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: Nejas Akinolkree
Country: Algeria
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Relationship
Published (Last): 3 February 2007
Pages: 430
PDF File Size: 5.93 Mb
ePub File Size: 4.90 Mb
ISBN: 811-2-34872-816-1
Downloads: 18342
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Mazuzil

In consequence, the Patriarchy of Constantinople itself, with all its privileges recognized by the ecumenical synods 3rd can. All drdpt are easier to understand by considering the divine Revelation of the Old and the New Testament. Elion, Bucharest,p.

LXXVno. Besides the list of Saint Epiphanius and its subsequent versions, the term of autocephaly is mentioned by numerous writers in documents or official acts. 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.

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.

Drept canonic – OrthodoxWiki

Ant; 3rd, 6th Sard. We will mention below some actual aspects regarding the canonical territories of the autocephalous Churches and the application of this notion to the jurisdictions. 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.

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. Grigorios Papathomas maintain that those who support the ethnic principles make a confusion between Church and Nation [45]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.

Thus, nowadays, we can see a painful aspect in the orthodox Diaspora — the disruption [54]. 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.


The existent situation in Catholicism does not justify the critic position towards the autocephaly principle in the Orthodox 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.

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.

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].

I ec; 2nd, 3rd cans. 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: 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.

Drept canonic

In place of a conclusion: 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, bisericexc the epistles sent in drepr the Holy Synod of the Greek Church, as well as in the synodal Tomos no.

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 drepr the 2nd and the 3rd centuries and later, folca the apparition of new forms of ecclesiastical organization. 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 [14]subsequently the leadership of ecclesiastical units passing to the local, provincial synods 34th37th apost.


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].

Floca, Orthodox Canon Law. The ethnic principle — a divine and canonical fundament of the autocephaly and of the jurisdictional right over the own Diaspora. III, Paris,p. The constitution of local autocephalous Churches in the ethnic framework is based on some grounds that can be natural, historical, doctrinal, dogmatic and canonical, as it is specified in Fr. An actual ecclesiological and canonical contribution Ph.

The consequence of proclaiming the autocephaly is the obtaining of rights by the Church recognized as autocephalous [29].

Iulian Mihai L. CONSTANTINESCU: The principle of ecclesiastical autocephaly

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 [12]although there are differentiations, as we will see below.

The principle of ecclesiastical autocephaly and the problems of inter-orthodox jurisdiction. Another regulation is the canonical recognition of the autocephaly [27]being necessary the recognition and acceptance in the orthodox communion of the autocephalous Church by all the autocephalous Churches; bizericesc is also necessary the agreement of the state on whose territory the autocephalous Church is constituted.

The principles of ecclesiastical organization and leading, together with the spiritual means at the disposal of the Church for the fulfillment of its existential purpose, were going to ensure, in time, the biserciesc of the Church, with all the diversity of nations and languages of those who were becoming subjects of law in the Church, through dloca administration of the Holy Sacrament of Baptism.

This term was not used in history, but is recent, although it refers to ecclesiological realities present even since the apostolic era. This fact is highlighted by the great canonist of the 13th century, Joannes Zonaras who, interpreting the 17th can.