Talk:Episcopus vagans

RCC recognition of ordinations by episcopi vagantes

Relevant discussion at

→ Talk:Arnold Mathew#Affirmations of validity

Question: can anyone give me a precise canonical reference (or precedents) of RCC's recognition of the ordinations done by episcopi vagantes? thanks

—Ouital77 21:32, 24 September 2005.

The individual standard for whether the sacraments of baptism, confirmation, and orders "were actually or validly conferred" is, according to the Latin Church's 1983 CIC canon 845 §2, a "diligent inquiry" and if "a prudent doubt still exists" "after completing a diligent inquiry" then the sacraments "are to be conferred conditionally." "Since the sacraments are the same for the whole Church and belong to the divine deposit," according to canon 841, "it is only for the supreme authority of the Church to approve or define the requirements for their validity."
— User:BoBoMisiu 00:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

This is the general principle but not specific to episcopi vagantes. The diligent inquiry would be about each of the above sacraments for each incremental non-Catholic minister (a male who was not in full communion with either the Latin Church or one of the other 22 sui iuris Eastern Catholic Churches within the Catholic Church, or as some prefer, within the ) in the proposed sequence of ordinations and consecrations. It would also investigate the intentions of those ministers and recipients, and their publicly manifested divergence in doctrine. For an example of divergent doctrine leading to prudent doubt, see talk here (this edit). I have not read even a single – reliable and verifiable – source about any case where a "diligent inquiry" was conducted into an ordination, not by a non-Catholic minister in whose non-Catholic Church these sacraments are valid. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 00:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

List of notable episcopi vagantes

The following discussion is marked as answered (See WP:CAT/R). If you have a new comment, place it just below the box.

---

How does the presence of the category "Catholics not in communion with Rome" violate the original research prohibition?

—Midnite Critic 15:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Not the presence of the category... placing wandering bishops in that category is a faulty personal conclusion of whatever editor made the edit. While wandering bishops are legislated against and minimized, the Church also recognizes extraordinary circumstances where wandering bishops would be perfectly in communion with the Church. So this cannot be categorically placed in that category. Individual wandering bishops can be placed there by name if they have in fact incurred a censure and been excommunicated for becoming a wandering bishop.

—Diligens 16:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Categories regarding religious beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion. For a dead person, there must be a verified consensus of reliable published sources that the description is appropriate.
— Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality

—BoBoMisiu (talk) 20:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

It would be nice to have a list in this article of particularly well-known episcopi vagantes, particularly any that are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles.

—Isomorphic 00:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem with that, Iso, is that one person's episcopus vagans is another's prophet, reformer, or whatever. Few, if any, of the bishops in question would themselves identify with the label.

—Midnite Critic 21:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm concerned at the idea of listing people as episcopi vagantes, as everyone is someones schismatic. The Anglicans are quite happy to talk about EV's but do not acknowledge that their own non-juror experience is a sort of EV. The Mission to America by the Rwandan bishops is a better example and we should include them. EV's are not just English speaking Old Catholics!

—Father Stuart1 15:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Richard Williamson

Should he be added to the list of vagrant bishops?

—Ausseagull (talk) 18:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Definitions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Episcopi vagantes should refer solely to Roman Catholic bishops who have "gone wandering" from canonical obedience to the Holy See. The most notable would include Marcel Lefebvre, Carlos Duarte Costa, and Pierre Martin Ngô Đình Thục; each of whom consecrated further bishops without Papal consent.

Old Catholic/Independent bishops, especially of "ancient"/independent lineage, i.e. Utrecht/Orthodox/Anglican successions, should not be referred to as EV as they were/are not actually Roman Catholic bishops, therefore to use an RC term with canonical connotations is inappropriate. These bishops do not (and should not) claim to be Roman Catholic and as such should not then be referred to using RC language. Whilst their apostolic succession may/may not be traceable to RC lineage, they of themselves are not Roman Catholics.

The interesting question is whether bishops in succession from an episcopus vagans should be regarded as episcopi vagantes? Looking at the recent detail of discourse and pronouncement by the Holy See regarding the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) then "yes" perhaps they should as Rome regards the SSPX bishops as sacramentally valid but canonically illicit. However, I would suggest that the difference between say Lefebvre and Duarte Costa successions with regard to this tacit recognition by Rome is the fact that the SSPX has always claimed allegiance to the Holy See, whereas Duarte Costa established an independent jurisdiction.

Thục succession is intriguing, partly because so much has been refuted, denied and confused by the actions and pronouncements of Thục himself but also by those who claim his succession! There are few I would imagine that the Holy See could/would afford any recognition to as most are Sedevacantist and nearly all have established independent Churches.

I think it is safe then to use EV specifically to Roman Catholic bishops, and those who can recognisably claim to be Roman Catholic bishops but not to bishops who do not claim to be Roman Catholic even if their lineage was/is?! If used in this way offense would not be afforded to bishops of Churches that are not and do not claim to be Roman Catholic or whom the Holy See does not acknowledge the possibility of their being such. Really, it should be used to refer to bishops that Rome regards as their own but "wandering"!

—Periti 11:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be useful to try and identify and create a list of recognised EV's? The following for example would be definite contenders:

1. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, SSPX
   1. Bishop Bernard Fellay, SSPX
   2. Bishop Richard Williamson, SSPX
   3. Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, SSPX
   4. Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta, SSPX
2. Archbishop Pierre Martin Ngô Đình Thục
3. Archbishop Emmanuel Milingo
4. Bishop Carlos Duarte Costa, founder of the Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church
   1. Bishop Salomão Barbosa Ferraz, reconciled with the Holy See
   2. Bishop Horlando Arce-Moya, reconciled with the Holy See
   3. Bishop Luis Fernando Castillo Méndez, patriarch of the Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church
5. Bishop Eduardo Sánchez Camacho, founder of the Mexican Apostolic National Church

Following my suggestions for use of the term EV please notice that the SSPX bishops are included because they and Rome recognise them as "Roman Catholic" whether valid/illicit (depending on viewpoint). Also too those immediately in succession to Duarte Costa as two of these were reconciled to Rome and without re-consecration - though Méndez's inclusion is perhaps questionable as the Holy See has made only ecumenical discourse with him. However of the Milingo, Thục and Sánchez Camacho lines, no bishops, to my knowledge, have been recognised by the Holy See at all.

Any thoughts?

—Periti 14:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

What name then would Periti use for those who have had a ceremony of episcopal ordination performed over them, are not in practice part of any independent Catholic – or, for that matter, non-Catholic – Church (unless you count each one of them, with or without a few friends, as a Church), and do not recognisably claim to be Roman Catholic bishops, even if they themselves may perhaps claim to be Roman Catholics? More "wandering" than that I find it hard to imagine. This is how the phrase episcopi vagantes is mostly applied. A priest or bishop who "goes off the rails" is in a very different position.

—Lima 14:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well... my point is that by using the term EV one is perhaps giving more credibility to some of these "vagrant bishops" by insinuating that they have some kind of legitimacy by using a legitimate term?! EV is a canonical term and therefore should be applied to specific persons who fall into a specific criteria. I'm not quite sure I've ever come across someone claiming to be a Roman Catholic with episcopal orders but not claiming to be a Roman Catholic bishop? They sound more "wondering" than anything else?!

—Periti 14:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Is episcopi vagantes a canonical term? The nearest canonical term I know is in canon 265 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law (1983 CIC): "Every cleric must be incardinated in a particular Church or personal prelature, or in an institute of consecrated life or a society which has this faculty: accordingly, acephalous or 'wandering' clergy are by no means to be allowed." Here it is question not of clerics who have gone off the rails but of clerics who are not attached to any of the structures to which is attributed the faculty of incardinating clergy.

— Lima 14:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

There is more than one English language version of the 1983 CIC authorized by the Holy See. The Canon Law Society of Great Britain and Ireland (CLSGBI) British English version of 1983 CIC canon 265 is quoted above by Lima. The Canon Law Society of America (CLSA) American English version of 1983 CIC canon 265, which is also found on vatican.va, is: "Every cleric must be incardinated either in a particular church or personal prelature, or in an institute of consecrated life or society endowed with this faculty, in such a way that unattached or transient clerics are not allowed at all. The Latin official version of 1983 CIC canon 265, which is also found on vatican.va, is: Quemlibet clericum oportet esse incardinatum aut alicui Ecclesiae particulari vel praelaturae personali, aut alicui instituto vitae consecratae vel societati hac facultate praeditis, ita ut clerici acephali seu vagi minime admittantur. "This canon establishes the absolute necessity for incardination, to the extent that no vagi or acephalous clergy are admitted at all," according to the commentary in Code of Canon Law Annotated. It is necessary for all bishops, priests, and deacons. "Since earliest times the Church has dealt with the problem of unattached clerics, called vagi, who roamed from church to church with no accountability to ecclesiastical authority, often causing scandal to the faithful. [...] Incardination is an effective structure for providing accountability for the clergy; when corrective measures are taken, they cannot flee elsewhere," according to the commentary in New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law.

—Preceding annotation inserted into concluded 2007 conversation by BoBoMisiu (talk) 22:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

See also, for instance, the Encyclopedia Britannica and the Anglican Church Times. A Fordham study remarks that in New York "there are now literally hundreds of these 'episcopi vagantes', of lesser or greater spiritual probity. They seem to have a tendency to call living room sanctuaries 'cathedrals'."

I doubt if you can find similar sources to support your picture of the specific criteria for considering specific persons to be episcopi vagantes.

Putting people like Lefebvre in this category is raising unduly the importance and the seriousness of the episcopi vagantes.

—Lima 14:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

But Lefebvre, et al., ARE by canonical definition episcopi vagantes... A bishop who has never been an "incardinated" bishop of the Roman Catholic Church cannot be called a "wandering bishop" by virtue of the fact that he is not a "wandering bishop" as understood by Roman Catholic canon law. A Roman Catholic bishop who has "gone off the rails" is, de facto, a "wandering cleric" because he has renounced his attachment to the RC Church or they have him. In the cases of Lefebvre, Thục, Duarte Costa, et al., they left communion with the Holy See or were excommunicated by the Holy See. They therefore became excardinated and therefore "wandering" clerics.

A cleric who has never been an incardinated cleric of the Roman Catholic Church cannot be termed EV by virtue of the fact that RC canon law does not apply to him. Let us be clear that ANY cleric outside of communion with the Holy See is not therefore subject to RC canon law unless he desires to become a Roman Catholic. The canon law of the Roman Catholic Church is not universal even if Rome believes that it possess "universal authority". An RC bishop would not presume to discipline a cleric of another Church, e.g. Canterbury, Constantinople etc!

The fact that generally the term has been used or understood to refer to any bishop not immediately in communion with Rome or other widely recognised or established denomination does not make it "right". It is discourteous to refer to any cleric of another jurisdiction using terminology belonging to another Church with whom he has no recognised or official connection.

—Periti 18:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Too many unsupported claims here for me to comment on them all. Basically, please quote with source your "canonical definition" of episcopus vagans. It is not in the present Code of Canon Law. It was not in the 1917 Code of Canon Law. Where is it? So please say where you found your definition of "a 'wandering bishop' as understood by Roman Catholic canon law". Unless you do, we must depend on common usage, rather than your unsupported affirmation.

—Lima 19:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You've already made reference to it regarding the direct quote of canon 265! Are you unable to follow the logic of the argument? "Common usage" if wrong, should be corrected. In "common usage" most people think that "Catholic Church" means "Roman Catholic" yet that is incorrect. Surely the point of this site is to be educational?!

Episcopus vagans as a term originated from the Roman Catholic Church at the Council of Trent to address a canonical problem, one that was known and discussed by the Early Church in councils, i.e. the problem of bishops without jurisdiction or sees and wandering clergy. It is obviously inferred in both codes of canon law relating to the incardination of clerics, "acephalous or 'wandering' clergy are not to be allowed" canon 265 (Code 1983). It is historically a Roman Catholic term related to Roman Catholic canonical discussion.

Applied more widely however, one can only be "wandering" if one does not "belong". Bishops of the Old Catholic and Independent Catholic Churches belong to those Churches in the same way that Anglican and Orthodox bishops belong to theirs - they are not "wandering".

I am at a loss to know how to describe someone in episcopal orders who does not "belong" anywhere, but I am loathe to credit them with a legitimate term that refers to specific persons in a specific situation. Similarly I am loathe to use a term to refer to people to whom it may not legitimately be applied and which to do so stains them with sometimes undeserved derision. A bishop who doesn't belong anywhere is not really a bishop at all in any widely accepted Catholic or Christian sense (accepting of course, retired clerics)!

—Periti 21:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Definitions are crucial to this article.

We have a definition of the term episcopi vagantes from the canon law of the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church. If that code of canon law applies to other branches of Catholic Christianity, then we have them covered. If it doesn't, then their definition might need to be included in the article.

Other Christian denominations have their own code of canon law. I'd suggest including their definition of the term in the article. This includes both Anglican canon law, and Greek Orthodox canon law.

Bishops in organizations, such Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica do trace their lineage back to the "wandering bishops" of the nineteenth century western mystical/magical tradition. (Stephan Hoeller's lineage is radically different from that of the bishops of the EGC.)

So start with the early history of "wandering bishops": who and why they were. Then go to the nineteenth century "wandering bishops". Then the early twentieth century bishops. Then discuss the late twentieth century one's such as Emmanuel Milingo.

—jonathon 23:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I still await a reliable source for the alleged "definition of the term episcopi vagantes from the canon law of the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church". The definition has now been attributed to the Council of Trent. Where is that definition among its decrees? Does the definition limit the term to regularly consecrated Catholic bishops who carry out wildcat ordinations of other bishops, as seems to be the notion proposed here? What exactly is the definition?

— Lima 04:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

Sorry. I thought that the reference to canon 265 of the Code of Canon Law was the definition. :(

—jonathon 19:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I repeat that the term episcopi vagantes is found in neither the present Code of Canon Law nor in the 1917 Code. The nearest term is "clerici acephali seu vagi". Vagi, not vagantes (and, less importantly, clerici, not episcopi). And in the codes the term means non-incardinated. A priest doesn't lose his incardination because of excommunication; he is still a priest of whatever diocese he is incardinated into and, if he is repentant and the penalty is lifted, he doesn't then have to seek incardination in some diocese, his previous one or another.

—Lima 04:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Jonathon, an excellent suggestion!

Lima, please re-read what I have written (and your own given sources above)! I have not stated that the term per se, episcopi vagantes, is found explicitly in RC codes of canon law! I have simply asserted that it is a phrase derived from canonical debate about the problem! Perhaps you could inform us of the exact written derivation?! It is besides the point. It is an RC term in origin and specifically Western/Latin Rite language in usage as the Orthodox have no historical use of the term episcopi vagantes although they have, of course, experienced the phenomena!

As for your comments regarding incardination/excardination that all depends on the level of excommunication or its practical application or extent. It certainly is not as simple as you suggest.

I also suggest you stop using terms such as "wildcat" and "off the rails" as these are hardly descriptive enough and sound simply polemical or subjective! "EV" is not about bishops who have simply misbehaved but about bishops who have left communion with the Holy See by their own actions or incurred discipline and then proceeded to exercise an episcopal ministry or prerogative illicitly or irregularly as understood canonically. That is the way in which they are considered "wandering" by virtue of their "not belonging" regularly/legally as has been understood by the majority of Catholic Christendom since the Early Church debated the issue. Read Creeds, Councils and Controversies; Documents Illustrating the History of the Church AD 337-461 by J. Stevenson for details of the debates held in Early Council.

I repeat again that the fact that "common usage" encompasses a broader or wider application does not detract from the original application of the term and an article worthy of note would explain that.

—Periti 07:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the point needs to be emphasized that Canon law binds only those who are adherents to the faith/denomination of the specific Canon law.

