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 consecrated 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 are not actually Roman Catholic bishops, therefore to use a 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 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 the Holy See regards 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 Holy See is the fact that the SSPX has always claimed allegiance to the Holy See, whereas Duarte Costa established an independent jurisdiction.

Thuc succession is intriguing, partly because so much has been refuted, denied and confused by the actions and pronouncements of Thuc himself but also by those who claim his succession! There are few I would imagine that the Holy See 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 recognizably claim to be Roman Catholic bishops but not to bishops who do not claim to be Roman Catholic even if their lineage 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 Holy See regards as their own but "wandering"!
—Periti 11:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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:

• Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, SSPX

Bishop Bernard Fellay, SSPX

Bishop Richard Williamson, SSPX

Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, SSPX

Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta, SSPX

• Archbishop Pierre Martin Ngô Đình Thuc
• Archbishop Emmanuel Milingo
• Bishop Carlos Duarte Costa, founder of the Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church

Bishop Salomão Barbosa Ferraz, reconciled with the Holy See

Bishop Orlando Arce-Moya, reconciled with the Holy See

Bishop Luis Fernando Castillo Mendez, Patriarch of the Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church

• Bishop Eduardo Sanchez y 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 Holy See 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 the Holy See and without conditional consecration - though Mendez's inclusion is perhaps questionable as the Holy See has made only ecumenical discourse with him. However of the Milingo, Thuc and Sanchez Y 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Is episcopi vagantes a canonical term? The nearest canonical term I know is in the CLSGBI English translation of 1983 CIC canon 265:

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.

See also, for instance, the Encyclopedia Britannica^{[dead link]} and the Anglican Template:Wayback. A Fordham University 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'."^[1]

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)[reply]

But Lefebvre et al. ARE by canonical definition "episcopi vagantes"... a bishop who has never been an "incardinated" bishop of the RCC 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 RCC or they have him. In the cases of Lefebvre, Thuc, 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 was never incardinated in the RCC cannot be termed EV because 1983 CIC does not apply to him. Let us be clear that ANY cleric outside of communion with the Holy See is not subject to 1983 CIC unless he desires to become a Roman Catholic. 1983 CIC is not universal even if the Holy See 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 the Holy See 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)[reply]

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 1983 CIC. It was not in the 1917 CIC. 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)[reply]

You've already made reference to it regarding the direct quote of the CLSGBI translation of 1983 CIC 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 RCC at the Council of Trent to address a canonical problem, which was known and discussed by the early Church 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 by no means to be allowed. (CLSGBI translation of 1983 CIC canon 265). 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)[reply]

We have a definition of the term episcopi vagantes from 1983 CIC. If 1983 CIC 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 (EGC) do trace their lineage back to the "wandering bishops" of the 19th 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 19th century "wandering bishops". Then the early 20th century bishops. Then discuss the late 20th century one's such as Milingo.
—jonathon 23:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still await a reliable source for the alleged definition of the term "episcopi vagantes" from RCC Canon law. 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[reply]

Sorry. I thought that the reference to 1983 CIC canon 265 was the definition.  :(

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

I repeat that the term "episcopi vagantes" is found in neither the 1983 CIC nor in the 1917 CIC. The nearest term is "clerici acephali seu vagi". "Vagi", not "vagantes" (and, less importantly, "clerici", not "episcopi"). And in the 1983 CIC 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)[reply]

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 1983 CIC! 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 a 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.^[2]

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)[reply]

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 John Doe, of Blah blah Catholic blah is not a episcopi vagantes by definition, unless:

a) He was consecrated and ordained in an apostolic line that that traces through the RCC;

b) Both his consecration and ordination was under the auspices of the RCC;

c) Blah blah catholic blah either:

i) pledges allegiance to the Holy See;

ii) is in full communion with the RCC;

iii) pledges allegiance to the doctrines and teachings of RCC

d) Either advocates or teaches beliefs that are heretical to the RCC.

2) John Doe was excommunicated for heretical beliefs and practices. Whilst John Doe does not recant those beliefs, he is not an episcopus vagans, until he performs clerical functions or duties as "Bishop John Doe" (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 RCC. 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 recipient either never intended to perform the duties required of him, or whose beliefs were heretical, and the recipient knew so at the time of ordination. This is regardless of whether or not the recipient is an adherent of the organization from which that ordination and consecration was obtained.

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

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

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 RCC 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 RCC 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 Stevenson.^[2] 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)[reply]

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.^[3] Henry Brandreth, a recognised scholar in this field of ecclesiology defines episcopi vagantes 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."^[4] — Periti 14:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC) — continues after insertion below[reply]

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.^[4] —Quote inserted into concluded 2007 conversation by BoBoMisiu (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

A Doctoral student at Liverpool Hope University's Centre for the study of Contemporary Ecclesiology, Eddie Jarvis, defines EV as "episcopi vagantes – wandering bishops, or irregular episcopal consecration outside of communion".

The Council of Sardica canon 6 and Council of Laodicea canon 7, ^[5] refer to the matter of "country bishops" which was the Early Church's experience of "wandering bishops", i.e. bishops without a see. These tended to be bishops who were suffragan bishop/auxiliaries 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 collections of ancient canons are the basis of the legal history of the Catholic Church 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 his often referred to thesis.^[6]

Regarding my preference to refrain from or be careful in using the term EV ref bishops of other denominations please note the words of Claude 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."^[7] 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.

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 the Holy See 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 the Holy See 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 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 an 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.

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 the Holy See, 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?

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?!

John Butler, 12th Baron Dunboyne, in my opinion he may well have been classed as an 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)[reply]

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

Periti: A bishop "would not canonically be regarded as 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 historic metropolitical see (not just the see of Rome).^[4] 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."^[3] Note the word "via". The episcopi vagantes that Boyle compiled information about are the descendants of those whom User:Periti considers to be the only episcopi vagantes. And Boyle does not say that those he compiled information about are the only episcopi vagantes: he lists several other groups.

—Lima 18:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Perhaps we can agree that it is inappropriate to limit this episcopi vagantes Wikipedia article solely to (Roman) Catholic bishops that some (whether justifiably or not) classify as episcopi vagantes. That is all I have wanted. If 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)[reply]

That is exactly right! Phew?!

—Periti 12:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]