Andrei Șaguna and ”The Organic Statute” – VI.1 The canonicity principle
VI. THE CANONICAL PRINCIPLES OF ANDREI ŞAGUNA’S ECCLESIASTICAL ORGANIZATION
The main canonical principles which are clearly expressed in Andrei Şaguna’s works are the following: the canonicity principle; the church autonomy (internal and external); the hierarchical-synodal principle; the participation of the laymen in exercising the Church power, named also the organic or ecclesiastical constitutional principle.
VI.1 The canonicity principle
One of the Bishop Andrei’s high desires was to bring the institutions of the Church into conformity with the canons. In the context of the problems which the Austrian Empire was confronted in the middle of the nineteenth century with, and its attempts to ensure the stability and strengthen the centralization by all means, even by subordinating the ecclesiastical institutions, Andrei Şaguna conceived the organization of the Orthodox Church in strict canonical limits, opposing himself strongly to the political interferences, because of which the Transylvanian Orthodox Metropolitanate had suffered so much in its past.
The systematic and vigorous effort to impose the canonicity is all the more laudable as there were serious anti-canonical precedents in the Orthodox world of the time; moreover, not only the political leaders availed themselves of the un-canonical things, but sometimes the Orthodox leaders too, either from ignorance or dishonesty. Andrei Şaguna was faced with these abnormalities and fought to destroy them, opposing the canonicity to such people, out of the convinction that “bei der Organisirung der kirchlichen Angelegenheiten kann nichts gefährlicher sein als die Zugrundlegung antikanonischer Beispiele.” His attitude was a providential one, especially if we consider the results of his ecclesiastical organization still visible in the Romanian Orthodox Church.
The most obvious expressions of the canonicity principle are, apart from the reestablishment of the Transylvanian Metropolitanate, some major actions of the Bishop Andrei directed, practically, against the political power’s attempts to subordinate the Orthodox Church: a) the criticism of the consistorial system; b) the rejection of the establishment by the state of a new, un-canonical Orthodox Metropolitanate of Bukovina; c) the opposition toward the initiative of introducing caesaropapism of Russian type in the organization of the Orthodox Church of the Austrian Empire.
VI.1.1 The criticism of the consistorial system
The institution of the Orthodox eparchial consistory emerged from Emperor Joseph II’s ecclesiastical policy. He was of the opinion that the monarch had the exclusive right of ruling over the state, and also over the Church in all the issues that are of human but not divine origin. According to this conception the state ecclesiastical law (Staatskirchenrecht) was founded, by which the Church was deprived of its liberty and it was imposed an organization which was foreign to the Church’s nature and historical evolution. In the Austrian Monarchy, both the Roman Catholics and Protestants had consistories and the consistorial system was imposed to the Serbian Orthodox too. Thus, ever since 1779, the Aulic Councillor József Izdenczy devised the Benignum Rescriptum Declaratorium Illyricae Nationis, which was to be the fundamental law of the Serbian Church in Hungary, Croatia, Slavonia and the Serbian territory of Banat, until 1868. This law was completed in 1782 with Systema Consistoriale that regulated the organization and functioning of the mixed eparchial consistories.
Although the consistories had existed on the Serbian territories since the middle of the eighteenth century, they legally became institutions only by the enforcement of the above-mentioned acts, in which their roles and attributions were specified. According to the Systema consistoriale of 1782, the eparchial consistory comprised the bishop, two monks, two protopopes, two priests, one notary, one legal expert and one translator. All members had equal voting rights and the decisions were made by absolute majority.
Even though created for the Serbians from the Austrian Monarchy, the consistorial system was nevertheless imposed the Romanian Orthodox Church of Transylvania and Bukovina.
The issue of the consistory within the Orthodox Church in general, and in Transylvania in particular, represented the object of many of Andrei Şaguna’s appeals toward the state.
In the report passed on to the Austrian Ministry of the Interior, on November 16, 1850, Bishop Andrei demanded first of all a clarification on the admissibility of the consistory within the Orthodox Church and on the nature of this admissibility, due to the fact that it was an institution so different from the traditional Orthodox spirit. Consequently, the consistories could be accepted within this Church just as permanent committees of the eparchial synods, in order to support the bishop in the administration of his eparchy. Only the bishop could be entitled to lead the eparchy, being the possessor of the Church power and authority within his eparchy, as per 38 and 41 apostolic canons. However, the bishop could ask for the opinion of the consistory in every matter he might consider. The activity of the consistory independent of the bishop’s demands could be imagined only as that of a superior judiciary forum.
