The
Episcopal Consecrations of Saint Athanasius
by
Roberto de Mattei
In the sixty years
between the Council of Nicaea (325) and the Council of Constantinople (381),
the Church experienced, through the Arian crisis, one of the most difficult
moments of its history. It was an era of defection from the faith, in which
strenuous defenders of orthodoxy stood out — figures such as Saint Athanasius
of Alexandria and Saint Hilary of Poitiers. Athanasius, in particular, became
the symbol of the struggle against Arianism, which had penetrated to the very
summit of the ecclesiastical hierarchy.
In the current debate
over episcopal consecrations performed without a pontifical mandate, the name
of Saint Athanasius is sometimes invoked as an example of a bishop who
supposedly consecrated new bishops outside the ordinary disciplinary norms. A
rigorous examination of the historical sources, however, leads to very
different conclusions.
To correctly understand
the activity of Athanasius, one must first recall the canonical framework of
the fourth century. In the early centuries, there did not yet exist the
juridical procedure of a pontifical mandate required for every episcopal
consecration. There existed, however, a well-established practice, which the
First Council of Nicaea codified in canon 4. This practice established that
every new bishop was to be consecrated by all the bishops of the ecclesiastical
province or, where this was not possible, by at least three bishops, with the
final confirmation of the metropolitan — the principal bishop of an
ecclesiastical province. The metropolitan possessed ordinary jurisdiction over
his own province, whereas the Pope exercised a universal primacy over the whole
Church.
Athanasius, who became
bishop of the metropolitan see of Alexandria on June 8, 328, bore
responsibility for one of the largest ecclesiastical jurisdictions in the
Christian East. Canon 6 of Nicaea established that the ancient custom
prevailing in Egypt, Libya, and the Pentapolis was to remain in force, such
that the bishop of Alexandria had authority over all these regions.
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 a continual alternation,
in the Egyptian dioceses, between bishops loyal 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
rebuild the ecclesiastical hierarchy in the provinces subject to 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 Nicene profession of faith.
The foundational study by
Annick Martin has reconstructed this activity with precision, demonstrating
that the appointments made by Athanasius pertained to sees belonging to Egypt,
Libya, or the Pentapolis — that is, territories subject to his canonical jurisdiction.
A similar conclusion
emerges from the reconstruction offered by Professor Manlio Simonetti.
Analyzing Athanasius's return in 346 and his final return in 362, Simonetti
emphasizes how the patriarch proceeded to restore the Nicene hierarchy in the
Egyptian Churches without ever exceeding the bounds of his own ecclesiastical
competence. Athanasius's activity was entirely in conformity with the legal
discipline of the time, since it constituted the natural exercise of the
metropolitan authority of Alexandria. The numerous episcopal ordinations
attributed to Athanasius were never regarded as abusive by the Church of his
time, precisely because they took place within the territory subject to his
canonical competence.
The consecrations carried
out by the Patriarch of Alexandria occurred under exceptional circumstances,
but they were never performed against the Pope or in opposition to the Holy
See. On the contrary, Roman recognition constituted one of the essential elements
of Athanasius's pastoral action. Throughout the entire Arian crisis, the bishop
of Alexandria constantly sought the support of the Roman Pontiffs and
acknowledged their authority.
After his deposition
decreed by the Eastern synods, Athanasius traveled to Rome, where he was
received by Pope Saint Julius I. The Roman synod of 341 declared invalid the
accusations brought against the Alexandrian patriarch and fully recognized his
legitimacy. In his famous letter addressed to the Eastern bishops, Julius
reproached them for having proceeded without consulting the Roman Church,
reminding them that matters of such importance had to be submitted to the
judgment of the Apostolic See.
In the years that
followed, Athanasius also maintained constant relations with Pope Liberius. The
temporary weakness shown by Liberius 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 book on the Arians of the Fourth Century, clearly elucidated the
ecclesiological significance of these events. Athanasius resisted the emperors,
the 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 consistently
situated within the exercise of the legitimate jurisdiction of the Alexandrian
see and within the pursuit of communion with the See of Rome.
The episcopal
consecrations promoted by Athanasius represented an ordinary act of
ecclesiastical governance, rendered extraordinary only by the exceptional
conditions created by the intervention of imperial authority in doctrinal
controversies. Athanasius was the legitimate patriarch of Alexandria; his
consecrations took place within the scope of his patriarchal jurisdiction; he
constantly sought the support of the Roman Pontiffs. For this reason, the
example of Saint Athanasius remains one of the highest models of fidelity to
Tradition in moments of ecclesial crisis, and it 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 thereby falling under the condemnation
of history.
**Bibliography.** For
further study of these themes, 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.
