Source: https://www.mariamihaelastan.ro/2017/02/01/4695/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 15:54:13+00:00

Document:
The same authority – Jesus Christ – who invested the Apostles, respectively the bishops with entire power in the visible Church, wanted the lay people as a constitutive part both responsible and active in the Church, leaving the hierarchy the right to regulate the laymen’s rights depending on the Church’s needs. However, there are not two sources of power (a clerical and a non-clerical one) in the social organism of the Church, there is only one principle and one authority which holds the power: Jesus Christ himself, who invested the Apostles and the bishops with the entire power founded on grace, leaving the participation of the laymen in exercising the Church power to the bishops’s designation.
The fundament of the ecclesiastical organization through the active involvement of the laymen is the canonical organic or ecclesiastical constitutional principle. This principle ensures the presence and activity of the laymen in all the fields of the Church life, on the grounds of the legitimate rights they are entitled to, not due to some concessions from the clergy. It is “the first and most important fundamental canonical principle of the Church rooted in the ecclesiology, that legitimates all the rights the laymen are entitled to in the life of the Church, and it permanently postulates the acknowledgement and enforcement of these rights.” Despite its hierarchical-synodal character according to which the leadership of the Church belogs to the clergy, the ecclesial activity is not reduced at the clergy, because the laymen are also personal elements of the Church. Andrei Şaguna derived the laymen’s constitutional rights from their undisputable quality of members of Christ’s spiritual body.
The Church holifying power can be exercised directly exclusively by the clergy, the consecrated people. The character of this power is mystical and invariable and is received through the act of consecration.
The non-clerical people have no access to the direct and immediate exercise of this power. An exception from this rule is the baptism administered by the laymen in emergency cases. Then, in order to clearly express the participation of the laymen in the exercise of the holifying power, a traditional rule was adopted that no Holy Liturgy would take place unless believers were present.
The Church teaching and leading power have an external, variable character, which is given through missio canonica, on the basis of the holifying power.
As a special function, the power of teaching belongs only to the hierarchy (clergy), which exercises it as the special organ meant to do so, while its exercise by the laymen is forbidden and condemned by the Church. Still, the laymen participation in exercising this power conditioned by the rights of the hierarchy and accepted by it are allowed and very necessary. The laymen participated and still participate in its exercising by doing their religious duty as required by the conscience, and by the rights asserted and recognized along the history of the Church.
Although less important than the participation in the exercise of the first two branches of the Church power – the holifying power and the power of teaching – , the participation of the laymen in the exercise of the third power branch – the leading power – has been on the one hand ever more visible, and on the other hand more discussed.
The acts of the leading power can be subdivided into three categories or sub-branches, expressing three functions (inadequately called powers) of this power, namely: the legislative, executive and judicial functions.
The executive function consists in carrying out the decisions of the disciplinary and judiciary instances, and of the imperatives that derive from the ecclesiastical laws or from the decisions of the leading organs. In this light, the executive function is also called “church administration”, its field of work comprising: the common acts of ecclesiastical administration, the acts concerning the election of the clergy or the setting-up of other organs in the Church, as well as the actions related to the administration of the Church property.
The most important actions of the Church leading power in which the laymen participated and still do nowadays in the Orthodox Church are: the activities of the synods, the election of the clergy, and the administration of the Church property. This is how the ecclesiastical constitutionalism is achieved and expressed.
The mixed synods were the most numerous and frequent in the history of the Church, the episcopal ones taking place only occasionally at the beginning, namely when issues concerning the faith were discussed. The mixed synodality evolved along with the episcopal synodality. The apostolic synod of Jerusalem (Acts of the Apostles, 15) is the prototype of the Church assemblies which both the clergy and the lay people participated in. The laymen had no decisive voting right in the mixed synods; only the bishops had this right, as rectors of the churches; however, the role of the lay people was not only to be informed about the bishops’ decisions, for many laymen expressed their opinions, sustained or argued against an issue, thus influencing the taken decisions. “The participation of the laymen in the Ecumenical Councils generally was not excluded, nor was it in the other less important synods of the East.” However, “after being of common use in the first centuries, the mixed synods stopped receiving too much consideration in time.” They experienced exaggerations too, which does not mean that the institution is wrong in itself, but that it was subject to mistakes, like any other human institution.
