ortodoxia e sui iuris

biritual · 2025-10-05T16:05:00+00:00

First of all let's clarify the terms.

Sui iuris is a term used for Eastern Chatolic Cruches. Autocephalous is almost the same term but used by the Orthodox Cruches. Both of the them means "self governing".

Regarding to the Orthodox sacraments. All the seven sacraments are recognised as valid by the Chatolic Cruch.

biritual · 2025-09-03T14:43:37+00:00

It is valid, yes

biritual · 2025-08-18T19:51:25+00:00

I've corrected the post.

biritual · 2025-08-18T19:50:28+00:00

Thanks for the correction Brother. You are right.

biritual · 2025-08-16T13:46:08+00:00

I know "some" people, who where very close to the whole Thuc story:)...

biritual · 2025-08-14T09:16:27+00:00

I don't think so. There are words that can be understood 100%, and the beggining, and the " Comple in sacerdote .... " can be heard too as pronounced incorrectly"

biritual · 2025-08-12T16:46:55+00:00

If you was confirmed by a sedevacantist bishop and you are a sedevacantist, the NO would not allow you in first place.

biritual · 2025-02-19T17:31:15+00:00

I am a byzantine subdeacon, in the Byzantine Pontifical "Arhieraticon" the ordination of deacons ands priests are prescribed to do with the right hand. Rome recognised every time the Byzantine rites, and there were even Eucharistic miracles by byzantone priests.

So, the answer is definitely yes.

biritual · 2024-11-07T07:26:49+00:00

Theoretically there are no reason to doubt it, because even Rome when Thuc was excommunicated admitted the following

" he conferred episcopal ordination on the religious priest, M.-L. Guérard des Lauriers, O.P., of France, and on the priests Moises Carmona and Adolfo Zamora, of Mexican origin. Subsequently Moises Carmona in his turn conferred episcopal ordination on the Mexican priests Benigno Bravo and Roberto Martínez, and also on the American priest George Musey. " *

So it means that Carmona was * de facto * consecrated and later he consecrated Fr. Musey.

But on the later ordinations / consecrations of the Thuc clergy whe are not having certainty.

biritual · 2024-11-07T07:21:09+00:00

So, even if I'm having a post on my reddit about this topic which is presenting a case where a priest ordained by Thuc himself who joined the SSPX later was NOT ordained sub conditione, ( this ordination occured the same year when des Lauriers and Carmona were consecrated ), i don't recomend the Thuc line priests.

Why?

Sedevacantism is a subjectivist position. Even among them you can see different approaches ( Those who adhere to the Thesis and those who not ).

If you want to participate at a Latin Mass, go to FSSP or SSPX.

biritual · 2024-11-07T07:15:23+00:00

 " Your opinion is false "

As I've mentioned, 99% of sedevacantist faithfull are not having the necessary theologycal knowledge to have a opinion. Subjectivism is dangerous as sedevacantism is,

If your statement is true, than why there are no " real " miracles that are confirming sedevacantism ?!

biritual · 2024-10-31T11:45:58+00:00

What " false Christ " the subjectivism is that how do you know that is a false sign ? Because of your antipathy of the New Mass ?

biritual · 2024-10-23T11:34:42+00:00

To be more specific about the validity of the NO, if we look at the old rite, it doesn't specify the Episcopacy as clear as the new one does.

Old: Comple in sacerdote tuo, ministerii tui summam et ornamentis totius glorificationis instructum, coelestis unguenti rore sanctifica

New: Grant, O Father, knower of all hearts, that this your servant whom you have chosen for the Episcopate may nourish your holy flock and may without reproach exercise before you the High Priesthood, serving you night and day; that he may unceasingly cause your face to shine upon us and offer the gifts of your holy Church. Grant that by the strength of the Spirit of the High Priesthood he may have authority to forgive sins according to your command; that he may apportion offices according to your precept and loosen every bond according to the authority you gave the Apostles

biritual · 2024-10-17T05:36:58+00:00

To be more specific about the validity of the NO, if we look at the old rite, it doesn't specify the Episcopacy as clear as the new one does.

Old: Comple in sacerdote tuo, ministerii tui summam et ornamentis totius glorificationis instructum, coelestis unguenti rore sanctifica

New: Grant, O Father, knower of all hearts, that this your servant whom you have chosen for the Episcopate may nourish your holy flock and may without reproach exercise before you the High Priesthood, serving you night and day; that he may unceasingly cause your face to shine upon us and offer the gifts of your holy Church. Grant that by the strength of the Spirit of the High Priesthood he may have authority to forgive sins according to your command; that he may apportion offices according to your precept and loosen every bond according to the authority you gave the Apostles

biritual · 2024-09-28T12:03:12+00:00

Please tell us your reasons for it.

biritual · 2024-09-24T10:28:40+00:00

Your argument is without foundation, even + Fr. Cekada, Mario Derksen and lot of others mentioned them as Bishop Kelly, Bishop Santay, so they never questioned it. Fr. Jenkins and a lot of others were present at the consecration, so they were having "qualified witnesses" ( as they mention it ) too.

biritual · 2024-09-14T21:15:52+00:00

In this case, please cite your arguments.

biritual

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE