Milingo and his bunch... excommunicated

  • Thread starter Thread starter thechrismyster
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

thechrismyster

Guest
COMMUNIQUE CONCERNING ARCHBISHOP EMMANUEL MILINGO

VATICAN CITY, SEP 26, 2006 (VIS) - The Holy See Press Office today released a communique concerning the present ecclesial position of Archbishop Emmanuel Milingo. The text of the communique is given below:
"With great concern, the Holy See has followed the recent activities of Archbishop Emmanuel Milingo, emeritus of Lusaka, Zambia, with his new association of married priests, spreading division and confusion among the faithful.
"Church representatives of various levels have tried in vain to contact Archbishop Milingo in order to dissuade him from persisting in actions that provoke scandal, especially among the faithful who followed his pastoral ministry in favor of the poor and the sick.
"Bearing in mind the understanding shown, also recently, by Peter’s Successor towards this aged pastor of the Church, the Holy See has awaited with vigilant patience the evolution of events which, unfortunately, have led Archbishop Milingo to a position of irregularity and of progressively open rupture of communion with the Church, first with his attempted marriage and then with the ordination of four bishops on Sunday, September 24, in Washington D.C., U.S.A.
"For this public act both Archbishop Milingo and the four ordinands have incurred excommunication ‘latae sententiae,’ as laid down in Canon 1382 of the Code of Canon Law. Moreover, the Church does not recognize, nor does she intend to recognize in the future, these ordinations and all ordinations deriving from them; and she considers the canonical status of the four supposed-bishops as being that they held prior to this ordination.
The Apostolic See, attentive to the unity and peace of the flock of Christ, had hoped that the fraternal influence of people close to Archbishop Milingo would cause him to rethink and return to full communion with the Pope. Unfortunately the latest developments have made these hopes more unlikely. “At times of ecclesial suffering such as these, may prayers intensify among all the community of the faithful.”
**OP/ARCHBISHOP MILINGO/… VIS 060926 (330) **

212.77.1.245/news_services/press/vis/dinamiche/d2_en.htm

212.77.1.245/news_services/bulletin/news/18879.php?index=18879&lang=en
 
Canon 1382? :ehh: :hmmm: The same one used for the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre and the other SSPX Bishops :hmmm:

PF
 
Wow. I for one have to say I’m impressed at the immediacy of the response to his latest escapade. 👍 I guess he’s been giving every opportunity.
 
Dandelion_Wine said:
Wow. I for one have to say I’m impressed at the immediacy of the response to his latest escapade. .
Click to expand...
Immediacy? How long ago did he publically take a “wife” in the Moonie ceremony?? It was clear then that he was a screwbalI out for notoriety at the expense of the RCC. IIRC, the powers in Rome even let him back into the Vatican afterward! But that was under JPII. I wonder who’s financing his globe-trotting, RCC-embarrassing hijinks.

A new rule is needed for wayward bishops and archbishops; *one *strike and you’re out.
 
The Holy See Press Office said:
COMMUNIQUE CONCERNING ARCHBISHOP EMMANUEL MILINGO

VATICAN CITY, SEP 26, 2006 (VIS) - …
"For this public act both Archbishop Milingo and the four ordinands have incurred excommunication ‘latae sententiae,’ as laid down in Canon 1382 of the Code of Canon Law. Moreover, the Church does not recognize, nor does she intend to recognize in the future, these ordinations and all ordinations deriving from them; and she considers the canonical status of the four supposed-bishops as being that they held prior to this ordination.
Click to expand...

How does this work? Why aren’t the ordinations valid? Milingo IS a validly, licitly ordained bishop… shouldn’t his ordinations be valid?

(Note: I am not, in any way, supporting Milingo’s actions; in fact, I deplore them. I am just curious as to how the Vatican can make such a claim.)
 
Differance between this guy and the SSPX

At least the SSPX is loyal.
 
introibo said:
How does this work? Why aren’t the ordinations valid? Milingo IS a validly, licitly ordained bishop… shouldn’t his ordinations be valid?

(Note: I am not, in any way, supporting Milingo’s actions; in fact, I deplore them. I am just curious as to how the Vatican can make such a claim.)
Click to expand...
As the canons quoted above state, an Archbishop needs ‘pontifical mandate’ to ordain other bishops. It’s not an unrestricted authority that they can exercise whenever or however they choose.

If an attempted ordination is done without said permission then it won’t be valid.
 
