• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.

Curiosity...

Discussion in 'One Bread, One Body - Catholic' started by ThePilgrim, Dec 21, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ThePilgrim

    ThePilgrim Veteran

    +168
    Eastern Orthodox
    Hi there! :wave:

    Just a friendly visit and question from an Orthodox.

    I've heard and read a number of places before that Catholics believe ordination to be irrevocable, and that even excommunicated or defrocked priests and bishops can perform the Sacraments, and that their sacraments are "valid" but "illicit." I'm come across this idea in a number of places.

    But then I was reading an article about (ex) Archbishop Milingo in Africa, who sort of went off the deep end and got married by Rev. Moon... In the article it said both that the Catholic Church believed that, although excommunicated, he still had the power to perform real sacraments, but then it talked about four men that he had ordained as bishops, and said that the Church said that these men were still priests, not bishops.

    Anyone able to clear this up for me? I'm confused... What does the Roman Catholic Church teach?

    Grace and peace,
    John
     
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. redMountian

    redMountian They'll know we are Christian by our love.

    +76
    Catholic
    Single
    His sacramental ordination is still valid, but once excommunicated, he can't validly perform any sacraments.
     
  3. Vedant

    Vedant Veteran

    +81
    Christian
    Hey, I'm also wondering...What does the Eastern Orthodox church in these matters?
     
  4. fragmentsofdreams

    fragmentsofdreams Critical loyalist

    +410
    Catholic
    No. Excommunication does not affect the power to perform sacraments. Rather it makes it illicit to perform them.

    My first guess to the assertion that the men are not bishops would be that there was some defect in the form of the consecration.
     
  5. MichaelNZ

    MichaelNZ Servus Mariae

    990
    +66
    New Zealand
    Catholic
    Single
    A defrocked priest can still offer the sacraments, but those sacraments draw down no grace.
     
  6. King of the Nations

    King of the Nations Well-Known Member

    +236
    Catholic
    US-Others
    No. It's not true.

    Bingo is not considered a sacramental in the Roman Church.

    :sorry:

    Did you see the other thread on ordination? I think it answers your questions.

    Greg
     
  7. ThePilgrim

    ThePilgrim Veteran

    +168
    Eastern Orthodox
    I saw the thread on ordinations after I posted this...

    But it doesn't really answer my question, it only restates why I'm confused.

    If Milingo can still perform the sacraments, and those sacraments are valid, but illicit, then why does the Vatican say that the men that he ordained bishops are still priests?

    Grace and peace,
    John
     
  8. Davidnic

    Davidnic Well-Known Member Staff Member Site Advisor Supporter

    +10,664
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-American-Solidarity
    Because were they to seek reconciliation with Rome on the issue (those ordained) they would not have to be ordained again, that is why we say they are still priests. They are not allowed to perform the sacraments but it is different from lacking the matter or form that makes the sacrament valid (as is sometimes the case for using something other than the proper matter for the Eucharist. Or the ordination of a woman. In those cases it is invalid due to proper matter as well as illicit.) So as long as all form and matter necessary was there at the time of ordination it was valid but illicit.
     
  9. ThePilgrim

    ThePilgrim Veteran

    +168
    Eastern Orthodox
    You're misunderstanding the case.

    The men were *already* priests before. Milingo ordained them bishops. Accordingly, wouldn't the Catholic Church normally consider them to be bishops, since Milingo's sacraments are "valid", even though "illicit"?

    John
     
  10. Davidnic

    Davidnic Well-Known Member Staff Member Site Advisor Supporter

    +10,664
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-American-Solidarity
    ahhh....I see, your question is why does the Church consider them priests and not bishops. I'll look at that, I'm about to get off of break at work but I'll be back in a little.
     
  11. Davidnic

    Davidnic Well-Known Member Staff Member Site Advisor Supporter

    +10,664
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-American-Solidarity
    Without looking anything up I would say the logic is likely that part of the proper matter and form of a bishops ordination is that it is done by a bishop in union with a valid apostolic see so the bishop is a bishop "of" something.

    Since Milingo is not in union with a valid see, he can not validly ordain a bishop. So those ordained are still priests, not bishops. That is without checking, but I think that is the logic.
     
  12. ThePilgrim

    ThePilgrim Veteran

    +168
    Eastern Orthodox
    But the vatican has recognized similiar ordinations to the episcopate as valid. I'm still confused.

