The Administration of Church Property in the Manual of Church Rules by Saint Calinic of Cernica

Saint Calinic of Cernica, Bishop of Râmnic (1850–1868), is known both for his exceptional spiritual life, which was entirely in keeping with the principles of the Gospel, and for his love of culture and literature 1. The first volume he oversaw the printing of was The Order of the Monastic Tonsure, in 1842, in Bucharest, whilst he was abbot of Cernica Monastery. A few years later, following his ordination and installation as Bishop of Râmnic and Noul Severin, he had A Very Useful Book for the Soul (1852) printed at the Metropolitan See of Ungrovlahia in Bucharest, Panihida, together with the Small Litany (1856) and The Orthodox Confession (1859)2. From 1860, the Diocese of Râmnic had its own printing press, from which, during Saint Calinic’s tenure, the following works were published: Book for Priests, Aghiasmatarul (1861), The Service of the Holy Resurrection (1861), the Church Typikon (1861), The Duties of Priests (1861), A Book of Great Benefit to the Soul (2nd edition, 1862), the Gospel (1865), the Octoechos (1865), ‘Instructions to Priests and Deacons, that is, Advice on How to Conduct Oneself during the Divine Liturgy’ (1865), ‘The Priests’ Oath’, and ‘The Testament of Saint3’.

Metropolitan Nifon of Ungrovlahia compiled a ‘Pravila’, an abridged version of Matei Basarab’s ‘Great Pravila’ (The Correction of the Law, 1652), which he had printed in Bucharest in two editions, in 1852 and 1854. The third edition of Metropolitan Nifon’s Pravila was edited by the Holy Bishop of Râmnic and published in his diocese’s printing house in 1861. In the book’s preface, Saint Calinic justifies the printing of the Pravila on the grounds of its usefulness to all priests and archpriests in their parish work.

The priest and professor of canon law, Liviu Stan, named this Pravilă the ‘Pravilă of Saint Calinic4’, both because of his efforts to have it reprinted and because of his personal contribution to the subject of ‘Registers of civil acts’. Through the ecclesiastical and common law provisions set out therein, the Rule of Saint Calinic was intended to assist those serving at the altar with the various social, pastoral, missionary, moral and administrative issues that they or their parishioners might encounter in daily life.

The text of the Rule comprises 112 folios and is divided into two books. Book I consists of Chapter I, ‘On Priests and Monks’, and Chapter II, ‘The Judicial Section’. Book II comprises Chapter I, ‘Canons on Marriage’; Chapter II, ‘On Separations’; Chapter III, ‘Consequences of Separation’; and Chapter IV, ‘Intermarriage’. At the end, several administrative regulations concerning church life and the administration of the Holy Sacraments are presented to the priests.

With regard to church property, in the Rule of Saint Calinic we have identified several provisions governing the acts and procedures relating to the acquisition, possession, administration and disposal of church assets.

In Chapter I, Article 6, ‘On the ownership of monastic property’, the Rule regulates the status of monastic—and, by extension, ecclesiastical—property, establishing the rules for its administration in accordance with specific canonical provisions.

Firstly, it defines the concept of monastic property, which includes all property rights over movable and immovable assets owned by the monastery 5. Thus, it encompasses both sacred movable and immovable property, dedicated exclusively to worship, as well as common property which, either in itself or through its use by third parties, through letting, leasing or renting, generate the income necessary to support the livelihood of the monastic (ecclesiastical) staff and to carry out the monastery’s social and cultural activities.

The acquisition of church property

One form of acquiring church property is regulated by donation, an act performed by a person when they decide to enter a monastery to begin monastic life. This donation of the novice’s property to the monastery where he is to live is regarded as a means of adding to the ecclesiastical patrimony.

In the Pravilă, we find a provision setting out how the estate of a future monk is to be divided upon his move to the monastery 6. Thus, if that person has heirs (descendants), the estate shall be divided amongst the heirs, with a portion also going to the monastery. In the event that there are no heirs, the entire estate will be incorporated into the monastery’s assets, and the monastery, in turn, undertakes to provide the novice with shelter, warmth, food, clothing and all the necessities of life. We note that the same regulations 7 are also found in the ‘Îndreptarea Legii’ (The Great Rule of Matei Basarab), the code of laws that was applied in Wallachia from 1652 onwards and from which the text of Saint Calinic’s Rule was extracted.