Thus, the consistory could only pursue its activities in direct and exclusive connection with the canons of the Orthodox Church, and with the necessities of this Church. A well-defined and organized consistory could not be imagined until the definite and clear settlement of the relationship between the Orthodox Church and the state, and between the Orthodox Church and the other Christian confessions.
The same ideas and opinions were expressed by the bishop in his complaint to the emperor of December 1, 1855.
A similar clear-cut opinion on the intrusion of the state in the leadership of the Orthodox Church by the presence of an imperial commissary within the debates of the consistory expressed Bishop Andrei towards the Minister Leo Thun, in 1857. To minister’s commentary that the Orthodox Church could not benefit from the same rights as the Latin Church – no centre of appeal being present and active at the moment nor canonists who would put an end to the bishop’s greed, the presence of an imperial commissary being therefore so much needed as a guarantee for the state that the rules and laws are obeyed – Bishop Andrei Şaguna replied that the centre of the Orthodox Church is its teachings, the guarantee to the imperial authority is given by the canons and institutions of this Church, and the absolute ecclesiastical judge within the eparchy is the bishop himself, not the consistory; if someone wishes to dispute a ecclesiastical judiciary decision, one must address the superior ecclesiastical forum, but the bishop’s decision in ecclesiastical matters could never be opposed by political factors, because the political authority could not be appeal forum for the religious problems. Likewise, the bishop’s acts could not be submitted to the supervision of the government, as, in what concerns ecclesiastical problems, the bishop is responsible only in front of God.
The non-canonicity of the consistorial organization within the Orthodox Church of Austrian Empire was sustained in 1861 in the polemic with some clergymen of Bukovina, in the work “Anthorismos”. At least two reasons proved the non-canonicity: first, the consistorial assessors had, in fact, the same type of voting rights as the bishop, who should accept the majority’s approval, even if the majority shared un-canonical opinions; second, according to the Systema consistoriale of 1782 the matrimonial matters were forwarded to the superior appeal forum, even in the case when the involved parties had been satisfied with the judgment at first instance.
Even the notion of “consistory” itself was shown as being foreign to Orthodoxy, which allowed only synods and permanent committees adjacent to the bishops, these committees replacing the general (mixed) synods whose frequent assembling was not necessary or feasible. The supreme forum in all ecclesiastical matters was the eparchial bishop, as per 41 apostolic canon. The bishop is supposed to be advised by the permanent committee and to make decisions with responsibility only in front of God and of the metropolitan synod (patriarchal, respectively).
So he concluded: “Out of these it is clear that we cannot have a consistory as in the conception of other confessions, and the eparchial bishop himself is the chairman of the decisional acts on all issues related to the ecclesiastical activities in the eparchy.”
As a consequence, the consistory in the Orthodox Church was totally different from other confessions’ consistories, in which cases they represented juridical entities with wide governing powers. That is why even the term “consistory” was not compatible with the Orthodox spirit and tradition; a correct term would have been “episcopal committee” or “permanent committee of the general (mixed) synod”. According to the canonical Orthodox norms the consistory could only be an advisory committee adjacent to the bishop, with powers from which it could not normally and independently benefit, but only on bishop’s demand. Its members were not allowed to be anything else but clergymen, appointed by the bishop. The opinion expressed by the consistory could not oblige or limit in any way the bishop, who is the unique possessor of the plenary ecclesiastical power within his eparchy.
VI.1.2 The rejection of the establishment of the Metropolitanate of Bukovina
The establishment of a Metropolitanate in Bukovina, which would have been, in fact, on one hand the “price” paid by the Court to Bishop Eugeniu Hacman for his acceptance of the political plans – not only the Orthodox ones-, and on the other hand the “Trojan Horse” through which the Court could penetrate in the internal affairs of the Orthodox Church in its attempt to imitate the Russian caesaropapism, was strongly opposed by Bishop Andrei Şaguna.
Under the circumstances that the Eparchy of Bukovina was by far not a poor one, on the contrary, and the Church’s fortunes and their income, known as “The Religious Fund”, were administrated by the state, it is clear why the Court was very interested in this Eparchy and that Bishop Eugeniu Hacman practically fought for the supremacy of the Court over the Church’s properties in Bukovina, more than for the Church’s rights. For to be sure of its control over this Orthodox Eparchy, the Court needed in no case such a metropolitan like Andrei Şaguna, who fought steadily for the rights of his Church, inclusive the right to administrate its fortunes.
