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.
|Genre:||Health and Food|
|Published (Last):||19 October 2004|
|PDF File Size:||19.91 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||2.35 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Iorga, Bloc A 53, Sc. The Romanian canonist appreciates that the natural grounds consist in the necessity dre;t model the ecclesiastical units according to the same natural laws that vrept used by all human communities, for their leading and organization. However, like some exarchates or diocese, some metropolitanates kept their autocephaly, too, either as metropolitanates or as archbishoprics  ; we could mention here the Metropolitanate of Tomis  or the Archbishopric of Cyprus, which has remained autocephalous until nowadays 8th can.
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.
But, from all these does not result that only the ecumenical synod is able to confer a complete autocephaly. 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. We have to mention that this traditional form of organization and working of the Church is not essential, that is it can be missing from the life of the Church, existing numerous possibilities to create new forms of ecclesiastical organization by adopting the forms corresponding to its mission.
IV ec; 8th, 36th, 38th can VI ec. Thus, the autocephalous form of organization of the Church is a traditional form in the bosom of ecumenical Orthodoxy, asserting itself as the fundamental canonical-juridical institution.
It is damnable that the Ecumenical Patriarchy takes under its jurisdiction Romanian orthodox communities, or of other ethnicity, without the agreement of the mother-Church, communities that lost their canonical link with the mother-Church, this fact being a trespassing of the canons and ecclesiological orthodox principles . The divine authority of the principles established by the Holy Apostles in organizing and governing the Church cannot be put in doubt.
Thus, the mother-Church, being 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. In consequence, the metropolitans found under the jurisdiction of the other historical Patriarchies are not under his authority. 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.
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 . A historical-canonical view The specificity of the Orthodox Church, both towards de Roman-Catholic Church and towards the Protestantism is the organization of ecclesiastical-territorial units on the ground of the principles of autocephaly and autonomy, i.
Although present in the life of the Church — the rights of the autocephalous local Churches being mentioned in the text of numerous canons of the Ecumenical and local Synods — the term of autocephaly does not appear in any canon. Notes and comments Canoanele Bisericii Ortodoxe.
In the same time, they strengthened the indispensability of the ethnic element in organizing an autocephalous Church, as a divine regulation.
Drept canonic – OrthodoxWiki
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. Likewise, the Constantinopolitan Church received privileges and prerogatives from the byzantine emperors, being an imperial city.
The canonical grounds are included in the canons that mention the constitution of autocephalous Churches in the apostolic era 34th, 35th, 37th apost.
III, Paris,p. This sort of exception, adopted because of political reasons, could be considered, as Prof.
The 34th apostolic canon expresses in a positive manner the importance of the ethnic principle as a fundament of the ecclesiastical organization and of the exercise of jurisdiction over the own Diaspora .
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 dreppt originality and identity .
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 and the autocephaly.
Xno. This fact is expressed by the 2nd canon from the II Ecumenical Synod, which establish that all the Diasporas outside the Roman Empire to be governed by the bishops who had the respective area under their biseericesc, before being occupied by the barbarians. This kind of evolution of the setup and deept working of the ecclesiastical territorial units was marked by changes regarding the canonical statute of these local communities.
In place of a conclusion: The heads of the autocephalous Churches enjoyed equal power, non-existing the confusion between the jurisdictional rights and the honorific primacy. 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. We may say that forms of autocephaly exist nowadays too in the Roman-Catholic Church, but without being referred as autocephalies.
Not to respect the specificity of each nation, of its language and traditions rdept truly a trespassing of the divine regulation. Although there were — and still are — numerous dissension regarding the institution of autocephaly and the ecclesiastical flofa, all canonists accept that the interpretation of the canons that concern the principle of autocephaly and fpoca other principles in tight connection it can be realized only in the light bisericezc the historical data, data which must also be related to the orthodox canonical doctrine .
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 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 .