Concerns about Fr Robert F Taft

[Chris_McAvoy]

I must say beforehand that I hope I am not violating any rules by asking a question about a specific person. A person who I have met once at a conference and casually admire from a distance. If this post has violated any rules I respect and agree to it’s removal and will remember not to make the mistake in the future - if in fact I have made one at all.

I came across this interview a few months ago

[ncronline.org/ma(name removed by moderator)age/specialdocuments/taft.htm](http://ncronline.org/ma(name removed by moderator)age/specialdocuments/taft.htm)

How do we get communion (with Eastern Orthodox Churches)?
First, let’s be clear that this is all we’re ever going to get.

When will we get it?
I don’t know. Certainly not in my lifetime. I would suspect that it’s going to take a few more centuries.

Do you agree that the central problem is the papacy?
Of course. What we’ve made out of the papacy is simply ridiculous. There’s no possible justification in the New Testament or anyplace else for what we’ve made out of the papacy. That doesn’t mean that I don’t believe in a Petrine ministry. I believe that Rome has inherited that Petrine ministry. But there’s no reason on God’s earth why the pope should be appointing the bishop of Peoria. None whatsoever. So we really need a devolution, a decentralization. The Catholic church has become so big that we need some kind of a synodal structure in the West the same way you have in the East. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops ought to be a kind of synod of Catholic bishops in the United States. They ought to be able to elect the bishops. Leave Rome a veto, if you want. By the way, this would be no guarantee of better bishops. The notion that the locals will necessarily pick better people than Rome is obviously false, as anybody who knows the East understands. But at least people will see these guys as their bishops and not Rome’s. Make your own bed and sleep in it. The pope could say: ‘You don’t like the archbishop of New York? Hey, I didn’t name him.’

Fr. Robert Taft appears to be well known in certain circles, being the foremost liturgical scholar in the world or a similar type of expert. I have showed this particular quote regarding the Papacy being a problem to a western canon lawyer and he believes that Fr Robert may have an “agenda” to promote which is not truly Catholic. #1 I would like to know what others have to say about his comments in this interview. #2 I would like to know if anyone has knowledge to show he disagrees with the magisterium or important Catholic teachings - meaning he has his own agenda.

with wishes to a heavenly reward to all hardworking virtuous brothers and sisters,

Christopherus

 

[Joannm]

It has been part of our tradition that bishops were called forth from the people, or at least from the clergy of a particular area. There is much debate that the present way of appointing bishops, usually from outside of the diocese, is not a good one. Often the names submitted by our bishops are ignored and someone else is appointed from Rome and it could take years for that bishop to become familiar with the diocese and become familiar with all of his priests. Taft is also Eastern Rite, Byzantine I think, so he looks at things from a bit of a different viewpoint. He also is a bit cantankerous as many of his students will attest to…although they all love him. Sadly he retired before I had the opportunity to have him as a teacher.

 

[VL93]

Firstly, Fr Taft’s comments in this article (2004) were made in a specific context, viz. trying to resolve the conflict between Rome and Moscow over a proposed Patriarchate for the Greek Catholics in Ukraine, so perhaps we should see them in that light. Besides, some of what he said - e.g. the Pope’s role (or non-role) in appointing a bishop of Nicomedia in the first few centuries of the Church - is, in fact, quite historically accurate, is it not?

Nevertheless, lest one think that Fr Taft has somehow become too compromising, here are the final two questions of the interview:

Q. Given all the hassles, is there a case for simply forgetting about dialogue with the Orthodox?
A. The Catholic church never calls anybody else a “church” if they don’t have an episcopate. In that strict sense of the term, the Russian Orthodox is the largest church in the world after the Catholic church. To ignore them would be like the United States’ policy on China for so many years. There are a billion people over there, and the U.S. tried to pretend they don’t exist. How stupid can you be? So we’ve got to come to terms with Moscow, but they also have to come to terms with us. Like it or lump it.

