Episcopal Consecrations
during a Vacancy of the Apostolic See
A Certain Historical Precedent
and the Question of Extraordinary Jurisdiction
Table of Contents
- The Historical Precedent of the Interregnum of 1268-1271
- The Patristic Precedents Invoked by Catholic Theology
- The Tacit Communication of Episcopal Jurisdiction
- The Right of the Church to Its Own Preservation
- The Extraordinary Intervention of the Universal Church
Conclusion
References and Citations
- The historical precedent of the interregnum of 1268-1271
Pope Clement IV died on 29 November 1268. Owing to the profound divisions within the Sacred College, the Apostolic See remained vacant until the election of Gregory X on 1 September 1271. This vacancy of nearly three years constitutes one of the longest in the history of the Church.
The great scientific repertory of the medieval Latin hierarchy, compiled from the papal registers and the Vatican archives by the Franciscan Conrad Eubel, attests that several bishops were provided with their sees during this period.
Conrad Eubel mentions in particular the following bishops:
Radulfus de Thieville, bishop of Avranches;
Nicolaus Forteguerra, bishop of Aléria;
Caspar Adam, O.P., bishop of Antivari;
Erardus de Lesinnes, bishop of Auxerre;
Potius de Sissey, bishop of Chalon-sur-Saône;
Jacobus, bishop of Cagli;
Geoffridus d’Ass, bishop of Le Mans;
Petrus Taurs, bishop of Cefalù;
Theodoricus Borgognoni, O.P., bishop of Cervia;
Johannes Magnesi, O.P., bishop of Civita Castellana;
Philippus de Chaourse, bishop of Évreux;
Ravaldinus, bishop of Forlimpopoli;
Johannes de Rupe, bishop of Lismore;
Paganellus, bishop of Lucca;
Petrus de Gualis, bishop of Maurienne;
Johannes de Garlande, bishop of Meaux;
Laurentius von Leisteberg, bishop of Metz;
Raudulfus de Valpelline, bishop of Sion;
Bertandus de Lisle Jourdain, bishop of Toulouse;
Johannes de Nanteuil, bishop of Troyes;
Petrus Urg, bishop of Urgell.
These data were taken up and summarised by Mgr Mark A. Pivarunas, who emphasises that these consecrations necessarily took place during the vacancy of the Apostolic See, that is to say in the absence of a reigning pope.
Even more remarkable is that no historical source reports that Gregory X, after his election, deposed these bishops or declared their consecrations null. On the contrary, they remained in peaceful possession of their sees and were recognised as legitimate bishops.
- The patristic precedents invoked by Catholic theology
In order to explain the extraordinary solutions rendered necessary by exceptional circumstances, Catholic theologians have invoked precedents going back to Christian Antiquity.
Father Diego Laínez, S.J., second Superior General of the Society of Jesus and theologian at the Council of Trent, thus recalls the interventions of Saint Eusebius of Samosata in the Churches devastated by Arianism:
« Interim Eusebius Samosatenus episcopus, in exilium deportatus, apostolicis laboribus instanter incubuit (…), presbyteros et diaconos ordinans et reliqua ecclesiastica officia complens. »
“Meanwhile Eusebius of Samosata, while being led into exile, applied himself with ardour to apostolic labours (…), ordaining priests and deacons and providing for the other ecclesiastical offices.”
He also recalls that Saint Athanasius was accused of having performed ordinations in foreign Churches:
« In quibusdam ecclesiis ordinationes fecit. »
“He performed ordinations in certain Churches.”
Laínez concludes:
« Ex quo concluditur licitum esse etiam extendere jurisdictionem propter necessitatem.»
“From which it is concluded that it is lawful even to extend jurisdiction on account of necessity.”
Diego Laínez, Disputationes Tridentinae, text beginning with “Causa autem jurisdictionis”, p. 361.
- The tacit communication of episcopal jurisdiction
In the twentieth century, Father Emil Dieckmann, S.J., explicitly formulates a particularly remarkable principle:
« Etiamsi explicita confirmatio et recognitio electionis alicuius episcopi a Romano Pontifice desit, ipsa fraternitatis communio et ordinatio ab episcopis Ecclesiae catholicae habita censeri potest tamquam tacita recognitio et communicatio iurisdictionis episcopalis. »
“Even if an explicit confirmation and recognition of the election of a bishop by the Roman Pontiff is lacking, the fraternal communion itself and the ordination received from the bishops of the Catholic Church can be considered as a tacit recognition and communication of episcopal jurisdiction.”
