Andrei Şaguna and “The Organic Statute” – V.2-3 “Project of Regulation” and “The Organic Statute”


V.2 Andrei Şaguna’s attempts at church organization preceding “The Organic Statute”; The “Project of Regulation”

As it was remarked by a Romanian scholar “the main feature of Andrei Şaguna’s personality is, undoubtedly, his capacity to organize and reform, which places him among the great ecclesiastical leaders”[1]. The problem of church organization preoccupied him from the very beginning of his ministry in Transylvania. The evidence is his plan to organize and summon a mixed eparchial synod (made up of both clergy’s and laymen’s representatives) in 1848, several months after his consecration as bishop.[2] Although this project failed, he continued to take measures with a view to church organization, even during the Neoabsolutist era.[3]

Bishop Andrei Şaguna prepared his first detailed plan of church organization in 1849, as we can see from a petition addressed to the government in 1854.[4] A second such plan was forwarded on November 16, 1850, on the occasion of the conference of the Orthodox bishops of the monarchy. However, neither of the two attempts contains the systematic description of a church organization or constitution in the precise meaning of the word, but they limit themselves only to the composition of the consistory (the eparchial administration).

Before Andrei Şaguna’s project of church constitution, there was such a project devised by August Treboniu Laurian[5] to be submitted to the first mixed eparchial synod of 1850. But it was not taken into consideration by that synod: “The creation of the [mixed] eparchial synod after principles corresponding to the eparchy’s wish and the spirit of time is postponed until the Metropolitanate is restored; until then, our Eparchy can decide on the organization of the eparchial synod precisely according to the holy canons of the Eastern Church.”[6] As it was shown, at the beginning of Andrei Şaguna’s episcopacy his priority was the legal recognition of the Transylvanian Orthodox Church and the reestablishment of the Romanian Orthodox Metropolitanate: “he conditioned the internal organization of the Church on the solution given to its legal external situation by the political government.”[7]

When the first signals in favour of the reestablishment of the Metropolitanate were clear, the bishop presented to the mixed synod of 1864 a provisional project drawn up by himself. This project, entitled “Project of Regulation for the Organization of Affairs Related to Romanian Churches, Schools and Establishments of Greek-Eastern Religion in the Austrian Empire”[8] will constitute the nucleus of the future church constitution of the Transylvanian Metropolitanate – “The Organic Statute”.

The “Project of Regulation” is made up of two hundred and twenty-five articles, grouped in twelve chapters (“Cuts”) and an introductory chapter (“General considerations”). The author makes some very important clarifications in the introduction, from which one can identify the principles that guided him in his work: canonicity, traditionalism and actuality.[9] In other words, “Şaguna wrote a truly and solid work of synthesis”[10]. Next, specifying that the project intended exclusively the organization of a metropolitanate[11], he enumerated “the factors” of such a church unit as being the clergy and the people, organized in parishes, protopopiates, monasteries and eparchies.[12] Then follows the concise enunciation of the constitutional rights and obligations ensuing from being a member of the Church, respectively of the metropolitanate: the participation personally and by representatives in all the Church and school-related economic and foundational affairs, and the obligation to fulfil the tasks which condition the welfare of the Church.[13]

The principle of autonomy of every ecclesiastical unit belonging to the same category[14] is doubled, in order to maintain the unity, by the principle of dependence of one category on the other, through representation[15]. This system of interdependence through representation of the Church’s units is explained by the Pauline doctrine in Corinthians I, chapter 12.[16]

Apart from the organic parts of the metropolitanate (parishes, protopopiates, monasteries and eparchies)[17] enumerated in §2, there is a further reference to the bishops’ synod, as a distinct organ[18].

