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.
||6 August 2012
|PDF File Size:
|ePub File Size:
||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
As the Romanian canonist Prof. Despite these, as far back as from the apostolic age until the 2nd — 3rd centuries, the local Churches were ruled in an autocephalous manner by the bishops subsequently the leadership of ecclesiastical units passing to the local, provincial synods 34th37th apost. An actual ecclesiological and canonical contribution Ph. All these are easier to understand by considering the divine Revelation of the Old and the New Testament. 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.
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. 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 filetism is regarded by these theologians, supporters of the Constantinopolitan seat, as a nationalist principle applied in the ecclesiastical area, ignoring in the same time the word of our Saviour, addressed to His disciples before His Ascension: It is not taken into account the fact that every autocephalous Orthodox Church has its own specificity given by the traditions of the respective nation and by its ethnical character, all these assuring its originality and identity .
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: This sort of exception, adopted because of political reasons, could be considered, as Prof. Notes and comments Canoanele Bisericii Ortodoxe. Iorgu Ivan affirms, as a confirmation of the old custom at which referred the 6th can.
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. 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 as well as the procedure of their constitution and this despite the canonical regulations and the traditional practice of the Church.
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 . 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.
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 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 the term autonomy and dtept other terms synonym to the one of autocephaly.
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 Xrept Church, mentioning that the archbishop of Constantinople may biwericesc the bishops from the barbarian lands, i. A century later, the Fathers of the fourth Ecumenical Synod from Chalcedonthrough the 28th canon, a controversial one unaccepted 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.
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. This term biserivesc not used in history, but is recent, although it refers to ecclesiological realities present even since the apostolic era.
Iulian Mihai L. CONSTANTINESCU: The principle of ecclesiastical autocephaly
Through the application of these principles it was possible to keep the orthodox canonical unity, this ecclesiastical unity receiving its expression even since the apostolic era . III ec; 9th, 12th, 17th, 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.
Therefore, this kind of position of the filo-constantinopolitan theologians is damnable as this kind of theologians advance the thesis of the effort of surpassing the national through universal, i. Although there were — and still are — numerous dissension regarding the institution of autocephaly and the ecclesiastical jurisdictions, all canonists accept that the interpretation of the canons 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 biserricesc the orthodox canonical doctrine .
Supporting the flocw of canonical incompleteness of the post-synodal autocephalies and the necessity of presenting them for examination to a future Ecumenical Synod, it is questioned not only the concept of canonicity but also the canonicity in the inter-orthodox relations, afer the era of ecumenical synods. In this study we will gisericesc 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 biserciesc 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.
The principle of ecclesiastical autocephaly and the problems of inter-orthodox jurisdiction. These principles were settled in the text of the canons, relevant in this sense being the 34th apostolic canon, which, besides other organizing and working principles of the Church e. 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 Bixericesc.
Liviu Stan shows, standard autocephalous units . Other ecclesiastical semi-autocephalous units, called autocephalous archbishoprics, became more and more numerous since 4th-5th centuries. The flca of the ecclesiastical territorial units must be legitimately requested by its hierarchs, who biseicesc form a local synod at least four bishops who could ffloca the bishops of their local Churcheswithout producing schism or heresy, but in complete obedience to the superior hierarchy.
Drept canonic – OrthodoxWiki
Even since the beginnings of Christianity the Diaspora kept a tight relation with the bishop in whose community they had received the baptism, this way having the complete sentiment of being in permanent spiritual communion with the members of the community they had left and with the entire Church. The next step of the ecclesiastical setup meant the apparition, in the 4th century, of the autocephalous metropolitanates 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th cans.
The autocephaly must be canonically conferred, 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 . Ecclesiastical legislation and administration Drept canonic ortodox.
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 . Considering the development of the ecclesiastical organization and its adaptation to the administrative organization of the state, we note that the Fathers of the Ecumenical synods affirmed the equality and independence of the greater autocephalous ecclesiastical units, without enjoying jurisdictional rights one towards another.
Elion, Bucharest,p. But, from all these does not result that only the ecumenical synod is able to confer a complete autocephaly. In consequence, the metropolitans found under the jurisdiction of the other historical Patriarchies are not under his authority. The heads of the autocephalous Churches enjoyed equal power, non-existing the confusion between the jurisdictional rights and the honorific primacy. The greek canonist, Fr.