Emil Dieckmann, S.J., De Ecclesia, vol. I, Fribourg-en-Brisgau, 1925, p. 413.
- The right of the Church to her own preservation
Beyond the historical precedents, several classical authors recall a fundamental ecclesiological principle: the society founded by Christ possesses, by virtue of its very divine institution, the right and the means necessary for its own preservation.
Cardinal Thomas de Vio Cajetan, examining extraordinary situations in which the ordinary structures of government are impeded, teaches that the Church cannot be deprived of the indispensable means for her visible existence. In his treatise on the relations between the pope and the council, he admits that the universal Church can, in exceptional circumstances, perform certain acts necessary for her own preservation.
Jean de Saint-Thomas develops the same principle with even greater precision. He affirms that the Church has the right to provide for her own preservation when the common ecclesiastical good requires it, since Christ did not institute a society destined to perish for lack of being able to exercise the acts indispensable to its continuity.
This doctrine finds its ultimate foundation in the indefectibility of the Church. Indeed, if one were to maintain that no episcopal consecration could ever take place during an exceptionally prolonged vacancy of the Apostolic See, one would have to admit that such a vacancy could, in time, bring about the progressive extinction of the Catholic episcopate, the impossibility of transmitting the sacrament of Holy Orders in its fullness, and ultimately the practical disappearance of the apostolic succession. Such a consequence seems hardly reconcilable with the promise of Christ concerning the visible perpetuity of His Church.
It does not follow that every extraordinary solution is, for that reason alone, legitimate or effectively realised in a concrete case. However, the principle of indefectibility excludes that one could erect into an absolute rule the radical impossibility of any preservative measure destined to maintain the continuity of the sacred hierarchy when the ordinary ways are durably impeded.
- The extraordinary intervention of the universal Church
Dom Adrien Gréa sets forth the ecclesiological foundation of these exceptional situations:
“It is conceivable that in the absence of the particular pastors, the universal powers of the hierarchy alone remain, and that the universal Church, by the general powers of its hierarchy and of the episcopate, in a sense replaces the particular Churches and comes immediately to the aid of souls.”
He adds:
“Thus, in the fourth century, one saw Saint Eusebius of Samosata traverse the Churches of the East devastated by the Arians and ordain orthodox pastors for them without possessing any special jurisdiction over them.”
Conclusion
The historically certain facts allow us to establish the following points:
Firstly, the history of the Church knows an objectively attested precedent of episcopal consecrations accomplished during a long vacancy of the Apostolic See.
Secondly, these bishops were subsequently recognised and maintained in possession of their sees by the restored pontifical authority.
Thirdly, Catholic theologians of the first rank, such as Diego Laínez, Emil Dieckmann and Dom Adrien Gréa, explicitly admit that in extraordinary circumstances the necessity of the salvation of souls can justify an extension or an extraordinary communication of jurisdiction.
These data are not sufficient, by themselves, to resolve all the canonical questions relating to exceptional ecclesiastical crises. They demonstrate, however, that it is historically false and theologically inaccurate to maintain that such an eventuality would be absolutely without precedent in the Catholic tradition.
References and citations
Conradus Eubel, O.F.M., Hierarchia Catholica Medii Aevi, t. I, Monasterii, Libraria Regensbergiana, 1913.
Diego Laínez, S.J., Disputationes Tridentinae, p. 361:
« Interim Eusebius Samosatenus episcopus, in exilium deportatus, apostolicis laboribus instanter incubuit (…), presbyteros et diaconos ordinans et reliqua ecclesiastica officia complens. »
« Ex quo concluditur licitum esse etiam extendere jurisdictionem propter necessitatem. »
Emil Dieckmann, S.J., De Ecclesia, vol. I, Fribourg-en-Brisgau, Herder, 1925, p. 413:
« Etiamsi explicita confirmatio et recognitio electionis alicuius episcopi a Romano Pontifice desit, ipsa fraternitatis communio et ordinatio ab episcopis Ecclesiae catholicae habita censeri potest tamquam tacita recognitio et communicatio iurisdictionis episcopalis. »
Dom Adrien Gréa, L’Église et sa divine constitution (quotation concerning the extraordinary intervention of the universal Church and the example of Saint Eusebius of Samosata).
Thomas de Vio Cajetan, De comparatione auctoritatis Papae et Concilii, Rome, Antonius Bladus, 1531.
Jean de Saint-Thomas, Cursus Theologicus, t. VII, De Auctoritate Summi Pontificis, Paris, Ludovicus Vivès, 1883.
Mark A. Pivarunas, “The Consecration of Bishops During Interregna”, CMRI.