In order to support the dogmatic unity between the Romanian and Serbian Orthodox Churches in the Austrian Empire, a common synod of the Romanian and Serbian Metropolitanates had to take place, composed of all the hierarchs of both Metropolitanates.[19] The synod should be held every six years or oftener, alternatively, at the residences of the two metropolitans who would preside over the meetings together. The debates and the minutes had to be bilingual, in Romanian and Serbian.[20]

The “Project” stipulated the monarch’s right to acknowledge the elected metropolitan and bishops and the right of “supreme inspection”.[21]

In the mixed church assemblies, called synods[22], Andrei Şaguna insisted on the leading position of the clergy at all levels, as a sure corrective factor against the lay exaggerations in discussing and solving the problems of strictly Church-related nature.

From all these “we can conclude that the original project of church constitution devised by Metropolitan Şaguna is based on a clear canonical foundation. And its originality – indeed surprising – is given by bringing together harmoniously the hierarchy and the believers within a church synodality derived from the elective system based on people’s vote.”[23]

However, the mixed synod of 1864 “completely disfigured the Project”[24]. Among other things, it modified Andrei Şaguna’s provisions on the members of the parish synod, the manner of appointing the protopope, it created new organs, and – which was the most serious – it removed the bishop’s authority in relationships with the decisions of the consistory. Apart from the dogmatic and spiritual matters, in which the bishop had total power, the consistory could decide in any other matters with majority vote, without needing the bishop’s approval for its decision. The elective system was modified too, the unelected members being introduced next to the elected ones, almost in an equal proportion.[25]

The synod decided to forward the emperor for ratification the regulation resulting from the modification of the “Project of Regulation” but Bishop Andrei did not comply with this decision.[26] Moreover, although it was conceived for the metropolitanate, as §1 stipulated, after the amendments made by the synod, the applicability of the regulation was limited only to the Eparchy of Sibiu: “From my project, everything concerning the organizing of a metropolitanate was left out, for not to preoccupy the opinion of a metropolitan constituent synod, and thus we limited us to organize our Church of Transylvania like an eparchy.”[27]Aware of the non-canonicity of some of the amendments, but also of the temporary situation as long as the metropolitanate had not been officially re-established, the bishop did not strive to impose his opinion, as he did four years later[28], when the final church constitution was getting ready to be submitted to be ratified by the state authority.

V.3 “The Organic Statute” and its differences from the “Project of Regulation”

V.3.1 “The Organic Statute” the work of the church congress of 1868  

Although in practice the regulation of the mixed synod was provisory used in the parishes and protopopiates of the Eparchy of Sibiu, between 1864 and 1868[29], Metropolitan Andrei submitted in 1868 his original “Project of Regulation”, not its modified form by the mixed synod of 1864, to be adopted by the church congress.

Therefore, the church congress had to analyse the project devised by Andrei Şaguna. The commission delegated by the members of the congress to study this project amended it this time too[30], finally resulting the church constitution of the Transylvanian Metropolitanate known as “The Organic Statute”[31].

“The Organic Statute” is structured in hundred and seventy-six articles, grouped in five chapters: I. The parish, II. The protopopiate, III. The monasteries, IV. The eparchy and V. The metropolitanate. The regulation of the laymen’s participation in exercising the Church power – the key point of the church organization conceived by Andrei Şaguna – is its centre of gravity.

The parish meant a number of families high enough to possess the material and moral means to support one or more churches, schools and cemeteries, together with the necessary personnel.[32] The affairs of every parish are managed by the parish synod, the parish committee and the parish trusteeship.[33]

The parish synod[34] (§6-§16) is the assembly of all the parishioners of full age, self dependent, morally irreproachable and who do their duty toward the parish. The synod elects the rector, the chaplain, the deacon, the trustees and the members of the parish committee, the delegates in the eparchial synod and the members of the teaching staff of the parish schools. It also has to examine and approve the projects of the parish committee referring to the construction, maintenance and equipment of the parish buildings – the church, the school, the parish house -, the financial support for the parish itself and for the church personnel belonging to it – priest, chaplain, deacon, teachers, primary school teachers etc. The president of this synod is the rector, and the ordinary meetings are annual, in January, but it can be summoned extraordinarily whenever it is considered necessary.