The Pravila also mentions two unlawful acts, means by which clergymen might be tempted to act with a view to acquiring property. The first of these, the most strongly condemned in all canonical texts and regulatory provisions in the history of written Romanian law, is simony 8, that is, the acquisition of the office of bishop, priest or deacon, or any other ecclesiastical office, through payment in money, goods or the rendering of services, or through the influence of a third party. The practice of selling or buying divine grace and the priestly office is punished in the Pravilă with a twofold sanction: defrocking and exclusion from receiving the Holy Mysteries for the bishop who has dared to lay hands in the sign of ordination. One who is ordained under such dishonourable circumstances is punished only by removal from the clergy, as the ordination cannot be considered valid if it was contingent upon money or other gifts 9.

It is not only material goods that can lead to the commission of the sin of simony, but also the trading of influence to obtain a ecclesiastical, sacramental or administrative office 10. Such an offence, which constitutes a mockery of divine grace, is punished by the Canons through the defrocking and exclusion from Holy Communion of the bishop who performed the ordination, and the exclusion from Holy Communion of the person who interceded with the bishop on behalf of the candidate.

Ownership of church property

The Rule of Saint Calinic, printed in 1861, foreshadowing what was to befall the Church’s property in just two years’ time, along with the abuse of the Church’s private property sanctioned by the Law on the Secularisation of Monastic Assets, promulgated by A.I.Cuza, stipulates that places of worship and monasteries, consecrated through the rite of consecration and thus becoming sacred property 11, shall remain inviolable. The article enshrines the principle of the immutability of the purpose of consecrated church buildings 12. Thus, following the consecration ceremony, a church or monastery must retain its purpose as a place of worship, and the property with which they are endowed shall be subject to the legislation specific to monasteries.

Administration of church property

The Pravila stipulates the obligation to record the management of church property in a register. For this task, the bishop appoints an iconom 13 who shall be accountable before the law for the proper fulfilment of this responsibility 14.

With regard to the bishop’s succession, the Pravila distinguishes between the assets that form part of the Church’s patrimony and are administered by the bishop, and the bishop’s personal assets. The text of the law allows bishops to dispose of their assets freely, with the option of bequeathing them to their successors or to other natural or legal persons by testamentary succession 15.

Disposal of church property

The Rule prohibits the disposal of the monastery’s property. Exceptions to this rule could be made in cases of necessity and subject to the fulfilment of certain substantive and procedural conditions 16, in order to dispose of those assets that did not generate income. The state of necessity, a substantive condition, is expressed in the text of the law by the phrase ‘the monastery being in great need’ 17, which means that the monastery’s property could be sold or disposed of in another manner, provided this was done solely in the public interest, to prevent the endangerment of an important asset, or of a person’s life, physical integrity or health. By ‘great need’ we may understand famine, water shortage, disease or plague, or anything else that would necessitate the sale of an asset so that the money obtained from the sale might avert or prevent a tragedy involving the loss of human life or the endangerment of others.

Another substantive condition is set out in the phrase ‘provided that, for that price, another building 18 more useful to the monastery’19 may be purchased. The Rule stipulates that, in the event of the disposal of a church property which is not required by the monastic community, another property must be acquired which is more useful for the monastery’s specific domestic activities.

A primary procedural requirement is that the intention to sell a monastic asset must be justified and confirmed by the diocesan bishop. From the priestly dignity with which the bishop is invested through apostolic succession springs the great responsibility of administering the diocese entrusted to him. Thus, the diocesan bishop has full authority in all pastoral-missionary, social-charitable and financial-economic matters specific to any ecclesiastical unit 20. This provision is fully consistent with canonical regulations, according to which the bishop is the rightful administrator of ecclesiastical property 21.

The bishop is not only the spiritual and administrative head of the diocese, but also the person responsible for the way in which the ecclesiastical property and funds of that ecclesiastical unit are managed and administered 22.

Another formal requirement for the disposal of church property was the approval of the ‘Lord’. Any act of sale of a significant asset belonging to a monastery required the written consent of the state authorities. This was justified by the fact that the rulers or boyars, high-ranking state officials, intended, through the property they endowed to ecclesiastical institutions, to ensure both their continued existence and the smooth running of their religious, social, cultural and health-related activities, according to the specific nature of each23. In this regard, we refer to Article 79, ‘Birul’, of the Organic Regulations (1831–1832), which provides for the exemption of monastic and episcopal institutions from paying tax to the state on account of the social-philanthropic activities they carry out for the benefit of society, through the funding of hospitals, schools and cultural centres, as well as by providing salaries for the staff serving these institutions 24.

Any deed of sale of a monastic property concluded in breach of the four conditions laid down by the Pravilă is subject to absolute nullity, as it is deemed that the property was never alienated at any time 25.

Although the administration of church property is regulated in the Manual of Church Rules by only a few articles, general guidelines and legal principles which outline the special legal status of church property, Saint Calinic nevertheless showed particular care for the Church’s patrimony. This is evident, first and foremost, from the great hierarch’s custom – dating back to his time as abbot at Cernica Monastery – of signing and annotating the books in his personal library with the words: ‘Belongs to Cernica Monastery, not to be disposed of’26 This fact attests to Saint Calinic’s love for books, for the possessions of the monastery where he lived, but above all for the Church’s heritage.

In conclusion, the few regulations contained in Saint Calinic’s Rule express, first and foremost, the importance of the Church’s heritage in supporting the work of priests and monks amongst the faithful, as beacons of the Gospel of Christ in the world and as moral, cultural and judicial benchmarks in society – the immediate aim of the Orthodox Church. Secondly, the text of the law reflects the continuity of the apostolic and patristic tradition within the Orthodox Church in our country during the nineteenth century, with regard to the Byzantine nomocanonical legislation inherited and adapted to the social realities of the Romanian people. Last but not least, we recognise the special legal status of Church property, which legislatorshave safeguarded throughout the history of written Romanian law, owing to the importance that ecclesiastical heritage holds in the exercise by Romanians of their right to religious freedom.

• 1

  In this regard, the words from his will are particularly revealing: “I have acquired neither wealth nor wickedness, only holy books”, Al. I. CIUREA, “Saint Calinic of Cernica, Bishop of Râmnic and Noul Severin (14 September 1850 – 11 April 1868)”, in Mitropolia Olteniei, vol. XV (1963), nos. 9–10, p. 676.

• 2

  Fr. Niculae ȘERBĂNESCU, ‘Saint Calinic, Bishop of Râmnic – 11 April 1868’, in The Romanian Orthodox Church, vol. LXXXVI, 1968, nos. 3–5, p. 379.

• 3

  Fr. Laurențiu RĂDOI, ‘A Great Lover of Books: Saint Calinic of Cernica’, in The Spiritual and Cultural Work of Saint Calinic of Cernica, Bishop of Râmnic, Praxis Publishing House of the Archdiocese of Râmnic, Râmnicu-Vâlcea, 2015, p. 224.

• 4

  Liviu STAN, ‘The Rule of Saint Calinic: A Century Since Its Publication’, in Mitropolia Olteniei, vol. XIV, 1962, nos. 3–4, pp. 209–223.

• 5

  Chapter I, Article 6, paragraph (1), “Monastic property is deemed to be all movable and immovable assets which are rightfully in the possession of the monastery and which adorn it or yield some form of income”, in Manual of Ecclesiastical Rules, D. D. Calinic, Transliterated and edited by Dumitru-Codruț Scurtu, Published by the Archdiocese of Argeș and Muscel, Curtea de Argeș, 2010, p. 31.

• 6

  “If a man becomes a monk and dies without having any sons, his estate shall be taken by the monastery, but if he has sons, it shall be divided into as many parts as he has sons, setting aside—as for one son—a portion with which he may live until the end of his life. However, if he dies without a will, the portion due to him shall be inherited by that monastery, whilst what his sons have taken shall remain theirs”, in D. D. Calinic, Manual of Church Rules, Transliterated and edited by Dumitru-Codruț Scurtu, Published by the Archdiocese of Argeș and Muscel, Curtea de Argeș, 2010, p. 29.

