Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
As far as I know they have legitimate orders. However, I also personally know a man who was ordained a priest in their rite simply because his father was a priest, not one hour of any formal training. Take that for what you will.
Does anyone know if the Syro Malabar rites are legitimate? Are the priests ordained in this rite valid? I'm not familiar with the Eastern rites.
Questionable validity, depending on several possible variations. This was an interesting article:https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14413a.htmI was in the SSPX seminary when JPII declared the Nestorian Anaphora a valid consecration, despite having no words of consecration! Fr. Thierry Gaudray (one of the 7 French deans who initially resisted the SSPX acceptance of Cardinal Muller’s 2017 marriage guidelines) said from the pulpit in Winona that this was the gravest post-conciliar error to date, and Fr. Cekada would also protest with this article:http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=34&
Not sure what you're talking about. Syro-Malabars reunited with Rome long before Vatican II and were required to add the words of consecration back into one of the Anaphoras. Wojtyla permitted Chaldean Catholics to attend the Masses of the Nestorian schismatics and receive Communion there even though they didn't have the words of consecration. But the uniate Syro-Malabars were required to add the consecration back in.
“One” of the Anaphoras?
The anaphora of Addai and Mari is the only East Syriac anaphora that doesn't have the words of consecration
Yes, they have more than one, and it's the Addai and Mari one that was missing the words of consecration. But the Catholic Syro-Malabars who reunited with Rome long before Vatican II were required to put the words of consecration back in.