The reason for Bishop Andrei Şaguna’s opposition relied on the principle of canonicity, which should have been enforced and respected throughout all Orthodox Church’s canonical territories, if the Church still wanted to preserve its status as an apostolic Church. In “Anthorismos”, the bishop clarified to the people of Bukovina the reasons for his opposition against the establishment of a Metropolitanate of Bukovina, which reasons were not related in any way to his personal interests or to his deep desire of integrating the Eparchy of Bukovina within the Metropolitanate of Transylvania. Out of his respect for the truth and the canons, Bishop Andrei pointed out that a Metropolitanate of Bukovina would have no rationale: “ja, wir würden derartiges nicht einmal zu unternehmen wagen, wohl wissend, daß die Kirche Bukovinas ihre eigene wahre und kanonische Metropolie hat, von welcher sie durch politische Maßregeln getrennt wurde, und die, wenn sie verhindert würde, sich an ihre kanonische Metropolie zu halten wohl wissen wird, was zu thun sei, und wir fühlen uns keineswegs berechtigt, uns in fremde Angelegenheiten zu mischen, oder unsern Rath unaufgefordert aufzubringen.” The Eparchy of Bukovina was only the follower of the Eparchy of Rădăuţi, a suffragan eparchy of the Metropolitanate of Moldavia until 1775, when Bukovina was added to the Habsburg Empire. After 1775 this eparchy moved its residence at Czernowitz and it was subordinated, by the same political decisions like in the case of Transylvania, the jurisdiction of the Metropolitanate of Karlowitz. According to the Orthodox canonical provisions – canon 8 of the Third Ecumenical Council – the Eparchy of Bukovina should have a fate similar to that of the Metropolitanate of Transylvania after 1700, namely to find itself under the temporary jurisdiction of the neighbouring metropolitanate, until the things came back to what they were before. In this case, the neighbouring metropolitanate entitled to take the Eparchy of Bukovina under its jurisdiction was the canonical Transylvanian Metropolitanate which Andrei Şaguna wanted to reactivate. If in the beginning Bishop Eugeniu Hacman of Bukovina agreed with the organizational formula proposed by Bishop Andrei Şaguna, later, taken away by the idea to be a metropolitan himself, he neglected the desire expressed by the lay representatives of Bukovina and opposed the incorporation of the Eparchy of Bukovina within the Metropolitanate of Transylvania.
As a matter of course Bishop Andrei (and not only he) had properly understood that Bishop Eugeniu Hacman could be easily influenced and by this put in definite danger the Orthodoxy of Bukovina and of the entire monarchy, that is why the Transylvanian bishop insisted so much on keeping and preserving the strictest canonicity. The plan of the establishment by the political power of a Metropolitanate in Bukovina was a dangerous project for the Church as much as it, although un-canonical, was sustained by a few clergymen: “ein Projekt, welches weder auf das kanonische noch auf das historische Recht Rücksicht nimmt, und aus allen diesen werthvollen religiösen Schätzen eine tabula rasa machen will, damit es als dann eine Hierarchie schaffe, welche sich in größerer Abnormität befinden soll, als die bisherige gewesen ist, weil jene Abnormität, welche eine politische Regierung in der Kirche schafft, kleiner und weniger schädlich ist, als jene, die der Klerus selbst in der Kirche hervorruft.”
VI.1.3 The opposition toward the introduction of the caesaropapism in the organization of the Orthodox Church in the Austrian Empire
As in Bukovina the Court had “bought” an ally of its subordination and control policy over the Orthodox Church, it is from there that the public demand of a reorganization of the Orthodoxy in the Austrian Empire on the caesaropapist model was launched, by the brochure of 1861 “The Wishes of the Orthodox Clergy of Bukovina concerning the Canonical Organization of the Eparchy and its Hierarchical Position within the Orthodox Church in Austria”. This demand gave rise to a delightful polemical reply from the part of the Bishop Andrei, by “Anthorismos”. The main idea of his answer was the strict maintenance of the canonicity principle in order not to fall in a dangerous religious relativism.
