+Marty said:

Update: the Holy See has finally issued a final on former Abp. Milingo.

 Some Old Catholics Bishops received ordinations from Milingo have been ruled valid/illicit.

    {Actually, INvalid as well as ILlicit --  +Sam'l B}

And Rome will not recognize these consecrations; any further consecrations by those bishops and Milingo will be considered by the Holy See as invalid and illicit.

Accumulating additional lines of Apostolic Succession will always create invalidity and should always be avoided. The issue lies in the belief that the original ordination to bishop did not follow {or have -- +SBB} Apostolic Succession, if it did, then additional ordinations becomes invalid and illicit.

    {As well as blasphemous -- +SBB}

 The lines from the original Consecrating Bishop and His Co-consecrators are the only lines recognized as being valid.

      {Not quiite -- lines from co-consecrators are only accounted when the lines of the Principal Consecrator are clearly and provably lacking -- which is very seldom.  -- +SBB}

In other words, if you feel you should shop around for a more valid consecration then you believe that you were invalidly consecrated to begin with, then you _ARE_ invalidly consecrated.

    {BINGO! -- +SBB}

===============

The last act in the Milingo story?

By John L Allen Jr

Dec. 17, 2009 -- NCR Today -- In what may be the final act of the long-running Catholic drama centering on Zambian Archbishop Emmanuel Milingo, the Vatican announced today that Milingo has been formally removed from the clerical state -- in layman's terms, defrocked.

As today's Vatican statement noted, such a step is highly unusual for a bishop. The Vatican said it was compelled to act because of Milingo's "persistent contumacy," especially his decision to ordain several bishops without papal permission for his "Married Priests Now!" movement, which seeks to promote optional celibacy in the Catholic church.

The last case of a bishop being removed from the clerical state came in 2008, with Fernando Lugo, the president of Paraguay and former Bishop of San Pedro who resigned in 2005 in order to pursue a political career. Lugo had requested laicization in 2006 but the Vatican had consistently refused, relenting only after he won the presidency in April 2008.

Milingo had been considered excommunicated since 2006 on account of his defiance of church authority. In Catholic theology, ordinations by a bishop without papal authorization are considered valid but illicit -- meaning that the men ordained by Milingo are really bishops, but they have no authority to exercise any ministry. Today's Vatican statement indicated that the Catholic church does "not recognize these ordinations, nor does she intend to recognize them, or any subsequent ordinations based on them," and that "the canonical status of the supposed bishops remains as it was."

A Vatican spokesperson said this morning that since Milingo has been removed from the clerical state, any future ordinations he performs will be not only illicit, but invalid.

Milingo, who was made a bishop by Pope Paul VI in 1969 at the age of 39, had long been a thorn in the side of church authorities because of his controversial practice of mass exorcism ceremonies. During much of the 1980s and 1990s, he was one of the highest-profile Catholic prelates in the world because of his best-selling musical CDs and his international reputation as an exorcist and faith healer.

In 2001, Milingo broke away from the Catholic church and wed a follower of Moon, a then-43 Korean acupuncturist named Maria Sung. After a tempestuous few weeks, including a surprise meeting with Pope John Paul II at his summer residence of Castel Gandolfo, Milingo returned to obedience.

* He was allowed to resume a limited form of his healing ministry outside Rome.

* In 2006, however, Milingo disappeared from Italy and reappeared in the United States at the side of Archbishop George Stallings, leader of his own breakaway group, the African American Catholic Congregation, based in Washington, D.C., as well as followers of Rev. Sun Myung Moon.

Shortly thereafter, Milingo launched his "Married Priests Now!" movement, while insisting that he had no intention of launching a "new sect."

The following is the full text of today's Vatican announcement. Communication of the Press Office of the Holy See:

Removal from the Clerical State of Emmanuel Milingo

For a number of years the Church has followed with great concern the difficulties caused by the regrettable conduct of Archbishop Emmanuel Milingo. Many attempts have been made to bring Archbishop Milingo back into communion with the Catholic Church, including the consideration of suitable ways to enable him to exercise the episcopal ministry. Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI were directly involved in those efforts and both Popes personally followed the case of Archbishop Milingo in a spirit of paternal solicitude.

In the course of this unhappy series of events, Archbishop Milingo became irregular in 2001 as a result of his attempt to marry Mrs. Maria Sung, and incurred the medicinal penalty of suspension (cf. Canons 1044 Para 1, n. 3; 1394 Para 1 of the Code of Canon Law). Thereafter, he headed certain groups calling for the abolition of clerical celibacy and gave numerous interviews to the media in open disobedience to the repeated interventions of the Holy See, creating serious upset and scandal among the faithful.