• 7

  Chapter 132: ‘If a man becomes a monk and dies without having any sons, then his possessions shall be taken by the monastery. But if he has sons, his estate shall be divided into as many parts as there are sons; and he himself shall still receive a share equal to that of a son, and that solely to provide for his livelihood for as long as he lives. Therefore, if he dies without a will, the portion he received as a son shall inherit that monastery; whilst the portions received by his sons shall remain theirs, and the monastery shall have no claim whatsoever upon them.” Andrei RĂDULESCU (editor), The Amendment to the Law of 1652, p. 153.

• 8

  “Anyone who becomes a bishop, priest or deacon, or takes up any other ecclesiastical office, by paying money, whether much or little, shall have their bishopric taken from them; and the bishop, priest or deacon, whoever they may be, and likewise the bishop who performed the ordination, shall receive the same punishment; and not only shall their honour be taken from them, but they shall also be barred from receiving Holy Communion”, in Manual of Church Canons, D. D. Calinic, Transliterated and edited by Dumitru-Codruț Scurtu, Published by the Archdiocese of Argeș and Muscel, Curtea de Argeș, 2010, p. 17.

• 9

  According to Apostolic Canon 29, ‘if any bishop, presbyter or deacon were to acquire this office (dignity) through money, let him be deposed, and let the one who ordained him also be deposed, and let him be utterly cut off from the communion (Church), as Simon Magus was by me, Peter’; Apostolic Canon 30: “if any bishop, making use of worldly rulers, should through them become lord over any church, let him be deposed and excommunicated, as well as all his accomplices”; Canon 4 of the Seventh Ecumenical Council: “The divine Apostle Paul, the herald of the truth (preacher), addressing the presbyters of Ephesus—or rather, the entire body of the clergy—in the manner of a canon, spoke openly thus: ‘I have coveted neither the silver nor the gold nor the clothing of any man; I have shown you everything, for in this way, whilst labouring, it is fitting that you should come to the aid of the unbelievers, considering that it is more blessed to give than to receive’ (Acts of the Apostles XX, 33–35). Therefore, following his example, we decree that the bishop, who devises shameful schemes (pretexts) for personal gain in matters of sin, shall in no way plan to demand gold, or silver, or anything else from the bishop, or from the clergy, or from the monks who are under him (who are subject to him). For the Apostle says: ‘The unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God’ (1 Corinthians 6:9) and: ‘It is not the children who ought to provide for their parents, but the parents for their children’ (2 Corinthians 2:14). If, therefore, for the sake of extorting gold or any other kind of gain, or for some personal passion of his own, any one (of the bishops) were found to be preventing any of the clergy subject to him from performing the service (the Liturgy) and excommunicating them, or closing any honourable (holy) church, so that the services of God may not be performed therein, and extending his folly to the insensitive one—who is truly without feeling— he shall himself suffer the same torment, and his wickedness shall return upon his own head (Psalm VII, 16), as one who tramples upon God’s commandment and the apostolic ordinances. For even Peter, the foremost leader of the apostles, commands: ‘Shepherd the flock of God entrusted to your care, watching over them, not by compulsion but willingly, as God would have it; not for shameful gain, but out of zeal; not as lording it over those entrusted to your care, but setting an example to the flock; and when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory” (1 Peter 5:2–4)”; Canon 2 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council: “If any bishop were to perform ordination for money and were to reduce the grace that cannot be sold to the level of things for sale, and were to ordain a bishop, or a metropolitan, or presbyters, or deacons, or anyone else among those who are counted as clergy; or were to appoint (or designate) an oikonomos or ekdikos (defender, church advocate) or a paramonar or anyone else from (among the church ministers) for shameful gain at his own expense, let him who is proven to have done this be in danger of losing his own rank, and the ordained person shall derive no benefit from that ordination or promotion obtained through such dealings; but shall be deemed unworthy of the office or ministry which he has acquired through money. And if anyone were to be found acting as an intermediary in such shameful