The territorial jurisdiction in the Church:
By divine right or matter of ecclesiastical law?
The apostolic model and its implications
in times of vacancy of the Apostolic See
Table of contents
- Introduction
- The apostolic fields of the Apostles in the first century: absence of exclusive territorial divisions
2.1 Palestine and Syria
2.2 Asia Minor
2.3 Greece and the Aegean region
2.4 Rome and the West
2.5 Synthesis of the shared preaching territories
- Fundamental theological and canonical distinctions for episcopal jurisdiction
3.1 The apostolic model as foundation
3.2 Distinction between the power of order and the power of jurisdiction
3.3 Pontifical primacy of divine right and territorial organization of ecclesiastical law
3.4 The current crisis and the principle of supply of jurisdiction
- The role of the episcopal college in the government of the Church and the restoration of the primacy in the absence of cardinals
4.1 The universal character of the apostolic mission
4.2 Application to the successors of the Apostles
4.3 Possibility of an intervention by the Church in case of extreme necessity
- Conclusion
- List of sources
- Introduction
The apostolic preaching in the first century did not develop according to strictly defined and exclusive territories. The Twelve and the apostle Paul often worked in the same regions, sometimes simultaneously, sometimes successively. This article offers a historical synthesis of these overlapping apostolic fields, based on Holy Scripture and the primitive tradition of the Church. It demonstrates the unity and catholic universality of the Church of Christ, which extends over the entire known world without exclusive division of territories.
Relying on this historical reality, the study examines whether territorial jurisdiction for bishops is essential by divine right or rather a secondary arrangement of ecclesiastical law. It draws consequences for the government of the Church in the present crisis. According to the sedevacantist thesis, founded on the traditional principle according to which public and notorious heresy entails the automatic loss of ecclesiastical office, the See of Peter has been vacant since Paul VI. This accords with the constant teaching of the Church before 1962 on the loss of the pontifical charge in case of manifest heresy.
- The apostolic fields of the Apostles in the first century: absence of exclusive territorial divisions
2.1 Palestine and Syria
Jerusalem constitutes the first center of the Church. Peter, John and James the Less are established there according to the Acts of the Apostles, chapters 1 to 12. After the dispersion caused by the persecution, they remain the focal point of apostolic activity.
Antioch develops rapidly as a second center. Paul and Barnabas work there intensively according to the Acts of the Apostles, chapters 11 to 13. Peter is also linked to Antioch by the Epistle to the Galatians, chapter 2. This region therefore shows a clear overlapping between several apostles, with Jerusalem and Antioch as junctions of the common preaching.
2.2 Asia Minor
Asia Minor is one of the most important shared missionary territories. Paul evangelizes there widely, notably in Ephesus, Galatia and Colossae, as described in his epistles and in the Acts. The apostle John resides in Ephesus according to an uninterrupted tradition and exercises his apostolate there for a long period until his death. According to certain ancient traditions, Philip and Andrew are also associated with regions of Asia Minor. A network of overlapping apostolic presence is formed here, especially in the urban centers.
2.3 Greece and the Aegean region
Paul preaches in Macedonia and Greece, with important centers such as Philippi, Thessalonica, Athens and Corinth, as set forth in the Acts of the Apostles, chapters 16 to 18.
Ancient tradition places Andrew in Achaia, particularly in Patras, where he is said to have suffered martyrdom. This region therefore constitutes a field of preaching shared between Paul and at least one of the Twelve.
2.4 Rome and the West
Rome is the clearest example of a common apostolic field. Paul reaches Rome and preaches there for several years, as described in the Acts of the Apostles, chapter 28. Peter is also linked to Rome by the unanimous tradition and is venerated there as a martyr. This double presence gives Rome a unique position as a center of common apostolic activity and as the seat of the primacy of Peter.
2.5 Synthesis of the shared preaching territories
The main areas of overlapping are: Jerusalem and Palestine as the center of origin; Antioch and Syria as missionary crossroads; Asia Minor as a field of shared work of several apostles; Greece as the territory of Paul and Andrew; Rome as the common center of Peter and Paul.
These data show a missionary network in which cooperation and succession are the norm, in accordance with the unity of the apostolic mission.
