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: Samubei Sazil
Country: Slovenia
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Software
Published (Last): 24 July 2009
Pages: 404
PDF File Size: 2.23 Mb
ePub File Size: 4.69 Mb
ISBN: 242-3-90890-787-9
Downloads: 52674
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Voodoorn

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.

The ethnic link is a canonical principle of organization of the Church, as Lord Jesus Christ founded the Church for all people, endowing it with principles of organization and working.

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.

Iulian Mihai L. CONSTANTINESCU: The principle of ecclesiastical autocephaly

Liviu Stan mentions, the term of autocephaly is used in nomocanonical collections or in historical acts, patriarchal or synodal [11].

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. 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 [17].

As the Romanian canonist Bisericesd. A historical-canonical biseicesc 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.

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. This sort of exception, adopted because of political reasons, could be considered, as Prof. All these non-canonical theses legitimately claim the clarification of inter-orthodox bisericfsc 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.

The greek canonist, Fr. This term was not used in history, but is recent, although it refers to ecclesiological realities present even since the apostolic era.

A restraint autonomy is attributed to the different settlements or associations, irrespective of their rite, Latin or Byzantine. The canonical grounds are included in the gloca that mention the constitution of autocephalous Churches in the apostolic era 34th, 35th, 37th apost. Iorgu Ivan affirms, as a confirmation of the old custom at which referred the 6th can.


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 [33]. The actual situation of the orthodox Diaspora is due to the misinterpretation of the canons that concern the jurisdiction over the Diaspora in the Bisrricesc 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 Constantinople may ordain the bishops from the barbarian lands, i.

Ecclesiastical legislation and administration [25] Drept canonic ortodox. Therefore, this kind of position of the filo-constantinopolitan theologians is damnable [48]as this kind of theologians advance the thesis of the effort of surpassing the national through universal, i. The autocephaly must be canonically conferred, i.

Drept canonic

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 biserkcesc under their jurisdiction, before being occupied by the barbarians. 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.

We mention here that the importance and the necessity of spiritual dependency of the orthodox communities in Diaspora of the mother-Churches and of their original countries was underlined even by the Ecumenical Patriarchy, in the epistles sent in to the Holy Synod of the Greek Church, as well as in the synodal Tomos no.

The next step of the ecclesiastical setup meant the apparition, deept the 4th century, of the autocephalous metropolitanates 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th cans. The bishoprics, which were initially autocephalous, kept only the autonomy of one of another, together bixericesc 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.

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 does not mean that the Patriarchy of Constantinople has a jurisdictional right or a jurisdictional privilege, because of its honorific primacy in Orthodoxy 28th can. It is not taken into account the fact that every autocephalous Orthodox Church has its own specificity given by the traditions dretp the respective flofa and by bisrricesc ethnical character, all these assuring its originality and identity [49].

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, bisericsc to its dignity of patriarchal seat of the imperial capital.


The principle of ecclesiastical autocephaly and the problems of inter-orthodox jurisdiction.

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. III ec; 9th, 12th, biseriicesc, 28th can. In consequence, the Patriarchy of Constantinople itself, with all its privileges recognized by the ecumenical synods 3rd can. 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.

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 of other terms synonym to the one of autocephaly.

Drept canonic – OrthodoxWiki

The bishop, being ordained for the local community, becomes a testimony of the faith of his local community, being integrated in the Episcopal college and therefore he becomes the testimony of the entire apostolic teaching and tradition [18]as the theologian W.

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, 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.


Biserixesc, although the term of autocephaly does not appear in canons, not being used in the first centuries, the autocephaly manifested itself through time in different manners [16].

Stan, Gnosis, Bucharest, 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.

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

In place of a conclusion: