Catholic Confirmation Letter To Priest

ЧЕТИРИ КАЗУСА ОКОЛО РЪКОВОДСТВОТО НА БПЦ-БП ОТ НОЕМВРИ 2010 г.

М есец Ноември 2010 г. ще се окаже доста усилен месец за ръководството на БПЦ-БП в юридически и канонически контекст.

На първо place : presumably, first senior cleric was convicted of discrimination . Indeed, in the interest of objectivity, should be told that the Commission for Protection against Discrimination (CPD =) de iure et de facto does not condemn anyone, but a finding of discrimination , because CPD is not a court , although and that decisions are appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC =). Moreover, the very finding of the CPD, which decided in an ad hoc Appeal Case 110/2009 and left Decision № 259 of 23.11.2010, the (decision will be published on the website after its entry into force, ie, if the 14-day period shall not be appealed before the SAC) has found presence of the discrimination exercised by the senior klirik of BOC-BP, which occupies a very serious position. To no such decision, just that klirik could be excused. Excuse, ie simply to repent, ask forgiveness from other sinners, just like all of us. Because, though the Gospels provide sufficient evidence about how Christ helps maimed. Another issue is whether the supreme klirik ( without higher education ) understood the grace of Christ to not seek victims God among people who have difficulties in movement. Apparently everyone does what is really mind (Romans 13:5), since of course uses it as read Gospels.

CPD decision № 259 of 23.11.2010, will once again put questions to senior management personnel of the BOC-BP, which as shown will not be solved и през 2010 г. Но по Решение КЗД №259 от 23.11.2010 г. ще коментираме, когато то влезе в сила и бъде официално оповестено.

На второ място: С не по-малка сила ноемврийска snowball of cases is set to Oborishte 4 of Vratsa. Finally, the supreme executive power in the BOC-BP is an opportunity that you will hardly benefit, to show that they conform to the canons on church property , whether a bishop is de facto bankrupt before or just trying to justify the allocation of material goods between their mestoblyustiteli . The case is symptomatic and affects all 13 dioceses of the BOC-BP in the territory of Bulgaria. The other two dioceses can not be affected by such casuistry, but that some other time.
canons relating to Vratsa case are so strong , that the synodal decision on this issue instructive property may consist of just a few numbers and letters:

35th canon of Carthaginian council, in conjunction with the 12th canon of VII-I Ecumenical Council, in conjunction with the 15th canon of the council Ankirskiya etc. etc. the interpretation ...;

art. 229th Art. 135th, section 14, art. 121, item 9, and finally чл. 190, т. 6 и т.н. и т.н. от Устава на БПЦ-БП от 2009 г.

Врачанският казус е толкова очеизваден, че просто по-скоро заслужава коментар идващото с неизвестна скорост, ако изобщо някога пристигне, синодално решение с което ще бъдат приложени горните разпоредби спрямо лицата, които не са ги уважили. 

Thirdly , in a not inconsiderable surprise by the Supreme Court, called by himself Interpretative Decision № 1 of 23.11.2010, the General събрание на Търговската колегия - 15 върховни съдии се опитват да тълкуват върху въпрос, поставен им от министъра на правосъдието на РБ относно вписването на БПЦ-БП и нейните местни поделения в регистри - съответно на СГС и на останалите ОС в страната. Странното в случая е, че отклоняват една част от въпроса, по която "нямало" практика , а решават друга, която зависи именно от липсващата практика. " Правната логика ", за която говори ОС на ТК на ВКС в своето решение е онзи litmus test that shows that when 15 judges can not interpret something they just can not write or Copy one or other opinion unless it is linked to mandatory legal framework - erga omnes - ie binding and HCV itself .
If it was not the tragedy of misunderstanding the simplest things, maybe it would be funny.

But general interpretative decision № 1 of 23.11.2010 of the General Assembly of the Commercial Division of the SCC is important, therefore, will be given further consideration.

Fourth but not least should mention an interesting phenomenon in the relationships between Ministers and the Synod of the BOC-BP. Namely otpochvashtoto hramostroitelstvo in the building of Ministers of Bulgaria , which has already been mentioned here . Whatever you say on this matter will not be true and false. Shocking са множество факти, като се започне от самата идея и се достигне до въпросите по УБПЦ-БП, Конституция, Закон за вероизповедания и т.н., доколко синодалното решение on this issue can be argued in some logical and appropriate manner and tsarkovnopraven darzhavnopraven aspect. Hramostroitelstvoto under the nose и под покрива на държавната изпълнителна власт е изключително важен казус, на който също няма начин да не обърнем  по-задълбочено внимание в скоро време. Until then, comments on the matter to remain here .