The parish committee (§17-§23) is composed of at most thirty members – according to the parish size -, being elected by the parish synod for three years with the right of re-election. The close relatives shall not be members of the committee at the same time. The committee represents the parish in its relationships with the third parties, it manages the property of the church, foundations and school, it maintains the buildings in good shape, it watches over the morality and religiousness of the parishioners and decides on punishment of small offences, it takes good care of the charitable work, the parish library etc. The committee’s ordinary meetings are biannual, in July and December.

The parish trusteeship (§24-§28) is composed of at most four members, elected by the parish synod from the men of the highest moral standards in the parish, for a period of three years with the right of re-election. Its role is to register and keep the fortune of the church, school and foundations and to manage it according to the decisions of the synod and parish committee.

The protopopiate (protopresbyterate)[35] consists of several parishes, and its affairs are organized and managed by the protopopiate see, the protopopiate synod, the protopopiate committee and the protopopiate trusteeship.

The protopopiate see (§31-§37) consists of the protopope or his substitute as president, six rectors as members, a matrimonial defender and a notary (a secretary). It is the first instance judiciary forum in the Metropolitanate. Its attributions are to supervise the priests’ behaviour, to judge their misconduct when the consistory conferred it this duty, to settle and eventually take decisions in the controversies concerning the engagement and marriage, to verify and approve the elections of the church personnel in the parishes, to check the good order of the civil registers. The ordinary meetings of the protopopiate see are monthly.

The protopopiate synod (§38-§55) is the representation of the clergy and faithful in the protopopiate, and consists of twenty-four or thirty-six members – according to the number of the faithful in the protopopiate, under or over 20,000 -, one third priests and two thirds laymen. The priests are elected in the priests’ councils, and the laymen in the parish synods without the priests’ vote. The members are elected for a period of three years with the right of re-election. Its attributions are to supervise the activity of the churches, schools and foundations all over the protopopiate, and to elect the protopope in case of vacancy. It gathers ordinary once a year, at the beginning of February.

The protopopiate committee (§56-§63) composed of six or twelve members – according to the number of the faithful in the protopopiate, under or over 20,000 -, one third priests and two thirds laymen, is elected by the protopopiate synod for a period of three years with the right of re-election and gathers four times a year, in January, April, July and October, having attributions within the protopopiate similar to the parish committee.

The protopopiate trusteeship (§64-§65) has four members and two substitutes, elected in the same way as the parish trustees and having similar attributions to it.

The eparchy meant the union of several protopopiates and monasteries under the leadership of an eparchial bishop. The eparchial affairs are conducted by the eparchial synod and the consistory. In Transylvania and Hungary there were three such Romanian Orthodox Eparchies until after the First World War, those of Sibiu, Arad, and Caransebeş.

The eparchial synod (§87-§96) is the representation of the eparchy composed of sixty members, in the proportion of one third priests and two thirds laymen. Its president is the bishop. The synod’s attributions are, apart from the election of the bishop in the case of vacancy of the episcopal see, similar to the attributions of the parish and protopopiate synods. It held an ordinary meeting once a year, on the first Sunday after Easter (St Thomas’ Sunday), and an extraordinary one whenever necessary.

The election of the bishop (§97-§109) is made by the eparchial synod, under the presidency of the metropolitan or one of his delegates, after which the canonicity of the election has to be controlled by the bishops’ synod and submitted to the monarch for confirmation. If the emperor confirmed the choice, the newly-elected one took an oath of allegiance before him and then was consecrated as bishop according to the Church rule.

The eparchial consistory (§110-§120) is the permanent organ of administration and justice in the matters concerning the churches, schools and foundations within the eparchy. The members of the consistory (also called consistorial assessors) are partly ordinary – paid with salary -, partly honorary, and the president of the consistory is the bishop. The consistory is divided into three senates: the church, school and trusteeship senate; the members of the first senate are elected for life, from among the priests (only the matrimonial defender could be a layman) by the eparchial synod. The other two senates of the consistory are mixed, in the proportion of one third priests and two thirds laymen, being elected for three years with the right of re-election. The competences of each senate are related to its name.[36] The number of the consistorial members has to be decided by the eparchial synod. The election of the church senate’s members has to be validated by the bishop, respectively the metropolitan. The bishop can appoint a vicar of him from among the priests who are consistorial assessors.

