Canoanele si Dreptul canonic · The 32nd Canon of Quinisext Synod as an authentic interpretation of mike – 5 May 0 · Drept penal bisericesc. , –, –; Floca, Drept canonic ortodox, vol. II, p. .. Milaş, N., , Dreptul bisericesc oriental, Bucureşti, Tipografia „Gutenberg”. Milaş, N., 24 N. Milaş: Dreptul bisericesc oriental, p. 25 I.N. Floca: Drept canonic orthodox. Legislaţie şi administraţie bisericească. Vol. II. Bucureşti , p.

Author: Maukazahn Masar
Country: Cameroon
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: History
Published (Last): 1 July 2005
Pages: 167
PDF File Size: 1.95 Mb
ePub File Size: 17.32 Mb
ISBN: 346-9-57653-768-8
Downloads: 3382
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Zulkigrel

Complete autocephalies may exist even without the express approval of an ecumenical synod, the ecclesiastical autocephalous units being able to constitute themselves either spontaneously, or through autocephaly proclamation acts issued by certain existent autocephalous Churches.

However, like some exarchates or diocese, some metropolitanates kept their autocephaly, too, either as metropolitanates or as archbishoprics [21] ; we could mention here the Metropolitanate of Tomis [22] or the Archbishopric of Cyprus, which has remained autocephalous until nowadays 8th can. In consequence, the metropolitans found under the jurisdiction of the other historical Patriarchies are not under his authority. Besides the list of Saint Epiphanius and its subsequent versions, the term of autocephaly is mentioned by numerous writers in documents or official acts.

Despite these, the ethnic link is a ground of the right and obligation of every autocephalous Church to organize and guide the religious life of its own Diasporas, in order to keep the ancient orthodox faith, as well as in order benefit in Diaspora from the spiritual content shared by the Church with its sons in the respective national state.

The two terms, autocephaly and autonomy, were equally used, as synonyms, because both of them express the rapport of independence of the Churches from de similar ecclesiastical organizations in ecumenical orthodoxy [12]although there are differentiations, as we will see below. We may say that forms of autocephaly exist nowadays too in the Roman-Catholic Church, but without being referred as autocephalies. Thus, the word autocephaly continues to appear in the lists of the seats from the canonical territory of the historical patriarchates, although they were modified in time.

Liviu Stan mentions, the term of autocephaly is used in nomocanonical collections or in historical acts, patriarchal or synodal [11]. In consequence, we specify here that the right of each Church to independence or autocephaly was consecrated by ecclesiastical practice transformed in time into a juridical regulation, then in a custom with law power that was mentioned in the text of the different canons.

I ec; 2nd, 3rd cans. The Holy Apostles, being conscious of their unique and unrepeatable authority received from Savior Jesus Christ, enjoying universal jurisdiction by virtue of the extraordinary grace of apostolacy, preached the Gospel of our Savior Jesus Christ as far as the ends of the world Mt These positions of Prof. Thus, the autocephaly of local Churches, formed in the ethnic framework, is mentioned by the 34th apostolic canon, as we affirmed, its dispositions being taken over by other canons too, these ones showing the criteria for the establishment of the identity of a Church: We may say that the notion of canonical territory at the level of the Episcopalian Churches appeared in the times of the Holy Apostles and developed in the ecclesiastical practice from the 2nd and the 3rd centuries and later, through the apparition of new forms of ecclesiastical organization.

This sort of exception, adopted because bisericsc political reasons, could be considered, as Prof. Another great theologian of our Church, Fr. The actual situation of the orthodox Diaspora is due to the misinterpretation of the canons that concern the jurisdiction over the Diaspora in the Greek world, especially of the 28th canon from the Fourth Ecumenical Synod from Chalcedon, which is the only canon that refers to the Diaspora of the Constantinopolitan Church, mentioning that the archbishop of Constantinople may ordain the bishops from the barbarian lands, i.


These local communities, headed by bishops, administrated themselves independently one from another, although all the bishops governed the whole Church in communion, without enjoying universal jurisdiction, but only a local one, hence limited to the boundaries of their diocese [17].

XXIVno. We mention here that the importance and the necessity of spiritual dependency of the orthodox communities in Diaspora of the mother-Churches and of their original countries was biseriicesc even by the Ecumenical Patriarchy, in the epistles sent in to the Holy Synod of the Greek Church, as well as in the synodal Tomos no.

Drept canonic – OrthodoxWiki

Likewise, the Constantinopolitan Church received privileges and prerogatives from the byzantine emperors, being an imperial city. It is recalled by Sozomen in the 4th century, showing that the hierarch of Tomis defended its independence of the the other seats, having all the rights of a metropolitan, without having though suffragan bishops.

Thus, nowadays, we can see a painful aspect in the orthodox Diaspora — the disruption [54]. We could say that with the same purpose — the defending of the interests of Hellenism — a decade later, inthe Patriarchy of Constantinople was retaking into its jurisdiction the bisericecs Greek orthodox Diaspora, working nowadays, too, in tight cooperation with the Greek Church and with the Greek state to promote the values, traditions bisreicesc interests of Hellenism on all the continents [52].