Concerning Andrei Şaguna’s way of understanding the mixed synodality, his pastoral letter of December 5, 1855, is an important point of reference. It was written as a reaction to the subjective and provoking attitude of “The Transylvanian Gazette”, with the purpose of preventing its buying and reading by the Orthodox. In the second part of his pastoral letter, the bishop was forced to dedicate larger coverage the mixed synodality. A former Greek Catholic gazette editor – George Bariţiu – had published a calendar-chronicle of Transylvania, praising the laymen’s participation in the mixed eparchial Orthodox synod of March 1850. Although the calendar author’s intention have been laudatory toward Andrei Şaguna, the bishop felt offended by the latter’s ignorance and incompetence: “the calendar’s writer says that our eparchial synod of 1850 had only one important significance, which was that not only the clergy, but also the lay people were represented there. Thus, the writer shows by his words that he was neither gifted, nor willing to write about our Church’s assembly, because otherwise he would have mentioned in the Transylvanian Chronicle – which he writes himself – another happening of the greatest significance, not that one which always happens wherever such an eparchial assembly is held in our [Orthodox] Church, as it was our assembly of 1850.” Therefore, for the Bishop Andrei the mixed synodality was a “natural” thing in the Orthodox Church, something “which always happens wherever such an eparchial assembly is held”. The novelty of the eparchial synod of 1850 was, in his opinion, not the mixed synodality itself but the recognition of the Orthodox Transylvanian Church’s rights after over three hundred years, and consequently, the free assembling of the clergy and the laymen within that synod.
Among the most important attributions of the ecclesiastical mixed corporations conceived by Andrei Şaguna was the election of the clergy of all degrees: “Yes, it is a consequence of the sheer ignorance of the dignity which Christians are entitled to enjoy, when someone doubts the Christians’ right of electing their bishops or priests and of managing the ecclesiastical-economic affairs.” The election of the clergy from the lowest levels to the metropolitan was in the charge of the mixed synods, at the level corresponding to each of them: the parish synod would elect the parish priests and deacons, the protopopiate synod would elect the protopope, the eparchial synod would elect the bishop, the metropolitan synod (the church congress) would elect the metropolitan.
Since the foundation of the Church, the appointment of the clergymen has been done through the collaboration of the lay people and the hierarchy, of the conducted Church and the leading one. “It is true that the power of appointing clergymen of all degrees was given to the hierarchy and it rightfully belongs to it, but not so absolutely that it excludes the co-operation of all the other elements composing the Church. […] The practice of the Universal Church abounds in clear evidences on this issue, although sometimes this thing is forgotten and so, what the whole Church – both in the East and in the West – has noticed from the very beginning and preserved in its tradition, is treated as Protestant or with Protestant inclination innovation.” If in the first ten-elf Christian centuries the participation of the laymen in the election of the clergy – the expression of the elective principle – was generally adopted in the Church, after that it was maintained almost exclusively in the Orthodox Church, and it appeared in a new, deviated form, in the sixteenth century’s Protestantism.
The bishops’ election was the object of special attention during the entire Christian era, due to the importance of this function. In the ancient times, all the Christians in a vacant eparchy were invited to co-operate for the election of the hierarch together with the neighbouring bishops. There were also times when there were attempts at eliminating the laymen or at least reduce their position to a decorative role, but the power of a tradition lasting for centuries could not be defeated.
In “The Organic Statute” was adopted, with some amendments, the system of electing the bishops formulated in the “Project”. Innovations was introduced concerning the election of the metropolitan, made by an elective body composed of hundred and twenty members, sixty from the Eparchy of Sibiu and sixty from the other two eparchies of the Metropolitanate. The suffragan bishops, if not elected as deputies in the special elective body, had no right to take part in the election of the metropolitan. By §157 point 15 the way in which Andrei Şaguna decided that the elections would be censored by the bishops’ synod was changed, this taking place after the elected one was confirmed by the emperor. The elected one was not necessarily a bishop. The censorship by the bishops’ synod took place only when the elected one was not a bishop, a bishop elected as metropolitan not being censored anymore by the bishops’ synod, but directly enthroned by the congress in the metropolitan see.
Comparing the way in which the Serbian metropolitan and bishops were elected, for instance, with the one proposed by Andrei Şaguna, the latter is highly canonical. In the Serbian example, only the metropolitan’s election was canonical, both the clergy and the believers being represented in the elective college. The bishops were elected by the bishops’ synod and confirmed by the emperor.