The metropolitanate incorporates all the eparchies of the metropolitan province. Its affairs are carried out by the church national congress – the name given to the mixed metropolitan synod conceived by Andrei Şaguna -, the metropolitan consistory, and the bishops’ synod.

The church national congress (§145-§154) is the representation of the entire metropolitan province, consisting of ninety delegates, thirty for each eparchy, one third priests and two thirds laymen, next to the metropolitan as a president and all the bishops. The congress held meetings every three years, on 1/13 October. Its attributions are: to promote and defend the religious freedom and autonomy of the Church; the administration of all the church, school, foundation-related affairs all over the Metropolitanate; the election of the metropolitan and of the assessors of the metropolitan consistory.

For the metropolitan’s election it is stipulated an elective body composed of hundred and twenty members, sixty from the Eparchy of Sibiu and sixty from the other two eparchies; they are elected according to the regulations in the “Statute” (§155-§157). The bishops have no right to take part in the election of the metropolitan unless they are delegates of the congress in the special elective body.

The metropolitan consistory (§158-§170) consists of the metropolitan as a president, the two suffragan bishops, and honorary assessors elected by the church congress. It is similar in its organization (three senates) and attributions to the eparchial consistory, being the supreme administrative and judiciary organ for the entire metropolitan province.

The bishops’ synod (§171-§174) is composed of the metropolitan and the two suffragan bishops and has in its competence, besides the defence of the Church autonomy, the spiritual and dogmatic issues: it does the canonical examination of the new-elected eparchial bishops, gives solutions to every dogmatic, sacramental and ritual doubts, takes decisions on the right pastoral care of the faithful and the good functioning of the theological and confessional schools.

V.3.2  The amendments made by the congress at Andrei Şaguna’s “Project”

The general organizational frames established by Andrei Şaguna were maintained by the commission appointed by the members of the congress to study the “Project of Regulation”. The parish, the protopopiate, the monastery and the eparchy continued to be recognized as organic parts of the metropolitan province. However, the bishops’ synod was eliminated from among the organic parts, this being “a denial of the hierarchical principle laid by Şaguna at the base of the ecclesiastical organization”[37]. Other changes concern the form, such as: the removal of the canonical quotations from Andrei Şaguna’s text; another form of the text; the reduction of the representative and executive bodies’ mandate from six to three years; the principle of direct election (according to the “Project” the clergy elect their delegates directly, and the lay people indirectly); the manner of constituting the protopopiate see.

A major structural change was at the level of the eparchial organization, the consistory being the “touchstone” of the members of the congress. Andrei Şaguna had drafted in “Project” a priests’ (presbyters) synedrion[38], as a consultative organ constituted by the bishop, by way of appointment. But the congress did not accept this conception and wanted, on the one hand a mixed composition – clergy and laymen -, and on the other hand the election of the consistorial members by the eparchial synod. In addition, the role of the priests’ synedrion as a consultative body for the bishop was replaced with that of representative and executive organ of the eparchy. Moreover, the consistorial members had the decisive vote in taking decisions, the bishop being unable to impose his will over the conclusions of the consistory.

After heated debates between some consistorial members and the metropolitan[39], the latter gave in and a compromise solution was reached: the consistory has to consist of three senates – a church senate (composed only of clergy), a school senate, and a trusteeship one, both last being mixed (one third priests and two thirds laymen). All the consistorial members were elected by the eparchial synod, the bishop having the only role of acknowledging them. On the metropolitanate level, where the “Project” had not considered any special executive organ, because the arch-eparchial organs were meant to carry out the Metropolitanate’s tasks as well, the congress imposed a separate consistorial organization, similar to the one in the eparchy.

