Talk:Order of Saint Lazarus

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)

• Holy See from the Vatican's official website: http://www.news.va/en/news/note-of-clarification-from-the-secretariat-of-stat
• Guy Stair Sainty is a well respected herald and historian - this is a well referenced piece of work by him: http://www.stelling.nl/vrijmetselarij/ridders/lazarus_sainty.html
• The ICOC is a recognised institution, here is an outline on the Order on it's website: http://www.icocregister.org/premise.htm

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)