It is remarkable the fact that, even though the political circles of Vienna could never reproach to Andrei Şaguna his lack of loyalty, they were forced to accept the fact that he was, above all, extremely devoted to the Orthodox Church: “In his campaign to re-establish the metropolis [Metropolitanate] he kept before him two principles: reliance upon the crown as the ultimate source of law, and respect for the dynasty as a guarantor of social stability and legal continuity. Belief in the divine right of the Habsburgs to rule had nothing to do with these feelings. Şaguna’s approach was a pragmatic one based upon a keen understanding of Rumanian historical development under Habsburg rule. Like every Rumanian leader of his day, he recognized the fact that the modest cultural and economic gains of the Rumanians – Orthodox and Uniate alike – had come as a result of the Court’s intervention on their behalf against the privileged estates of Transylvania.” Nevertheless, that did not imply in any way that he did not realistically evaluate the Habsburgs’ motivations which were clearly in their advantage. This explains why he never abandoned any of the religious causes for which he fought in favour of political interests, which sacrifice Bishop Eugeniu Hacman of Bukovina clearly made.
Even though he courageously promoted the principle of canonicity in front of the political authorities permanently wanting to breach it in favour of their own interests, Andrei Şaguna knew that his fight was not totally efficient without the explicit emphasis put on this principle by the clergy and also by Orthodox faithful themselves. In “Anthorismos” he impelled the Bukovinian clergymen corrupted by the ideas of the caesaropapism: “Brüder! Verachtet und verlasset ja nicht die schöne und liberale Constitution unserer Orthodoxie, und trachtet nicht für die kirchliche und geistliche Angelegenheiten den Büreaukratismus einzuführen! Denn sonst würden wir uns gezwungen sehen, euren in Frage stehenden Wunsch als ein schädliches Experiment zu charakterisiren, welches zwar auf kurze Zeit die ersprießliche Wirkung der Constitution unserer Kirche hemmen, später aber von der Größe und Kraft jenes Fundamentes, worauf die h. Väter die Constitution unserer Kirche gebaut haben, dessen Eckstein Christus selbst ist, zerrinnen wird.”
 Cf. K. HITCHINS, Orthodoxy and Nationality, 218.
 See the chapter III.2 herein.
 A. Baron de SCHAGUNA, Anthorismos oder berichtigende Erörterung, 36.
 “Für ihn war die kanonische Errichtung der Metropolie keine Emanzipation von der Karlowitzer serbischen Hierarchie, sondern eine Wiederherstellung eines kanonischen Zustandes in Gemeinschaft mit der Karlowitzer Hierarchie.” J. SCHNEIDER, Der Hermannstädter Metropolit, 66.
 Andrei Şaguna’s criticism of the consistorial system, which he considered to be an un-canonical innovation in the Orthodox Church, invalidates affirmation such as: “Als administratives Vorbild dient ihm vor allem das Konsistorialsystem der Karlowitzer Metropolie…” J. SCHNEIDER, Der Hermannstädter Metropolit, 47.
 The consistorial church constitution is the oldest form of the Protestant constitutions, appeared on the German and central European territories. The so-called consistorial type of the church organization/constitution was established by Luther and Melanchthon. Luther himself appointed in 1542 a consistorial court composed in part of theologians and in part of canon lawyers, and it was thus that the Wittemberg ecclesiastical consistory was formed. Other principalities adopted the model, so that the institution became common throughout the Lutheran Churches. There are other two kinds of Protestant constitutions, namely the presbyterial-synodal constitution and a hybrid form between the consistorial one and the synodal one. Cf. F. H. VERING, Lehrbuch 31893, 663 et seqq.
 “Josef II. hatte den A-Katholiken zwar die beschränkte Religionsfreiheit gewährt, war aber keineswegs gesonnen, ihren Institutionen die Freiheit des Handelns zu geben. Vielmehr hat er ein System staatlicher Beaufsichtigung und Leitung bis in geistliche Angelegenheiten hinein etabliert. Dabei ist erstaunlich, wie ähnlich die Anweisungen und konkreten Verhaltensweisen der Behörden gegenüber den Einrichtungen der dominanten katholischen Religion und denen der A-Katholiken gewesen sind. Der Bischof von St. Pölten klagte damals etwa, dass er faktisch dem Kreisamt gegenüber weisungsgebunden sei – in den Instruktionen für die Superintendenten war diese Weisungsgebundenheit festgeschrieben. Die Instruktion für die Tätigkeit des römisch-katholischen Konsistoriums in St. Pölten weist erhebliche Textpassagen auf, die sich fast gleichlautend auch in der Instruktion für die Konsistorien der A-Katholiken finden.
Freilich, die Abhängigkeit der kirchenleitenden oder eher kirchenbeaufsichtigenden Organe der Protestanten vom Kaiser war direkter und deutlicher, als das bei den Institutionen der katholischen Kirche der Fall war.” Gustav REINGRABNER, Um Glaube und Freiheit. Eine kleine Rechtsgeschichte der Evangelischen in Österreich und ihrer Kirche, Frankfurt am Main u.a. 2007, 86.