- Fundamental theological and canonical distinctions for episcopal jurisdiction
3.1 The apostolic model as foundation
The preceding historical synthesis of the common apostolic fields of the Twelve and Saint Paul reveals a fundamental reality of the primitive Church: the apostolic mission in the first century was not organized according to strictly delimited and exclusive territorial jurisdictions. The Apostles possessed and exercised full pastoral authority while remaining highly mobile. Peter moved between Jerusalem, Antioch and finally Rome. Paul systematically traversed Asia Minor, Greece and reached Rome without being bound to a single fixed territory. The other apostles, according to the constant ecclesiastical tradition recorded by Eusebius of Caesarea in his Historia ecclesiastica and by Saint Jerome in De viris illustribus, likewise exercised their ministry over vast regions without the modern concept of exclusive diocesan boundaries. This mobility reflects the essentially missionary and universal character of the apostolic mandate given by Christ in Matthew 28:19: Go therefore and make disciples of all nations.
3.2 Distinction between the power of order and the power of jurisdiction
Catholic doctrine clearly distinguishes the power of order and the power of jurisdiction. The power of order, conferred by valid episcopal consecration, gives the fullness of the priesthood and the radical capacity to perform sacramental and pastoral acts. The power of jurisdiction, on the other hand, is normally received by a legitimate canonical mission. The Code of Canon Law of 1917, canon 109, states with precision: Those who are admitted into the ecclesiastical hierarchy are not chosen by the consent or vocation of the people or of secular power; but they are constituted in the degrees of the power of order by holy ordination; in the sovereign pontificate, by divine right itself, the condition of a legitimate election and its acceptance being fulfilled; in the other degrees of jurisdiction, by canonical mission. The Council of Trent, session XXIII, De reformatione, chapter 4, teaches that bishops are instituted by the Holy Ghost to govern the Church as successors of the Apostles, without however attributing to consecration alone the effective exercise of universal jurisdiction.
3.3 Pontifical primacy of divine right and territorial organization of ecclesiastical law
The primacy of the Roman Pontiff and his successors is of divine institution, as solemnly defined by the First Vatican Council in Pastor aeternus, chapters 1 and 3. The Roman Pontiff possesses a plenary, supreme, immediate and ordinary universal power over the entire Church. He can therefore assign territories to bishops and regulate their exercise of jurisdiction for the common good. Yet this administrative act remains an exercise of ecclesiastical government. The precise territorial delimitation of episcopal sees, the assignment of specific portions of the people of God to individual bishops with the exclusion of others, and the detailed organization of diocesan structures are matters of ecclesiastical law. These serve the good order of the Church but are not immutable divine precepts. The apostolic era itself serves as the primary historical witness that strict territorial jurisdiction is not of divine right. Moreover, history shows that popes have created, modified, merged, divided or suppressed thousands of dioceses, which would be impossible if territorial limits were of divine right.
3.4 The current crisis and the principle of supply of jurisdiction
According to the sedevacantist thesis, since the public and notorious heresy of Paul VI in 1964, the See of Peter is vacant. In this prolonged state of vacancy, the ordinary mechanisms for the collation of territorial jurisdiction have been interrupted. Ecclesiastical laws, being positive human law in the Church, can be supplied by the Church itself in case of necessity according to the principle ecclesia supplet (cf. canon 209 of the 1917 Code for jurisdiction of the external and internal forum in determined cases, extended by analogy to the good of souls in an extraordinary situation). Every validly consecrated bishop, having received the fullness of the sacrament of order, possesses the radical capacity to receive and exercise episcopal jurisdiction. In the absence of a reigning pope who can assign territories, each bishop must, in conscience and guided by the needs of souls, determine the field in which he will exercise his apostolic activity, without this liberty leading to anarchy because the Church is governed by the Holy Ghost as is said in the Acts of the Apostles 20:28 and John 16:13. The promises of Our Lord remain in force: I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world in Matthew 28:20, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it in Matthew 16:18. The dogma of the indefectibility of the Church guarantees that, even in the absence of a visible head, the Church continues to exist and to act in accordance with its divine constitution.