But the practice of the Church, including the Romanian Orthodox Church, was not always canonical, as it happened with the Romanian law of 1925 concerning the ecclesiastical organization, according to which all the bishops, clergymen, and laymen who composed the elective college had equal voting right. The right of the bishops’ synod to examine the candidate from the canonical point of view was annulled, but it was covered partly by its right to censor the election. Then, the representatives of the clergy and laymen from the entire Romanian Church were part of the elective college, not only those coming from the vacant eparchy.
The elective principle, as an expression of the Christian spirit which is the basis of the ecclesiastical constitutionalism, was adopted by the Church not only when hierarchs, but also priests and other members of the clergy were appointed. In the primary Church it was observed from the very beginning the practice that the laymen were entitled to co-operate by the election of the priests and deacons too, not only by that of the bishops. “This participation is considered to be a means which strengthens the moral bond that has to exist between the priest and the people. […] The prejudice of the aim of the Church, which is the redemption, by placing an unwanted shepherd authoritatively, a fact which would scandalise the believers, deprives the priesthood from its reason of being.” It is known from the Apostles’ practice that the people were consulted regarding the eligibility of the candidates, even for the office of a deacon. The practice of the priests’ election with the believers’ co-operation was maintained until the fist half of the twenteenth century, almost everywhere in the Orthodox Church. Still, the bishop is the one who truly enjoys the right of election (for the co-operant role of the believers the term “election” is the improper one). The bishop decides in the end on the candidate or candidates presented, proposed by the community. According to the principles of the Orthodox canon law, the election by the community confers the elected one only the title of candidate in front of the bishop, who accepts him or – due to serious reasons – can reject him.
According to the “Project of Regulation” of 1864, the election of the priests and deacons was made by the parish synod whose chairman was the protopope, with a majority of votes, from among the competing candidates. The election of the protopopes was made by the protopopiate synod, composed of two thirds laymen and one third priests, who were representatives of the parishes in the protopopiate. The eparchial consistory proposed three candidates to that mixed synod, which elected one of them.
“The Organic Statute” adopted the provisions of the “Project” concerning the election of the priests, deacons and protopopes, but it ignored the reference to the number of three candidates proposed by the consistory, in the case of protopopes’ election. On the contrary, the first three candidates elected by the mixed synod were presented to the consistory, which appointed one of them.
The ecclesiastical laws of the old Romanian Kingdom did not comprise such provisions as the election of the priests, deacons and protopopes and they were also introduced in “The Statute of the Organization of the Romanian Orthodox Church” from 6 May 1925, thus doing away with a very important provision of the ecclesiastical organization conceived by Andrei Şaguna: the election of the church servants by the participation of the believers.
There is no need for sacramental priesthood for the office of administration of the material property of the Church, so every Christian has theoretically the capacity to do that. The appointment is not made through a special act, as is in the case of the priesthood. But the certification for this office has to be made by the competent authority, which is the bishop. The right to manage the Church property does not belong to the community, but to the bishop who was entrusted with the administration of the eparchy.
In the Transylvanian Orthodox Church, Andrei Şaguna paid special attention on this aspect of exercising the Church power. Thus, on the occasion of the eparchial mixed synod of March 1850 was founded the eparchial trusteeship, composed of two clergymen and four laymen, with the bishop as chairman, its purpose being the administration of the eparchy’s property. The trustees of the parish churches are mentioned in the documents of the mixed synod of 1860. Then, the “Project of Regulation” stipulated the competences of the parish trustees in detail (two to four, according to the parish size), elected by the parish synod. There was also an eparchial respectively arch-eparchial trusteeship for each eparchy, comprising two clergymen and four laymen, a cashier and an auditor.
“The Organic Statute” adopted in its entirety the disposition in the “Project” concerning the parish trusteeship. On the level of the protopopiate it was added, next to the protopopiate committee, the protopopiate trusteeship composed of four trustees and two substitutes, elected by the protopopiate synod. For each eparchy, there was a trustees’ senate with a variable number of members, one third clergymen and two thirds laymen.
Image: Ecumenical Council represented in the Menologion of the Emperor Basilius II of Byzantium, ca. 1000. One can see besides the Bishops in the forefront many laymen who took part in that Council.
