Pub Date : 2023-01-01DOI: 10.1017/s0956618x22000667
Dimitrios Nikiforos
On 17 February 2022, the Ecumenical Patriarchate announced with sorrow but also with faith in the resurrection the falling asleep in the Lord of His Eminence Metropolitan Pavlos Menevissoglou, who had passed away the day before at the age of 87. The deceased was not only a prominent Hierarch of the Church of Constantinople, but also a prolific scholar of Ecclesiastical and Canon Law. The purpose of this obituary is to shed light on the significant contribution of the late Metropolitan to the study of the history of the Eastern Orthodox canonical tradition. Metropolitan Pavlos was born as Konstantinos Menevissoglou on 27 November 1935, in Makrohorion (Bakırköy) on the European side of Istanbul, Turkey, where he completed his elementary and the first two years of his secondary education. In 1950, he entered the Theological School of the Ecumenical Patriarchate on the island of Halki (Heybeliada), one of the Princes’ Islands in the Sea of Marmara, where he studied for eight years: four years at high school level (1950–1954) and four years at the Theological Seminary (1954–1958). While he was in the second year of his theological studies, on Sunday 1 April 1956 he was ordained to the diaconate and received the ecclesiastical name Pavlos (Paul). In 1958, he graduated with the highest distinction from the Theological School of Halki, receiving the title of ‘Teacher of the Orthodox Christian Theology’, after successful submission and defence of his bachelor’s dissertation, entitled ‘The Monastic Life according to St Basil’.
{"title":"Metropolitan Pavlos Menevissoglou (1935–2022)","authors":"Dimitrios Nikiforos","doi":"10.1017/s0956618x22000667","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0956618x22000667","url":null,"abstract":"On 17 February 2022, the Ecumenical Patriarchate announced with sorrow but also with faith in the resurrection the falling asleep in the Lord of His Eminence Metropolitan Pavlos Menevissoglou, who had passed away the day before at the age of 87. The deceased was not only a prominent Hierarch of the Church of Constantinople, but also a prolific scholar of Ecclesiastical and Canon Law. The purpose of this obituary is to shed light on the significant contribution of the late Metropolitan to the study of the history of the Eastern Orthodox canonical tradition. Metropolitan Pavlos was born as Konstantinos Menevissoglou on 27 November 1935, in Makrohorion (Bakırköy) on the European side of Istanbul, Turkey, where he completed his elementary and the first two years of his secondary education. In 1950, he entered the Theological School of the Ecumenical Patriarchate on the island of Halki (Heybeliada), one of the Princes’ Islands in the Sea of Marmara, where he studied for eight years: four years at high school level (1950–1954) and four years at the Theological Seminary (1954–1958). While he was in the second year of his theological studies, on Sunday 1 April 1956 he was ordained to the diaconate and received the ecclesiastical name Pavlos (Paul). In 1958, he graduated with the highest distinction from the Theological School of Halki, receiving the title of ‘Teacher of the Orthodox Christian Theology’, after successful submission and defence of his bachelor’s dissertation, entitled ‘The Monastic Life according to St Basil’.","PeriodicalId":53956,"journal":{"name":"Ecclesiastical Law Journal","volume":"25 1","pages":"126 - 138"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46381261","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-01DOI: 10.1017/S0956618X22000631
Neil Patterson
At the time of writing, work continues on a replacement for the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003 (CDM 2003). This comment explores some issues which have arisen in a recent disciplinary case – Re Evans – where, for the first time, the boundaries of the CDM jurisdiction have been considered by the tribunal. I will first identify the salient facts of the Evans case, before moving on to explore the specific issue of jurisdiction. I conclude with some observations about why this case is significant, especially for those working on the replacement to the CDM 2003.
