Folia Canonica 2. (1999)
BOOK REVIEWS
382 BOOK REVIEWS the patriarchal assembly. The study finishes with a brief survey of the three remaining forms of Churches sui iuris: the major archiépiscopal church, the metropolitan church, and the other Churches sui iuris. Joseph Vadakumcherry also of the Malabarese Church deals with “The Matrimonial Law in the Eastern and Latin Codes” (142-163). After a general treatment of the effect of the Second Vatican Council’s teaching on marriage legislation, the new elements common to this sacrament in the two codes are indicated. V. remarks about the return of the Latin Church to the Roman system of computation of the degree of consanguinity which the Easterners had always retained. His analysis on the definition/description of marriage in the two codes reveals the difference in theological and spiritual outluok between the East and the West. Lastly, V. explains the distinct requirements for the canonical form of marriage, the prohibition or marriage by proxy, the invalidity of a marriage subordinated to any condition, the reception of chrismation/confirmation before marriage, adoption of the partner’s rite in marriage, and the differences regarding the impediments of abduction, affinity, public propriety and spiritual relationship, and so on, as distinctions of the CCEO from the CIC. David Jaeger of the Franciscan Instilute of Jeruslem draws out some of the main differences between the consecrated life in the CCEO and the CIC in his “Notes on Religious in the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches” (164-190). He explains that the CIC follows a strictly theological criterion in presenting the various forms of consecrated life while the CCEO follows the distinction of three orders in the Church, that is, clergy, monastics, and laity, a distinction which corresponds better to the traditions of the Christian East. J. notes that the CCEO follows a strong renewal of the genuinely monastic tradition which allows an easier handling of the canonical institutes of societies of apostolic life. He also touches on the sensitive area of the relationship of religious and hierarchy, and of the nature of authurity in religious institutes. J. concludes his article with brief observations on religious who are ordained bishops, on the right to privacy, and on dismissal. Giuseppe Di Mattia of the Pontifical Lateran University, in his article “Penal Law in the CIC and the CCEO” (191-210), presents first some general guidelines and then gives a detailed description of the main section of the penal law as it is in the two codes. In a positive tone he underlines the various innovative elements of this part of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches. George Nedungatt of the Pontifical Oriental Institute deals with “The Ecclesiastical Magisterium in the two codes” (211-224): After a brief introduction explaining the reasons for such a comparative study, N. treats the topics of the teaching office of the Church, the evangelization of nations, and ecumenism. He says that by adopting the creative method of revision, these parts of the code translated into legislation the new conciliar spirit.
