to take in and synthesize the secondary sources, in the same way a secondary source would take primary sources and do the same. Simply put, we are not concerned with what's true, we aren't concerned with what is actual, we only concerned ourselves, we are required to only concern ourselves, with what the high-quality, neutral secondary sources say. CSavonaVenture, I know you care a lot about this subject, I know getting to the truth really matters to you, but that is simply not what a tertiary source like an encyclopedia is to care about. Achowat (talk) 20:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
The key word is "Neutral". There is nothing neutral about the publications quoted in the original article. Those publications are nothing more than a beautiful unrefereed source which has no academic value. Primary sources in historical articles by definition refer to publications that are contemporary to the period of study [e.g. Papal Bull, Royal edicts, written contemporary texts, etc]; secondary sources are academic publications that look at the primary sources to draw up conclusions about the issue at stake [e.g. articles in refereed scholarly journal, monographs/books published by academic publishers]; finally tertiary articles review what the secondary sources have said. Technically tertiary sources should not even be referenced with endnotes but only further reading. The Wikipedia requirement of introducing endnotes for statements made actually is contrary to the principles of writing for an encyclopedia. But I do not determine Wikipedia policy which keeps requesting referencing sources.CSavonaVentura (talk) 20:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Again, we need secondary, reliable sources. We cannot use primary sources, self-published sources and original research. Dear CSavonaVentura, your opinions are interesting, but are not based on any source. The article, as is now, is based on World Orders of Knighthood and Merit and Van Duren ´s Orders of Knighthood and of Merit and you must prove with other books, that they are wrong. I understand, that you are pushing your book about the Order, but this is not way for it.--Yopie (talk) 18:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
The books you refer to are all biased and unreferenced without any sources for their statements being given. The book "World Orders of Knighthood and Merit" is nothing more than a very nicely looking publication of the author's website blogs. NOT AN ACADEMIC PUBLICATION AT ALL. The material you continue to persist in promulgating is the one that is not referenced. If you want to read academic secondary sources about the history of the Order of Saint Lazarus, then you can look up works by Rafael Hyacinth "L'Ordre de Saint-Lazare de Jérusalem au Moyen Age" published in 2003 ISBN 2911722205. This besides the numerous published academic secondary references that I had included in my revisions. Unlike you, who prefers to remain anonymous with a nom de plume, I have no fear of identifying myself. My publications about the Order are secondary sources which utilize to the full the primary contemporary sources. I am sure that you have never even bothered to read the sources that you so much believe in. You would then realize that they are very far from being classified a secondary source [more like a non-academic tertiary source]. As it is these have all been written before the reunification of the Modern Order and therefore classifications and terms are all erroneous and do not reflect the current situation.
For instance:
  1. The use of the term "Spanish" does not exist. This was the Malta Obedience until the reunification and now is simply known as the United Order. Why keep perpetuating mistakes and terms [Spanish] that have NEVER been in usage and have been invented by the original author.
  2. Again, I cannot see your reasoning for reverting the text I amended reading "The Vatican State can only formally recognise orders of chivalry that are under papal jurisdiction or that of the Holy See [1][3]; or are formally-constituted Dynastic Orders [2] or formally-constituted National Orders of Merit. The Order of Saint Lazarus does not fall under either of these categories. This has not precluded Catholic prelates from joining the Order." This now given reference links to what is meant by the different groups of authors. WHY DO YOU CONSIDER THIS A PRIMARY OR SECONDARY SOURCE AND HAVE AUTOMATICALLY EXCLUDED IT? Maybe because it is so easy to simply revert without bothering to read and actually amend the text!
  3. Again I cannot understand why you arbitrary excluded the new division which I introduced to separate the undocumented "Dark Ages" with the Modern Period after 1910 when documentation is quite readily available. NOTHING NEW HERE BUT SIMPLY A REORGANIZATION OF THE TEXT TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN THE PROVEN DOCUMENTED PERIOD AND THE UNDOCUMENTED ONE.
  4. Why persist in retaining an error in the century when the Order was established. The author was clearly in error when writing that the foundation dated to the 11th century [i.e. the 1000s] when it obviously was after the First Crusade which took place at the end of the 11th century - even the Order of St John was only established in 1114 [i.e. the 12th century!]. And so on and on with all my comments made earlier.
I have no interest in pushing my book, but only to give the readers the history of the Order of St Lazarus as reflected by the historical sources. The article on Wikipedia is not a primary source, not original research but is totally based on secondary sources. You appear simply interested in waging an "edit war" to forward your biased views. CSavonaVentura (talk) 20:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Ad first, please DO NOT SHOUT! It is considered uncivil and bad taste. On your statement "The Vatican State can only.." is wrong "Vatican", because this is matter of the Holy See, as all academicians know. Rest of this statement is original research. "World Orders of Knighthood and Merit" have two toms with more than 2000 pages and ten authors, it is not Stair Sainty´s blog, do you read it? I have feeling of you pushing your book, but please, find another way for self-promotion. Thank you--Yopie (talk) 22:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Post scriptum: After a short search (because his statement above), I found that a) CSavonaVentura is official of one branch of the Order and thus have great conflict of interest WP:COI,b) Nova Press [1] is publisher of test materials and not reliable publishing house.--Yopie (talk) 00:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Candidate for hoax - definite need for tidying up and Wikifying

