After recently analyzing the canonical and ecclesial implications of the decision announced by the Fraternity, the Italian historian, Roberto de Mattei, has published on his Substack a new study dedicated to examining one of the historical arguments most frequently invoked to justify this type of action: the supposed precedent of Saint Athanasius of Alexandria. Based on an analysis of the sources and the discipline in force in the fourth century, De Mattei maintains that the great defender of Nicene orthodoxy never acted outside the authority of the Apostolic See and that, therefore, his case cannot be used as a historical basis for episcopal consecrations without a pontifical mandate.
We offer below the complete translation of the article:
During the sixty years between the Council of Nicaea (325) and the Council of Constantinople (381), the Church experienced, amid the Arian crisis, one of the most difficult moments in its history. It was a time of defection from the faith in which figures of energetic defenders of orthodoxy stood out, such as Saint Athanasius of Alexandria and Saint Hilary of Poitiers. Saint Athanasius, in particular, has become the symbol of the struggle against Arianism, which had penetrated even the highest ecclesiastical hierarchies.
In the current debate on episcopal consecrations without a pontifical mandate, the name of Saint Athanasius is sometimes invoked as an example of a bishop who would have consecrated new bishops outside the ordinary disciplinary norms. However, a rigorous examination of the historical sources leads to very different conclusions.
To correctly understand Athanasius’s activity, it is necessary first to recall the canonical framework of the fourth century. In the early centuries, there was no legal procedure requiring a pontifical mandate for every episcopal consecration. There was, however, a well-established practice, which the First Council of Nicaea codified in Canon 4. This practice stipulated that every new bishop had to be consecrated by all the bishops of the ecclesiastical province or, if that was not possible, at least by three bishops, with the final confirmation of the metropolitan, who was the principal bishop of an ecclesiastical province. The metropolitan possessed ordinary jurisdiction over his own province. The Pope, for his part, exercised a universal primacy over the Church.
Athanasius, having become bishop of the metropolitan see of Alexandria on June 8, 328, was responsible for one of the largest ecclesiastical jurisdictions in the Christian East. Canon 6 of Nicaea established, in fact: “Let the ancient custom in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis be maintained, so that the bishop of Alexandria shall have authority over all these regions.”
The Arian opposition to Athanasius’s appointment manifested itself immediately. The Synod of Tyre in 335 irregularly deposed Athanasius, while the Emperor Constantine decreed his first exile to Trier. The consequence of these events was the continuous alternation, in the Egyptian dioceses, of bishops faithful to Nicaea and candidates supported by the Eusebian party. Athanasius’s activity was not limited to the doctrinal defense of the Nicene Creed but also involved an intense effort to reconstruct the ecclesiastical hierarchy in the provinces under his jurisdiction. After each return from exile, the bishop of Alexandria found numerous sees occupied by pro-Arian bishops installed with the support of imperial authority. His first task was to depose them and replace them with pastors faithful to the profession of Nicaea.
The fundamental study by Annick Martin has precisely reconstructed this activity, demonstrating that the appointments made by Athanasius concerned sees belonging to Egypt, Libya, or Pentapolis—that is, territories subject to his canonical jurisdiction (Athanase d’Alexandrie et l’Église d’Égypte au IVe siècle (328-373), École française de Rome, Rome 1996).
A similar conclusion emerges from the reconstruction carried out by Professor Manlio Simonetti. Analyzing Athanasius’s return in 346 and the definitive one in 362, Simonetti emphasizes how the patriarch proceeded to restore the Nicene hierarchy in the Egyptian Churches without ever exceeding the scope of his own ecclesiastical competence (La crisi ariana nel IV secolo, Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, Rome 1975). Athanasius’s activity was fully in accordance with the legal discipline of the time, as it constituted the natural exercise of the metropolitan authority of Alexandria. The numerous episcopal ordinations attributed to Athanasius were never considered abusive by the Church of his time, precisely because they were carried out within the territory subject to his canonical competence.
The consecrations performed by the patriarch of Alexandria took place in exceptional circumstances, but they were never carried out against the Pope or in opposition to the Holy See. On the contrary, recognition by Rome constituted one of the essential elements of Athanasius’s pastoral action. Throughout the Arian crisis, the bishop of Alexandria constantly sought the support of the Roman Pontiffs and acknowledged their authority.
After the deposition decreed by the Eastern synods, Athanasius moved to Rome, where he was received by Pope Saint Julius I. The Roman Synod of 341 declared the accusations brought against the Alexandrian patriarch invalid and fully recognized his legitimacy. In the celebrated letter addressed to the Eastern bishops, Julius reproached them for having acted without consulting the Church of Rome, reminding them that matters of such importance had to be submitted to the judgment of the Apostolic See.
In the following years, Athanasius also maintained a constant relationship with Pope Liberius. The temporary weakness shown by the latter during his exile never altered the attitude of the Egyptian patriarch, who continued to regard Rome as the center of ecclesial communion. Even closer was his subsequent collaboration with Pope Saint Damasus, who fully supported the restoration of Nicene orthodoxy and confirmed the prestige of the Alexandrian see.
Cardinal John Henry Newman, in his work The Arians of the Fourth Century (Spanish ed. Jaca Book, Milan, 1981), clearly explained the ecclesiological significance of these events. Athanasius resisted emperors, pro-Arian councils, and political pressures, but he never opposed the principle of Roman primacy. His struggle was directed against heterodox bishops and against the interference of civil power, not against the hierarchical constitution of the Church. His entire pastoral action appears constantly embedded in the exercise of the legitimate jurisdiction of the Alexandrian see and in the pursuit of communion with the Roman See.
The episcopal consecrations promoted by Athanasius constituted an ordinary act of ecclesiastical governance, rendered extraordinary only by the exceptional circumstances created by the intervention of imperial authority in doctrinal controversies. Athanasius was the legitimate patriarch of Alexandria; his consecrations were carried out within the scope of his patriarchal jurisdiction; he constantly sought the support of the Roman Pontiffs. Therefore, the example of Saint Athanasius remains one of the highest models of fidelity to Tradition in times of ecclesial crisis and cannot in any way be invoked as an example of disobedience to the authority of the Supreme Pontiff without contradicting the truth of the facts and thus falling under the condemnation of history.
(Bibliography. For further study of these topics, see: John Henry Newman, The Arians of the Fourth Century, Longmans, Green & Co., London 1871 (1st ed. 1833); Charles Martin, Saint Athanase, Bloud et Gay, Paris 1945; Manlio Simonetti, La crisi ariana nel IV secolo, Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, Rome 1975; Annick Martin, Athanase d’Alexandrie et l’Église d’Égypte au IVe siècle (328-373), École française de Rome, Rome 1996; Lewis Ayres, Nicaea and Its Legacy, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2004.)