and impermissible dealings, let him too be deposed from his rank, if he be a cleric, and if he be a layperson or a monk (living the monastic life), let him be excommunicated”; Canon 5 of the Seventh Ecumenical Council: ‘It is considered a mortal sin when anyone, having sinned, remains unrepentant. But worse still is if they rise up with obstinacy against the true faith and the truth, valuing mammon more than obedience to God, and oppose His canonical ordinances. The Lord God is not with such people, unless they humble themselves and come to their senses (awaken) from their error; for they must draw near to God with all their heart and, with a contrite heart, seek remission and forgiveness for this sin, and not take pride in unlawful gifts (‘The Lord is close to the contrite in heart’, Psalm XXXIII, 17). Therefore, those who boast that they have been appointed in the Church through the giving of gold (by the offering of gold) and, placing their hope in this evil custom—which alienates them from God and from the entire priesthood—and who, for this reason, with shameless faces and loud voices (with their mouths uncovered), mock with scornful words those who have been chosen by the Holy Spirit and who have been ordained (in the Church) without the payment of gold, (then) let those who do this first take the lowest rank of their order (of their own station). And if they persist (persevere), let them be corrected through rebuke (epitimia). And if anyone should ever be found to be doing this at the time of ordination (on the occasion of ordination), the Apostolic Canon shall be followed, which states: ‘If any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon were to acquire this office, let him who ordained him also be deposed and cut off entirely from communion (the Church, the Eucharist), just as Simon Magus was by me, Peter’ (Canon 29 of the Apostles). Likewise, according to the second canon of our holy Fathers at Chalcedon, which states: ‘If any bishop were to perform ordination for money and were to reduce the grace that cannot be sold to the level of goods for sale, and were to ordain for money a bishop, or archbishop, or presbyter, or deacon, or anyone else among those counted as clergy, or were to appoint (install, ordain) for money a church treasurer or defender (advocate), or a paramonar, or anyone listed in the canon (the register of church officials), for shameful personal gain; whoever is proven to have done (undertaken) this shall be at risk of losing their own rank (position), and the ordained person shall derive no benefit from that ordination or promotion through such dealings, but shall be deemed unworthy of the office or ministry which he acquired through money. And if anyone were to be found acting as an intermediary in such shameful and impermissible dealings, let him too be stripped of his rank, if he be a cleric, and if he be a layperson or a monk, let him be excommunicated” (Canon 2 of the Synod IV ec.).” In Dr Nicodim MILAȘ, The Canons of the Orthodox Church with Commentaries, vols. I–II, Romanian trans. by Uroș Kovincici and Dr Nicolae Popovici, Arad, 1930–1936; Ioan N. FLOCA, The Canons of the Orthodox Church. Notes and Commentaries, 3rd edition by Sorin Joantă, Sibiu, 2005; The Canons of the Orthodox Church, Vol. I–III, The Apostolic Canons and the Canons of the Ecumenical Councils, edited and translated by Răzvan Perșa, Basilica Publishing House, Bucharest, 2018.

• 10

  “Anyone who wishes to become a priest and goes to enlist the help of another to speak to the Bishop, reckoning that through his influence—out of fear—he might persuade the Bishop to grant him the gift of the Archdiocese, or the priesthood, or some other rank, let such a person have his gift taken away and be excommunicated, and indeed all those who were in his counsel”, in Manual of Church Rules, D. D. Calinic, Transliterated and edited by Dumitru-Codruț Scurtu, Published by the Archdiocese of Argeș and Muscel, Curtea de Argeș, 2010, p. 17.

• 11

  The Church’s sacred property is subject to a special legal regime, being inalienable, immune from the statute of limitations and exempt from seizure, owing to the role it plays in the practice of worship, as an expression of individuals’ right to religious freedom.

• 12

  “Any church that has once been consecrated and designated a monastery in accordance with the Bishop’s decision shall remain in that status for ever, and its property and possessions shall be subject to the laws laid down for monasteries”, in Manual of Ecclesiastical Rules, D. D. Calinic, Transliterated and edited by Dumitru-Codruț Scurtu, Published by the Archdiocese of Argeș and Muscel, Curtea de Argeș, 2010, p. 31.