- The role of the episcopal college in the government of the Church and the restoration of the primacy in the absence of cardinals
4.1 The universal character of the apostolic mission
The Apostles themselves, of whom bishops are the successors as to the episcopate but not as to the extraordinary apostolic privileges, possessed and exercised a full and universal pastoral authority over the entire Church of Christ without any restriction to a particular territory. This emerges from the historical synthesis presented in chapter 2 and from the very nature of the apostolic mandate: Go therefore and make disciples of all nations (Matthew 28:19). Their authority extended to the whole body of the faithful wherever the Gospel was preached. The Acts of the Apostles and the epistles of Saint Paul confirm this universal scope: the Twelve and Saint Paul moved freely, preached jointly and exercised supreme pastoral power in every place they visited, always in union with the one visible head, Saint Peter.
4.2 Application to the successors of the Apostles
What was true of the Apostles as to radical capacity must, by the very nature of the episcopate, apply to their successors. Territorial limitation does not belong to the essence of the episcopate but pertains to ecclesiastical law; it is an act of papal administration that presupposes the existence of a reigning pontiff. Classical canonists confirm that the concrete determination of the diocesan territory pertains to ecclesiastical authority. Wernz-Vidal in Ius Canonicum (Rome, 1938) and Coronata in Institutiones Iuris Canonici (Turin, Marietti, 1947) teach this explicitly. For centuries, apostolic vicars and missionary bishops have exercised their ministry without a fixed territorial diocese, proving that the episcopate does not intrinsically require a stable circumscription. In the absence of such a pontiff, the principle of supply of jurisdiction for the salvation of souls permits bishops to continue their apostolic ministry according to the concrete needs of souls and under the guidance of the Holy Ghost. The Council of Trent teaches that bishops are the successors of the Apostles and are placed by the Holy Ghost to govern the Church (session XXIII, De reformatione, chapter 4), while the First Vatican Council defines that the primacy alone is the source of the supreme and universal power that can limit or direct the exercise of episcopal jurisdiction (Pastor aeternus, chapters 1 and 3).
4.3 Possibility of an intervention by the Church in case of extreme necessity
The ordinary right of election of the Roman Pontiff belongs to the college of cardinals by positive ecclesiastical law, as established by the Constitution Ubi periculum of the Second Council of Lyons in 1274. In case of prolonged vacancy and total impossibility for the cardinals to act, certain classical theologians, such as Cardinal Thomas de Vio Cajetan in his treatise De comparatione auctoritatis Papae et Concilii (Rome, 1511, notably the chapters on extraordinary recourse), have envisaged that, by exception and in a supplied manner, this power could return to the Church universal itself, often understood as an imperfect general council or a representative assembly of bishops. This is not an innovation but an extraordinary recourse to the principle according to which the Church, in time of extreme necessity, supplies what is required for its own unity and for the restoration of the visible head. The indefectibility of the Church and the assistance of the Holy Ghost guarantee that such an action, undertaken for the salvation of souls and the restoration of the primacy, remains in conformity with the divine will.
- Conclusion
Precise territorial jurisdiction is not essential by divine right. It is a useful but secondary arrangement of ecclesiastical law that can be supplied or suspended in time of necessity, as the apostolic era itself demonstrates, reinforced by the teaching of the canonists and the history of missionary bishops. In the current crisis of the vacancy of the See since 1964, the Church returns in practice to the original missionary model of the Apostles, where validly consecrated bishops exercise their ministry according to the needs of souls and under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, while awaiting the providential restoration of the visible head of the Church. This distinction between divine right and ecclesiastical law, joined to the principle of supply, permits the Church to continue its mission without compromising its divine constitution.
- List of sources
Holy Scripture
Novum testamentum Graece, Nestle-Aland, Stuttgart, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012, Greek.
Biblia sacra Vulgata, Weber-Gryson, Stuttgart, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2007, Latin.
Fathers of the Church
Eusebius of Caesarea, Historia ecclesiastica, Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1903–1909, Greek.
Jerome, De viris illustribus, Paris, Migne, 1845, Latin.
Conciliar documents
First Vatican Council, Pastor aeternus, 1870 (cf. Denzinger-Schönmetzer, nos. around 3050-3075).
Council of Trent, session XXIII, De reformatione, chapter 4, 1563.
Canon law
Code of Canon Law, 1917, canon 109.
Theologians and canonists
Cardinal Thomas de Vio Cajetan, De comparatione auctoritatis Papae et Concilii, Rome, 1511.
Wernz-Vidal, Ius Canonicum, Rome, 1938.
Coronata, Institutiones Iuris Canonici, Turin, Marietti, 1947.
Saint Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, book IV, Ingolstadt, 1586.