Talk:Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem)
Jump to: navigation, search


It would probably be useful to note here what the hierarchy looks like in the modern age. -- Penta 00:00, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ecclesiastical history to its own page?[edit]

The bulk of the length of this article is dedicated to an explanation of the Patriarch of Jerusalem's church structure under the Crusaders. Since this is a somewhat specialized historical topic about an institution that has a current incarnation almost wholly unrelated to this information, I propose to move all this material to a separate page, unless someone objects. --Jfruh 19:24, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry :) Presumably some of those still exist, right? I think there is still a bishop of Acre, an archbishop of Tyre, etc...they can have their own pages (and be listed on List of Bishops and Archbishops, and anything that existed for the crusaders but no longer exists can be mentioned wherever appropriate. Adam Bishop 06:22, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well I've moved Tyre, Caesarea, and Nazareth to their own pages. I don't really know anything about the current structure of the Patriarchate, but I hope this helps somewhat. Adam Bishop 2 July 2005 05:36 (UTC)

Are you historians or op-ed writers?[edit]

The mere fact that you are discussing whether to remove highly important ecclesiastical historical data to rather arcane pages makes me question your scholarly ethics. The importance of the Jerusalem churches structure cannot be underlined more. Lists of Bishops, Archbisophs, abbots, etc all point to demographic, economic, political, and cultural levels during the period and will help future scholars derive further knowledge about the period.

Lastly, I find several of you who edit pages on this subject continually seek to whitewash important date regarding religion, ethnicity, battles, massacres, and known political objectives of the Islamic actors involved. This smacks of nothing less than grotesque politicization of what should be history.

Point in fact: Why was there a Latin Patriarch and why is there no longer a Latin Patriarch? If we followed the parameters of several of those administrators and others who have edited this page we wouldn't know about how religion played a factor in there being two Patriarchs. Not knowing the demographic situation we wouldn't understand that there simply wasn't a sizable Catholic community in the area previous to the Crusade. Nor after removing the list of Bishops, abbots etc., would we understand that after the Crusades there was a substantial number of Catholic settlers. And of course, since we've removed any discussion of Sultan Baibars campaign to eradicate the entire Christian community from the Levant and Holy Land, we wouldn't understand why there was no Latin Patriarch actually sitting in Jerusalem after the Mamluk Jihad exterminated the last Christians in the region.

Indeed, CJP and Adam Bishop like to eradicate any reference to genocide in the Islamic jihads but are more than happy to include so called "Christian" atrocities. In reality, as wikipedia itself publishes genocide is: Genocide is defined by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) article 2 as any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: "Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group." Baibars proclaimed he wanted to leave the Holy Land a desert, he proclaimed he wanted to eradicate all of Christianity from the region, and then carried out a campaign to implement his campaign. However, saying the Holy See of Jerusalem was genocided is removed from the history of the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem.

If you want wikipedia to be a scholarly journal then you have to be ready to accept some unpleasant realities about history.

Wikipedia is not a scholarly journal. If you think there is info which portrays the crusades as "Christian atrocities", and I do not doubt that there is (and I do not doubt that I have written some of it), then the solution is to make that information more neutral, not to add balancing polemic for the opposite side. Like it not, neutrality is the basic rule here. You are, of course, welcome to write factual, sober historical articles. Adam Bishop 04:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


I'm curious, is there any reason why the Patriarchs of Jerusalem haven't been made Cardinals? It seems so weird and out of place. All of the other Patriarchs become Cardinals after they get their patriarchral sees. Jerusalem is supposed to be one of the most important ones both historically and theologically. Anyone happen to know why it's like this? J.J. Bustamante 05:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not true that all Catholic hierarchs with the title of patriarch become cardinals. For instance, Filipe Neri Ferrão, the current Patriarch of the East Indies, is not a cardinal.
Of course, nobody becomes a cardinal automatically ex officio, though in many sees, the bishops are by tradition raised to the cardinalate soon after installation. In the case of the other patriarchs, though, their cardinalates are a result of not their patriarchal status but because those bishops head either important Uniate churches or large Catholic diocese (such as Venice or Lisbon). Despite its historic and theological importance, the Catholic diocese of Jerusalem is in practice rather small -- it's not even the largest Christian church in the region. --Jfruh (talk) 05:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)