{"title":"All Mouth and No Trousers? Observations Arising from the Decision on Jurisdiction in Re Evans","authors":"Neil Patterson","doi":"10.1017/S0956618X22000631","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0956618X22000631","url":null,"abstract":"At the time of writing, work continues on a replacement for the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003 (CDM 2003). This comment explores some issues which have arisen in a recent disciplinary case – Re Evans – where, for the first time, the boundaries of the CDM jurisdiction have been considered by the tribunal. I will first identify the salient facts of the Evans case, before moving on to explore the specific issue of jurisdiction. I conclude with some observations about why this case is significant, especially for those working on the replacement to the CDM 2003.","PeriodicalId":53956,"journal":{"name":"Ecclesiastical Law Journal","volume":"25 1","pages":"52 - 59"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46663503","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-01DOI: 10.1017/s0956618x2200093x
D. Willink
The petitioners sought a faculty for the addition of a porch over the west door of this unlisted Victorian church. They had rejected the suggestions of the Ancient Monuments Society and the Victorian Society for an internal storm porch, as impractical; and for a grander design, on the grounds of cost. Other suggestions had been incorporated into the design. The court considered the matters in accordance with the approach set out in re Maidstone, St Luke [1995] Fam 1, Court of Arches: ‘. . . not simply to concentrate upon the effect of proposed works upon the fabric or appearance of the church in isolation, but to consider the proposals in the context of and taking full account of the role of the church as a local centre of worship andmission’. While the church was a fine building of architectural interest, it was not to be treated as if it were listed and therefore subject to the enhancedDuffield considerations. Instead, the correct approach was to consider the impact of the works on the appearance and significance of the church, and determine whether the benefit resulting from the change was of sufficient substance to outweigh that impact. The court was satisfied that the impact on the appearance and significance of the church by the addition of the porch would be minimal. Further, the benefits to the mission of the church in a growing, recovering and increasingly engaged community were important. The heat loss improvements also strongly supported the church’s commitment to the environment. These combined benefits were of sufficient substance to outweigh any negative impact that there might be on the appearance and significance of the church. A faculty would issue. [Naomi Gyane]
请愿者要求在这座未列出的维多利亚教堂的西门上增加一个门廊。他们拒绝了古代纪念碑协会和维多利亚协会关于内部风暴门廊的建议，认为这不切实际；以及基于成本的更宏伟的设计。其他建议已纳入设计。法院根据Maidstone，St Luke[1995]Fam 1，court of Arches中规定的方法审议了这些事项：“。不仅仅是孤立地关注拟议作品对教堂结构或外观的影响，而是在充分考虑教堂作为当地礼拜和传教中心的作用的背景下考虑这些建议”。虽然这座教堂是一座具有建筑价值的优秀建筑，但它不应被视为已列入名单，因此应受到加强的达菲尔德考虑。相反，正确的方法是考虑作品对教堂外观和意义的影响，并确定改变带来的好处是否足以超过这种影响。法院认为，增加门廊对教堂外观和重要性的影响微乎其微。此外，教会在一个不断发展、恢复和日益参与的社区中的使命所带来的好处也很重要。热量损失的改善也有力地支持了教会对环境的承诺。这些综合利益的实质内容足以超过对教会的外观和意义可能产生的任何负面影响。一位教员会发表意见。[Nomi Gyane]
{"title":"Ms M Forstater v CGD Europe & ors","authors":"D. Willink","doi":"10.1017/s0956618x2200093x","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0956618x2200093x","url":null,"abstract":"The petitioners sought a faculty for the addition of a porch over the west door of this unlisted Victorian church. They had rejected the suggestions of the Ancient Monuments Society and the Victorian Society for an internal storm porch, as impractical; and for a grander design, on the grounds of cost. Other suggestions had been incorporated into the design. The court considered the matters in accordance with the approach set out in re Maidstone, St Luke [1995] Fam 1, Court of Arches: ‘. . . not simply to concentrate upon the effect of proposed works upon the fabric or appearance of the church in isolation, but to consider the proposals in the context of and taking full account of the role of the church as a local centre of worship andmission’. While the church was a fine building of architectural interest, it was not to be treated as if it were listed and therefore subject to the enhancedDuffield considerations. Instead, the correct approach was to consider the impact of the works on the appearance and significance of the church, and determine whether the benefit resulting from the change was of sufficient substance to outweigh that impact. The court was satisfied that the impact on the appearance and significance of the church by the addition of the porch would be minimal. Further, the benefits to the mission of the church in a growing, recovering and increasingly engaged community were important. The heat loss improvements also strongly supported the church’s commitment to the environment. These combined benefits were of sufficient substance to outweigh any negative impact that there might be on the appearance and significance of the church. A faculty would issue. [Naomi Gyane]","PeriodicalId":53956,"journal":{"name":"Ecclesiastical Law Journal","volume":"25 1","pages":"123 - 125"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44447707","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-01DOI: 10.1017/s0956618x22000953
{"title":"ELJ volume 25 issue 1 Cover and Front matter","authors":"","doi":"10.1017/s0956618x22000953","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0956618x22000953","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":53956,"journal":{"name":"Ecclesiastical Law Journal","volume":" ","pages":"f1 - f4"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49664578","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-01DOI: 10.1017/s0956618x22000771
Matthew Chinery
The Governing Body of the Church in Wales met at the International Conference Centre, Newport on 27–28 April 2022 and 6–7 September 2022. The April session began with the formal notification to the Governing Body of the election of the Most Reverend Andrew John, Bishop of Bangor, as Archbishop of Wales and therefore President of the Governing Body. His inaugural Presidential address called for the Russian Orthodox Church to condemn the killing of civilians in Ukraine and press for an immediate ceasefire to hostilities. He praised the actions of churches across the Province in their continued response to the COVID-19 pandemic in their respective communities.
