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.
|Published (Last):||23 May 2006|
|PDF File Size:||2.57 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||15.9 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
The Romanian canonist appreciates that the natural grounds consist in the bisericedc to model the ecclesiastical units according to the same natural laws that are used by all human communities, for their leading and organization.
To obtain the autocephaly, the autocephalous Churches can interfere, having in the same time the right not to recognize some autocephalies, more than that they can interfere to withdraw the autocephaly, if there are not fulfilled all the conditions.
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.
Iulian Mihai L. CONSTANTINESCU: The principle of ecclesiastical autocephaly
Another regulation is the canonical recognition of the autocephaly being necessary the recognition and acceptance in the orthodox communion of the autocephalous Church by all the autocephalous Churches; it lfoca also necessary the agreement of the state on whose territory the autocephalous Church is constituted.
This sort of exception, ddrept because of political reasons, could be considered, as Prof. These regulations were accepted through consensus Ecclesiae dispersae, showing here, briefly, some of the aspects of the necessary conditions for the canonical constitution of the autocephalous Churches: The ordination of biserciesc bishop does not mean dependency or subordination of the one who ordains, but placing the Episcopal seat at disposal towards the service of the local Church which the bishop was ordained for .
These positions of Prof. Lecturer Iulian Mihai L. Thus, the apostolic Canons forbid the trespassing of the ecclesiastical boundaries by bishops and clergy, being combated the practice of bishops and priests who left their dioceses and went to officiate services in other ecclesiastical units 14th apost.
Stan, Gnosis, Bucharest, Although there were — and still are — numerous dissension regarding the institution of autocephaly and the ecclesiastical jurisdictions, all canonists flca that the interpretation of the biserices that concern the principle of autocephaly and the other principles in tight connection it can be realized only in the light of the historical data, data which must also be related to the orthodox canonical doctrine .
Bieericesc synodal tomos is in the spirit of the 34th apostolic canon, being invoked the ethnical principle, all the arguments of the Ecumenical Patriarchy being used by the other autocephalous Churches as a ground for their right of jurisdiction overt their own Diasporas.
These jurisdictions attributed to the Constantinopolitan seat is explained by the fact that, being in the capital of the Empire, it had a small diocesan jurisdiction, considering it necessary to increase the jurisdictional territory, corresponding to its dignity of patriarchal seat of the imperial capital.
III ec; 9th, 12th, 17th, 28th can. Thus, nowadays, we can see a painful aspect in the orthodox Diaspora — the disruption . We could say bisericrsc with the same purpose — the defending of the interests of Hellenism — a decade later, inthe Patriarchy of Constantinople was retaking into its jurisdiction the whole Greek orthodox Diaspora, working nowadays, too, in tight cooperation with the Greek Church and with the Greek state to promote the values, traditions and interests of Hellenism on all the continents .
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 bisericescc not mean that the Patriarchy of Constantinople has a jurisdictional right or a jurisdictional privilege, because of its honorific primacy in Orthodoxy 28th can. As the Romanian orthodox canonist Fr.
A century later, the Fathers of the fourth Ecumenical Synod from Chalcedonthrough the 28th canon, a controversial one bisrricescunaccepted by the Roman-Catholic Church and long debated in the ecumenical Orthodoxy, recognized the jurisdiction of the Constantinopolitan seat over the dioceses of Asia, Pontus and Thrace. In consequence, the metropolitans found under the jurisdiction of the other historical Patriarchies are not under his authority.
Therefore, the 34th apostolic canon the beginning of the 4th century includes the canonical principles of organization and working of the Church, two of them being the ethnic principle bisericescc the autocephaly.
A restraint autonomy floac attributed to the different settlements or associations, irrespective of their rite, Latin or Byzantine. In this study we will evaluate ecclesiological-canonical and historical the canonical doctrine of the Orthodox Church, regarding the autocephaly, the manner of the constitution, on canonical bases, of the local autocephalous Churches, the problem of proclaiming the autocephaly and of the autocephalous Churches jurisdiction over their own ecclesiastical units in Diaspora, emphasizing the contribution of Romanian theologians and canonists in the inter-orthodox dialogue towards the canonical problems of great actuality.
Likewise, the Constantinopolitan Church received privileges and prerogatives from the byzantine emperors, being an imperial city. Supporting the idea of canonical incompleteness of the post-synodal autocephalies and dept necessity vrept presenting them for examination to a future Ecumenical Synod, it is questioned not only the concept of bisericrsc but also the canonicity in the inter-orthodox relations, afer the era of ecumenical synods.
Later, this term was misinterpreted by the Greek historians and canonists, exactly to justify their illegitimate pretentions of the Ecumenical Patriarchy on the jurisdiction of the entire Diaspora .
Drept canonic – OrthodoxWiki
III, Paris,p. Not to respect the specificity of each nation, of its language and traditions is truly a trespassing of fkoca divine regulation.
Elion, Bucharest,p. Truly, one canon, previous to the era of Ecumenical and local Synods canons, included the two words which the term of autocephaly was born from autoz and kejalhthat is the 34th Apostolic canon. Liviu Stan mentions, the term of autocephaly is used in nomocanonical collections or in historical acts, patriarchal or synodal .
Therefore, the autocephaly is not requested in random conditions, but the constitution biserjcesc an autocephalous Church must fulfill certain conditions, mentioned above.
In consequence, the Patriarchy of Constantinople itself, with all its privileges recognized by the ecumenical synods 3rd can.
Besides these grounds there can be added some political grounds, i. The text of the canon shows expressly the jurisdiction of the Constantinopolitan seat over the three dioceses, as well as over their barbarian lands, that is over their Diasporas. Grigorios Papathomas maintain that those who support the ethnic principles make a confusion between Church and Nation 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.
The fact that until the 19th 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 flooca term autonomy and of other terms synonym to the one of autocephaly.