I have added {{Hoax}} to the article. The issue of whether this article is a hoax, POV, biased, commercial or properly constructed has not been decided by the editors. Poor quality and lack of sources points towards its being a hoax, in the sense of perpetuating a widespread and extravagant hoax, which itself should be referred to in the article to do justice to the bizarre subject matter and the even more bizarre vested interests that members of this 'order' and perhaps even editors here (as previously discussed) have in perpetuating.Rorate (talk) 22:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I removed that {{Hoax}} tag. Whether or not this Order is an actual order recognized by a sovereign or whether the article is neutral or not, it's clearly not a hoax. Achowat (talk) 23:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Do_not_create_hoaxes: "A hoax is an attempt to trick an audience into believing that something false is real." I assert the box should go back. Moreover, the article should be sorted out. As others have said, it's a disgrace to Wiki. Rorate (talk) 22:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Please, differentiate between "hoax" and "disputed". The article is well sourced, the order exist and is recognised by nobility, clergy and state officials.--Yopie (talk) 23:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
You only have to read this talk page, particularly the archives thus far, to see that the article is not well sourced (it has numerous spurious links and citations by spurious authors possibly with vested interests) nor is the "order" legitimate. I honestly wonder, since Wiki is supposed to be scholarly and yet this article exists, how many editors are actually connected to this bogus outfit. Cannot someone get into professional mode and sort this mess out?Rorate (talk) 23:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
This is unrelated, but I have literally never seen an article where so many relatively new users so often excuse so many editors of having a conflict of interest. That said, clearly this isn't a hoax as Wikipedia uses the term. Achowat (talk) 04:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Resumption of temporal protection by the Count of Paris

The article says that the Count of Paris resumed his temporal protection of the Orleans branch of the Lazarite order, after he publicly revoked it in 2012. The references are to unpublished documents or to the Count's blog which doesn't return any results I can find on "lazare" and other variations. I may be off in my Google powers today so, can someone please validate that (a) those cited references are extant and (b) perhaps update the citations to a web accessible link directly to the documents/blog articles/press releases? Thanks! --Kimontalk 17:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

POV

This article is being used to promote a bogus order. The article is therefore POV and arguably commercial. St Lazarus is NOT "an order of chivalry originally founded at a leper hospital after 1098 by the crusaders of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem." The real order ended centuries ago. The current organization is an unrecognised, bogus order, falsely claiming historical origins. Unless the article is corrected, Wikipedia is party to what amounts to a fraud.101.98.140.129 (talk) 01:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree. This article is built upon a premise of continuity between the historical, Catholic order and current organisations using the same name (or variants), the legitimacy of which is a subject of huge controversy (which is not even referenced itself in the article). There is arguably a hidden agenda behind this article, namely to give legitimacy to latter-day manifestations of chivalric orders using the Lazarus name. Until and unless this is properly reflected in the article, and a consensus reached here, the article must be considered biased. Rorate (talk) 00:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

The introduction must be corrected. It effectively acknowledges that the current "orders" are the same order as the medieval order. They are not that, and not even successor orders: they are bogus, as is now widely accepted.203.184.10.241 (talk) 02:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)"

If it's "widely accepted", then you should easily be able to find a citation. Achowat (talk) 04:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Split

Regarding the question of whether the current Military and Hospitaller Order of Saint Lazarus of Jerusalem is a restored, revived, or continuation of the original order, there seems to be strong feeling on both sides. I doubt it will ever be settled to anyone's satisfaction. This is apparently a matter of some importance to those who find it important. Apropos of absolutely nothing, I discovered in my meandering a completely separate article, Order of Saint Lazarus (Modern Associations), which mirrors much of the content on this page. I have therefore, boldly moved everything after 1830 to the Modern page, leaving this as an historical overview with links to the both subsequent Order of Saints Maurice and Lazarus and Order of Our Lady of Mount Carmel. Regardless of how this group originated, it appears to be involved in some laudable philanthropic work, ---what they do should be more important than where they came from. Mannanan51 (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

p.s. I found citations to Fr. Charles Moeller and the Vatican Secretariat of State not entirely accurate; an oversight or disingenuous I have no idea. Mannanan51 (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Mannanan51 You have destroyed what was a balanced article reflecting  both sides of the arguments and replaced it with your own biased account of the Order. Such an edit should not be  allowed - you have butchered what it took others years to agree upon - the article  is now completely ill informed and biased. Ollamhnua (talk) 01:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Green cross

The green "Maltese" cross was apparently used in the 18th century, for the Royal Military and Hospitaller Order of Our Lady of Mount Carmel and Saint Lazarus of Jerusalem united (cite proper references). This successor or continuation of the order has its own page, and its emblem can be discussed there. It is misleading to twist this into a claim that the green Maltese cross is the emblem of "the Order of Saint Lazarus".

Use of a green cross (not eight-pointed or "Maltese", just a green cross) is recorded for the early 15th century (1419), at least according to 18th-century references.[2] (this should also be cited properly by those people wishing to insert claims or statements regarding green crosses). --dab (𒁳) 18:36, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Order_of_Saint_Lazarus/Archive_2&oldid=1137061751"