![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
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)
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:
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.
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
The recognition section is more a list of prominent members, than anything about recognition. Tinynanorobots ( talk) 20:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
Is there any reason? I will just delete the infobox for now. Tinynanorobots ( talk) 22:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
{{
Citation needed}}
, please use it.--
Yopie (
talk)
19:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)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)
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)
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! -- Kimon talk 17:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)"
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
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)
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:
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.
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
The recognition section is more a list of prominent members, than anything about recognition. Tinynanorobots ( talk) 20:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
Is there any reason? I will just delete the infobox for now. Tinynanorobots ( talk) 22:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
{{
Citation needed}}
, please use it.--
Yopie (
talk)
19:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)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)
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)
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! -- Kimon talk 17:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)"
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)
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)
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)