• 13

  Canon 11 of the Seventh Ecumenical Council: “Since we are bound to uphold all the divine canons, we must by all means preserve intact that which stipulates that there should be stewards in every Church [...]”, in Răzvan Perșa (translator), The Canons of the Orthodox Church, vol. I, p. 353; Canon 10 of Saint Theophilus: ‘Let another steward be appointed by the will of the entire clergy, with whom Bishop Apollon also agrees, to administer the Church’s assets as required’, in Răzvan Perșa (translator), The Canons of the Orthodox Church, vol. III, p. 208.

• 14

  “All the assets of the monastery or the Diocese are to be recorded in a register and entrusted to the care of the appointed steward, who shall also be held accountable”, in Manual of Church Regulations, D. D. Calinic, transliterated and edited by Dumitru-Codruț Scurtu, published by the Archdiocese of Argeș and Muscel, Curtea de Argeș, 2010, p. 31.

• 15

  “Upon the bishop’s death, his remains shall not become part of the diocese’s estate; they shall be disposed of as he wishes, to be given to whomever he chooses”, in Manual of Ecclesiastical Rules, D. D. Calinic, Transliterated and edited by Dumitru-Codruț Scurtu, published by the Archdiocese of Argeș and Muscel, Curtea de Argeș, 2010, p. 31.

• 16

  Paragraph (1) ‘No one shall sell any of the monastery’s possessions that generate an income; however, those that do not generate an income may be sold: a) if the monastery is in great need; b) if the proceeds are to be used to purchase another property more useful to the monastery; c) provided that these circumstances are declared and confirmed by the local bishop; d) provided that this is subsequently approved by the authorities’, in Manual of Ecclesiastical Rules, D. D. Calinic, transliterated and edited by Dumitru-Codruț Scurtu, Published by the Archdiocese of Argeș and Muscel, Curtea de Argeș, 2010, p. 31.

• 17

  Manual of Church Rules, D. D. Calinic, Transliterated and edited by Dumitru-Codruț Scurtu, Published by the Archdiocese of Argeș and Muscel, Curtea de Argeș, 2010, p. 31.

• 18

  Acaret, acareturi, n. 1. An outbuilding belonging to a farmstead. 2. (Pl.) Farm tools, especially agricultural ones. According to the DEX, (ed.) Ion Coteanu, Luiza Seche, Mircea Seche, Universul Enciclopedic Publishing House, Bucharest 1998, p. 5.

• 19

  Manual of Church Rules, D. D. Calinic, transliterated and edited by Dumitru-Codruț Scurtu, published by the Archdiocese of Argeș and Muscel, Curtea de Argeș, 2010, p. 31.

• 20

  “The bishop shall have authority over all ecclesiastical matters, which he shall administer as required and in accordance with the laws drawn up for this purpose”, in Manual of Ecclesiastical Rules, D. D. Calinic, transliterated and edited by Dumitru-Codruț Scurtu, published by the Archdiocese of Argeș and Muscel, Curtea de Argeș, 2010, p. 31.

