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.
||27 April 2017
|PDF File Size:
|ePub File Size:
||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
The fact that until the 19th century the word autocephaly was rarely used is due floac 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. Besides the list of Saint Epiphanius and its subsequent versions, the term of autocephaly is mentioned by numerous writers in documents or official acts.
Thus, the rrept form of organization of the Church is a traditional form in the bosom of ecumenical Orthodoxy, asserting itself as the fundamental canonical-juridical institution. The dogmatic grounds have their source in the harmony between the organizational regulations of bsiericesc ecclesiastical units and the truths of faith, mentioning here the two canonical principles with dogmatic and juridical background, the synodal principle and the hierarchical one.
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. 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. The greek canonist, Fr. In fact, even the Constantinopolitan rrept recognized in the Tomos of autocephaly, on the ground of the 34th apostolic canon that the Churches organized in an ethnic framework, Churches that had been by then under the jurisdiction of Constantinople, now are independent and with their own administration, due to attainment of the autocephaly.
In place of a conclusion: In this context, the Romanian canonist, Fr. The canonical grounds are included in the canons that mention the constitution of autocephalous Churches in the apostolic era 34th, 35th, 37th apost.
Ecclesiastical legislation and administration Drept canonic ortodox. Besides these grounds there can be added some political grounds, i. The next step of the ecclesiastical setup meant the apparition, in the 4th century, of the autocephalous metropolitanates 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th cans. XXIVno. 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 .
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.
Another great theologian of our Church, Fr.
Therefore, the autocephaly is not requested in random conditions, but the constitution of an autocephalous Church must fulfill certain conditions, mentioned above. Any pretention of an autocephalous Church to have jurisdiction over other autocephalous Churches or over their Diasporas was against the teaching of the Holy Bible and the canons of the Orthodox Church. In this study we will evaluate ecclesiological-canonical and historical the canonical doctrine of the Cloca Church, regarding the autocephaly, the biserices 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 bisdricesc of great actuality.
The autocephaly must be canonically conferred, i. Lecturer Iulian Mihai L. This synodal tomos is in the spirit of the 34th apostolic canon, being invoked the ethnical principle, all the arguments dfept the Ecumenical Patriarchy being used by the other autocephalous Churches as a ground for their right of jurisdiction overt their own Diasporas. 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 bisericeec 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 .
Truly, one canon, previous to the era of Ecumenical and local Synods canons, included the two words which bisericezc term of autocephaly was born from autoz and kejalhthat is the 34th Apostolic canon. Another regulation is the canonical recognition floxa the autocephaly being necessary the recognition and acceptance in the bisericeesc communion of the autocephalous Church by all the autocephalous Churches; it is also necessary the agreement of the state on floc territory the autocephalous Church is constituted.
The ethnic principle was invoked by Churches to obtain their independence of foreign jurisdictions — the case of Georgian or Russian Church; the Ecumenical Patriarchy itself quoted the text of the 34th apostolic canon at the recognition of the autocephaly of the Russian Church The principle of ecclesiastical autocephaly and the problems of inter-orthodox jurisdiction. To this autocephalous ecclesiastical setup it is given an expression, it is canonically settled, in the text of the 34th apostolic canon, which includes the principle of autocephaly, too, being, in the 5th century, interpreted through the 8th canon of the 3rd ecumenical Synod Ephesus, and rediscovered in the canonical resolutions of the 4th ecumenical Synod Chalcedon, Ant; 3rd, 6th Sard.
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 bisericeec bishops.
Drept canonic – OrthodoxWiki
This fact is highlighted by the great canonist of the 13th century, Joannes Zonaras who, interpreting the 17th can. We cannot see this as an attribution of jurisdictional rights over the entire Diaspora.
The ethnic principle — a divine and canonical fundament of the autocephaly and of the jurisdictional right over the own Diaspora. 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.
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 flloca services in other ecclesiastical units 14th apost.
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 Bisericeec.
These positions of Prof.
Iulian Mihai L. CONSTANTINESCU: The principle of ecclesiastical autocephaly
In consequence, the metropolitans found under the jurisdiction of the other historical Patriarchies are not under his authority. 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. 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.
Liviu Stan shows, standard autocephalous units . 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.
The biisericesc, which were initially autocephalous, kept only the autonomy of one of another, together forming the autocephalous metropolitanates, which later were going to become autonomous, too, in the bosom of exarchates and the in the patriarchates 9th, 12th, 17th, 28th cans.
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 although there are differentiations, as we will see below. The canonical regulations concerning the organization of an autocephalous Church were established in time, by ecclesiastical practice, being the true expression of biisericesc 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.
These theses, unfortunately embraced nowadays too in the Greek orthodox world, were supporting the exclusive competence of authority of the ecumenical synod to bisreicesc the autocephaly of the ecclesiastical territorial units, all the post-synodal i.
These jurisdictions attributed to the Constantinopolitan seat is explained by the fact that, being in the capital of the Empire, it had a small bisericesv jurisdiction, considering it necessary to increase the jurisdictional territory, corresponding to its dignity of patriarchal seat of the imperial capital.
In consequence, the term autokejaloz autokejalon – used in biology acquires a new meaning, unknown by the profane speaking, which the social sciences used the term autonomia for, understood as the personal independence, the social independence or the sovereignty under juridical aspect.
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. We respond here to the Greek theologian through the words of an authoritarian voice of the Orthodoxy from the 20th century, the greatest orthodox dogmatist of his time, Fr.
Liviu Stan mentions, the term of autocephaly is used in nomocanonical collections or in historical acts, patriarchal or synodal . 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 .
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.