IN DEFENSE OF ROCHESTER, NEW YORK:


How are we to understand the four Franciscan Bishops of the Church of Rome now seated in Rochester, New York and Zapopan, Mexico?  Perhaps we can appreciate them best if we review our present situation as Roman Catholics.

Exactly what is an interregnum?  One legal definition is:  "Interregnum means authority exercised during a temporary vacancy of the throne or a suspension of the regular government."  Please note that an interregnum is not some stunningly clever strategem to realise the secret innermost desires of the Anarchist International.  An interregnum is not a disappearance of the exercise of legitimate jurisdiction nor a suspension of government nor an aboliton of the Crown.  None of these things occur because of the interregnum that follows the decease of the most recent reigning Pontiff on the Chair of St. Peter in Rome.  

We should understand that the essential reality of a Papal interregnum is also not merely a matter of legalistic hair-splitting.  In order to better grasp its more positive meaning for us, we can study the Coat-of-Arms that has been well-established by Holy Mother Church to express this not unusual legal situation in our long and glorious history.  This image has the Keys of Peter beneath an umbrella or canopy with alternating red and gold stripes, the traditional colors of the City of Rome.  The purpose of this symbolic canopy is to provide protection for the People of God, as if to say to us:  "Fear not, little flock, for it has been the good pleasure of your Father to give you the kingdom."  (Luke 12:32)  

This means that during this interregnum in Rome His grace is sufficient to us.  Holy Church is left respectably widowed, but she is not left a guillotined headless corpse adrift in some Protestant-like Anarchist Utopia.  And why is this uniquely extended Papal interregnum that we are now suffering happening in the first place?  Because the Great Apostasy of the Apocalypse has come and we are now to watch vigilantly for His coming to us on the Clouds of Heaven to judge first the living and then the dead.

In our holy Catholic vigilance we should note the long-prophesied signs of the End Times that are at present so vividly everywhere all about us:  the world-wide collapse of our planet's climate, the universal collapse of the world economy, the annihilaton of all law and order from the surface of the earth, the extension of the incomparable Reign of Terror of the Russian Revolution throughout all lands and nations, as if the entire world were now very like some Greater East Germany with some terrorist Stasi Secret Police now running amock universally everywhere.  And by no means least we should note the unprecedented general collapse of Christian civilization and of the sacramental economy of Holy Mother Church!

We should have the Catholic vigilance to note that our current social conditions are decidedly neither "normal" nor "viable."  Contrary to the siren songs of worldly and foolish men like Bishop Fellay, our current human environment is not just another day in the long history of Holy Mother Church.

No, not at all.  Instead we are now quite inescapably and inexorably at "the End."   This being the case, what exactly does this "the End" look like for us, the Children of God?  Should we seriously expect Holy Mother Church now to look like she did back in the more balmy days of her youth and young maidenhood?  No, we should not.

Ours are not "normal times."  They are not.  For those among us with eyes to see, the Two Witnesses, the Anti-Christ, the Kingdoms and Kings of Gog and Magog have all of them now very largely come and gone.  While more than a few were sleeping, we are now already that "Little Flock" who are humbly following Peter the Roman into the still dim dawnlight of a better day.  For the remainder of humanity, the truly abandoned ones, there can henceforth be for them only endless darkness and ruin.  They have been tried in the fires of the Great Apostasy and found wanting.

But we are not they.  For the many the Lord's Wrath, but for we few the Lord's Mercy!  That is why we should be eternally grateful to the good Archbishop Thuc and his faithful disciple Bishop Louis Vezelis for the Great Miracle that is now before our amazed eyes in Rochester, New York and Zapopan, Mexico.  To quote the holy Church Father St. Ignatius of Antioch:  "Whereever the bishop is, there is the People of God; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."

Earlier in this thread our learned Brother-in-Christ Mr. Hobbles has used the expression "acephalous clerics" in order to deny the possibility during a Papal interregnum of episcopal ordinary jurisdiction.  But this is by no means received doctrine.  Many good Catholics in recent years have believed this, but many others have not.  Archbishop Thuc followed the traditional belief of Holy Mother Church that the ordinary jurisdiction of Catholic bishops is the means by which the Apostolic Succession of Our Lord Jesus Christ is continued down through the generations.  Of course, Archbishop Thuc had also previously received the episcopal authority as Vicar Apostolic of the Apostolic Vicariate at Vinh Long to consecrate bishops on his own personal initiative directly from the hands of and by the authority of His Holiness Pope Pius XII.

