Folia Canonica 4. (2001)
STUDIES - George Nedungatt: Who is to Administer Church Property? - The Answer of the Ecumenical Councils
WHO IS TO ADMINISTER CHURCH PROPERTY? 121 II. The Ecumenical Councils A law by itself is no guarantee of its observance in practice. Rather, a prohibition in ancient texts is a sure clue to the contrary practice, even if not widespread. Sometimes a legislation is occasioned by a single incident, which the legislator foresees can repeat itself, but would want to prevent. The legislation of the local synods was often reinforced by the ecumenical councils, which thus gave it universal binding force. An instance is canon 22 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council that met in Chalcedon in 451. Against the plunder of the belongings of a deceased bishop by his clerics it decreed: “It is not permitted for clerics, following the death of their own bishop, to seize the things that belong to him, as has been forbidden by earlier canons. Those who do this risk their personal rank.”9 With the reference to “earlier canons” the Council of Chalcedon was confirming and reinforcing the above quoted canons of Antioch, which in the Apostolic canons 38,40, and 41 had found a vaster echo. Economus of God, yes, but the bishop is no sovereign and cannot administer ecclesiastical property as he pleases. He was not only to refer important matters of administration to his presbyterium but act in subordination to the provincial synod, which was presided over by the metropolitan bishop and which adjudicated controversies. In Egypt the metropolitan archbishop exercised jurisdiction over his suffragan bishops also in the matter of the administration of temporalities. For example, Theophilus, who became archbishop metropolitan of Alexandria in 385, issued the following instructions to Bishop Ammon, his delegate, regarding a suffragan bishop Apollo (who had entered into communion with the Arians) and his economus: “With the consent of the whole clergy another economus is to be appointed, who is to have also the approbation of Bishop Apollo, for the proper management of the goods of the Church.” And “Widows and the needy and the passing foreigners are to be able to find every help, and no one is to appropriate the goods of the Church; for the minister of God is to be free of avarice.”10 Were controversies to arise in and about the country parishes over episcopal jurisdiction, the Council of Chalcedon ordained that they were to be settled according to the procedure established by its canon 17: Rural or country parishes belonging to a Church are to stay firmly tied to the bishops who have possession of them, and especially if they have continually and peacefully administered them over a thirty year period. If however, within the thirty years any dispute about them has arisen, or should arise, those who are claiming to be wronged are permitted to bring the case before the provincial 9 TANNER (ed.), Decrees (nt. 3), 1,97. 10 Canons of Theophilus of Alexandria, cc. 10 and 11, in Joannou, tome II, Les canons des Pères Grecs, 270.