1. Bishop Roe Wade, of Blah blah Catholic blah is not an episcopus vagans by definition, unless:
   1. He was consecrated and ordained in an apostolic line that that traces through the Roman Catholic Church;
   2. Both his consecration and ordination was under the auspices of the Roman Catholic Church;
   3. Blah blah catholic blah either:
      1. pledges allegiance to The Holy See;
      2. is in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church;
      3. pledges allegiance to the doctrines and teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.
   4. Either advocates or teaches beliefs that are heretical to the Roman Catholic Church.
2. Bishop John Wade was excommunicated for heretical beliefs and practices. Whilst Bishop John Wade does not recant those beliefs, he is not an episcopus vagans, until he performs clerical functions or duties as "Bishop John Wade" (He can attend Mass, but may neither partake of communion, nor perform any part of the Celebration of the Mass.)
3. Bishop John Doe of the blah blah Methodist blah blah organization is not an episcopus vagans under Catholic canon law because he does not adhere to the tenants of the Roman Catholic Church. Bishop John Doe needs to meet the requirements, if any, that are found in the canon law of the blah blah Methodist blah blah organization, pertaining to episcopi vagantes
4. Throwing out something that might cause still more confusion. Isn't a person who is ordained "in bad faith" also considered to be an episcopus vagans. The ordination is invalid because the individual either never intended to perform the duties required of him, or whose beliefs were heretical, and they knew so at the time of the ordination. This is regardless of whether or not they are adherents of the organization from which they obtained their ordination and consecration.

Where I am going with this, is to show that it is not a simple issue to determine whether or not somebody is episcopus vagans.(I am not sure that I have the examples right.)

—jonathon 19:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I say that any bishop not acknowledged as holding an official position within a recognized Church (any Church recognized by the Church making the judgment, and the Roman Catholic Church recognizes, for instance, the Old Catholic Church, but does not recognize several of the multitudinous "independent Catholic Churches") but who presents himself as a bishop, probably carrying out episcopal functions (in my view John Butler, 12th Baron Dunboyne, did not become an episcopus vagans when he chose to be Baron Dunboyne rather than Bishop of Cork) is called an episcopus vagans. I have quoted sources that indicate that such bishops are in fact called episcopi vagantes.

If I understand you rightly, you say that only such bishops who claim to be still part of the Roman Catholic Church may be called episcopi vagantes. That an excommunicated Catholic bishop such as Lefebvre is an episcopus vagans (presumably only if, after excommunication, he carries out episcopal functions - I wonder precisely what episcopal functions Lefebvre carried out after his excommunication; I suppose he probably ordained some priests), but remains such only until he formally renounces membership of the Catholic Church. You haven't quoted any text that expresses this view, not even from "Creeds, Councils and Controversies; Documents Illustrating the History of the Church AD 337-461 by J. Stevenson". Nor have you cited any document whatever from the "canonical debate about the problem".

Before you change the text of the article, you had better cite sources, and preferably actually quote them.

Am I wrong in my understanding of your view? Would a Catholic who accepted episcopal ordination from some bishop or other outside the Catholic Church be for you an episcopus vagans as long as he declared himself still a member of the Catholic Church, and would he then cease to be an episcopus vagans if he decided to set up his own little Church?

—Lima 08:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not alone in my consideration or understanding of episcopi vagantes as I have described. A widely respected Roman Catholic researcher and blogger Terrence Boyle shares the same understanding. Also a recognised scholar in this field of ecclesiology defines an episcopus vagans as those who are, or at least represent themselves as, properly consecrated bishops, but who are not part of the church within which they were consecrated, and are "not in communion with any historical metropolitical see". Liverpool Hope University's Eddie Jarvis, a Doctoral student of the Centre for the study of Contemporary Ecclesiology also defines EV as "episcopi vagantes – wandering bishops, or irregular episcopal consecration outside of communion".

— Periti 14:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC) — continues after insertion below

A longer direct quote from Brandreth, which was based on his 1940s report to the Church of England on the subject, is that in modern times: "a man is placed in this category who has, or claims to have, received irregular or clandestine consecration; or, having been consecrated regularly and canonically, has been excommunicated by, or otherwise cut off from, the Church which consecrated him, and is not in communion with any historic metropolitical see. The main ground of objection against him is that, in spite of resounding claims to the contrary, his episcopal status is doubtful, and that, even if his orders be valid, the exercise of them is not legitimate. In many cases the church over which he claims to preside appears to exist, if it exists at all except on paper, for the sake of the bishop rather than the bishop for the sake of the Church."