    Is an excommunicated Catholic bishop able to ordain to the episcopate?

    John
     
  13. Davidnic

    Davidnic Well-Known Member Staff Member Site Advisor Supporter

    +10,664
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-American-Solidarity


    As far as I know:

    Can. 1012
    The minister of sacred ordination is a consecrated bishop.

    Can. 1013 No bishop is permitted to consecrate anyone a bishop unless it is first evident that there is a pontifical mandate.

    Can. 1014 Unless the Apostolic See has granted a dispensation, the principal bishop consecrator in an episcopal consecration is to be joined by at least two consecrating bishops; it is especially appropriate, however, that all the bishops present consecrate the elect together with the bishops mentioned.


    So in general, no an excommunicated Bishop can not consecrate bishops. Do you remember when the Church said such men were valid bishops? Maybe there was something about those cases that was different. I can check it out and see.
     
  14. ThePilgrim

    ThePilgrim Veteran

    +168
    Eastern Orthodox
    What you quoted from the Canons shows that he is not permitted to consecrate, not that the consecration isn't valid. It would be what you would term "illicit."

    If you look at the Thuc line consecrations, or the SSPX situation, there are cases (most cases in fact) where the vatican recognizes such men as validly, but illicitly consecrated bishops.

    Grace and peace,
    John
     
  15. Davidnic

    Davidnic Well-Known Member Staff Member Site Advisor Supporter

    +10,664
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-American-Solidarity
    Good questions. For what I've found so far the vatican's reasoning seems to be the conept of proper intent. So the basic question is what makes these different from SSPX. I'll keep looking and compare the two. At the moment I think that Milingo has issues of fidelity that go beyond the marraige issue and that may be why they are making the distinction here. His other issues may place him outside of having the proper intent.
     
  16. PolskiKrol

    PolskiKrol Teemo support OP

    +110
    Catholic
    So Milingo could ordain bishops, but only when he follows proper form, which is only following the pontifical mandate? And joined by two other bishops?

    And since he did not follow proper form in this case, it was invalid?
     
  17. King of the Nations

    King of the Nations Well-Known Member

    +236
    Catholic
    US-Others
    I think it has something to do with invalid form in the Archbishop consecrating w/o Rome's permission.

    Greg
     
  18. Davidnic

    Davidnic Well-Known Member Staff Member Site Advisor Supporter

    +10,664
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-American-Solidarity
    The more I look. The more it seems that it is proper intent to "do as the church does" that is the issue. Possibly the realtionship with rev. moon is invloved with intention.
     
  19. pax

    pax Veteran

    +94
    Catholic
    Single
    My understanding is that any validly ordained bishop can ordain validly another bishop. This is why we would believe the Eastern Orthodox Churches have valid orders even though we had been mutually excommunicating each other until about the 1960's. I'm not sure what makes these cases different since I've read news reports that say the same thing, but it's possible the media got this one wrong, someone inside the Vatican misspoke, or there is something else that would affect the validity of these ordinations that we're not aware of. It's possible if these men weren't validly ordained priests in the first place that an ordination to the episcopate would be invalid, but I'm not sure about whether or not that's ture or not.
     
  20. BrRichSFO

    BrRichSFO Active Member

    424
    +47
    Catholic
    Once Ordained he is always Ordained. (Bishop, Priest, Deacon)

    He can validly and licitly under certain circumstances celebrate certain Sacraments for someone in danger of Death, Baptism and Reconciliation.

    Outside of a person in danger of death, he can validly but illicitly celebrate Baptism, Holy Eucharist.

    The Sacraments requiring permission from the local Bishop (jurisdiction), Reconciliation, Holy Eucharist, Anointing of the Sick, Confirmation, Marriage, and Ordination.

    Ordination to the rank of Bishop also requires the permission of the Holy Father.

    So to Ordain a priest a Bishop validly the Priests Bishop would need to give his permission, the Holy Father would need to give his permission. He could Ordain a priest who resides in his own diocese. But he has no diocese in this case.

    Canon Law also requires that three validly Ordained Bishops in union with Rome Ordain a new Bishop. I believe that he did this without any other Bishops.

    He has the ability to Ordain if given the authority, jurisdiction and follows Canon Law.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...