A restraint autonomy is attributed to the different settlements or associations, irrespective of their rite, Latin or Byzantine. Another regulation is the canonical drrept of the autocephaly [27]being necessary the recognition and acceptance in the orthodox communion of the autocephalous Church by all the autocephalous Churches; it bissericesc also necessary the agreement of the state on whose territory the autocephalous Church is constituted.

All these non-canonical theses legitimately claim the clarification of inter-orthodox jurisdictional relations, the precise distinction between autocephaly and autonomy, as well as the procedure of recognition and proclamation of the autocephaly of local Churches, independently constituted from the administrative-jurisdictional point of view, on a synodal-hierarchical flocca. Therefore, this kind of position of the filo-constantinopolitan theologians is damnable [48]as this kind of theologians advance the thesis of the effort of surpassing the national through universal, i.

Even if after the agreement between the two local autocephalous orthodox Churches, the Ecumenical Patriarchy and the Greek Church, the Greek Diaspora is under the jurisdiction of the Constantinopolitan patriarchal seat, this does not mean that the Patriarchy of Constantinople has a jurisdictional right or a jurisdictional privilege, because of its honorific primacy in Orthodoxy 28th can. This kind of evolution of the setup and administrative working of the ecclesiastical territorial units was marked by changes regarding the canonical statute of these local communities.

The divine authority of the principles established by the Holy Apostles in organizing and governing the Church cannot be put in doubt. Autocephaly, autonomy, ethnic principle, jurisdiction, inter-orthodox relations, Diaspora In the latest decades, in the bosom of ecumenical Orthodoxy were carried numerous discussions on the institution of autocephaly, as form of organization of the orthodox ecclesiastical territorial units [1]as well as the procedure of their constitution and this despite the canonical regulations and the traditional practice of the Church.


These theses, unfortunately embraced nowadays too in the Greek orthodox world, were supporting the exclusive competence of authority of the ecumenical synod to proclaim the autocephaly of the ecclesiastical territorial units, all the post-synodal i. Therefore, the 34th apostolic canon the beginning of the 4th century includes the canonical principles of organization and working of the Church, two bisericesx them being the ethnic principle and the autocephaly.

Grigorios Papathomas maintain that those who support the ethnic principles make a confusion between Church and Nation [45]assimilating the Church to the Nation, non being accepted the jurisdiction over an ethnic group and in conclusion more jurisdictions, but an universal jurisdiction, the one of the Ecumenical Patriarchy.

Drept canonic

The principle of ecclesiastical autocephaly and the problems of inter-orthodox jurisdiction. LXXVno.

In case of disagreement between the autocephalous Church and the one that asks for autocephaly, it can be made an appeal to a pan- orthodox decision [59]. In place of a conclusion: The Church must prove the stability in the right faith and it must keep unaltered the canonical and liturgical regulations of the Orthodox Church; 2. In consequence, the Patriarchy of Constantinople itself, with all its privileges recognized by the ecumenical synods 3rd can.

After the 14th century, as Fr.

Ecclesiastical legislation and administration [25] Drept canonic ortodox. As the Romanian orthodox canonist Fr. The existent situation in Catholicism does not justify the critic position towards the autocephaly principle in the Orthodox Church. Through the application of these principles it was possible to keep the orthodox canonical unity, this ecclesiastical unity receiving its biseficesc even since the apostolic era [23].

Thus, the mother-Church, bixericesc co-responsible of maintaining the pan-orthodox unity and canonical order, it has to consult the other local autocephalous sister-Churches to see the opportunity of a positive settlement of the autocephaly demand. The same manner, the bishops are not allowed to ordain outside their diocese 35th apost.

The canonical regulations concerning the organization of an autocephalous Church were established in time, by ecclesiastical practice, being the true expression of the canonical and dogmatic principle established in canons, firstly in the text of the apostolic canons and subsequently through the authentic interpretation of these by the ecumenical and local synods in their canonical work.

Supporting the idea of canonical incompleteness of the post-synodal autocephalies and the necessity of presenting them for examination to a future Ecumenical Synod, bisreicesc is questioned not only the concept of canonicity but also the canonicity in the inter-orthodox relations, afer the era of ecumenical synods.

Ecclesiastical legislation and administration Drept canonic ortodox. After a consensus is reached, the mother-Church biseriecsc formally the autocephaly of its daughter-Church, either through a synodal decision, bisericec through a synodal Tomos. Xno. Besides these grounds there can be added some political grounds, i. The ordination of the bishop does not mean dependency or subordination of the one who ordains, but placing the Lfoca seat at disposal towards the service of the local Church which the bishop was ordained for [19].

The fact that until the dreppt century the word autocephaly was rarely used is due to the use of different expressions that expressed the same content or to the use of the term autonomy and of other terms synonym to the one of autocephaly.