USURPATION OF ECCLESIASTICAL FUNCTIONS AND DELICTS IN THEIR EXERCISE (Cann. 1378 - 1389)
Click to expand...
Canon 1382: A bishop who consecrates some one a bishop without a pontifical mandate and the person who receives the consecration from him incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.
Click to expand...
Seems like a bishop does have the power to consecrate without a mandate-- otherwise the law would have been written differently, i.e. “if a bishop *attempts *to consecrate someone a bishop…”. Nobody doubts the validity of Lefebvre’s ordinations; why is Milingo any different?
 
introibo said:
How does this work? Why aren’t the ordinations valid? Milingo IS a validly, licitly ordained bishop… shouldn’t his ordinations be valid?

(Note: I am not, in any way, supporting Milingo’s actions; in fact, I deplore them. I am just curious as to how the Vatican can make such a claim.)
Click to expand...

These ordinations are invalid because the married state is a canonical impediment to ordination, & he lacks the jurisdiction required to empower him to dispense those whom he has attempted to ordain from this impediment.​

Result: they are not bishops.

It’s all very sad 😦 - no one is any the better when these things happen; not him, nor the others excommunicated, nor the Church. ##
 
Gottle_of_Geer said:
These ordinations are invalid because the married state is a canonical impediment to ordination, & he lacks the jurisdiction required to empower him to dispense those whom he has attempted to ordain from this impediment.

Result: they are not bishops.
Click to expand...
Of course, you are correct. I didn’t even consider that. Thanks.
 
introibo said:
Seems like a bishop does have the power to consecrate without a mandate-- otherwise the law would have been written differently, i.e. “if a bishop *attempts *to consecrate someone a bishop…”. Nobody doubts the validity of Lefebvre’s ordinations; why is Milingo any different?
Click to expand...
Maybe the Holy See has info that we don’t: like the Archbishop is absolutely nutters and so he can’t “intend” (ie, have the correct intent), thus invalidating the ordinations. But then I should think if you’re nutters, you ought not be excommunicated on the grounds of not being culpable because you’re nutters.
 
Oh well, he is a supporter of Sun Myung Moon and Moon’s ideas are considered taboo by Christians, as he thinks Jesus failed. Well, he could always go to the Unification Church.
 
Gottle_of_Geer said:

These ordinations are invalid because the married state is a canonical impediment to ordination, & he lacks the jurisdiction required to empower him to dispense those whom he has attempted to ordain from this impediment.​

Result: they are not bishops.
Click to expand...
Well, duh…that’ll teach me to read all of a thread. Thanks, Gottle!
 
JKirkLVNV said:
Hardly.
Click to expand...
How so?

This African bishop clearly has no respect for the celibate priesthood. He is a modernist, plain and simple.

While in the case of the SSPX it could be argued that Archbishop Lefebvre had no choice but consecrate new Bishops to ensure that the SSPX, and traditional Catholicism, would not die when he did. Now, granted Cardinal Ratzinger and other senior officials were working for his cause attempting to get Papal approval for these new Bishops and Lefebvre got impatient with the red tape (or was coerced as some may say) and went ahead with the Episcopal ordinations, but the fact remains that the SSPX was at one time loyal to the Holy See, even if some of the more liberal Bishops did not think so, and because of them in many ways the Church allowed for the use of the Traditional Roman Rite.
 
introibo said:
Of course, you are correct. I didn’t even consider that. Thanks.
Click to expand...

You’re very welcome 😃​

About this -
introibo said:
Seems like a bishop does have the power to consecrate without a mandate-- otherwise the law would have been written differently, i.e. “if a bishop *attempts *to consecrate someone a bishop…”. Nobody doubts the validity of Lefebvre’s ordinations; why is Milingo any different?
Click to expand...
valid & invalid ordinations without pontifical mandate are both wrong by force of ecclesiastical law - IOW, they are both illicit.
  • Licitness
  • validity
are separate issues - licitness is a matter of law; validity is a matter of sacramental efficacy (though there is a legal element as well, given that the administration of the sacraments is governed by the positive law of the Church)

The word is “attempts” in order to make clear that both valid & invalid ordinations come within the scope of the canon. As the law now stands, both are equally prohibited if the principal ordainer has no pontifical mandate (which has been required for an ordination to proceed since (IIRC) 1952 - Pius XII made it necessary in law as a result of events in China, & conferring of the sacrament of Order without it acquired the force of a crime against the unity of the Church - a form of the crime of schism - & the penalty of excommunication; this provision remained in force after the issuing of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which is why it came into effect in 1988 & since). So ordinations needn’t be valid, in order to be illicit & to count as schismatic acts - the attempt is enough.

Hope that helps 🙂 ##
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top