 “Durch verschiedene Ergänzugsbestimmungen wurden die Privilegien der Serben von der österreichischen Regierung immer mehr eingeschränkt. […] 1729 und 1734 wurden durch ein ‘Declaratorium’ und ein Erläuterungsreskript weitere Rechte eingeschränkt. In den Jahren 1770 und 1777 wurden schließlich zwei Regulamente erlassen, die das kirchliche Leben der Serben in Ungarn organisieren sollten.” Th. BREMER, Ekklesiale Struktur, 17.
 See the Latin and Romanian text of it, in: Ioan D. SUCIU, Radu CONSTANTINESCU, Documente privitoare la istoria Mitropoliei Banatului, vol. I, Timişoara 1980, 383-410 respectively 410-433.
“So verlangte das Dokument, daß Bischofssynoden vom Staat zu genehmigen seien und daß zu ihnen ein staatlicher Abgesandter, ein ‘Commissär’ zuzulassen sei.” Th. BREMER, Ekklesiale Struktur, 18.
 Cf. A. HUDAL, Die serbisch-orthodoxe Nationalkirche, 45; Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, 24, 36; P. BRUSANOWSKI, Reforma constituţională, 56-58.
 Cf. I. MATEIU, Contribuţiuni la istoria dreptului bisericesc, 92-93; L. STAN, Mirenii în biserică, 186; P. BRUSANOWSKI, Reforma constituţională, 60-61.
 “Von Consistorien ist in der älteren Periode der orientalischen Kirche keine Spur vorhanden, sie sind also für die orientalische Kirche eine Geburt der neueren Zeit, und sie können nur in der Weise auf diese Anwendung finden, dass sie für permanente, zur Seite der Diöcesanbischöfe stehende Auschüsse der Diöcesansynoden angesehen werden, die die Bischöfe in der Verwaltung der Diöcese unterstützen. Meine Diöcese hat wohl auch bis jetzt ein Consistorium besessen, welches aber nichts weniger als gut organisiert genannt zu werden verdient.” “Propunerile episcopului Şaguna presentate ministrului pentru conferinţele episcopesci dela Viena” (“Bishop Şaguna’s suggestions presented to the minister for the bishops’ conferences of Vienna”), November 16, 1850, in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 73-87 here 78; “Die siebenbürgische Diöcese hat bisher ein Consistorium gehabt, welches aber nicht den Satzungen der Kirche gemäß, sondern nach politischem Zuschnitte eingerichtet war.” “Gravamenul episcopului Şaguna la Împăratul contra ministrului, cerând între alte şi reînfiinţarea metropoliei românilor ortodocşi” (“Bishop Şaguna’s complaint lodged to the emperor against the minister, asking among other things the reestablishment of the Metropolitanate of the Orthodox Romanians”), in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 122-151 here 136.
 See “Propunerile episcopului Şaguna presentate ministrului pentru conferinţele episcopesci dela Viena” (“Bishop Şaguna’s suggestions presented to the minister for the bishops’ conferences of Vienna”), November 16, 1850, in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 73-87 here 78-79.
 According to ap. c. 38 the bishop has the care of all ecclesiastical matters and he manages them on the understanding that God is overseeing and supervising.
According to ap. c. 41 the bishop has authority over the property of the Church.
 Cf. “Propunerile episcopului Şaguna” (“Bishop Şaguna’s suggestions”), 79.
 See “Gravamenul episcopului Şaguna la Împăratul contra ministrului, cerând între alte şi reînfiinţarea metropoliei românilor ortodocşi” (“Bishop Şaguna’s complaint lodged to the emperor against the minister, asking among other things the reestablishment of the Metropolitanate of the Orthodox Romanians”), in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 122-151 here 136-137.
 See “Întâlnirea mea cu Excelenţa Sa dl ministru de culte la Viena în 7/19 Septembrie 1857” (“My meeting with His Excellency the minister of public worship, at Vienna, on September 7/19, 1857”), in: A. ŞAGUNA, Memoriile, 105-110.
 Ibid., 105-107.