Other amendments are also important: for instance, Andrei Şaguna had stipulated in the “Project” that the elected bishop had to be a monk at the moment of the election and recruited from among the ecclesiastical officials all over the metropolitan province[40]; the congress rejected both conditions[41]. Then the “Project” took into consideration limited attributions for the mixed metropolitan synod[42], among which the election of the metropolitan was the main one, while the congress, changing the name of this synod into church national congress raised it to the rank of supreme legislative representation of the metropolitan province. Moreover, according to §155 of “The Organic Statute” the bishops themselves were excluded from voting the new metropolitan unless they were delegates of the congress in the special elective body.

The bishops’ synod got the hardest strike, because all its attributions as the highest organ of the Metropolitanate were taken away, with the exception of the dogmatic ones and those related to the defence of the Church autonomy. Planned by Andrei Şaguna as the highest organic part of the Metropolitanate and endowed with supreme leadership attributions, it remained only a “canonical ornament”. The congress took the legislative power, the judicial power was given to the metropolitan consistory, and the representation of the Church in the external relationships was given to the consistory too. These provisions practically aimed to attack the hierarchical-synodal character[43] of the church constitution and through it of the Church itself, because they tried to impose the mixed laicizing principle.

Ioan Mateiu made the following concluding remark: “Making a scientific comparison between the Metropolitan Şaguna’s original ‘Project’ of church constitution and ‘The Organic Statute’ voted by the national church congress, we draw the sure conclusion that these two works are fundamentally different from one another. […] Şaguna – rightly from his bishop’s position – planned to ensure the Church autonomy on hierarchical basis, according to the Eastern Church’s canons; however, the ecclesiastical representation – the congress – after hard and intensive controversies, reached a compromise between the old hierarchical system and the modern constitutional one, and it built ‘The Organic Statute’ on this basis. […] ‘The Organic Statute’ is the arbitrary work of the church national congress of 1868 which in his soul Andrei Şaguna never approved of. If, despite all this, he formally consented to the promulgation of ‘The Organic Statute’, the cause of this must be found in his political intuition that warned him that, by delaying the creation of the church constitution, he might not obtain any approval from the Hungarian Government which was so hostile to the Romanian people’s interests in national renaissance.”[44]

The political goals which could not be filled in the society were moved by some congress lay members in the church field: “Many trustworthy men and great politicians participated in the national church congress of 1868 (in the same way, many great people can be found today in the representative corporations of our Church). They brought along their experiences and especially their deceptions accumulated in the field of political constitutional activity and, without thinking whether these things would be beneficial or detrimental to our religious and cultural life, they tried and succeeded in turning them to good account in the field of their ecclesiastical constitutional activity.”[45]

“The Organic Statute” was not sanctioned in the original form established by the congress of 1868, but with the amendments made by the Hungarian Ministry of Public Worship[46], amendments which altered, among other things, the Church’s right of autonomy concerning the confessional schools.

Despite the too radical opinion that “The Organic Statute” “is neither in form nor in its essential parts Şaguna’s work, but the work of the church congress of 1868”[47] and that “a big and essential difference was between the cardinal institutions imagined by Şaguna and those created by the congress”[48], the church constitution of 1868 has been known as “Şaguna’s Statute” to this day in the Romanian Church and not only there.

V.3.3 The deviations of “The Organic Statute” from Andrei Şaguna’s canonistical conception and implicitly from canonicity

The main canonical problem of “The Organic Statute” was the one originating in the congress’ attempts at undermining the hierarchical-synodal character of the Transylvanian Orthodox Church, by exaggerating the role of the mixed bodies, especially the church congress but also the consistory. This was, in fact, the attempt made by some of intelligentsia of the time to transfer their political failures to the church organization.[49]

Andrei Şaguna’s “Project of Regulation” imagined the following mixed corporations: for each parish a parish synod composed of all the good Christians over 24 years old[50]; the protopopiate synod composed of one third priests and two thirds laymen, constituted by election[51]; the eparchial synod composed of twenty priests and forty laymen, all elected[52]; the arch-eparchial synod, with the same structure as the eparchial synod[53]; the metropolitan synod composed next to all of the bishops of thirty clergymen and sixty laymen, representing all eparchies[54].