—Preceding annotation inserted into concluded 2007 conversation by BoBoMisiu (talk) 22:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

The Council of Sardica canon 6 and Council of Laodicea canon 7, AD 343-344, refer to the matter of "country bishops" which was the Early Church's experience of "wandering bishops" i.e. that is bishops without their own see. These tended to be bishops who were suffragans/auxillaries to the metropolitan or urban/city bishops and were the latter's representatives in remote regions from the local city. Sometimes these bishops might for whatever reason be deprived of their commission and therefore become "wandering" or indeed may have been consecrated for but failed to be subsequently elected to a see or position. These ancient canons form of course the basis and thinking for the RC codes of canon law and support the argument that this term originated to refer to bishops who were originally licit. This is the understanding of Eric A Badetscher in The Measure of a Bishop chapter 4 often referred to by those interested in this topic.

Regarding my preference to refrain from or be careful in using the term EV ref bishops of other denominations please note the words of CB Moss, "The ministry of every communion is valid for that communion. Disputes about validity only arise when the mutual recognition of different communions is proposed, or when a minister of one communion wishes to serve in another." As the majority of Old Catholic and Independent Catholic bishops are members of various ecumenical and interdenominational bodies, including the World Council of Churches and agreed covenants between themselves and established Churches; I think it more than discourteous to refer to them as episcopi vagantes.

I say that any bishop not acknowledged as holding an official position within a recognized Church (any Church recognized by the Church making the judgment, and the Roman Catholic Church recognizes, for instance, the Old Catholic Church, but does not recognize several of the multitudinous "independent Catholic Churches") but who presents himself as a bishop, probably carrying out episcopal functions is called an episcopus vagans. I have quoted sources that indicate that such bishops are in fact called episcopi vagantes.
— User:Lima 08:56, 25 October 2007

Such persons have been and are referred incorrectly as such, I agree. Your sources are confused and not as clear cut as you suggest and to my mind don't necessarily disagree with my position. The Roman Catholic Church does recognise "Old Catholics" but has not declared which, there are indeed many of them. An accord was agreed between Utrecht and Rome regarding mutual recognition but this was before the ordination of women by the former and Utrecht is not representative of all "recognised" Old Catholic Churches. The Polish National Catholic Church for example has its own discourse with Rome as does the Old Catholic Mariavite Church and there are others.

A person who has received episcopal consecration may well be a bishop. If he is not of a particular Church, then he may be thought of as "wandering" in the sense of "not belonging" but he would not canonically be regarded as an episcopus vagans unless he had been a licitly consecrated bishop of a particular Church but then left that jurisdiction. For the purposes of the jurisdiction he left he would be canonically speaking episcopus vagans from that Church. But a person who received consecration without mandate of any particular denomination, would simply be a person with episcopal orders.

If I understand you rightly, you say that only such bishops who claim to be still part of the Roman Catholic Church may be called episcopi vagantes. That an excommunicated Catholic bishop such as Lefebvre is an episcopus vagans (presumably only if, after excommunication, he carries out episcopal functions - I wonder precisely what episcopal functions Lefebvre carried out after his excommunication; I suppose he probably ordained some priests), but remains such only until he formally renounces membership of the Catholic Church.
— User:Lima 08:56, 25 October 2007

Basically "yes" that is the general gist of what I and others would logically assert based on the historical and universally understood principles developed in canon law. Ref Lefebvre, remember his consecrating the four SSPX priests as bishops automatically excommunicated himself from the Holy See, it was a "schismatic act" in and of itself. Whether such a bishop remains an episcopus vagans after formally renouncing his membership of a particular communion e.g. Rome, I suppose is open to debate. Certainly his progeny if they may be perceived as "of the original communion" might arguably be classified as episcopi vagantes as the SSPX bishops certainly are. Duarte Costa was an episcopus vagans when he left communion with Rome, but arguably by founding by himself an alternative jurisdiction which grew and has survived one should courteously not use the term at least to apply to his progeny consecrated for his separate Church (as one wouldn't the Utrecht Old Catholics or any other denomination generally recognised by other ecclesial bodies as a Church in it's own right).

Would a Catholic who accepted episcopal ordination from some bishop or other outside the Catholic Church be for you an episcopus vagans as long as he declared himself still a member of the Catholic Church, and would he then cease to be an episcopus vagans if he decided to set up his own little Church?
— User:Lima 08:56, 25 October 2007

In short, no. Such a person if a Roman Catholic would incur automatic excommunication latae sententiae and their episcopal status would never be recognised. They would not be an episcopus vagans because they are not recognised a) as a bishop and b) having never been incardinated could not therefore be "wandering". If they reconciled to the RC Church, it is doubtful they would be received as a bishop and would return to their original state of layperson or cleric whichever they were originally.

I suggest that there are in effect two understandings of the term EV - its legalistic and classically derived canonical definition and then the "common usage" applied to any bishop regarded as "not quite kosher" - though here in lies a remnant polemic of the first definition?!

Ref John Butler, 12th Baron Dunboyne, in my opinion he may well have been classed as episcopus vagans as he married without dispensation from his vow of celibacy as a cleric which he applied to the Holy See for and was refused. While he may not have incurred excommunication he nevertheless became canonically irregular and a bishop without jurisdiction.

—Periti 14:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Baron Dunboyne could be considered an episcopus vagans. I withdraw what I said of him.

Periti: A bishop "would not canonically be regarded as an episcopus vagans unless he had been a licitly consecrated bishop of a particular Church but then left that jurisdiction."

Brandreth: Those who are, or at least represent themselves as, properly consecrated bishops, but who are not part of the church Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Old Catholic, etc., within which they were consecrated, and are "not in communion with any historical metropolitical see", not just the See of Rome. In Wikipedia, terms are not limited to a Roman Catholic sense (in this case, an alleged Roman Catholic sense), unless this is specified, for instance by a title such as "Episcopus vagans (Catholic Church)". In further connection with what Brandreth wrote. It can be argued that an excommunicated person does not necessarily cease to be part of the Catholic Church, that not everyone who procures an abortion ceases then and there to be a Catholic. Lefebvre was excommunicated, but no declaration was issued to say specifically that he had left the Catholic Church. So was Lefebvre really an episcopus vagans?

Boyle: "What I do want to talk about are those clergy who claim priestly and/or episcopal orders via certain indisputably Roman Catholic bishops, i.e., bishops who – in the last hundred years – broke with the Vatican's authorities, for one reason or another, and later consecrated bishops of their own." Note the word "via". The episcopi vagantes (title of his study) that Boyle wanted to talk about are the descendants of those whom Periti considers to be the only episcopi vagantes. And Boyle does not say that those he wants to talk about are the only episcopi vagantes: he lists several other groups.

—Lima 18:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Lima, please stop using the term "Catholic" or "Catholic Church" if by it you mean "Roman Catholic"... I think this is why you are misunderstanding me! If you re-read again all that I have written you will discover

1. that I am deliberate whenever I refer particularly to the Roman Catholic (RC) Church as I mention it by name;
2. that I have not anywhere suggested that Roman Catholic canon law is applicable to people who are not Roman Catholics, but I have asserted that
3. other Churches can and do have their own canon law, which however
4. is generally understood and formulated or based on ancient canon law of the Early Church and councils and generally in the West, on Roman Catholic canon law (as opposed to Eastern/Oriental Orthodox concepts).

—81.151.173.202 08:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we can agree that it is inappropriate to limit this Wikipedia article on episcopi vagantes solely to (Roman) Catholic bishops that some (whether justifiably or not) classify as episcopi vagantes. That is all I have wanted. If BT user Periti is of the same opinion (if I was wrong in supposing otherwise, I apologize), we can now end this over-long discussion.

—Lima 09:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly right! Phew?!

