www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West The journal, Adoremus

Since I started the topic on Adoremus I guess I should explain what I was speaking of in my query. I simply asked a question about Adoremus. It seems I started an argument. I didn't mean to get into Tridentine vs Novus Ordo, East vs West stuff.

Adoremus constantly equates the Catholic Church with the Roman Church. For example: '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.'

This little gem was in the Dec./Jan. issue in the Forum section.

In the Nov. issue on the front page, there is a report from the editor's husband on Synod 2001 in Rome. There he equates responses by bishops to JPII's Ut Unum Sint and exercise of papal primacy with disloyalty to the Church. In that article he quotes the Latin Ordinaries of Istanbul and Central Russia. He implies strongly and wrongly that they are Eastern bishops. The author of the article has nothing good to say regarding the Orthodox Churches. My concern is that contributors to this journal have never seen the Eastern Code of Canons, Orientale Lumen or listened to anything the Church has said in the last hundred years regarding the Eastern Catholic Churches.

Just so you are aware, I have written to the editor and explained current teaching regarding the Eastern Churches. In response I was told that
I didn't know what I was talking about (politely, of course)

Adoremus has a lot of readers. Many people who read this journal know nothing about the Eastern Churches and Adoremus gives false and misleading information to them. They are doing the whole Church harm, no matter how much good they are doing for the Latin Church.
[ 01-07-2002: Message edited by: khouri ]

[ 01-07-2002: Message edited by: khouri ]

[ 01-07-2002: Message edited by: khouri ]

Dear khouri,

Being a reader of Adoremus Bulletin I was curious at the strong accusations you level against its editors. So I looked up the article from the Nov. 2001 issue on the world synod of bishops [link appears below].

From my reading it seems you are guilty yourself of giving false information. All of the quotes from the Eastern perspective seem to be in agreement with what many in Orthodoxy see as problematic with the exercise of a strong centralized papacy - hardly the charge of disloyalty you seem to imply is made. Granted they did talk to 2 people who are not Eastern prelates per se - but they do live in areas of predominately Eastern Christians, so they should know the "lay of the land." Also, their comments seems very much in line with the critical views of the PAPACY (notice not a criticism of Orthodox ecclesiology) that one finds often on this BBS.

Overall I found the article mainly informative reporting than editorializing. Even though there are a few sentences about the East thinking its church governance is superior which I agree are somewhat defensive. So I still don't see how your charge that Adoremus Bulletin is spreading gross inaccuracies re: Eastern Christianity is valid. I ask the other posters on this board to look at the text themselves and see if I am not correct.

You can find it here: http://www.adoremus.org/1101synod2001.html

[ 01-07-2002: Message edited by: Benedictine ]

A quote from the text:

"These Eastern rite interventions were examples of the tendency to deal in abstractions, without much attention to concrete reality."

A major dissing of the Eastern Catholic spokesmen for sure. These churchmen live the concrete reality of "applied ecclesiology" every day.

[ 01-08-2002: Message edited by: durak ]

I think that the text betrays simply the viewpoint of Admoremus -- these are neo-conservative Latin Catholics, mostly, and they are concerned with their own issues -- namely preserving (some would say "restoring") what they perceive as doctrinal orthodoxy and liturgical legitimacy -- and they perceive that this is to be done by Rome and by increasing, not decreasing, the role of Rome in the life of the Roman Church. It's based on their own experience of life in the North American Latin Church, and so it's not surprising that the article is somewhat off-base when addressing the Eastern concerns.

For example, the article states, at one point, that "prelates calling for decentralization of Church authority showed little concern for the question of doctrinal orthodoxy", when in fact the article earlier quotes the Latin Bishop of Istanbul as noting that "the apostolic faith has been preserved in the East despite the absence of 'a humanly powerful and organized structure'". Clearly, the editor disagrees with the Bishop of Istanbul, but the subsequent characterization of what those calling for decentralization actually are saying is quite distortive and, frankly, *dishonest*, at least to these eyes. All that was really said in response to the statements made by these Latin Bishops in the East and Eastern Catholic Bishops (not, as the article misrepresents "Eastern rite Catholic prelates" -- 2 of the 5 mentioned were Latin) was that it assumed that the Eastern Bishops believed that Orthodoxy was deficient and that they failed to address how the Catholic faith could be maintained without a strong papacy. In fact, the Bishop of Istanbul himself raised the point that the Orthodox have maintained the faith without the strong Papacy -- the editor disagrees with that, I would assume from his comments, but doesn't address it and, again, even seems to deny that it was said. Again, that strikes me as rather journalistically suspect, if not downright dishonest.

Brendan

Dear Father Elias,

Christ is baptized!

I have been to your monastery a number of times. I do rather enjoy the murals in the Basilica.