Therefore we should carefully consider the possibility that our clergy during a Papal interregnum are never "acephalous" or "headless" at all, as Mr. Hobbles seems to fear.  They, and we, are all of us very much safe beneath the "umbrella" of Our Lord's Papacy and the Holy City of Eternal Rome that protects us during every Papal interregnum.  And especially this longest one!

The good Archbishop Thuc consecrated Bishops Carmona, Zamora and Musey who in turn on August 24, 1982 co-consecrated His Excellency Bishop Louis Vezelis, O.F.M., as the Roman Catholic Bishop of the United States and Canada "east of the Mississippi River," as they chose to describe his new diocese.  Since then Bishop Vezelis of Rochester, New York has seen fit to consecrate three new Bishops for Holy Mother Church whose activities now extend through the Americas, or those lands under the special protection of the Blessed Virgin of Guadaloupe.

No doubt I have already gone on for too long, so to sum up I can't think of a better description for our present predicament as Roman Catholics than to quote the famous words of Dorothy to her little dog Toto:  "Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore…"

As contemporary Catholics in the Year of Our Lord 2012, we do well to consider the wider implictions of Dorothy's wise words.  No, we are "not in Kansas anymore."  Perhaps we are now instead in some land much more wonderful than any Land of Oz…

Perhaps we are that Little Flock of Peter the Roman now approaching the Gates of the Millennial Kingdom.  Perhaps now that the last remnants of the Satanic Russian Revolution are fading away into the Great Void, it is at last time for the meek to truly begin to inherit the earth:

"Fear not, little flock, for it has been the good pleasure of thy Father to give you the Kingdom of Heaven."  (Luke 12:32)


Brother Francis, Franciscan Solitary

P.S.:  Please note my above essay does not pass judgement on the other Traditional Bishops of Holy Mother Church.  But in my humble opinion our Bishops can only be truly responsible leaders when they exercise the normal authority of their office, and should therefore acknowledge the ordinary jurisdition inherent in their sacred office.  Catholic bishops without their time-honored ordinary jurisdiction resemble the false and bizarre Protestant "Churches" far too much for comfort.

Well, John, it's true that you and I have different perspectives on the present day, and I appreciate that you're being duly diligent in thinking over matters for yourself and consulting sources from the past and clergy or others you trust from the present, but I really don't think our disagreement on that matters so far as the traditional Catholic doctrine on Apostolicity and jurisdiction is concerned. SJB and Hobbledehoy are both sedevacantists, the CMRI is sedevacantist, and they would tell you or have told the same.

Just answer me this, will you - does jurisdiction flow to the Bishops from an empty seat or is it true that "jurisdiction flows to the Bishops only through the Pope" as Pope Pius XII taught? If the former, that appears clearly at variance with Pope Pius XII. If the latter, you have your answer from Magisterial teaching itself.

At the time of their episcopal consecration and installation into respective dioceses, it is required there be a living Pope who possesses supreme jurisdiction in act that they may receive their particular jurisdiction as flowing through him to them. This is one of the special prerogatives of the Papacy and Catholics who defend the traditional teaching today are doing no wrong.

I'll have plenty more to say later but let us look directly at the quote from Pius XII which you claim says "jurisdiction flows to the Bishops only through the Pope".  Perhaps you can direct me to where he stated that, but this is what I read from Pius XII on the subject:

Finally, in his epoch-making encyclical, Mystici Corporis, Pius XII states explicitly and without any qualification that the bishops receive their jurisdiction directly from the pope:

as far as each one’s own diocese is concerned, they [the bishops] each and all as true Shepherds feed the flocks entrusted to them and rule them in the name of Christ.  Yet in exercising this office they are not altogether independent, but are duly subordinate to the authority of the Roman Pontiff; and although their jurisdiction is inherent in their office, yet they receive it directly from the same Supreme Pontiff. – MCC 52; italic ours.

Here are quotes from Van Noort that may indicate it flows from the "authority" or "mediate" will or "implicit" will or "legal" will of the Apostolic See:

To be able to do this, we state, they must be adopted by the authority of the supreme pontiff.  

Adoption (assumption) is a short form standing for “adoption or assumption into the corporate body of the pastors of the Church.”

We use the phrase, “by the authority of the pope,” to indicate that a direct, personal intervention by the pope is not necessarily required.

So long as the adoption be done by someone to whom the pope has entrusted the task (regardless of the precise way in which the pope commissions him to do so), or in accord with regulations already established or approved by the pope.  