 A. MAGIER, Cu ce datorăm azi amintirei lui Şaguna, 202-203.
The fact that Andrei Şaguna was providential by the mobilization of the laymen in the life of the Church is proven by the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), which did the same thing in the Roman Church, but hundred years later. See Thomas A. AMANN, Laien als Träger der Leitungsgewalt?, St. Ottilien 1996; W. AYMANS, Kirchenrechtliche Beiträge zur Ekklesiologie, 219-238; E. CORECCO, Ordinatio Fidei, 357- 401; Libero GEROSA, Vollmacht und Gemeinschaft in der Kirche, in: S. DEMEL, L. MÜLLER (Hrsg.), Krönung oder Entwertung des Konzils?, 39-55; Peter MARX, Räte und Konvente in ihrem Dienst an der Teilkirche, in: S. DEMEL, L. MÜLLER (Hrsg.), Krönung oder Entwertung des Konzils?, 190-216.
 Cf. L. STAN, Mirenii în biserică, 32-34.
 L. STAN, Biserica cu sau fără laici?, 616.
 Cf. the chapter V.4 herein.
 L. STAN, Legislaţia Bisericii Ortodoxe Române în timpul arhipăstoririi Prea Fericitului Părinte Patriarh Justinian, 279-280.
 On the three branches of the Church power see, e.g., Felix BERNARD, Zur Genese der Drei-Gewalten-Lehre, in: ÖAKR 36 (1986), 232-236; Yves CONGAR, Sur la trilogie Prophete-Roi-Prêtre, in: RSPhTh 67 (1983), 97-116; Ludwig SCHICK, Das dreifache Amt Christi und der Kirche. Zur Entstehung und Entwicklung der Trilogien, Bern 1982; D. STĂNILOAE, Orthodoxe Dogmatik, Bd. 2, 89-122.
 “Missio canonica is the jurisdictional act by which the bishops (and the other honorary ranks derived from the bishop’s rank: archbishop, metropolitan, exarch, patriarch) are invested in the eparchy they will shepherd, and the priests and the deacons are installed in the church or parish which they will serve. This act adds nothing else to the capability obtained through the sacred, spiritual act of consecration. This administrative, jurisdictional measure was taken in order to avoid ordaining more people than it is necessary to ensure the believers’ religious assistance. Canon 6 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council regulates the consecrations only as part of an office created in advance as a necessity, declaring null the consecrations made without a certain destination.” I. IVAN, Câţiva termeni canonici, 97-98.
 L. STAN, Mirenii în biserică, 103-104.
For the Catholic comprehension of sacra potestas and missio canonica, before and after the Second Vatican Council, see E. CORECCO, Ordinatio Fidei, 223-248; Libero GEROSA, Vollmacht und Gemeinschaft in der Kirche, in: S. DEMEL, L. MÜLLER (Hrsg.), Krönung oder Entwertung des Konzils?, 39-55 here 39-47; Peter KRÄMER, Dienst und Vollmacht in der Kirche. Eine rechtstheologische Untersuchung zur Sacra Potestas-Lehre des II. Vatikanischen Konzils, Trier 1973; IDEM, Sacra potestas im Zusammenspiel von sakramentaler Weihe und kanonischer Sendung, 23-33.
 The general priesthood, which all the members of Christ’s mystical body enjoy, is not to be mistaken for the ordained priesthood in its three stages (bishops, priests, deacons), instituted by Jesus Christ, therefore being of divine right. Besides the divine hierarchy there are three stages of a human hierarchy: hypodeacon, anagnost (analogous to the lector in the Roman Catholic Church) and psaltist (church singer). Cf. I. IVAN, Câţiva termeni canonici, 95-97.
 Cf. L. STAN, Elementul laic în Biserica Ortodoxă, 11. Details on the laymen’s participation in exercising the holifying power see at L. STAN, Mirenii în biserică, 46-63.
 Cf. L. STAN, Elementul laic în Biserica Ortodoxă, 11. Details on the laymen’s participation in exercising the teaching power see at L. STAN, Mirenii în biserică, 64-109.
See also Peter KRÄMER, Wer sind die Träger des kirchlichen Verkündigungsdienstes?, in: Communio in Ecclesiae Mysterio. Festschrift für Winfried Aymans zum 65. Geburtstag, hrsg. von Karl-Theodor Geringer – Heribert Schmitz, St. Ottilien 2001, 247-267.