{"title":"Governing Body of the Church in Wales","authors":"Matthew Chinery","doi":"10.1017/s0956618x22000771","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0956618x22000771","url":null,"abstract":"The Governing Body of the Church in Wales met at the International Conference Centre, Newport on 27–28 April 2022 and 6–7 September 2022. The April session began with the formal notification to the Governing Body of the election of the Most Reverend Andrew John, Bishop of Bangor, as Archbishop of Wales and therefore President of the Governing Body. His inaugural Presidential address called for the Russian Orthodox Church to condemn the killing of civilians in Ukraine and press for an immediate ceasefire to hostilities. He praised the actions of churches across the Province in their continued response to the COVID-19 pandemic in their respective communities.","PeriodicalId":53956,"journal":{"name":"Ecclesiastical Law Journal","volume":"25 1","pages":"89 - 91"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48505284","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-01DOI: 10.1017/s0956618x22000874
D. Willink
the directions. The court noted that orders on the court’s own initiative were encouraged by rule 18.3 of the Faculty Jurisdiction Rules 2015. Further, the order complied with rule 18.3 (5), concerning a party’s right to apply to set aside, vary or stay such an order. The Arches Court had ordered the remission of the petition for redetermination under rule 27.8(2)(b). The petitioners argued that the absence of an order for a new hearing under rule 27.8(2)(c) meant that the directions for an oral hearing were unlawful. The court held that the Arches Court’s decision placed no fetter on the consistory court; the direction for a redetermination did not preclude that re-determination being at a hearing. It was not argued that, if the court had such a discretion to order a hearing, it should not do so. However, the court reviewed its decision of its own initiative, and reaffirmed its decision. It would be more efficient than a disposal on paper, which would still require a visit to the church and a fuller written judgment. It would prevent further miscommunications such as those that had affected the previous hearing. Finally, it should be recalled that the default position is that faculties were determined at a hearing; if the expediency test is not met in relation to disposal on paper, proceedings would default to a hearing. The costs of the application were reserved to the hearing, the court noting that the costs order made on the appeal did not relieve the petitioners from any liability for the costs of the petition itself. Given that the petitioners had declared themselves unable to fund the litigation, the court ordered security for costs of the re-determination. [Jack Stuart]
{"title":"McGuigan, re Application for Judicial Review","authors":"D. Willink","doi":"10.1017/s0956618x22000874","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0956618x22000874","url":null,"abstract":"the directions. The court noted that orders on the court’s own initiative were encouraged by rule 18.3 of the Faculty Jurisdiction Rules 2015. Further, the order complied with rule 18.3 (5), concerning a party’s right to apply to set aside, vary or stay such an order. The Arches Court had ordered the remission of the petition for redetermination under rule 27.8(2)(b). The petitioners argued that the absence of an order for a new hearing under rule 27.8(2)(c) meant that the directions for an oral hearing were unlawful. The court held that the Arches Court’s decision placed no fetter on the consistory court; the direction for a redetermination did not preclude that re-determination being at a hearing. It was not argued that, if the court had such a discretion to order a hearing, it should not do so. However, the court reviewed its decision of its own initiative, and reaffirmed its decision. It would be more efficient than a disposal on paper, which would still require a visit to the church and a fuller written judgment. It would prevent further miscommunications such as those that had affected the previous hearing. Finally, it should be recalled that the default position is that faculties were determined at a hearing; if the expediency test is not met in relation to disposal on paper, proceedings would default to a hearing. The costs of the application were reserved to the hearing, the court noting that the costs order made on the appeal did not relieve the petitioners from any liability for the costs of the petition itself. Given that the petitioners had declared themselves unable to fund the litigation, the court ordered security for costs of the re-determination. [Jack Stuart]","PeriodicalId":53956,"journal":{"name":"Ecclesiastical Law Journal","volume":"25 1","pages":"118 - 119"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45465017","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-01DOI: 10.1017/s0956618x22000710
Charles George
