Can Sedevacantists Solve the Jurisdiction Issue?
Assessing Father Gabriel Lavery’s Case for Extraordinary Jurisdiction
Short Summary
Father Gabriel Lavery CMRI raises a question which, in quieter times, might have remained within the realm of speculative theology, but which in the present crisis presses itself upon the Church with an urgency that admits no evasion: how does the Church continue to govern when the Roman See is vacant and the ordinary structures of authority appear not merely interrupted, but profoundly dislocated? His answer draws upon principles deeply embedded within the Church’s juridical and theological tradition—canonical continuity during sede vacante, the doctrine of supplied jurisdiction, and the perennial affirmation that all ecclesiastical governance exists ultimately for the salvation of souls. These principles, taken together, establish continuity. Yet continuity, however necessary, is not the final question. The decisive issue remains whether such principles are sufficient not merely to sustain the life of the Church, but to restore her visible head.
The Problem of Continuity Without Authority
There are moments in the life of the Church when what has long been assumed must be brought into the full light of examination, when what has functioned quietly beneath the surface must be tested not merely for coherence, but for sufficiency—moments when the Church is compelled to ask not only whether she continues, but how she continues, and under what principle that continuation retains its identity as the same visible and juridical society founded by Christ. The present question is of that order. The Church is not a voluntary association sustained by shared belief, nor a merely spiritual communion existing in the interior forum alone. She is, by divine constitution, a visible and juridical society—ordered, structured, and governed through real authority. Her unity is not abstract, but embodied; not merely mystical, but juridically expressed. If that authority appears obscured, impeded, or incapable of resolving the crisis confronting her, the question arises with unavoidable force: by what principle does the Church continue to exist as what she claims to be?
This question does not arise in isolation, nor does it belong to a single correspondence or controversy. It has been steadily forced into the open by a series of developments within contemporary traditional Catholic discourse, developments which, taken together, reveal not merely disagreement, but the progressive exhaustion of existing explanatory frameworks. The proposals associated with Bishop Pierre Roy concerning the possibility of an “imperfect council,” the sustained critique of such proposals as a mirage of authority lacking juridical foundation, and the unfolding tensions surrounding the Transalpine Redemptorists—whose trajectory from accommodation to impasse has exposed the limits of existing models of communion—do not constitute isolated disputes, but converging indicators of a deeper crisis. The question is no longer whether the crisis exists, nor whether it may be endured, but by what principle the Church continues to act as a visible and juridical society when the ordinary structures of authority appear incapable of resolving the crisis themselves. The present analysis must therefore be understood not as an isolated intervention, but as the next stage in an argument already underway: an attempt to move from description of the crisis to a determination of the conditions under which it may be resolved.
It is precisely within this widening and intensifying context that the argument of Father Gabriel Lavery must be situated. Emerging from sustained correspondence with Christ Jackson of Hiraeth in Exile, and sharpened through wider contemporary engagement, Lavery’s position does not seek to evade the problem, nor to dissolve it into abstraction. On the contrary, it confronts it directly. He does not deny the necessity of ecclesial structure; he insists upon it. His claim is not that the Church retreats into invisibility under conditions of crisis, nor that authority becomes merely spiritual or interior. Rather, he contends that the Church continues to exist precisely as what she is—a visible, juridical, and ordered society—even when the ordinary mechanisms through which that order is expressed appear fractured or obscured. What presents itself as rupture must therefore be understood, not as collapse, but as continuity under strain—a continuity that persists not despite the crisis, but through it.¹
The Durability of Papal Juridical Will and the Continuity of Governance
This claim is not speculative; it is grounded in the Church’s own juridical self-understanding. The condition of sede vacante is not an anomaly but a foreseen and regulated state. The Code of Canon Law provides that when the Roman See is vacant or impeded, “nothing is to be innovated in the governance of the universal Church.”² This is not merely a procedural safeguard; it is a theological assertion expressed in juridical form. It presumes that governance continues, that jurisdiction persists, and that the Church does not lapse into juridical suspension. She remains what she is: a visible society endowed with real authority, even when deprived of the ordinary centre through which that authority is expressed.
This juridical continuity rests upon a deeper theological foundation. As Mystici Corporis Christi teaches, Christ governs His Church both invisibly as her divine Head and visibly through His Vicar on earth; the one does not negate the other, nor does the impairment of the latter extinguish the former.³ This dual mode of governance ensures that the Church remains governed even when the ordinary instrument of that governance is obscured. Pastor Aeternus confirms that papal primacy is a real and supreme jurisdiction over the whole Church, not a merely symbolic or honorary role.⁴ Yet precisely because this jurisdiction is real, its effects endure. The Church does not require the continual recreation of authority. She lives from what has already been validly constituted. The juridical will of the papacy persists in its effects, sustaining the visible order even in the absence of its visible head, much as the force of law continues to operate beyond the lifetime of the legislator who promulgated it.