 L. STAN, Mirenii în biserică, 110.
 On the very actual issue of participation of the laymen in the exercise of the holifying power and the power of teaching within Roman Catholic Church see Beatrix LAUKEMPER-ISERMANN, Der Anteil der Gläubigen an der geistlichen Vollmacht. Erster Beitrag, in: Sabine DEMEL, Libero GEROSA, Peter KRÄMER, Ludger MÜLLER (Hrsg.), Im Dienst der Gemeinde, Münster 2002, 261-272; Thomas AMMAN, Der Anteil der Gläubigen an der geistlichen Vollmacht. Zweiter Beitrag, in: Sabine DEMEL, Libero GEROSA, Peter KRÄMER, Ludger MÜLLER (Hrsg.), Im Dienst der Gemeinde, Münster 2002, 273- 284.
 Of course, although the usual political-juridical language related to power division in the state is used (Montesquieu described the division of political power among a legislative, an executive and a judicial), in the case of the Church power we do not deal with a separation, as is the case of the state powers, but with the difference between the functions of one and the same power. Cf. I. IVAN, Câţiva termeni canonici, 97-98.
 L. STAN, Elementul laic în Biserica Ortodoxă, 12.
 Cf. L. STAN, Mirenii în biserică, 112.
 Cf. the chapters V.2 and V.3 herein.
 Cf. A. Baronu de SIAGUN`A, Compendiu, 378.
 Cf. the chapter VI.2.2.3 herein.
 V. ŞESAN, Reflexiuni asupra unificării, 29-30.
 In the Orthodox Church, the bishops’ synods (the so-called “pure synodality”) have been always called in this way, but not only them. The term “synod” is used exclusively for the bishops’ synods in the Oriental Catholic Churches’ Code of Canon Law (CCEO).
 The term “assembly” used to refer to the mixed synod, is also used in the current legislation of the Romanian Orthodox Church.
 A. Baron de SCHAGUNA, Anthorismos oder berichtigende Erörterung, 127.
 A detailed approach of the mixed synodality throughout the time, see at L. STAN, Mirenii în biserică, 112-244.
 Cf L. STAN, Mirenii în biserică, 114-115; N. DURĂ, Le Régime de la Synodalité, 391 et seqq.
 L. STAN, Mirenii în biserică, 127.
 For instance, there was in France around the year 800, a system of mixed synods in which the decisions were taken with a majority of votes, its members – bishops and laymen – all having an equal vote. It is, certainly, an un-canonical system, because one cannot tolerate any equality of votes between the bishops and other lay representatives, because the episcopal character of the Church organization would be destroyed when the laymen were a majority, and the bishops had to accept the decisions of the lay majority only because they belong to the majority, not because they are right from the point of view of the Church. Cf. L. STAN, Mirenii în biserică, 129-130.
 On this synod see the chapter III.2.5 herein.
 Andrei Şaguna’s pastoral letter No. 1090/1855, in: Gh. TULBURE, Mitropolitul Şaguna, 195-201 here 198.
 A. Baron de SCHAGUNA, Anthorismos oder berichtigende Erörterung, 105-106.
 According to ap. c. 34 the bishops of every nation have to know the one among them who is the premier or chief, and to recognise him as their head. Each bishop enjoys autonomy in his eparchy, being connected to the hierarchical subordination and to the synodality.
See the text of the canon.
 According to c. 13 of Laodicea is not permitted to the “others” (the mobs and disorderly multitude of cities) to conduct the election of candidates for the priesthood.
 Cf. A. Baron de SCHAGUNA, Anthorismos oder berichtigende Erörterung, 109-114.
 Towards the end of the modern times – and in the Romanian Principalities especially during the Phanariot régime (in the eighteenth century) but also later – the clericalist spirit developed in Orthodoxy too, under the Western influence. Cf. L. STAN, Biserica cu sau fără laici?, 612.
 “Şaguna cătră Georgiu Hurmuzachi” (“Şaguna to Georgiu Hurmuzachi”), dated Sibiu, January 21, 1861, in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 180-181here 181.
 “Respunsul lui G. Hurmuzachi cătră Şaguna” (“G. Hurmuzachi’s answer to Şaguna”), dated Czernowitz, February 9/21, 1861, in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 182-185 here 184.
 “Gheorghe Contici către Andrei Şaguna” (“Gheorghe Contici to Andrei Şaguna”), dated November 12, 1862, in: A. ŞAGUNA, Corespondenţa I/2, 219-221 here 219.
 See a historical-canonical analysis of the laymen’s participation in the election of the clergy at L. STAN, Mirenii în biserică, 245-709.