The objection is raised: in ancient times the popes did not intervene in any way at all in the selection of bishops.  That they did not always intervene directly and by explicit consent is granted;

That they did not intervene at all, not even mediately and by legal consent we deny.

In the absence of historical testimony, it is admittedly impossible to prove this statement [that the Popes intervened even mediately and by legal consent in ancient times but he feels he has to prove they did because of the doctrine that jurisdicition comes from the Holy See] directly.

Still, keeping in mind Catholic principles, it is fair enough to reconstruct the process somewhat as follows.  The apostles and their principal aides, in accord with Peter’s consent and will, both selected the first bishops, and decreed that thereafter when sees became vacant the vacancy should be taken care of in some satisfactory way, and in a way which at the very least would not be without the intervention of the neighboring bishops.

As often, therefore, in accord with this process, established with Peter’s approval, a new bishop was constituted in the early Church, Peter’s authority ratified that selection implicitly.  

Later on, when ecclesiastical affairs were arranged more precisely by positive law, the patriarchs in the Eastern churches and the metropolitans in the Western churches used to establish the bishops; but they did so only in virtue of the authority of the Apostolic See by which they themselves had been established, even though in a variety of ways.  

2.   The other, and always the majority opinion, maintained that bishops received their jurisdiction not directly, but indirectly from God. [Interjection:  What about Mathew 18: 18?  He gave this authority to ALL the Apostles.] They receive it, in other words, through the supreme pontiff who, in establishing them as bishops, at the same time by explicit will, or at least by legal will, confers jurisdiction upon them.  [Again this is said without denying the reality of the past, that bishops were consecrated without asking for or getting the Pope’s permission and these were fully functioning bishops nonetheless].  This second opinion, in the judgment of the same Benedict XIV, “seems: (a) more in harmony with reason; and (b) more in harmony with authority.”  

In reference to (b); St. Optatus of Mileve says, “St. Peter alone received the keys of the kingdom of heaven to confer them on others” (De schismate Donatistarum 7. 3).  In these words, Optatus seems to have been considering, not the apostles [The apostles themselves, according to the more common opinion, received both their jurisdiction and their mission from Christ Himself directly (Zapalena, loc. cit., p. 105).] themselves, but their successors, the bishops.  [Interjection: I believe Christ gave all the powers to bind and loose, but Peter could bind what they loose and also loose what they bind, this is also said to pertain to binding and loosing of sin in the Sacrament of Penance]

Again, during each interregnum the bishops did not lose their authority but continued to function, with all their power (apart from infallibility and the ability to form a perfect council) just as they always had.  I agree that Bishops consecrated against the expressed will of a valid Pope do not have full jurisdiction.  But those consecrated to keep the Church going, who submit to the Papacy and any valid Pope when he comes into existence I deny until the contrary is sufficiently proven.

But when it gets down to it, from the laities perspective, not much changes whether they have ordinary jurisdiction or not.  

But if our clergy can dispassionately seek the truth and have their findings peer reviewed and then make a statement on their findings, I believe we all would be able to live with it, until a Pope comes along to make a binding decision on this topic which will no longer be relevant when we get a Pope, except should a long interregnum happen again.  It will be relevant for the typical short interregnums though as some seem to indicate that there must be a living Pope in order for the bishops to have ordinary jurisdiction.  This does not seem plausible to me.

IN DEFENSE OF ROCHESTER, NEW YORK:


How are we to understand the four Franciscan Bishops of the Church of Rome now seated in Rochester, New York and Zapopan, Mexico?  Perhaps we can appreciate them best if we review our present situation as Roman Catholics.

Exactly what is an interregnum?  One legal definition is:  "Interregnum means authority exercised during a temporary vacancy of the throne or a suspension of the regular government."  Please note that an interregnum is not some stunningly clever strategem to realise the secret innermost desires of the Anarchist International.  An interregnum is not a disappearance of the exercise of legitimate jurisdiction nor a suspension of government nor an aboliton of the Crown.  None of these things occur because of the interregnum that follows the decease of the most recent reigning Pontiff on the Chair of St. Peter in Rome.  