• 21

  Apostolic Canon 38: ‘The bishop shall have charge of all the church’s possessions and shall administer them as if God were watching over him. However, he must not appropriate anything of these for himself, nor bestow what belongs to God upon his own relatives. And if they should be poor, let them be given to them as to the poor; but let him not sell the Church’s property under the pretext of helping them’, in Răzvan Perșa (translator), The Canons of the Orthodox Church, vol. I, The Apostolic Canons and the Canons of the Ecumenical Councils, Basilica Publishing House, Bucharest, 2018, p. 118. Apostolic Canon 39: “Priests and deacons are not to do anything without the bishop’s consent, for it is he to whom the people of the Lord have been entrusted and from whom an account will be demanded for their souls”, in Răzvan Perșa (translator), The Canons of the Orthodox Church, Vol. I, p. 118. Apostolic Canon 41: “We decree that the bishop shall have authority over the Church’s possessions; for, if the precious souls of men are to be entrusted to him, all the more should he have authority over the funds, so that all may be administered according to his power and distributed to the needy through the priests and deacons with the fear of God and all piety. But if he should find himself in need, then let him also take what he requires for his pressing needs and for those of the brothers received as guests, so that they may not be deprived in any way. For the law of God has ordained that those who stand at the altar should be fed from the altar, since even a soldier does not bear arms against enemies from his own pay’, in Răzvan Perșa (translator), Canons of the Orthodox Church, vol. I, pp. 119–120. Canon 8 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council: ‘The clergy of the almshouses attached to monasteries and the altars of the martyrs are to remain under the authority of the bishop of each city, in accordance with the tradition of the Holy Fathers, and are not to rebel out of pride against their own bishop. And those who dare to violate such a provision in any way whatsoever, and do not submit to their own bishop, if they are clergy, shall be subject to the penalties of the canons; and if they are monks or laity, they are to be excommunicated’, in Răzvan Perșa (translator), The Canons of the Orthodox Church, vol. I, p. 220. Canon 31 of Trullan: “We decree that clergy who celebrate the Divine Liturgy or baptise in private chapels situated within houses must do so with the permission of the local bishop. Therefore, if a cleric fails to observe this, let him be defrocked”, in Răzvan Perșa (translator), The Canons of the Orthodox Church, Vol. I, p. 289. Canon 24 of Antioch: ‘The Church’s possessions must be well preserved for the Church and safeguarded with the utmost care, with a clear conscience and with faith in God, the Provider and Judge of all. And it is fitting that these should be administered with the judgement and authority of the bishop, to whom the whole people and the souls of those in the congregation have been entrusted. However, the property belonging to the Church must be clearly identified and managed in accordance with the will of the priests and deacons around him, so that they may know and never be unaware of what belongs to the Church, and that nothing may be concealed from them [...]”, in Răzvan Perșa (translator), The Canons of the Orthodox Church, vol. II, p. 77.

• 22

  Canon 33 of Carthage: ‘[...] Therefore, unless there is a necessity, no bishop is permitted to misappropriate any property listed in the church register’, in Răzvan Perșa (translator), The Canons of the Orthodox Church, vol. II, pp. 153–154.

• 23

  Article 80: “These duties of the metropolitan see, the dioceses and the monasteries in no way infringe upon the rights of the owners, since the monasteries are expressly endowed with both state and private assets for the fulfilment of good deeds pleasing to God and beneficial to the community, in accordance with the worthy of remembrance, Christian aim of the founders and benefactors of those holy places’. Pauș NEGULESCU and George ALEXIANU (eds.), The Organic Regulations of Wallachia and Moldavia, vol. I, p. 192.

• 24

  “The share of the revenues from all the estates and monastic properties—both those under the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan See and the bishoprics of Moldavia, such as Slatina, Râșca and the others, as well as those belonging to foreign monasteries, such as Golia, Galata, Triisfetitele and the others, shall be exempt from these taxes. St. Spyridon, which runs the hospital, and the monasteries of Neamțul, Săcul, Văraticul, Agapia and Florești, are established and maintain communities of monks and nuns, as does Socola Monastery, designated for the establishment of the seminary. However, as regards the management of Neamț Monastery, it shall, at its own expense, in Târgul Neamțului, a hospital for thirty patients, both men and women, in which the monastery shall, at its own expense, provide a doctor, a nurse and all necessary provisions, in accordance with the regulations to be drawn up for all hospitals in the country’, in Pauș NEGULESCU and George ALEXIANU (eds.), The Organic Regulations of Wallachia and Moldavia, vol. I, p. 192.

• 25

  “Whether a Bishop or an Abbot alienates land to anyone, contrary to the above law, from the monastery’s estates or fields, such alienation shall be deemed invalid”, in Manual of Ecclesiastical Rules, D. D. Calinic, transliterated and edited by Dumitru-Codruț Scurtu, published by the Archdiocese of Argeș and Muscel, Curtea de Argeș, 2010, p. 31.

• 26

  Gherasim Cristea, A Saint Amongst Men, Râmnicu-Vâlcea, 1996, p. 676.