{"title":"The Slaves of the Churches: A History Mary E Sommar Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2022, 263 pp (hardback £22.99), ISBN: 978-0-19-007326-8","authors":"Charles George","doi":"10.1017/s0956618x22000710","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0956618x22000710","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":53956,"journal":{"name":"Ecclesiastical Law Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48138326","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-01DOI: 10.1017/s0956618x22000904
D. Willink
health and safety survey, which recommended the felling of one lime tree (T1) and significant re-pollarding of another (T2), ‘to a point from which [it] may recover’. Having received the report, the PCC voted to fell both trees; to which, following consultation with the DAC, the archdeacon consented under List B. On the eve of the felling of T2, a complaint was lodged with the Registry and the archdeacon opposing the work. The complaint was dismissed, and T2 was felled. The matter came to the court’s attention when the court was informed that a disciplinary complaint was to be brought against the archdeacon for giving his approval in relation to T2. The court had to decide whether the felling of the trees was properly a List B matter or whether there ought to have been a petition for a faculty; and if so, what further steps should be taken. The court considered the CBC guidance ‘Works to Trees in Churchyards’. For the purposes of List B, a ‘dying’ tree was one in rapid decline and expected to be dead within one or two years; an old tree, in slow decline, was not a ‘dying’ tree. A ‘dangerous’ tree was one posing an immediate and serious danger. The court found that T1 was dying. A faculty was therefore not required, and the archdeacon’s consent was appropriate. However, the report had not suggested that T2 was not dying or dangerous. As a result, permission to fell T2 had been granted in error. Nevertheless, the error was one of procedure rather than substance. T2 had been re-pollarded following the report; but the tree surgeon had advised that T2 was in fact unsafe to remain, resulting in the decision to fell it. That advice would have been sufficient for the archdeacon to conclude that it was dying and/or dangerous, so the end result was one that could permissibly have been reached without a faculty. In order to cure the defect in the earlier purported grant of List B consent for T2, the Court granted a confirmatory faculty of its own motion, subject to conditions. [Naomi Gyane]
{"title":"Re St Lawrence, Eyam","authors":"D. Willink","doi":"10.1017/s0956618x22000904","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0956618x22000904","url":null,"abstract":"health and safety survey, which recommended the felling of one lime tree (T1) and significant re-pollarding of another (T2), ‘to a point from which [it] may recover’. Having received the report, the PCC voted to fell both trees; to which, following consultation with the DAC, the archdeacon consented under List B. On the eve of the felling of T2, a complaint was lodged with the Registry and the archdeacon opposing the work. The complaint was dismissed, and T2 was felled. The matter came to the court’s attention when the court was informed that a disciplinary complaint was to be brought against the archdeacon for giving his approval in relation to T2. The court had to decide whether the felling of the trees was properly a List B matter or whether there ought to have been a petition for a faculty; and if so, what further steps should be taken. The court considered the CBC guidance ‘Works to Trees in Churchyards’. For the purposes of List B, a ‘dying’ tree was one in rapid decline and expected to be dead within one or two years; an old tree, in slow decline, was not a ‘dying’ tree. A ‘dangerous’ tree was one posing an immediate and serious danger. The court found that T1 was dying. A faculty was therefore not required, and the archdeacon’s consent was appropriate. However, the report had not suggested that T2 was not dying or dangerous. As a result, permission to fell T2 had been granted in error. Nevertheless, the error was one of procedure rather than substance. T2 had been re-pollarded following the report; but the tree surgeon had advised that T2 was in fact unsafe to remain, resulting in the decision to fell it. That advice would have been sufficient for the archdeacon to conclude that it was dying and/or dangerous, so the end result was one that could permissibly have been reached without a faculty. In order to cure the defect in the earlier purported grant of List B consent for T2, the Court granted a confirmatory faculty of its own motion, subject to conditions. [Naomi Gyane]","PeriodicalId":53956,"journal":{"name":"Ecclesiastical Law Journal","volume":"25 1","pages":"121 - 122"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42522895","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-01DOI: 10.1017/s0956618x22000795
D. Willink
{"title":"Re St John the Baptist, Tisbury","authors":"D. Willink","doi":"10.1017/s0956618x22000795","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0956618x22000795","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":53956,"journal":{"name":"Ecclesiastical Law Journal","volume":"25 1","pages":"112 - 112"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47148446","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：