Episcopal Consecrations
during a vacancy of the Apostolic See:
a 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 her own conservation
- 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. Because of the deep divisions that reigned 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. This is certain. [1, p. 8 ; 7a]
The great scientific repertory of the medieval Latin hierarchy, established from the pontifical registers and the Vatican archives by the Franciscan Conrad Eubel, attests that several bishops were provided with their sees during this period. This is certain. [1]
Conrad Eubel mentions in particular the following bishops: [1]
Radulfus de Thieville, bishop of Avranches ;
Nicolaus Forteguerra, bishop of Aléria ;
Caspar Adam, O.P., bishop of Antivari ;
Erardus de Lesinnes, bishop of Auxerre ;
Pontius de Sissey, bishop of Chalon-sur-Saône ;
Jacobus, bishop of Cagli ;
Geoffridus d’Asse, 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 Guelis, bishop of Maurienne ;
Johannes de Garlande, bishop of Meaux ;
Laurentius de Leistenberg, bishop of Metz ;
Radulfus de Valpelline, bishop of Sion ;
Bertrandus de l’Isle Jourdain, bishop of Toulouse ;
Johannes de Nanteuil, bishop of Troyes ;
Petrus Urg, bishop of Urgell.
These data have been taken up and synthesized by Mgr Mark A. Pivarunas, who underlines that these consecrations necessarily took place during the vacancy of the Apostolic See, that is to say in the absence of a reigning pope. This is certain. [7a]
Still more remarkable, 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 recognized as legitimate bishops. This is certain. [7b]
- 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 :
« Eusebius interea, Samosatenus episcopus, in Thraciam in exilium deportabatur, apostolicis laboribus desudabat. […] presbyteros ordinans atque diaconos, aliaque ecclesiae replebat officia. »
« Eusebius, meanwhile, bishop of Samosata, was being deported into exile in Thrace ; he spent himself in apostolic labours. […] ordaining priests and deacons, he filled the other offices of the Church. »
He also recalls that Saint Athanasius was accused of having proceeded to ordinations in foreign Churches :
« In quibusdam vero ecclesiis ordinationes fecit. »
« He nevertheless performed ordinations in certain Churches. »
Laínez concludes :
« Ex quibus colligitur, licere propter necessitatem jurisdictionem etiam extendere; quod quia illi non considerabant, immerito Athanasium reprehendebant. »
« From these facts it is gathered that it is licit, because of necessity, to extend jurisdiction as well ; because they did not take this into account, they blamed Athanasius unjustly. »
Diego Laínez, S.J., Disputationes Tridentinae, ed. Hartmannus Grisar, t. I, Innsbruck, Felicianus Rauch, 1886, n° 308, p. 362. This is certain. [2]
- The tacit communication of episcopal jurisdiction
In the twentieth century, Father Hermannus Dieckmann, S.J., formulates explicitly a particularly remarkable principle :
« […] etiamsi explicita confirmatio et agnitio electionis alicuius episcopalis per episcopum romanum defuerit, ipsa iam communio fraternitatis atque ordinatio ab episcopis Ecclesiae catholicae facta potuit considerari tamquam tacita agnitio atque communicatio iurisdictionis episcopalis. »
« […] even if the explicit confirmation and recognition of some episcopal election by the Roman bishop had been lacking, the very communion of fraternity as well as the ordination performed by the bishops of the Catholic Church could already have been considered as a tacit recognition and communication of episcopal jurisdiction. »
Hermannus Dieckmann, S.J., De Ecclesia, t. I, Freiburg im Breisgau, Herder and Co., 1925, p. 413. This is certain. [3]
- The right of the Church to her own conservation
Beyond the historical precedents, several classical authors recall a fundamental ecclesiological principle : the society founded by Christ possesses, by the very virtue of her divine institution, the right and the means necessary for her own conservation.
Cardinal Thomas de Vio Cajetan, examining the extraordinary situations in which the ordinary structures of government find themselves impeded, teaches that the Church cannot be deprived of the means indispensable to her visible existence. In his treatise devoted to the relations between the pope and the council, he admits that the universal Church can, in exceptional circumstances, accomplish certain acts necessary for her own conservation. This is certain. [5]
John of Saint Thomas develops the same principle with still greater precision. He affirms that the Church possesses the right to provide for her own preservation when the ecclesiastical common good requires it, since Christ did not institute a society destined to perish for lack of being able to exercise the acts indispensable to her continuity. This is certain. [6]
This doctrine finds its ultimate foundation in the indefectibility of the Church. Indeed, if one maintained 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 entail, with time, the progressive extinction of the Catholic episcopate, the impossibility of transmitting the sacrament of Order in its fullness and, finally, the practical disappearance of apostolic succession. Such a consequence appears difficult to reconcile with the promise of Christ concerning the visible perpetuity of His Church.
It does not follow that every extraordinary solution is, by that fact alone, legitimate or effectively realized in a concrete case. However, the principle of indefectibility excludes that one can erect into an absolute rule the radical impossibility of any conservative measure destined to maintain the continuity of the sacred hierarchy when the ordinary ways find themselves lastingly impeded.
- The extraordinary intervention of the universal Church
Dom Adrien Gréa sets forth the ecclesiological foundation of these exceptional situations :
« For, as we have already said, one conceives that in the absence of the particular pastors, what is universal in the powers of the hierarchy remains alone, and that the universal Church, by the general powers of her hierarchy and of the episcopate, holds, so to speak, the place of the particular churches, and comes immediately to the aid of souls. » [4]
He adds :
« Thus one saw in the fourth century Saint Eusebius of Samosata travel through the churches of the East devastated by the Arians and ordain for them orthodox pastors without having special jurisdiction over them. » [4]
Conclusion
The historically certain facts allow the following points to be established :
First, the history of the Church knows an objectively attested precedent of episcopal consecrations accomplished during a long vacancy of the Apostolic See. This is certain. [1 ; 7a]
Second, these bishops were afterwards recognized and maintained in the possession of their sees by the restored pontifical authority. This is certain. [7b]
Third, Catholic theologians of the first rank, such as Diego Laínez, Hermannus Dieckmann and Dom Adrien Gréa, admit explicitly that in extraordinary circumstances the necessity of the salvation of souls can justify an extension or an extraordinary communication of jurisdiction. This is certain. [2–4]
These data do not suffice, by themselves alone, to resolve all the canonical questions relative to exceptional ecclesial crises. They demonstrate nevertheless that it is historically false and theologically inexact to maintain that such an eventuality would be absolutely without precedent in the Catholic tradition.
References and citations
[1] Conradus Eubel
Conradus Eubel, O.F.M. Conv., Hierarchia catholica medii aevi [Catholic Hierarchy of the Middle Ages], t. I, 2nd edition, Monasterii [Münster], sumptibus et typis Librariae Regensbergianae, 1913. Chronology of Clement IV and of Gregory X : p. 8.
Episcopal notices : Avranches, p. 66 ; Aléria, p. 82 ; Antivari, p. 92 ; Auxerre, p. 119 ; Chalon-sur-Saône, p. 152 ; Cagli, p. 158 ; Le Mans, p. 181 ; Cefalù, p. 182 ; Cervia, p. 183 ; Civita Castellana, p. 190 ; Évreux, p. 234 ; Forlimpopoli, p. 253 ; Lismore, p. 308 ; Lucca, p. 313 ; Maurienne, p. 331 ; Meaux, p. 333 ; Metz, p. 338 ; Sion, p. 442 ; Toulouse, p. 488 ; Troyes, p. 493 ; Urgell, p. 509.
[2] Diego Laínez
Diego Laínez, S.J., Disputationes Tridentinae [Tridentine Disputations], ed. Hartmannus Grisar, S.J., t. I : Disputatio de origine jurisdictionis episcoporum et de Romani Pontificis primatu [Disputation on the origin of the jurisdiction of bishops and on the primacy of the Roman Pontiff], Oeniponte [Innsbruck], typis et sumptibus Feliciani Rauch, 1886, n° 308, p. 361–363, especially p. 362.
On Saint Eusebius of Samosata :
« Eusebius interea, Samosatenus episcopus, in Thraciam in exilium deportabatur, apostolicis laboribus desudabat. […] presbyteros ordinans atque diaconos, aliaque ecclesiae replebat officia. »
« Eusebius, meanwhile, bishop of Samosata, was being deported into exile in Thrace ; he spent himself in apostolic labours. […] ordaining priests and deacons, he filled the other offices of the Church. »
On Saint Athanasius :
« In quibusdam vero ecclesiis ordinationes fecit. »
« He nevertheless performed ordinations in certain Churches. »
Conclusion of Laínez :
« Ex quibus colligitur, licere propter necessitatem jurisdictionem etiam extendere; quod quia illi non considerabant, immerito Athanasium reprehendebant. »
« From these facts it is gathered that it is licit, because of necessity, to extend jurisdiction as well ; because they did not take this into account, they blamed Athanasius unjustly. »
Ancient sources indicated by Laínez, p. 362 : for Eusebius, Cassiodorus, Historia tripartita [Tripartite History], book VII, chap. 16, according to Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History, book IV, chap. 12 and following ; for Athanasius, Historia tripartita, book IV, chap. 34, according to Socrates, Ecclesiastical History, book II, chap. 19.
