Folia Canonica 2. (1999)
BOOK REVIEWS
BOOK REVIEWS 379 constantly by the Eastern hierarchs and that was discussed by the Pontifical Commission time and again was the extra-territorial jurisdiction. In 1977, during the general assembly of the synod of bishops, Cardinal Parecattil, basing on the principles of Vatican II that govern the pastoral care of the faithful living outside their territory, requested a favorable solution of the problem. The same was demanded also during the last plenary meeting of the Pontifical Commission. The jurisdiction of the patriarch and his synod over the faithful, who are living outside their territory is limited. Canons 146-150 govern this extra-territorial jurisdiction. In can. 146 the patriarch “presides over those regions in which the rite proper to that Church is observed and he has a lawfully acquired right to erect provinces, eparchies and exarchies.” But, “if any doubt concerning the territorial boundaries of the patriarchal Church arises, or if it is a question of the modification of its boundaries, it is for the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church to investigate the matter. After hearing the superior administrative authority of each Church sui iuris concerned, and after discussing the matter in the synod, it is up to the same synod to present a suitably documented petition for the resolution of the doubt or for the modification of the boundaries to the Roman Pontiff. It is only for the Roman Pontiff to resolve the doubt authentically or to decree the modification of the boundaries.” In such situations the supreme legislator will issue a ius speciale ad tempus which is indicated in the code with a clause “ius a Romano Pontifice approbatum.” Presenting the CCEO the pope guaranteed that he would be happy to consider, after the promulgation of the code, proposals elaborated in the synods, well-detailed and with clear reference to norms in the code, for which it may be thought to be opportune to draw up a special law and for a period of time. So far such a provision has not been de facto implemented. Another point that calls our attention to are the appendices one, Eastern Orthodox Law (pp. 781-793), and six, Pastoral Economy and Eastern Orthodox (pp. 845-851 ). Pospishil reflects on the notion and practice of ikonomia/econ- omy in the Orthodox Churches and underlines the fact that not all the authors are in full agreement on the subject. Perhaps, this lack of agreement has been one of the reasons why the principle of economy did not appear on the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches. Appendix seven presents a “Table of Corresponding Canons” (pp. 852-897) to assist readers in locating counterparts of both the CCEO and the CIC. Two detailed indices — one of authors and the other of subjects (pp. 898-903 & 904- 938) — allow very easily the consultation of the voluminous work. The English translation of the canons is that prepared and published under the auspices of the Canon Law Society of America, and, here and there, for better rendering has been used “A Companion to the Eastern Code: A New Translation of the CCEO” by George Nedungatt.
