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.