As it could be noticed considering the large space which Canonist Liviu Stan uses in the quoted work to clarify the problem of the participation of the believers in the election of the clergy, this aspect of the participation of the laymen in the ecclesiastical affairs had and has a special importance in the life of the Church.
 A. Baronu de SIAGUN`A, Compendiu, 175.
 Cf. A. Baronu de SIAGUNA, Proiectu de unu Regulamentu, §26 point 2; Statutul organic, §7 point 2.
 Cf. A. Baronu de SIAGUNA, Proiectu de unu Regulamentu, §72-§77; Statutul organic, §39, §50-§53.
 Cf. A. Baronu de SIAGUNA, Proiectu de unu Regulamentu, §100-§107, §136 pct. 2; Statutul organic, §96-§103.
 Cf. A. Baronu de SIAGUNA, Proiectu de unu Regulamentu, §139, §193-§200; Statutul organic, §154-§157.
 L. STAN, Mirenii în biserică, 246.
 Cf. ibid., 607. See also Hubert MÜLLER, Der Anteil der Laien an der Bischofswahl. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Kanonistik von Gratian bis Gregor IX., Amsterdam 1977; L. GEROSA, Gesetzeauslegung im Kirchenrecht, 161-178.
 L. STAN, Mirenii în biserică, 608.
 V. ŞESAN, Reflexiuni asupra unificării, 24.
 Cf. I. MATEIU, Contribuţiuni la istoria dreptului bisericesc, 242.
 See Legea din 6 mai 1925 pentru organizarea Bisericii Ortodoxe Române, art. 12; Statutul pentru organizarea Bisericii Ortodoxe Romane, din 6 mai 1925, art. 9 lit. j).
 At length on the laymen’s participation in the election of the priests and deacons at L. STAN, Mirenii în biserică, 610-709.
 L. STAN, Mirenii în biserică, 610.
 Cf. A. Baronu de SIAGUNA, Proiectu de unu Regulamentu, §26 point 2, §32.
 Statutul organic, §7 point 2 and §13.
 It is about the Romanian Provinces Moldavia and Wallachia, united politically firstly in 1859, as Romanian United Principalities, on December 24, 1861 proclaimed as state Romania under the Ottoman suzerainty and in 1881 proclaimed kingdom under the reign of Carol I of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen. The Romanian Kingdom (1918-1947) included almost all aged Romanian territories. Cf. History of Romania. Compendium, 505 et seqq. See also the map in the annex VI herein.
 In the era of the Organic Regulations – adopted in Wallachia in 1831 and in Moldavia in 1832, as a consequence of the provisions of the Russian-Turkish Treaty of Adrianople (1829), and confirming a powerful Russian influence – it was impossible to avoid totally, in the Romanian Orthodox Church of the Principalities, the caesaropapist type of absolutism introduced by Peter the Great in the Russian Church. Cf. History of Romania. Compendium, 456.
 Cf. the chapter VII.5 herein.
 Some arguments for abandoning the provisions concerning the clergy’s election by the parish communities at M. CRISTEA, Principii fundamentale, 32-33.
 At length on the laymen’s involvement in the administration of the Church property see L. STAN, Mirenii în biserică, 710-752.
We decided to do not give a large space to this subject, because both the East and the West preserved quite well during the centuries the participation of the lay people in exercising this function of the Church leading power.
For the actual situation within Catholic Church see Hans HEIMERL, Helmuth PREE, Bruno PRIMETSHOFER, Handbuch des Vermögensrechts der katholischen Kirche unter besonderer Berücksitigung der Rechtsverhältnisse in Bayern und Österreich, Regensburg 1993; Helmuth PREE, Bruno PRIMETSHOFER, Das kirchliche Vermögen, seine Verwaltung und Vertretung. Eine praktische Handreichung, Wien 2007.
 Cf. the apostolic canons 38 and 41.
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.
 See Actele Soboarelor…1850 şi 1860, 48; P. BRUSANOWSKI, Reforma constituţională, 92.
 Cf. Actele Soboarelor…1850 şi 1860, 126 et seqq.
 Cf. A. Baronu de SIAGUNA, Proiectu de unu Regulamentu, §45-§48.
 I. MATEIU, Contribuţiuni la istoria dreptului bisericesc, 194.

References: §157
 V. 
 §26
 §7
 §72
 §39
 §50
 §100
 §136
 §96
 §139
 §193
 §154
 V. 
 art. 12
 art. 9
 §26
 §32
 §7
 §13
 §45