In the present work the author studies how efforts at understanding the juridic relationship between the Apostolic See and the Eastern Catholic Churches over the past roughly five hundred years have led to the increased recognition of the juridic autonomy of those Churches. The work first focuses on the early jurisprudence concerning the binding force of papal legislation on Eastern faithful, highlighting an important though unapproved decision made by a particular congregation of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith in 1631, which declared that the popes did not intend to bind the subjects of the sees of the schismatic patriarchs by certain types of apostolic constitutions except in three particular cases. The work then reviews the jurisprudence of Pope Benedict XIV, who cited this decision three times in his writings; the events of the pontificate of Pope Pius IX, particularly those surrounding the First Vatican Council when the preconciliar commission on the Churches of the Eastern rite sought to suppress the praxis based on this decision; the period of the first codification of canon law, when this decision was reaffirmed in praxis; and, finally, the Second Vatican Council and the second codification period, when this decision became the basis for canon 1492 of the Eastern code. This study emphasizes the impact that the jurisprudence surrounding the 1631 decision has had on how the understanding of Eastern juridic autonomy has developed in the Catholic Church. It also shows how the current canonical norms impacting Eastern autonomy can be better understood in light of this historical development.
In the present work the author studies how efforts at understanding the juridic relationship between the Apostolic See and the Eastern Catholic Churches over the past roughly five hundred years have led to the increased recognition of the juridic autonomy of those Churches. The work first focuses on the early jurisprudence concerning the binding force of papal legislation on Eastern faithful, highlighting an important though unapproved decision made by a particular congregation of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith in 1631, which declared that the popes did not intend to bind the subjects of the sees of the schismatic patriarchs by certain types of apostolic constitutions except in three particular cases. The work then reviews the jurisprudence of Pope Benedict XIV, who cited this decision three times in his writings; the events of the pontificate of Pope Pius IX, particularly those surrounding the First Vatican Council when the preconciliar commission on the Churches of the Eastern rite sought to suppress the praxis based on this decision; the period of the first codification of canon law, when this decision was reaffirmed in praxis; and, finally, the Second Vatican Council and the second codification period, when this decision became the basis for canon 1492 of the Eastern code. This study emphasizes the impact that the jurisprudence surrounding the 1631 decision has had on how the understanding of Eastern juridic autonomy has developed in the Catholic Church. It also shows how the current canonical norms impacting Eastern autonomy can be better understood in light of this historical development.
L'indagine su Cirillo e Metodio induce Dvornik ad affrontare, con il metodo storico critico, la questione del Primato Romano ascoltando le ragioni della parte bizantina. L'analisi storica sulla formazione del concetto di Basileia porta l'autore a sostenere l'iniziale condivisione da parte della Sede Romana della classica posizione bizantina circa il fondamento politico del Primato nella Chiesa e a negare qualsiasi fondamento storico al ruolo dell'Apostolo Andrea nella fondazione della Sede Costantinopolitana, al punto che anche il patriarca Fozio, la cui aspra controversia con Roma viene dall'autore sottoposta a profonda revisione storica, vi rimase del tutto indifferente. Il monumentale edificio eretto da Dvornik appare un gigante dai piedi d'argilla di cui si evidenziano in quest'opera le fragilità e le contraddizioni.
L'indagine su Cirillo e Metodio induce Dvornik ad affrontare, con il metodo storico critico, la questione del Primato Romano ascoltando le ragioni della parte bizantina. L'analisi storica sulla formazione del concetto di Basileia porta l'autore a sostenere l'iniziale condivisione da parte della Sede Romana della classica posizione bizantina circa il fondamento politico del Primato nella Chiesa e a negare qualsiasi fondamento storico al ruolo dell'Apostolo Andrea nella fondazione della Sede Costantinopolitana, al punto che anche il patriarca Fozio, la cui aspra controversia con Roma viene dall'autore sottoposta a profonda revisione storica, vi rimase del tutto indifferente. Il monumentale edificio eretto da Dvornik appare un gigante dai piedi d'argilla di cui si evidenziano in quest'opera le fragilità e le contraddizioni.
