Q427 – Is the papal approval of bishop’s ordination of apostolic origin and therefore an essential part of the deposit of Faith to where it is unchangeable and that it incurs auto-excommunication when not followed or is it a matter of discipline?

Interview Organization: Confraternity of Our Lady of Fatima
Interviewer Name: Christopher P. Wendt
Date: March 13, 2026
Bishop Athanasius Schneider explains that episcopal ordinations without papal approval are of ecclesiastical, not divine, right. Disobedience to the Pope does not automatically equal schism, as shown in Church history, including Saint Athanasius. Excessive absolutism in papal obedience conflicts with the balanced tradition of the first millennium.

If you like what we do and want to regularly support our mission to build the Reign of Mary and/or assist the episcopal ministry of Bishop Athanasius Schneider, please consider becoming a Servant of Mary.

No, it is not of divine right, because in earlier times, especially in the first millennium, bishops were ordained without approval from the Pope. Therefore, it is not strictly of divine right, but rather an ecclesiastical right. What is of divine right must be understood in this context. There is much confusion because some places on the same level the dogma of faith, which is of divine right, namely the obligation to believe in and acknowledge the primacy of the Pope and his jurisdiction as a truth of faith, and the concrete ecclesiastical norm requiring the explicit approval of the Pope for episcopal ordinations. These are two different matters that must be distinguished.

Disobedience in ordaining a bishop against the will of the Pope is indeed disobedience, but it is not in itself always a schismatic act, as Church history has shown. We cannot automatically equate disobedience with schism. This is an exaggerated form of papalism which was not present in the time of the Fathers of the Church or in the first millennium. There was no absolute understanding of obedience to the Pope in ecclesiastical matters, especially in matters that are not strictly defined as dogma. To absolutize obedience in such a way that it is always equated with schism does not correspond to the broader Catholic tradition of the Fathers of the Church and the first millennium.

This tendency developed more strongly, I think, after the First Vatican Council, with the definitions concerning jurisdiction and infallibility. However, it must be understood again in a more balanced way, without falling into the opposite error of conciliarism or episcopalism. As Catholics, we are sons and daughters of the Church, and we venerate the Pope, but in a balanced manner, not to an excessive degree.

Therefore, there can be situations in the history of the Church where a bishop is disobedient to the Pope and is not ipso facto schismatic. A well-known example is Saint Athanasius, who at one point was disobedient and even excommunicated, yet he was not schismatic in his intention. There are also other cases in the history of the Church.

Question/ Title