I just read most of the article, and to be quite frank, was dissappointed in its representation of the Eastern Catholic Churches. They took quotes so far out of context, that they are the exact opposite of what the speaker intended, as in the case of H.B. Gregoire. There is an illucidation of this in another thread. Furthermore, they make assumptions and claims based on these snippets, and maintain that we are against the papacy: "Strong criticisms of papal authority came from Eastern rite Catholic prelates." The author makes it seem that H.B. Nerses refers for the office of the Pope, instead of the current Curial government of the Church. The zinger that got me was "by the logic of their remarks it was possible to conclude that Eastern Orthodoxy itself is the superior Church." When I read the transcpripts from Zenit (who praised the participation and contribution of the Eastern participants) I found no such claim or intimation. The general tone of the author is Catholic=Latin, and if one has a differing understanding or belief, then you are, at best, severly mistaken.

Dear akemner,

Thank you for your kind words regarding our basilica church. Just an aside - and totally off topic, let me tell you that our community had to put up quite a "battle" when we renovated [I would say restored] our church interior. The liturgical architectual consultant we hired wanted to gut the place and leave us with his trademark bare, brick walls & exposed ceiling beams. We said NO WAY! He said we had NO TASTE! Well we'll let the vox populi decide [thank you for casting your vote].

You can see from the above incident why I would be predisposed to look kindly on the folks at Adoremus - since our views on church architecture are the same. Now back to the subject at hand...

I'm not disputing that the journal is biased toward the Holy See and very pro-Roman as Brendan pointed out. I just don't think that the charge that they do great harm by their views is justified. And for the record, their views on the Eastern churches are ones I DO NOT share. I guess I'm willing to let it pass since this is really tangential to their greater mission. Also, if I may beg your indulgence and that of the other posters in this thread, I fear that what you may be doing is unwittingly playing up a "victim status" as regards the Eastern churches. Now there no need to get into ALL the complicated history of how Rome has hurt the Eastern churches. These are very real considerations. However .... it seems many want those who disagree with the Eastern view of church polity to present arguments in its favor. This makes no sense.

To use my story above, it would be like us monks who wanted to preserve our art in our church to expect that consultant to argue our side for us! But he had a totally different vision. It was up to us to present our own case. Another example would be to expect the editors of Sobornost to present a positive picture of papal infallibility. I wouldn't count on it. Also, I wouldn't charge them with dishonesty. I would just say that I disagree with their stance.

PAX

[ 01-08-2002: Message edited by: Benedictine ]

"Also, I wouldn't charge them with dishonesty. I would just say that I disagree with their stance."

To clarify: the good men and women of Adoremus are certainly entitled to their opinion about the proper governance of the Church. However, quoting a Bishop who refers to the ability of some churches to maintain (in his mind) doctrinal Orthodoxy without the papal system, while subsequently characterizing these bishops as having little concern for doctrinal orthodoxy is, at the very least, a glaring oversight. If it was an intentional mischaracterization, then it is something worse. Better would have been: We disagree with what Bishop X said because we don't believe that the Orthodox have maintained doctrinal orthodoxy" rather than saying, in effect "Bishop X and those that think like him show little regard for doctrinal orthodoxy", when in fact Bishop X's entire point related to doctrinal orthodoxy in the first place.

Brendan

Adoremus does yeoman service for the Roman Rite.

One can be pro-Roman without Eastern-bashing. The Roman "neocon' movement (including charismatics and this fine high-church Novus Ordo movement) truly likes us Easterns — really! — but about half the time doesn't understand us. Many of them really think Byzantine Catholics are in a generously allowed rite of the Roman-Means-Universal Church and that one of your missions is to replace the Orthodox in the one, holy, Catholic, apostolic Roman Church. There is a whole lot of sound, small-o orthodox catechesis to be done. But that doesn't take away from the work Adoremus does for its own Church.

it seems many want those who disagree with the Eastern view of church polity

Perhaps the Eastern view is true...

http://oldworldrus.com

[ 01-08-2002: Message edited by: Serge ]

In response to Br. Elias; there is more involved than just the opinions of the editors of Adoremus. Numerous times they state those opinions as the teaching of the Church. This confuses people who are not even slightly familiar with the Eastern Churches.

In example: The Rusyn or Ruthenian Church is certainly not a part of the Roman Church as was told to any and all who read the response of the editor to a letter in the Forum section of the Dec./Jan. issue.

Those hierarchs quoted in Adoremus as questioning how papal authority is exercised were portrayed as being "disloyal" to the Bishop of Rome or at least to his office. JPII has asked in Ut Unum Sint that new ways of understanding and exercising the primacy be discussed.

I do think that it is inaccurate to not check out who is bishop of what diocese and in which Church.
The Latin hierarchs mentioned do not speak for the Eastern Churches even though the ideas they expressed may agree with some of these Churches.

I think Adoremus does a great service for the Latin Church. I only wish and have asked the editor to acknowledge the differences in the Churches that make up the Universal Church.

I only wish they would be more accurate and understand of the Church's understanding of herself.

[ 01-08-2002: Message edited by: khouri ]