We should understand that the essential reality of a Papal interregnum is also not merely a matter of legalistic hair-splitting.  In order to better grasp its more positive meaning for us, we can study the Coat-of-Arms that has been well-established by Holy Mother Church to express this not unusual legal situation in our long and glorious history.  This image has the Keys of Peter beneath an umbrella or canopy with alternating red and gold stripes, the traditional colors of the City of Rome.  The purpose of this symbolic canopy is to provide protection for the People of God, as if to say to us:  "Fear not, little flock, for it has been the good pleasure of your Father to give you the kingdom."  (Luke 12:32)  

This means that during this interregnum in Rome His grace is sufficient to us.  Holy Church is left respectably widowed, but she is not left a guillotined headless corpse adrift in some Protestant-like Anarchist Utopia.  And why is this uniquely extended Papal interregnum that we are now suffering happening in the first place?  Because the Great Apostasy of the Apocalypse has come and we are now to watch vigilantly for His coming to us on the Clouds of Heaven to judge first the living and then the dead.

In our holy Catholic vigilance we should note the long-prophesied signs of the End Times that are at present so vividly everywhere all about us:  the world-wide collapse of our planet's climate, the universal collapse of the world economy, the annihilaton of all law and order from the surface of the earth, the extension of the incomparable Reign of Terror of the Russian Revolution throughout all lands and nations, as if the entire world were now very like some Greater East Germany with some terrorist Stasi Secret Police now running amock universally everywhere.  And by no means least we should note the unprecedented general collapse of Christian civilization and of the sacramental economy of Holy Mother Church!

We should have the Catholic vigilance to note that our current social conditions are decidedly neither "normal" nor "viable."  Contrary to the siren songs of worldly and foolish men like Bishop Fellay, our current human environment is not just another day in the long history of Holy Mother Church.

No, not at all.  Instead we are now quite inescapably and inexorably at "the End."   This being the case, what exactly does this "the End" look like for us, the Children of God?  Should we seriously expect Holy Mother Church now to look like she did back in the more balmy days of her youth and young maidenhood?  No, we should not.

Ours are not "normal times."  They are not.  For those among us with eyes to see, the Two Witnesses, the Anti-Christ, the Kingdoms and Kings of Gog and Magog have all of them now very largely come and gone.  While more than a few were sleeping, we are now already that "Little Flock" who are humbly following Peter the Roman into the still dim dawnlight of a better day.  For the remainder of humanity, the truly abandoned ones, there can henceforth be for them only endless darkness and ruin.  They have been tried in the fires of the Great Apostasy and found wanting.

But we are not they.  For the many the Lord's Wrath, but for we few the Lord's Mercy!  That is why we should be eternally grateful to the good Archbishop Thuc and his faithful disciple Bishop Louis Vezelis for the Great Miracle that is now before our amazed eyes in Rochester, New York and Zapopan, Mexico.  To quote the holy Church Father St. Ignatius of Antioch:  "Whereever the bishop is, there is the People of God; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."

Earlier in this thread our learned Brother-in-Christ Mr. Hobbles has used the expression "acephalous clerics" in order to deny the possibility during a Papal interregnum of episcopal ordinary jurisdiction.  But this is by no means received doctrine.  Many good Catholics in recent years have believed this, but many others have not.  Archbishop Thuc followed the traditional belief of Holy Mother Church that the ordinary jurisdiction of Catholic bishops is the means by which the Apostolic Succession of Our Lord Jesus Christ is continued down through the generations.  Of course, Archbishop Thuc had also previously received the episcopal authority as Vicar Apostolic of the Apostolic Vicariate at Vinh Long to consecrate bishops on his own personal initiative directly from the hands of and by the authority of His Holiness Pope Pius XII.

Therefore we should carefully consider the possibility that our clergy during a Papal interregnum are never "acephalous" or "headless" at all, as Mr. Hobbles seems to fear.  They, and we, are all of us very much safe beneath the "umbrella" of Our Lord's Papacy and the Holy City of Eternal Rome that protects us during every Papal interregnum.  And especially this longest one!

The good Archbishop Thuc consecrated Bishops Carmona, Zamora and Musey who in turn on August 24, 1982 co-consecrated His Excellency Bishop Louis Vezelis, O.F.M., as the Roman Catholic Bishop of the United States and Canada "east of the Mississippi River," as they chose to describe his new diocese.  Since then Bishop Vezelis of Rochester, New York has seen fit to consecrate three new Bishops for Holy Mother Church whose activities now extend through the Americas, or those lands under the special protection of the Blessed Virgin of Guadaloupe.