—Periti 12:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article structure

I do think it would be beneficial to:

• Have an historical background from the Early Church reference the original "phenomena" of wandering bishops and the relevant Canons that were later agreed.
• Followed briefly by the development in the Western Church of validity, ref Augustine and the Donatists, etc., with links to relevant Wiki articles.
• Then the development of RC legislation to prevent wandering bishops at the Council of Trent.
• Then the development of the phenomena ref Old Catholics etc and the 19C episcopi vagantes.
• The 20C and the increasing phenomena of episcopi vagantes, the emergence of "Independent Catholicism" as distinct from Old Catholicism and their origins. Including individual OC and RC "EV's" canonical and circumstantial and Gnostics, Lib Cath's, Continuing Anglicans, etc.
• The 21C and an overview of the differences between EV's, whether and to whom the term might still refer, and the appropriateness or not of its application to bishops of differing jurisdictions or none.

—Periti 12:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Radical edit of talk page

I'm sorry, I cannot understand at all this radical change of the talk page we are on. Some parts seem to have disappeared completely, not being moved to Talk:Historical episcopate. May an editor play around with what other editors have written? – or have I misunderstood what was done? A section marked "Do not modify" seems to have disappeared entirely. If the intention was just to tidy the page, why not archive the older parts? And is it acceptable to move a very old discussion away from here to the talk page of another article, where it will seem to be a new intervention and cause confusion? I have not undone the addition to that talk page, but I wonder whether I ought to. —Esoglou (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I could not follow the discussions on this page. Read the history about where content was moved, everything is linked together. What I forgot to do was add the {{Talkpage header}} tag. That is the reason why you couldn't find your discussion about jurisdiction. Nothing was deleted. Open up both versions in two browser windows and compare. You will see that my WP:REFACTOR made the page much more readable and may improve the chance that a discussion will take place. Moving unanswered discussions to a different talkpage actually got a response. It is not a new intervention and did not cause confusion. I will manually revert this back to my version in a few days. Do you believe your discussion about jurisdiction should be on the talk instead of in the archive where it is located currently?—Esoglou, next time just post a comment on [[User talk:]]. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I think I must restore what others wrote to how they wrote it. You are of course free to reorganize the text for your own private reading, but I don't think it is right to interfere with the work of others. —Esoglou (talk) 19:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

What is contentious about my WP:REFACTOR? —BoBoMisiu (talk) 04:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

It's just that I failed to see how it was a true refactoring. Perhaps others will judge it to be evidently correct, and if some other editor disagrees with my reverting, and undoes my action, I will raise no objection whatever. I see that the refactoring norms say: "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted. Nevertheless, if the page is larger than the recommended size, then archiving of the talk page, or sections with no recent contributions, without refactoring can still be done." —Esoglou (talk) 06:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

If you don't know how to explain what is contentious, I will redo it step by step (several hours apart) with clear summery in the history. If you see what you feel is contentious, please comment on that here and we can build consensus (see WP:CONSBUILD). I believe the long 2007 discussion between Periti and Lima is a good discussion and should be made more readable, include a summery of the points covered in the conversation, and have good citations for future contributors. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. In that way, even I should be able to understand. Previously, your move of different parts of the content away from here to more than one other page, together with other changes here, meant I could not see the correspondence between the before and the after even by "Open up both versions in two browser windows and compare". By the way, I was not thinking of any particular discussion. I just failed to understand what had happened. —Esoglou (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Episcopi vagantes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080327064146/http://www.vatican.va:80/archive/ENG1104/__P54.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P54.HTM
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080329021837/http://www.vatican.va:80/archive/ENG1104/__P4X.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P4X.HTM
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/pheidas_limits_1.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/pheidas_limits_2.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/medny/halsall2.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vatican.va/archive/aas/documents/AAS%2003%20
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19760917_illegitimas-ordinationes_en.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100210163332/http://www.vatican.va:80/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070527_china_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070527_china_en.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:08, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Episcopi vagantes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vatican.va/archive/aas/documents/AAS%2003%20%26
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090210023439/http://212.77.1.245/news_services/bulletin/news/18881.php?index=18881&po_date=26.09.2006 to http://212.77.1.245/news_services/bulletin/news/18881.php?index=18881&po_date=26.09.2006
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.marxists.org/archive/higgins/1997/locust/chap14.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)