 A. Baron de SCHAGUNA, Anthorismos oder berichtigende Erörterung, 53: “Wir sind hier gezwungen zu gestehen, daß, wenn wir von streng kirchlichen Standpunkte unsere Consistorien in Österreich betrachten, wir nichts anderes sagen können als das, daß ihre ganze Organisation antikanonisch ist, dann unter vielen andern Unzulänglichkeiten und Abnormitäten, welche diese Organisation in sich birgt, erwähnen wir hier nur zwei, daß nämlich die Consistorialassessoren bei Berathungen ihre Meinungen wie es ihnen beliebte, abgeben, und der Bischof müsse sein Votum auf die Seite der Majorität werfen, wenn dieses auch gegen seine Ueberzeugung gewesen wäre! Hierauf ist es daselbst noch festgesetzt, daß die Eheangelegenheiten ihrer Natur nach appellabel sind, d.h. sie müssen auch dann dem Appellationsgerichte vorgelegt werden, wenn die streitenden Theile mit der Entscheidung der ersten Instanz zufrieden wären.”
 A. Baron de SCHAGUNA, Anthorismos oder berichtigende Erörterung, 53: “die Bennenung ‘Consistorium’ in unserer Orthodoxen Kirche ist eine fremdartige; wir haben andere Institutionen in unserer Kirche, nämlich die allgemeinen Sinoden, und die Praxis von permanenten Comitees neben den Bischöfen, Metropoliten, Erzbischöfen, Eparchen und Patriarchen, welche permanente Comitees neben den αρχιερεǐς die Stelle der Sinoden vertreten, die nicht so oft abgehalten werden können, aber auch deren oftmalige Abhaltung nicht nothwendig ist als einmal im Jahre.”
 A. Baron de SCHAGUNA, Anthorismos oder berichtigende Erörterung, 54: “Hieraus versteht man deutlich, daß wir ein Consistorium im Sinne der Consistorien anderer Glaubensbekenntniße nicht haben können und daß der Vorsitzende bei der Entscheidung aller Angelegenheiten, die zum Wirkungskreise einer Eparchie gehören, der Eparchialbischof selbst ist.”
 About the flagrant discrepancy between Bishop Eugeniu Hacman’s opinions in 1849 and those in 1861, see A. Baron de SCHAGUNA, Anthorismos oder berichtigende Erörterung, 95-100.
 At length on “The Religious Fund” see the chapter VII.5 herein. See also the chapter III.3.2 herein; P. CIOBANU, Fondul Bisericesc Ortodox Român din Bucovina, 6-8.
 A. Baron de SCHAGUNA, Anthorismos oder berichtigende Erörterung, 27.
 On the history of the Church in Bukovina see Ion NISTOR, Istoria bisericii din Bucovina, Bucureşti ²1991; Peter PLANK, Orthodoxe Kirche und Theologie in der Bukowina zur Zeit der Habsburgerherrschaft (1774-1918), in: Blicke gen Osten. Festschrift für Friedrich Heyer zum. 95. Geburtstag, hrsg. von Martin Tamcke, Münster 2004, 169-184.
See also “Resoluţiune împărătéscă din 8 Decembre 1786, prin care eparchiile din Transilvania şi Bucovina se pun cu cele disciplinare sub metropolia sârbéscă din Carloviţ” (“The imperial resolution from December 8, 1786, by which the Eparchies of Transylvania and Bukovina are under the Serbian Metropolitanate of Karlowitz, together with the disciplinary matters”), in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 1-2.
 According to c. 8 of the Third Ecumenical Council the rights (jurisdiction) of every province, formerly and from the beginning belonging to it, will be preserved clear and inviolable. No one of the bishops shall take hold of any other province that was not formerly and from the beginning in his jurisdiction, or was not held by his predecessors. If anyone has taken possession of any and has forcibly subjected it to his authority, he shall re-give it back to its rightful possessor.
 Cf. the chapters III.1.5, III.2.6 and VI.2.2.1 herein.
 A. Baron de SCHAGUNA, Anthorismos oder berichtigende Erörterung, 117.
Finally, the Eparchy of Bukovina was raised at the rank of metropolitanate on January 23, 1873; it was given two suffragan Slavic eparchies in Dalmatia: Zara and Cattaro. In spite of his struggle and wish to be a metropolitan, Eugeniu Hacman was not enthroned, because he died on March 31, 1873. Cf. M. PĂCURARIU, 100 de ani de la reînfiinţarea Mitropoliei Ardealului, 828.
 See the chapter V.1.2 herein.
 See the report of this polemics in the chapter VI.2.3.2 herein.
 K. HITCHINS, Orthodoxy and Nationality, 226.
 A. Baron de SCHAGUNA, Anthorismos oder berichtigende Erörterung, 58.
January 17, 2017 Drept si Religie