[3] Hermannus Dieckmann
Hermannus Dieckmann, S.J., Theologia fundamentalis. De Ecclesia. Tractatus historico-dogmatici [Fundamental Theology. On the Church. Historical and dogmatic treatises], t. I : De regno Dei. De constitutione Ecclesiae [On the kingdom of God. On the constitution of the Church], Friburgi Brisgoviae [Freiburg im Breisgau], Herder and Co., 1925, p. 413.
« Quibus testimoniis quaestio, utrum iurisdictio episcopis conferatur immediate a Deo an a Summo Pontifice, non quidem solvitur; nam etiamsi explicita confirmatio et agnitio electionis alicuius episcopalis per episcopum romanum defuerit, ipsa iam communio fraternitatis atque ordinatio ab episcopis Ecclesiae catholicae facta potuit considerari tamquam tacita agnitio atque communicatio iurisdictionis episcopalis. »
« These testimonies do not indeed solve the question whether jurisdiction is conferred on bishops immediately by God or by the Sovereign Pontiff ; for even if the explicit confirmation and recognition of some episcopal election by the Roman bishop had been lacking, the very communion of fraternity as well as the ordination performed by the bishops of the Catholic Church could already have been considered as a tacit recognition and communication of episcopal jurisdiction. »
[4] Dom Adrien Gréa
Dom Adrien Gréa, De l’Église et de sa divine constitution, Paris, Société générale de librairie catholique, Victor Palmé, directeur général, 1885, second book, chap. X, p. 224–225.
[5] Thomas de Vio Cajetan
Thomas de Vio, cardinal Cajetan, Scripta theologica [Theological Writings], vol. I : De comparatione auctoritatis Papae et Concilii cum Apologia eiusdem tractatus [Comparison of the authority of the Pope and of the Council, with the Apology of the same treatise], ed. Vincentius M. Iacobus Pollet, Rome, apud Institutum « Angelicum », 1936.
Landmarks : De comparatione, n° 204, p. 97–98, on the devolution of the power of electing the pope to the universal Church when the determined electors are lacking ; n° 231, p. 108, on the imperfect council in the difficulties relative to the election. Apologia, chap. XIII, nos 744–746, p. 299–300.
Apologia, chap. XIII, n° 744, p. 299 :
« impossibile est Ecclesiam relinqui absque Papa et potestate electiva Papae »
« it is impossible that the Church be left without a pope and without the power of electing a pope »
[6] John of Saint Thomas
Ioannes a Sancto Thoma, O.P., Cursus theologici in Secundam Secundae D. Thomae, tomus unicus [Theological Course on the Secunda Secundae of Saint Thomas, unique volume], Lugduni [Lyons], sumptibus Philippi Borde, Laurentii Arnaud, Petri Borde et Guilielmi Barbier, 1663.
Treatise De authoritate Summi Pontificis [On the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff], on the Summa Theologica, IIa-IIae, question 1, article 10 ; article III, n° 18, p. 137, right-hand column.
Title of article III, p. 133 :
« Utrum Papa deponi possit ab Ecclesia, sicut ab eadem eligitur; & in quibus casibus? »
« Whether the Pope can be deposed by the Church, as he is elected by her ; and in what cases? »
Extract from n° 18, p. 137 :
« habet enim ius Ecclesia ad segregandum se à Papa haeretico ex iure diuino, & consequenter ad adhibendum omnia media ad talem segregationem per se necessaria »
« For the Church has, by divine right, the right to separate herself from a heretical pope and, consequently, to employ all the means by themselves necessary for such a separation. »
[7a] Mark A. Pivarunas — List of the twenty-one bishops
Mark A. Pivarunas, « The Consecration of Bishops During Interregna » [« The consecration of bishops during interregna »], CMRI, section I : « Historical Precedent » [« Historical Precedent »].
[7b] Mark A. Pivarunas — Ratification attributed to Gregory X
Mark A. Pivarunas, « Episcopal Consecration During Interregnums » [« Episcopal consecration during interregnums »], pastoral letter of 24 September 1996, CMRI, citing Stephano Filiberto, Il Nuovo Osservatore Cattolico.