Christ as the Source of Jurisdiction and the Principle of Non-Abdication
At this point, Lavery’s argument advances from juridical continuity to theological causality. Jurisdiction does not originate in the pope as source, but in Christ as principal cause. The Roman Pontiff is the instrument through whom that authority is mediated. “All jurisdiction,” Lavery observes, “comes from Christ…mediately through the will of the Pope.” If the instrument is impeded, the principal cause remains. Christ does not abdicate. He does not withdraw His governance from the Church because the visible channel of its exercise is disrupted. The Church is not left without rule because her Head is not absent. The visible order may be strained, fragmented, or obscured; the invisible governance remains operative, real, and effective.⁵
Necessity, Supplied Jurisdiction, and the Primacy of Salvation
From this theological foundation there follows a second principle, no less decisive: necessity. The Church exists for the salvation of souls, and all her laws are ordered to that end. The Code declares unequivocally that the salvation of souls is the supreme law—salus animarum suprema lex esto.⁶ Where ordinary structures prove insufficient to secure that end, the Church supplies what is lacking. The doctrine of supplied jurisdiction is not an anomaly or exception, but an expression of the deepest logic of ecclesial governance.⁷
The theological tradition confirms this principle with remarkable unanimity. Diego Laínez affirms that jurisdiction may be exercised in conditions of persecution lest souls perish. Juan de Lugo teaches that necessity compels its supply for the valid and licit administration of the sacraments. Joseph Zapelena extends the principle to its logical conclusion: that Christ Himself supplies what is required for the Church’s survival when ordinary structures fail.⁸ The conclusion is inescapable. The Church does not abandon her faithful. Governance continues because it must continue.
Athanasius, Crisis, and the Persistence of Real Authority
History provides not merely illustration, but confirmation. Athanasius of Alexandria stands as the paradigmatic example of authority enduring through juridical dispossession. Condemned, exiled, deprived of canonical recognition, and treated as outside the structures of the Church, he nevertheless remained what he was: a bishop, a pastor, a defender of the faith.⁹ His authority did not depend upon recognition; it rested upon reality. This reveals a critical distinction: juridical recognition and theological legitimacy, though ordinarily united, may diverge in times of crisis. Authority may persist even when denied. The Church may be obscured, but she is not extinguished; she may be dislocated, but she is not dissolved.
Historical Precedent and the Limits of Electoral Analogy
If the Church can govern under such conditions, can she also elect under them? History offers both encouragement and restraint. Elections by acclamation, later regulated under Gregory XV, demonstrate procedural flexibility.¹⁰ Compromise elections, as in 1265, reveal adaptability within the electoral body.¹¹ Earlier centuries exhibit less formalised structures, reflecting development rather than rigidity.¹² Reform under Nicholas II sought to stabilise disorder.¹³ Even modern contingency considerations under Pius XII acknowledge the possibility of extraordinary disruption.¹⁴
Yet the lesson of history is as clear as it is limited. In every instance, adaptation occurred within a juridically bounded framework. Acclamation presupposed electors. Compromise derived from them. Reform proceeded from the papacy itself. Nowhere does the historical record demonstrate the emergence of electoral authority in the absence of a recognised subject. The Church has adapted procedure; she has never dispensed with the need for a lawful agent capable of acting in her name.
Theological Opinion on Emergency Election and the Threshold of Representation
The theologians, however, do not close the question; they elevate it. Thomas Cajetan affirms: “potestas Ecclesiae non deficit in providendo sibi capite”—the power of the Church does not fail in providing herself a head.¹⁵ Francisco Suárez insists: “Christus non ita alligavit Ecclesiam ad unum modum successionis…”—Christ has not bound the Church to a single mode of succession.¹⁶
The possibility is real. The Church is not left powerless before the failure of structures.
Yet it is John of St Thomas who defines the decisive condition: “ab Ecclesia prout repraesentat totum corpus”—such an act must proceed from the Church insofar as she represents the whole body.¹⁷ Not from isolated individuals, however orthodox; not from scattered jurisdictions, however valid; but from a body capable of acting as the Church herself—morally unified, recognisable, and truly representative of the universal Church.
Here the threshold is crossed—and the limit encountered.
The Question That Remains and the Limit of the Present Argument
The question, therefore, is no longer whether the Church can act, nor whether jurisdiction persists, nor even whether extraordinary measures may be employed. The question is whether those who remain—bishops possessing jurisdiction and united in the true faith—constitute such a body. Not whether election is conceivable, but whether it is executable; not whether the Church may provide herself a head, but whether there exists, in fact, a subject capable of performing that act.
Conclusion: Continuity Secured, Election Not Yet Demonstrated
Father Gabriel Lavery has secured what must be secured. The Church does not fall silent. She does not dissolve into invisibility. She does not abandon her faithful. Jurisdiction persists. Governance continues. The means of salvation are not withdrawn. In this, his argument stands firm.
But the final step lies beyond continuity. The Church must not only endure—she must be visibly constituted. She must not only govern—she must be headed.
The tradition does not deny that she can provide that head. Cajetan affirms it. Suárez allows it. The door is not closed.
But neither is the path completed.
For the Church must act as Church—and that requires not merely jurisdiction, but representation; not merely survival, but unity capable of expression; not merely authority in fragments, but authority gathered into a body that can speak, act, and bind in the name of the whole.
If such a body can be shown to exist—if those who remain can be demonstrated to constitute the Church acting as a whole—then the argument does not merely survive; it succeeds.
But that demonstration has not yet been made.
Supplied jurisdiction explains how the Church continues.
History shows that she can adapt.
Theology affirms that she may act.
But none yet establish that the subject is present.
And until that subject is identified—not assumed, not approximated, but demonstrated—the argument remains not disproven, but incomplete.
¹ Lavery–Jackson correspondence; Hiraeth in Exile.
² CIC 1917, can. 239 §1; cf. CIC 1983, can. 335.
³ Mystici Corporis Christi (1943).
⁴ Pastor Aeternus (1870).
⁵ Lavery, op. cit.
⁶ CIC 1917, can. 87; cf. CIC 1983, can. 1752.
⁷ CIC 1917, can. 209; cf. CIC 1983, can. 144.
⁸ Laínez; de Lugo; Zapelena.
⁹ Athanasius, Apologia Contra Arianos.
¹⁰ Gregory XV, Aeterni Patris Filius (1621).
¹¹ J.N.D. Kelly, Oxford Dictionary of Popes.
¹² Klaus Ganzer, Das päpstliche Wahlrecht.
¹³ In Nomine Domini (1059).
¹⁴ Philippe Levillain, The Papacy.
¹⁵ Cajetan, De Comparatione.
¹⁶ Suárez, De Ecclesia.
¹⁷ John of St Thomas, Cursus Theologicus.
RELATED ARTiCLES
LATEST ARTICLES
- Today’s Mass: June 13 S. Anthony of PaduaSaint Anthony of Padua, known as “The Hammer of Heretics,” dedicated his life to preaching and performing miracles across France, Italy, and Sicily. Renowned for his fervent teachings, he became a Doctor of the Church and remains celebrated for his miracles and influence in Christianity, with many churches dedicated to him.
- ORDO w/c 14.06.26From 14 to 21 June, the Church commemorates significant feast days, including St Basil the Great and St Barnabas the Apostle. It also celebrates the Octave of the Sacred Heart, focusing on Christ’s love and mercy. Noteworthy figures like St Silverius, Pope and Martyr, and St Aloysius Gonzaga are honoured throughout this period.
- The Most Sacred Heart of Jesus: The Source of the Sacrifice, the Fire of Charity, and the Judgment of LoveThe Feast of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus reveals the depth of Christ’s love as the source of the Eucharist and Salvation. This heart, symbolic of divine charity, necessitates a responsive love from humanity. Encountering this love transforms the soul, while indifference brings judgement. It embodies grace, devotion, and the essence of faith.
- Today’s Mass: June 12 The Most Sacred Heart of JesusThe Church always countered this view with the infinite love of our Savior who died on the cross for all men. The institution of the feast of the Sacred Heart was soon to contribute to the creation among the faithful of a powerful current of devotion which since then has grown steadily stronger. The first Office and Mass of the Sacred Heart were composed by St. John Eudes, but the institution of the feast was a result of the appearances of our Lord to St. Margaret Mary Alacoque in 1675.
- Sermon for Sacred HeartToday we celebrate the feast of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. This devotion is of medieval rather than ancient origin. It ultimately derives from the experiences of medieval mystics such as St. Gertrude and St. Mechtilde. It was then popularised in the seventeenth century by St. John Eudes and St. Margaret Mary Alacoque
CURRENT EDITION
DAILY MASS ONLINE
One of the earliest online apostolates dedicated to the Traditional Latin Mass, Old Roman TV began broadcasting the Holy Sacrifice on the Feast of the Assumption, 15 August 2008. During the COVID-19 pandemic, additional programming — devotions, catechesis, and conferences — was added to support the faithful in prayer and formation.
Support the daily Holy Mass on Old Roman TV by offering a Mass intention — for loved ones, thanksgiving, or the repose of souls. Your intention helps sustain the sacred liturgy and brings grace to those you remember before God’s altar.
SUPPORT THE DAILY MASS ONLINE
Likely the world’s longest-running daily online broadcast of the
Traditional Latin Mass, streaming faithfully since the
Feast of the Assumption 2008.
This apostolate cannot continue without immediate help
Please support us with a contribution toward
chapel rent, sacristy supplies, operating costs, and web-hosting.
Our essential monthly costs reach £1,000.
MASS INTENTIONS
If your offering is for a Mass Intention, kindly complete the form below in full so we may correctly match it to your donation. For anniversary intentions — birthdays, wedding anniversaries, anniversaries of death — please be sure to include the relevant date.
Today’s Mass Propers
- Today’s Mass: June 13 S. Anthony of Padua
Saint Anthony of Padua, known as “The Hammer of Heretics,” dedicated his life to preaching and performing miracles across France, Italy, and Sicily. Renowned for his fervent teachings, he became a Doctor of the Church and remains celebrated for his miracles and influence in Christianity, with many churches dedicated to him.
Leave a Reply