No doubt I have already gone on for too long, so to sum up I can't think of a better description for our present predicament as Roman Catholics than to quote the famous words of Dorothy to her little dog Toto:  "Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore…"

As contemporary Catholics in the Year of Our Lord 2012, we do well to consider the wider implictions of Dorothy's wise words.  No, we are "not in Kansas anymore."  Perhaps we are now instead in some land much more wonderful than any Land of Oz…

Perhaps we are that Little Flock of Peter the Roman now approaching the Gates of the Millennial Kingdom.  Perhaps now that the last remnants of the Satanic Russian Revolution are fading away into the Great Void, it is at last time for the meek to truly begin to inherit the earth:

"Fear not, little flock, for it has been the good pleasure of thy Father to give you the Kingdom of Heaven."  (Luke 12:32)


Brother Francis, Franciscan Solitary

P.S.:  Please note my above essay does not pass judgement on the other Traditional Bishops of Holy Mother Church.  But in my humble opinion our Bishops can only be truly responsible leaders when they exercise the normal authority of their office, and should therefore acknowledge the ordinary jurisdition inherent in their sacred office.  Catholic bishops without their time-honored ordinary jurisdiction resemble the false and bizarre Protestant "Churches" far too much for comfort.

Thank you Brother Francis for your thoughtful (well thought out) writing and the time and effort you took to put it together.  I believe the Church teaches that ordinary jurisdiction is inherent in their sacred offices as well.  

When we deny this we have to look to the woods or be satisfied with material apostolicity.

I say this not only knowing I could be wrong.  But knowing I could be waaaaaaaay off.  But they are my thoughts now.  Thoughts which I have tried to form through Church teaching.  But ultimately the only laity it affects regardless of who is right, is the stay-at-homers.  But if they are acting in good conscience God gives them the necessary graces as well.

Our clergy need to unite and make a statement on the issue.  This can be done if pride and ego can be smothered.  

I'll have plenty more to say later but let us look directly at the quote from Pius XII which you claim says "jurisdiction flows to the Bishops only through the Pope".  Perhaps you can direct me to where he stated that

Sure, SJB provided the quotes on the first page of this thread.

“…the power of jurisdiction, which is conferred upon the Supreme Pontiff directly by divine rights, flows to the Bishops by the same right, but only through the Successor of St. Peter...” Pius XII, Ad Sinarum gentem, 7 October 1954)

" ...since jurisdiction passes to bishops only through the Roman Pontiff as We admonished in the Encyclical Letter Mystici Corporis…” (Pius XII, Ad Apostolorum principis, 29 June 1958)"

Jurisdiction is ordinary when it is attached to an office. Pope Pius XII is explicit that the ordinary power of jurisdiction is received only directly from the Pope, which shows that no Bishop can acquire the possession of an episcopal office merely by consecration by another Bishop. It is a quite grave error to think otherwise, in practice, it would be a derogation of the supreme and exclusive powers proper to the Papacy alone.

Again, during each interregnum the bishops did not lose their authority but continued to function, with all their power (apart from infallibility and the ability to form a perfect council) just as they always had.

This is not the point of contention here. Cardinal Franzelin, among many others, says plainly the jurisdiction of the Bishops, granted by the Pope, does not cease when he dies. That is because jurisdiction is attached to their office which they lawfully entered with the consent of their head to become members of the episcopal college. But what is impossible for mere Bishops to do, even all together, is to install another Bishop into an office by themselves when they know there is no Pope.

That is an affront on the monarchical constitution of the Church.

I agree that Bishops consecrated against the expressed will of a valid Pope do not have full jurisdiction.

They would not have jurisdiction at all, since they never entered the office, since he who holds the Keys did not consent. The words of Christ about robbers who do not enter by the gate are applied by the Holy Father here.

But those consecrated to keep the Church going, who submit to the Papacy and any valid Pope when he comes into existence I deny until the contrary is sufficiently proven.

Well, you can keep at it if you like. But the teaching is quite clear.

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: LoT

I believe the Church teaches that ordinary jurisdiction is inherent in their sacred offices as well.

This is totally wrong and you've been shown multiple times why it is wrong.

From Pope Pius XII

as far as each one’s own diocese is concerned, they [the bishops] each and all as true Shepherds feed the flocks entrusted to them and rule them in the name of Christ.  Yet in exercising this office they are not altogether independent, but are duly subordinate to the authority of the Roman Pontiff; and although their jurisdiction is inherent in their office, yet they receive it directly from the same Supreme Pontiff. – MCC 52; italic ours.


What am I missing?

"although their jurisdiction is inherent in their office"

Yes, when they have an office, they have jurisdiction. Pius XII is saying that the jurisdiction comes directly from the Roman Pontiff.