Then, on 24 September 2006 in Washington, Archbishop Milingo ordained four Bishops without pontifical mandate. By so doing, he incurred the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae (Canon 1382) which was declared by the Holy See on 26 September 2006 and is still in force today.

Sadly, Archbishop Milingo has shown no sign of the desired repentance with a view to returning to full communion with the Supreme Pontiff and the other members of the College of Bishops. Rather, he has persisted in the unlawful exercise of acts belonging to the episcopal office, committing new crimes against the unity of Holy Church.

Specifically, in recent months Archbishop Milingo has proceeded to several other episcopal ordinations. The commission of these grave crimes, which has recently been established, is to be considered as proof of the persistent contumacy of Archbishop Emmanuel Milingo. The Holy See has therefore been obliged to impose upon him the further penalty of dismissal from the clerical state.

According to Canon 292 of the Code of Canon Law, the penalty of dismissal from the clerical state, now added to the grave penalty of excommunication, has the following effects: loss of the rights and duties attached to the clerical state, except for the obligation of celibacy; prohibition of the exercise of any ministry, except as provided for by Canon 976 of the Code of Canon Law in those cases involving danger of death; loss of all offices and functions and of all delegated power, as well as prohibition of the use of clerical attire. Consequently, the participation of the faithful in any future celebrations organized by Archbishop Emmanuel Milingo is to be considered unlawful.

It must be pointed out that the dismissal of a Bishop from the clerical state is most extraordinary. The Holy See has felt obliged to act in this way due to the serious consequences for ecclesial communion resulting from repeated episcopal consecrations carried out without pontifical mandate; nevertheless, the Church hopes that Archbishop Milingo will see the error of his ways. As for those recently ordained by Archbishop Milingo, the Church's discipline in imposing the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae upon those who receive episcopal consecration without pontifical mandate is well-known.

While expressing hope for their conversion, the Church reaffirms what was declared on 26 September 2006, namely that she does not recognize these ordinations, nor does she intend to recognize them, or any subsequent ordinations based on them, in the future. Hence the canonical status of the supposed bishops remains as it was prior to the ordination conferred by Archbishop Milingo.

At this moment, as the Church experiences profound sorrow for the grave acts perpetrated by Archbishop Milingo, she entrusts to the power of prayer the repentance of the guilty party and of all those who - be they priests or lay faithful - have in any way cooperated with him by acting against the unity of Christ's Church.

 ==== http://blog.canonlaw.info ====

Christ among the Doctors of the Law

By Edward Peters, JCD, JD.

Thursday, December 17, 2009 -- Milingo's case is closed canonically, but it raises some interesting questions

The bizarre antics of Abp. Emmanuel Milingo, suspended in 2001 for attempting marriage, and excommunicated in 2006 for ordaining to men to the episcopate without pontifical mandate, have finally resulted in his dismissal from the clerical state. This is unquestionably the right thing to do.

The H[oly]S[ee]P[ress]O[ffice] press release leaves only a few questions:

1. Is Milingo's "persistent contumacy" (what Decretal Law would have called "insordescence", a concept worth recovering, I suggest) is it, I ask, being assessed under Canon 1326.1.1, with dismissal therefore being added in punishment of the original offenses, or is this dismissal being applied directly under Canon 1392 (whereby one who violates the obligations imposed by an earlier penalty can be punished additionally), or is this a matter wherein the Holy See is proceeding ex officio, in poena against a bishop whose conduct can, I think, find parallels only in the dustiest tomes of Church history?

Any one of these theories would account for today's news, I'm just wondering which one it is.

     {No idea -- +SBB}

2. Has Milingo been released from the obligation of celibacy? That favor would have required a separate act by the Roman Pontiff (c. 291), and there's no report that such dispensation was included in the decree of dismissal.

    {Evidently not -- which, I suspect, will not bother Milingo at all -- +SBB}

3. Most interestingly, what does the Holy See mean when it says about the ordinations attempted by Milingo, that the Church "does not recognise these ordinations, nor does she intend to recognise them, or any subsequent ordinations based on them, in the future. Hence the canonical status of the supposed bishops remains as it was prior to the ordination conferred by Archbishop Milingo."

That's really interesting language, folks. I said so in 2006, but now it's being reiterated.

If the line refers to the "ordinations" of people incapable of receiving episcopal orders (basically, unbaptized men or even-baptized women, per c. 1024), then the line makes perfect sense. Of course the Church does not recognize such "ordinations".

Likewise, if Milingo has so modified the "form" (the words) used in his rites that the form no longer conveys the sense of the sacrament (as happened with Anglican orders centuries ago, leading to their perpetual invalidity) the Church would never reconize them.

