because I wanted to get up and hurl, but for others made of sterner stuff.

http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=12045

People like Ryan know they're losing and they're dying off; that's why he's making noise.

As Bishop Michael (Dudick) used to say: "Consider the source".

Dn. Robert

Alas, poor Bishop Michael! May his memory be eternal. He deserved better of the Church he served so well.

The counterpoint:

http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=12097

Fr Deacon Robert, I agree...

Consider Fr Peter Stravinskas, he criticized the Eparch of Passaic for restoring the PreSanctified Liturgy during the Great Fast. Fr Peter (who had Byzantine-Ruthenian faculties at the time) defended the latinization of the Great Fast (stations of the cross, daily DL). Hopefully he has a better grasp of the Roman/Latin tradition.

My own experience with the man is no. And, like a lot of people, he doesn't know how to use the word "problematic".

Dn. John,

In the context of the Latin Church (which I officially left in 1985 for both positive -attraction to Byzantine Liturgy- and negative-revulsion at what the author of the article cites as positive-reasons), I think Fr. Peter Stravisnkas' counterpoint is right on the mark. He is of the Latin Rite,and is in a good position to help clean up the God-awful mess which "progressivist" liturgical terrorists have put in place. The Latin Church is finally moving in the right direction on Liturgical matters-toward the restoration of public prayer which is more in line with Holy Tradition. Unfortunately, he didn't carry over that devotion to authentic Liturgy when he was with us. This is a difficulty which we can get into with this whole business of granting "bi-ritual" faculties. My comment re: the phrase "consider the source" had everything to do with AMERICA Magazine, which ,for decades, has been at the forefront of promoting a dissident, neo-modernist and "progressivist" agenda for the Church. Bishop Michael once made that comment about National Catholic Reporter, a dissident, "progressivist", anti-clerical journal, in a meeting while kicking off his "stewardship" campaign at a diocesan-wide meeting in 1979. A priest in the audience had begun to quote an article from NCR which had ripped into such fund-raising campaigns. The author of the above AMERICA article appears to be of a "progressivist", neo-modernist bent. He is annoyed that the wheels are finally turning against the horrors of the bad liturgy, and bad catechesis of the 1960's.

In Christ,
Dn. Robert

Deacon Robert,

Let's avoid using Father Stravinskas as a model from which to broad-brush bi-ritual clergy as if they were responsible in any large measure for the problems of our Churches, liturgical or otherwise.

As has been noted on any number of occasions in the past, there are significant segments of the Eastern Churches in America which were previously or are presently beholden to priests with bi-ritual faculties for their existence and/or survival during times when we lacked sufficient clergy of our own. I have very little tolerance for such men being denigrated because a very, very few - like Peter Stravinskas - used the role for their own agendas. The ranks of our own clergy include enough priests whose praxis is only a few steps behind that of the Society of St Josaphat - we don't need to make scapegoats of bi-ritual clergy who have taken the time and made the effort to serve us.

Many years,

Neil

Neil,

Perhaps you are over-reacting to my comments by just a bit. I'm only trying to point out that, with the admission of bi-ritual clergy into one of our jurisdictions, there is the risk of having something occur similar to what did happen with Stravinskas (whom I happen to like in the context of the Latin Church). It is merely an "element of risk". A bishop must discern on this issue before admitting such a cleric into his jurisdiction. I've had dealings with a lot of bi-ritual clergy who are just fine.

In Christ,
Dn. Robert