The main question concerning the above-mentioned mixed corporations is how canonical this organization is and how suited it is to the spirit of the Orthodox Church.[55] As the canonist Liviu Stan stated, there is no doubt about the legitimacy of parish and protopopiate mixed synods or assemblies.[56] The controversies were over the eparchial and metropolitan synods.

Bishop Andrei gave the mixed eparchial synod the task of “ruling and checking over the church-economic, school and foundational objects of the entire eparchy”[57]. By this, nothing of what was purely spiritual was entrusted to this synod and, from this point of view this was no deviation from the Orthodox canons. The problem here was the question whether the bishop was obliged to respect all the decisions voted by a majority of synodal members. Of course, the synod’s decisions, even the majority ones, cannot be obligatory for the bishop. This is not clearly mentioned in the “Project”, but the sovereignty of the bishop in his own eparchy was clearly stipulated: “The bishop is concerned with all those issues related to his eparchy”[58]. In this way, “the bishop being sovereign in his eparchy, the eparchial synod cannot impose him any decision against his own will, but on the other hand he cannot refuse to accept a decision of the synod at whim, but only bringing solid arguments.”[59]

Therefore, the mixed eparchial synod appears, in the light of Andrei Şaguna’s canonistical conception, in principle as a consultative forum compare to the sovereign power of the bishop. The episcopal character of the Church was untouched and, at the same time, co-operation in the form of mixed synodality was happily achieved, by this being proven, apart from a legal spirit, a deep understanding and knowledge of the Orthodox Church’s institutions and their functions.

The eparchial consistory had, in the “Project of Regulation”, the same consultative role as the eparchial mixed synod.[60]

The mixed metropolitan synod get from Andrei Şaguna the same attributions as the eparchial one, but extended to the entire metropolitanate, not just to an eparchy. Again, the metropolitan synod’s decisions did not have an obligatory character for the bishops because “the bishops’ synod is the supreme authority in the Church”[61]. Therefore, the metropolitan synod was essentially a consultative forum beside the bishops’ synod – the highest authority in every local Orthodox Church.

The conclusion of Liviu Stan is: “Şaguna’s conception on the mixed synods, exposed in his 1864 project, cannot be suspected of any deviation from the spirit of the Holy Canons and the Tradition of the Orthodox Church.”[62]

However, through “The Organic Statute” of 1868, because of some shortcomings one may say the hierarchical-synodal character of the Church was affected. The bishops’ synod was no longer regarded – as Andrei Şaguna had specified – as the Metroplitanate’s highest authority in all the Church issues, but only in the dogmatic and spiritual ones[63], whereas in the others the church national congress (the formerly mixed metropolitan synod) was the supreme authority. This consisted of thity clergymen apart from the metropolitan and the bishops, and sixty laymen, the bishops being considered of the same rank as the other members of the congress.[64] Also, the bishops’ authority, their canonical power was made dependent on the mixed eparchial synod’s authority, made up of twenty priests and forty laymen[65], because it is not anymore stipulated that the bishop has the right to “deal with all those issues related to his eparchy”, like in the “Project of Regulation”, §99. Formally, both the church congress and the mixed eparchial synod became independent bodies that could make decisions against the bishops’ will.