But, if Milingo is using proper form (as he easily could), and if he is attempting to confer orders on baptized, consenting males (as we know he did at least few times), then the Holy See's stance would be truly remarkable. In one of two ways, if not in both ways, that I have in mind.

But let's not get ahead of things here. More facts are required before more words.

In any event, the disturbing Milingo case is closed canonically, but it's not closed pastorally. He still might repent, and the joy in Heaven would be great.

Update, same day: John Allen has more information here, including the following unattributed assertion: "A Vatican spokesperson said this morning that since Milingo has been removed from the clerical state, any future ordinations he performs will be not only illicit, but invalid." Can anyone suggest a single precedent for such a stance?

==============

    {+S.B.Bassett,  Old Catholic Bishop of Zzyzx in California says:

    I  can suggest dozens, if not hundreds,  of precedents -- the  vast majority involving marginally literate and abysmally educated OldCat bishops involved in cat fights with their consecrands -- "You're not a Bishop!  I cancel your orders!" 

    Pfui, Piffle, and Pomposity! 

    On a slightly higher educational level, the action of the Utrecht Union  in denying that +Arnold Harris Mathew ever was a Bishop (despite having publicly supported him for a number of years) is, I suppose, a sort of precedent.

    The classical (pre-Vatican II -- of which later) Valid/Licit distinction rests on the distinction  between Sacramental Theology and Canon Law.  Sacraments, in the words of  the Baltimore Catechism, are: "Outward signs, instituted by Christ, to give Grace."   Canon Law is  the collection of rules and regulations adopted by the Church founded by Christ, by which it rules itself.

=============

    Classical Sacramental Thology states that the Grace of a Sacrament makes an indelible (un-erasable, permanent) mark on the soul.  Thus, one who is validly ordained is, as was said to me at my priestly ordination 39 years ago today: "...a priest forever, after the Order of Melchizedek."

    The validity of the ordination involves 4 issues:

    1)    Does the Ordainer/Consecrator have provable Apostolic Succession? We Old CAtholics, as well as the Orthodox and a few other small groups, do have it.

    2)    Is that Matter of the Sacrament valid?  The Apostolic requirement is "baptized male human" -- I decline to argue  the gender.

    3)    Is the Form of the Sacrament valid?  Is it a historically accepted  statement and ritual?

    4)    Is the intention of the Ordainer/Consecrator to do what the Church does in administering the Sacrament?  In this case, the intent is to create a sacrificing priest, after the practice of the Church from time immemorial.

==============

    Licitness involves being in accord with the provisions of Canon Law -- and, in the  case of the  Roman Communion, with the will and the acts of the Pope.  See my Blog post:

Rules For Being -- And Staying -- Roman

 . . . for a much longer treatment.

==============

    So much for classical theology.  The one thing in the Documents of Vatican II that I Really, Seriously, and Dogmatically disagree with is the definition of Validity as "..being in communion with the Apostolic See."  Taking this pompous nonsense seriously would be to negate all of Sacramental Theology, as well as condemn the Orthodox, both Byzantine and Oriental, to eternal damnation outside the Church.

    Again:  Pfui, Piffle, and Pomposity!

    Fr. Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for that particular heresy (along with Contumacy) in 1954, by personal order of Pius XII of beloved memory.  I have also met that attitude in Super-Ultramontanists, as well as the Opus Dei spokesman for JP II.

==============

    So where does that leave us with regard to Emmanuel Milingo?

    First:    He is not a "Roman Catholic" anything any more -- he is excommunicated.

    Second:    He is stil a Bishop of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, able to do  what  bishops have always done.

    Third:    He is an unholy pain in the . . . ear . . . and to be avoided by people of good sense.   As they say on IRC: "Don't feed the trolls -- ignore them and they will go away."

==============

    And where does it leave the 4 men he consecrated in 2006?

    1)    They aren't Roman Catholic anyting -- not in communion with the Roman Pontiff.  (See above: "Rules for...")

    2)    As far as I know, each one of them had previously been consecrated as an Old Catholic bishop -- which makes their "consecrations" by Milingo null and void, and leaves them in the same clerical state as before their encounter with Milingo.  That part of Rome's statement, I agree with.

    3)    I do not have enough data on any  of the 4 to make a definitive judgement on the validity of their  Old Catholic consecrations, so, in charity,  I will assume them valid.  Therefore their episcopal acts, both before and after the 2006 Milingo incident, I assume to be valid (if not allways wise :).

==============

    Therefore: " Today's Vatican statement . . . that the Catholic church does 'not recognize these ordinations, nor does she intend to recognize them, or any subsequent ordinations based on them,'..."

 . . . is mostly Ultramontanist Bumpf. Nothing to recognize.

+Samuel B.  Bassett
Old Catholic Bishop
of Zzyzx in California }