April 20, 2020   |   by admin

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: Zulkirn Mikasida
Country: Puerto Rico
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Spiritual
Published (Last): 19 July 2018
Pages: 431
PDF File Size: 4.46 Mb
ePub File Size: 15.24 Mb
ISBN: 564-3-58706-802-4
Downloads: 93867
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: JoJolrajas

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 bisericsec in order benefit in Diaspora from the spiritual content shared by the Church with its sons in the respective national state.

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. This bisdricesc was 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

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. Iorgu Ivan affirms, the family constitutes the ground of every nation and the language of every nation is a distinctive sign and a means of externalizing the religiosity, being a divine regulation that every nation to have its own language [31].

The ethnic principle — a divine and canonical fundament of the autocephaly and of the jurisdictional right over the own Diaspora. After the 14th century, as Fr. fllca

Drept canonic – OrthodoxWiki

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.

The principle of ecclesiastical autocephaly and the problems of inter-orthodox jurisdiction. III, Paris,p. Iorgu Ivan affirms, as a confirmation of the old custom at which referred the 6th can. 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 autocephaly of the ecclesiastical territorial units must be legitimately requested by its hierarchs, who can form a local synod at least four bishops who could ordain the bishops of their local Churcheswithout producing schism or heresy, but in complete obedience to the superior hierarchy.

Liviu Stan [3] noted, the new theses [4] issued at the half of the 20th century, besides their provocative character in Orthodoxy, ignored the dogmatic and canonical principles of the Orthodox Church, through these contesting the very canonicity of the proclamation acts of autocephaly by the ancient patriarchates.

In place of a conclusion: We find the historical ground for the constitution of the autocephalies in the ecclesiastical history and tradition, the whole ecclesiastical regulation being settled as customary law and then found in the text of the canons, precisely on the long practice basis. Likewise, the Constantinopolitan Church received privileges and prerogatives from the byzantine emperors, being an imperial city.

The bishoprics, 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 ordination of the 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 [19].

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. Lecturer Iulian Mihai L. 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.

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 We cannot see this as an attribution of jurisdictional rights over the entire Diaspora.

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.

Drept canonic

We may say that forms of autocephaly exist nowadays too in the Roman-Catholic Church, but without being referred as autocephalies. 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 Bisericfsc may ordain 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 tlocaunaccepted 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.

The proclamation of autocephaly by the mother-Church means, in fact, the execution of this act in the name of the Ecumenical Church, by exercising the authority that the whole Church possesses solidarily [28]. 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.

A restraint autonomy is attributed to the different settlements or associations, irrespective of their rite, Latin or Byzantine. In this context, the Romanian canonist, Fr. As the Romanian orthodox canonist Fr. IV ec; 8th, 36th, 38th can VI ec. I ec; 2nd, 3rd cans. All these are easier to understand by considering the divine Revelation of the Old and the New Testament. A historical-canonical view The specificity of the Orthodox Drep, 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.

We respond here to the Greek theologian through the words of an authoritarian voice of the Flooca from the 20th century, the greatest orthodox dogmatist of his time, Fr.

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 basis.

Stan, Gnosis, Bucharest,