But, in this case, like in many others, the old practice of the Church was stronger than the new theory, the hierarchical principle being unharmed in the Transylvanian Orthodox Church: “in practice, the bishops’ will very rarely came into conflict with that of these mixed synods stipulated by ‘The Organic Statute’; so that, despite the lack of some provisions contained in the ‘Project’ that might give the impression that ‘The Organic Statute’ formally prejudiced the hierarchical-synodal character of the Transylvanian Church, in reality the practice of the Church life did not prejudice it, but it helped define better and even strengthen this character of the Church. The legislative shortcoming was compensated by the canonicity of the functioning of some corporations or mixed synods, which, if judged only based on the text in ‘The Organic Statute’, without understanding Şaguna’s patristic spirit, certainly do not seem to be in total agreement with the canons. Never ever has the bishops’ will been ignored without valuable reasons, but they remained in fact the supreme instance in all the ecclesiastical matters. Şaguna’s fight [for canonicity] did not end by the formal adoption of some mixed synods as strictly canonical as he had wished. However, the way in which the new synods were constituted and functioned is in agreement with Şaguna’s superiour canonical conception and the practice of the Transylvanian Church, the practice of the big synod.”[66]

It is very true that Andrei Şaguna, for the sake of seeing his eparchy solidly organized and protected from the political fluctuations of the worldly government, made concessions to the congress, equal to sacrificing parts of his canonistical convictions, conception, and doctrine. But even this fact “proves his historical position and importance more than anything else. […] As a legislator Şaguna was so wise and cautious that, after a hard mental fight, he decided to make sacrifices to the edifice [the church constitution] required equally by both the rightful conscience of his believers and the spirit of the time.”[67]

The following conclusion seems to be the right one: “If ‘The Organic Statute’ cannot be considered a perfect law, the mortals not being able to create perfect things, it is still a very important ecclesiastical law that can tend towards perfection. We have the duty to try to promote this tendency from all our powers and as much as we can.”[68]

Image: A roman marble mosaic panel, circa 4th-5th Century A.D. Source: Pinterest

[1] A. CONSTANTINESCU, Dreptul canonic în opera lui Andrei Şaguna, 872.

[2] See the chapter III.1.5 herein.

[3] See the chapters III.2.5 and III.2.6 herein.

[4] Cf. Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 119.

[5] See this Project of church constitution at I. MATEIU, Contribuţiuni la istoria dreptului bisericesc, 299-311.

[6] Actele Soboarelor…1850 şi 1860, 43.

[7] I. MATEIU, Contribuţiuni la istoria dreptului bisericesc, 208.

[8] See Andreiu Baronu de SIAGUNA, Proiectu de unu Regulamentu pentru organisarea trebiloru bisericesci, scolare, si fundationale romane de Relegea greco-orientale in Statele austriace, Sibiiu 1864.

[9] Cf. A. Baronu de SIAGUNA, Proiectu de unu Regulamentu, 3-4.

[10] I. MATEIU, Contribuţiuni la istoria dreptului bisericesc, 211.

[11] Cf. A. Baronu de SIAGUNA, Proiectu de unu Regulamentu, §1.

[12] Ibid., §2.

[13] Ibid., §3.

[14] Ibid., §5.

[15] Ibid., §6.

[16] See the footnote at §6 from the “Project of Regulation”. Cf. 1 Corinthians 12.20-26: “As it is, there are many parts, yet one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I have no need of you’, nor again the head to the feet, ‘I have no need of you.’ On the contrary, the parts of the body which seem to be weaker are indispensable, and those parts of the body which we think less honorable we invest with the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving the greater honor to the inferior part, that there may be no discord in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together.”

[17] At length on the organic ecclesiology reflected in Andrei Şaguna’s canonistical works see the chapter V.4 herein.

[18] Cf. A. Baronu de SIAGUNA, Proiectu de unu Regulamentu, §7.

[19] Ibid., §15-§16.

[20] Ibid., §213-§219.

[21] Ibid., §17.

[22] Details on these mixed synods can be found in the chapters VI.4 and VII.1 herein.

[23] I. MATEIU, Contribuţiuni la istoria dreptului bisericesc, 235.

[24] Ibid., 235.

[25] About all the amendments made by the mixed synod of 1864 to Andrei Şaguna’s “Project” see I. MATEIU, Contribuţiuni la istoria dreptului bisericesc, 237-240.

[26] Cf. ibid., 240.

[27] Andrei Şaguna’s letter to A. Mocsonyi, dated Sibiiu, April 6/18, 1864, in: Spicuiri şi fragmente din corespondenţa lui Şaguna, 485-486 here 486.

[28] See the chapter IV.4.1 herein.

[29] Cf. Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, 168.

[30] At length on these changes see I. MATEIU, Contribuţiuni la istoria dreptului bisericesc, 247-263.

[31] See Statutul organic al Bisericei Greco-Orientale Române din Ungaria şi Transilvania, Sibiiu 1881 (= Die Verfassung der griechisch-orientalisch-romanischen Kirche in Ungarn und Siebenbürgen, in: AfkKR 25 (1871), 235-276).

[32] Statutul organic, §1.

[33] Ibid., §5.

[34] According to the “Project of Regulation” and “The Organic Statute” the word “synod” denominates both the mixed ecclesiastical bodies – composed of laymen and clergymen – and the bishops’ synod -composed exclusively of bishops. In the current legislation of the Romanian Orthodox Church, the term “synod” is not used anymore for the mixed ecclesiastical bodies, the term “assembly” being preferred.

[35] It is the Romanian Orthodox version of the Roman Catholic deanship today.

[36] See Statutul organic, §121-§142.

[37] I. MATEIU, Contribuţiuni la istoria dreptului bisericesc, 247.

[38] Cf. A. Baronu de SIAGUNA, Proiectu de unu Regulamentu, §116.

[39] Cf. Protocolul Congresului Naţional Bisericesc…1868, 75 et seqq. See also the chapter IV.4.1 herein.

[40] Cf. A. Baronu de SIAGUNA, Proiectu de unu Regulamentu, §100.

[41] Cf. Statutul organic, §97.

[42] Cf. A. Baronu de SIAGUNA, Proiectu de unu Regulamentu, §193-§202.

[43] At length on the hierarchical-synodal principle see the chapter VI.3 herein.

[44] I. MATEIU, Contribuţiuni la istoria dreptului bisericesc, 256 et seqq.

[45] I. LUPAŞ, Interpretarea &&-ilor 18, 40, 88 şi 150 din ,,Statutul organic”, 30-31.

[46] See the chapter IV.4.1 herein.

[47] P. COSMA, Statutul organic, 1011. This opinion belonging to Partenie Cosma, the secretary of the church congress of 1868, was later adopted and developed by Ioan Mateiu.

[48] Ibid., 1011.

[49] Cf. K. HITCHINS, Orthodoxy and Nationality, 246.

[50] Cf. A. Baronu de SIAGUNA, Proiectu de unu Regulamentu, §25.

[51] Ibid., §60-§61

[52] Ibid., §123.

[53] Ibid., §154.

[54] Ibid., §193-§194.

[55] The competent answer to this question was offered by canonist Liviu Stan, in his work “The Laymen in the Church” (“Mirenii în biserică”), which is accessible only to readers of Romanian. That is why in this thesis there were adopted many references from his argumentation.

[56] Cf. L. STAN, Mirenii în biserică, 194-195.

[57] Cf. A. Baronu de SIAGUNA, Proiectu de unu Regulamentu, §123.

[58] Ibid., §99.

[59] L. STAN, Mirenii în biserică, 195.

[60] Cf. A. Baronu de SIAGUNA, Proiectu de unu Regulamentu, §119.

[61] Ibid., §211.

[62] L. STAN, Mirenii în biserică, 196. On the mixed synodality and its canonicity see the chapter VI.5.4 herein.

[63] Cf. Statutul organic, §171.

[64] Ibid., §145-§146.

[65] Ibid., §87.

[66] L. STAN, Mirenii în biserică, 197. On “the big synod” see the chapter VII.1 herein.

[67] I. LUPAŞ, Mitropolitul Şaguna ca restaurator şi legislator al Bisericii Ortodoxe Române, 12-13.

[68] I. LUPAŞ, Interpretarea &&-ilor 18, 40, 88 şi 150 din ,,Statutul organic”, 32.


mihaela.stan January 11, 2017 Drept si Religie