I just got a journal called "Adoremus." It is devoted to the "renewel" the Roman Liturgy. It has a number of biased and innacurate things to say about the Eastern Catholic Churches. Has anyone seen this journal? They also have a website with articles from the print journal at:

www.adoremus.org

[ 12-31-2001: Message edited by: khouri ]

[ 12-31-2001: Message edited by: khouri ]

Salaam.

I've only glanced at Adoremus at the Catholic seminary library near here but it seemed to be doing good work restoring the Roman Rite. Sorry to hear yet another conservative Roman group is doing the Eastern Churches a disservice.

http://oldworldrus.com

Serge,

I am glad they are doing good work for their own Church. I wish they would leave the Eastern Churches alone though. The "slant" of the editors on things seems "ultramontane" at best.

Mercy, salvation and peace in the New Year to you and all!

[ 12-31-2001: Message edited by: khouri ]

[ 12-31-2001: Message edited by: khouri ]

Khouri,

To what article are you refering. All I could find was a polite response to a rather terse letter to the editor from an Orthodox laymen.

In Christ,
Lance, deacon candidate

I too am familiar with this fine publication. What exactly was in it that was offensive to you as regards Eastern Christianity?

The only thing I recall that could even remotely be problematic was a reply to an Orthodox letter writer who was objecting to the Roman churches use of icons - which he saw as exclusively the property of Orthodoxy. The editors disagreed with him saying that it was an art form proper to the Catholic church as well. The link is:

http://www.adoremus.org/0901IconsCatholic.html

PAX

[ 01-01-2002: Message edited by: Benedictine ]

Although I am loathe to read minds, perhaps khouri was referring to the whole church vs. rite issue. The latest issue, in a response to a reader's letter says:
When you say "my heart bleeds for the Roman Catholic Church", we believe you mean the Latin rite Catholic Church. The Ruthenian rite is part of the Roman Catholic Church - the same in everything but ritual.

[ 01-01-2002: Message edited by: EJKlages ]

When you say "my heart bleeds for the Roman Catholic Church", we believe you mean the Latin rite Catholic Church. The Ruthenian rite is part of the Roman Catholic Church - the same in everything but ritual.

A response sure to raise hackles here and understandably so. (Same in everything?! Tell it to the Marines — the Orthodox party among the Ruthenians here!) Yes, it's wrong and counterproductive to what we're trying to do here, and therefore very exasperating and frustrating. But they probably aren't malicious, just ignorant. They use "Roman Catholic Church' in the sense we use "Catholic Church' and "rite' for "Church' as EJKlages notes.

That their notion is so widespread, perhaps even among Ruthenians themselves, shows there's a long way to go to end the Schism.

http://oldworldrus.com

[ 01-02-2002: Message edited by: Serge ]

I recently paged through their journal and pamplets while inthe back of a Latin Catholic Church in New Jersey during a wedding rehersal. I found nothing directly objectionable in Adoremus, but I have to admit, the particular church I was in was a posterchild for all that was wrong in the unreformed and 'traditionalist' Latin Church. I take it at least some of their followers are simply moss-backs rather than liturgical renewers.

K.

Kurt,

Instead of baiting, could you please just outline what you think is wrong with that church?

Thanks,

anastasios

If we all agree that both the 'traditionalist' school and the 'VC II' school (I'm sure better term could be found) in the Latin Church have sigificant elements of bad liturgy and liturgics, it seems not be with worthwhile to belabor the point. I'll assume we have such a consensus.

K.

Well what about the "Vatican II was needed to stop ice cold whispered low masses and inward looking anti-world mentality but it went wrong when it was hijacked by those who wanted to turn the mass into a 'community gettogether'" point of view? (ie my point of view). I don't neatly fit into the traditionalist camp since I am for vernacular liturgies, ordained women deacons, against whispered low masses, against altars up against walls, confessional boxes, etc, and I do not fit into the V2 crowd since I am against the priest celebrating the liturgy with his back to God, guitar strumming masses, sermons that resemble motivational speakers, and lack of distinction of Catholicism as the true faith.

That's why I wanted you to clarify exactly what you meant, instead of assuming that we all know what a "traditionalist" is and why you don't agree with their "program."

anastasios

Exactly. Thank you for agreeing with me that both schools have sigificant elements of bad liturgy and liturgics. That was exactly my point and I assume most here agree with the two of us.

K.

[ 01-02-2002: Message edited by: Kurt ]

"885
posted 01-02-2002 02:08 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. Thank you for agreeing with me that both schools have sigificant elements of bad liturgy and liturgics. That was exactly my point and I assume most here agree with the two of us.
K."

I see that my views are neither welcome here or in the Eastern Church. My plans to transfer rites are no longer in effect.

Joe

Joe,

I fear I do not understand what you mean. Could you help us understand your point?

Dan L

Joe,

1) What Kurt or I think is not indicative of the Eastern Church's attitude, if one even exists.

2) Why are you going to cancel your rite change based on one post? And without engaging in the discussion? Seems a little rash to me.

3) What are your views on the matter?

4) Isn't it true that there are bad liturgics in both camps of the Latin Church (and in our church as well)? Both sides have pros, but both have cons as well!

anastasios