Folia Canonica 1. (1998)
BOOK REVIEWS
182 BOOK REVIEWS follow step by step the history of the codification. However, insofar as one’s intention is to find a solution for the issues debated, this method seems to call for a consideration of other aspects, e.g. historical background and development of the respective canonical institutions or the examination of doctrinal and systematic correlations. At the same time his approach is undoubtedly a fundamental feature of the canon law methodology. In his comparative description of the two Codes the Author highlights important differences between them such as the categorisation of the forms of consecrated life, which is more detailed and flexible in the Eastern Code than in the Latin one. Furthermore the recognition of the societas vitae communis ad instar religiosorum, in contrast to the Latin norm, allows all those institutes to be categorized as consecrated in which the members profess the evangelical counsels, although not by religious vows, but by some other sacred bond (pp. 36 ss, 50 ss). From the several other differences shown and analysed we may also refer to the dissimilarities in the fundamental principles governing elections (p. 164 ss.), or those in the tribunal structure (p. 219 ss). One of the general conclusions drawn by the Author is that significant differences exist between the two Codes in governing principles where they are the least expected to occur (e.g. some principles of procedural law). One of the issues meriting particular attention among the statements pertaining to open questions is that of the authority of dispensation from canonical form. According to the Author even the Latin bishop lacks the right to dispens from it when such dispensation is requested by his eastern subject. This is true even in the case of mixed marriages involving an orthodox partner, if it means the omission of the ritus sacer (p. 130). The last chapter contains an interesting presentation of the interrelatedness of the two Codes. To provide a detailed analysis of the extent to which the two Codes correlate is not an easy task, which is proven by the fact that there is no consensus in this issue even at the present time. If we are right, besides the explicit and implicit correlations, Abbass, among other authors, maintains a further category of correlations that should arise not from the disposition of the Legislator, but rather «ex natura rei» (p. 236). Considering the fact that the codification -probably drawing the conclusions from the detrimental effects of this particular formula in c. 1 of the 1917 CIC— expressly omitted this category of correlations (cf. Nuntia 28 [1989] 13), the permissibility of this category