One who has valid orders without an office has no jurisdiction, period.

So what happens to it during sede vacante?

It doesn't disappear.  And if by some chance there were a long sede vacante, then the power of conferring jurisdiction would devolve.  As it has in the past.

No sedevacantist denies that jurisdiction requires the approval of the Pope.  It doesn't follow that during sede vacante jurisdiction cannot be granted, when it's necessary to be granted.

I don't see any proof at all that a bishop cannot be consecrated and granted jurisdiction during sede vacante.

Well, you're wrong. Jurisdiction requires an office, not just Holy Orders.

Not that it matters, but in your mind, who is it that "grants jurisdiction?"

Quote from: Lover of Truth

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: LoT

I believe the Church teaches that ordinary jurisdiction is inherent in their sacred offices as well.

This is totally wrong and you've been shown multiple times why it is wrong.

From Pope Pius XII

as far as each one’s own diocese is concerned, they [the bishops] each and all as true Shepherds feed the flocks entrusted to them and rule them in the name of Christ.  Yet in exercising this office they are not altogether independent, but are duly subordinate to the authority of the Roman Pontiff; and although their jurisdiction is inherent in their office, yet they receive it directly from the same Supreme Pontiff. – MCC 52; italic ours.


What am I missing?

"although their jurisdiction is inherent in their office"

Yes, when they have an office, they have jurisdiction. Pius XII is saying that the jurisdiction comes directly from the Roman Pontiff.

One who has valid orders without an office has no jurisdiction, period.

Thanks for the explanation.  It sounds plausible.  I admit you could be right, but I don't know for sure.  You 100% sure your interpretation is correct.  And those most knowedgeable (apparantly in the public realm, people like you, John Lane and Hobbles) agree.  It certainly seems on the face of what Van Noort and Pius XII has written that you are correct.  But I truly believe we could be missing something here.

Thanks for responding.  My questions are sincere.  I have been guilty of not reading threads in there entirety.  I have legitimately missed things.  I evidently missed the whole "materially apostolic" thing.

And if by some chance there were a long sede vacante, then the power of conferring jurisdiction would devolve.  As it has in the past.

Except it hasn't ever been what you want to claim:

339. Q.-I. By whom and how were bishops appointed at various times?

A. The history of appointments to episcopal sees may be divided chiefly into three periods. 1. First period.-Christ himself first chose his apostles. The apostles in turn appointed their successors, the bishops. The clergy and people not infrequently took part in the appointment of bishops, as made by the apostles. Afterwards, appointments to bishoprics were, as a rule,made conjointly by the metropolitan, the bishops of the province, the clergy, and the people of the vacant  diocese The elections seem to have been held  usually in provincial synods. According to some canonists, the people merely gave testimony of the character of the candidate; according to others, they actually exercised the elective franchise. It is certain that the laity are not jure divino possessed of the right of electing bishops. In some instances, especially where it was feared that these elections might give rise to dissensions, the metropolitan sent some bishop episcopus visitator to superintend the election.

340. Bouix thus describes the mode of election of this period: First, the suffrage of the people or laity was necessary; second, that of the clergy of the vacant diocese was also required; third, the consent of the bishops of the province was, moreover, indispensable to the valid election of a bishop.

341. Bishops,  however, were not unfrequently appointed even during this epoch, directly by the Holy See; especially is this true in regard to the West, where for the first four centuries bishops were directly and solely appointed by the Holy See.

342. II. Second period.-In the twelfth century the right of electing bishops became vested solely and exclusively in cathedral chapters.

343. III. Third period.-Owing to abuses consequent on elections by chapters, the Sovereign Pontiffs began, in the fourteenth century, to reserve to themselves the appointment of bishops. Clement V took the first step in this matter, by reserving the appointment to some bishoprics; John XXII. increased the number, and Pope Benedict XII (1334) finally reserved to the Holy See the appointment (i.e., the election and confirmation) of all the bishops of the Catholic world. Elections by chapters were consequently discontinued everywhere.  Afterwards, however, the right of election was restored to cathedral chapters in some parts of Germany, so that in these parts only bishops and archbishops are still, as of old, canonically elected by their cathedral chapters.

344. Q. Were the Roman Pontiffs guilty of usurpation in reserving to themselves the appointment of bishops?

A. By no means; for the Pope alone is, by virtue of his primacy, vested with potestas ordinaria, not only to confirm, but also to elect bishops. Hence it was only by the consent, express or tacit, of the Popes that others ever did or could validly elect bishops.