Q. So, tough love is your approach.
A. Absolutely. That was one of the problems of the Secretariat of Christian Unity under Willebrands. When the Orthodox would say something outrageous, they would make remonstrances privately, but never did anything appear in public. You can’t do it that way. That makes them think they’re getting away with it. It’s got to be front page, in your face. We shouldn’t have a Catholic bishop in Moscow? Well, let’s see, there’s a Russian Orthodox metropolitan in Brussels, to say nothing of Paris, of London. Up to a while ago, there were three Orthodox bishops in Oxford. All of the Orthodox in Oxford you could fit into a telephone booth. You’ve got to challenge this sort of nonsense.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Taft is also Eastern Rite, Byzantine I think, so he looks at things from a bit of a different viewpoint. He also is a bit cantankerous as many of his students will attest to…although they all love him.

He’s actually a Jesuit, although he was assigned to their Eastern “mission” (can’t remember the exact term, but the apostolates where they ministered to Eastern Catholics) from very early on. I believe he is honored as a Mitred Archimandrite in the East, but I don’t think he’s ever switched his canonical enrolment.

That said, sure, I think his manner of proceeding in the article was somewhat imprudent, I would need more evidence, like the OP is asking for, to really say he’s got an axe to grind. I mean, I’m nearly as ultramontane as they come but I could still say something similar to what Fr. Taft did in a casual conversation among theology friends. For instance, I might joke about how our practices surrounding Confirmation are merely the accidents of history and we’ve still never been able to figure out exactly what we think the sacrament is. Here Fr. Taft admits of historical developments that need not have been (just because a pope can doesn’t mean he must), which I can allow, although in this case he does seem to go suspiciously too far, which I hope is ill-advised hyperbole.

 

[jj2011]

Fr. Taft is just another overrated, overeducated expert who gets far more credence and respect than he deserves.

 

[scylla]

His response would make sense, if truth didn’t matter to the Catholic Church and it was a democracy. This would be great then as everyone would get what they want. All they would have to do is vote for it and get what they want instead of submit to authority.
Reading his response carefully shows a desire for personal values above obedience. I would stay well away from those sort of views as it leads to the sin of Adam, which is placing self above God.
Which eventually leads to,“I will not serve”, the sin of Satan.

Scylla

 

[Volodymyr_988]

Fr. Taft is just another overrated, overeducated expert who gets far more credence and respect than he deserves.

Do you know him?

 

[jj2011]

Do you know him?

No-- I just know what he said.

I’m not questioning the man’s erudition; it’s the use he makes of it.

If you think otherwise, try telling a Ukie Catholic focus group that the communist suppression of their church was a “comedy,” as this priest said, and I’ll take my chances that the majority will agree with my assessment.

 

[Chris_McAvoy]

Why Eastern Catholics act as if they were more suppressed than the Orthodox is beyond my understanding.

Catholics in general act as if they were the main Christians victimized by Communism.

The fact is that militant atheism has no boundaries and the majority of christians in eastern communist countries were Orthodox and were the ones who gave their lives for their faith. The Catholics were and continue to be a minority…and especially for eastern catholics, a minority which has no distinguishing differences to Communists.
Sure they tried to assassinate the Pope. well they tried to assassinate Orthodox Patriarches too.

 

[Volodymyr]

This may cause even more concern to you, because i am orthodox. However, Father Taft seems to have made important statement. If Orthodox are to consider Bishop of Rome their brother first in honor - they must still be brother. He does not or should not own their house and decide how it is run. Respect for brother still means he is brother - not dictator.

This will concern you more.

 

[Chris_McAvoy]

There’s nothing to worry about Volodymyr. I am reluctantly on the Orthodox side. I could be seen as a sort of “double agent”. I specifically asked my question about Fr Taft for very important reasons.

This question was an experiment to show how united the (papal) Catholic Church truly is.
My goal was to see how much discrepancy there is between Western and Eastern Catholics.

I have asked Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox this same question before. The Eastern Catholic and Orthodox point of view more or less closely coincides with each other. The Western Catholic point of view does not. Volodymyr your response to this topic and question of the Popes authority is typical of what other cradle Eastern Catholics and cradle Eastern Orthodox Christians say about it.

People like Dr. Anthony Dragani on his east2west.org web site claim that the eastern and (modern) western traditions complement each other rather than contradict each other. Sadly I do not find this to be true. I see mostly contradiction, rarely complementary strengthes, except in the broadest possible (mostly historical) sense.

Essentially I see with strong evidence that the Eastern and Western Catholic Churches have no true unity when it comes to the Role of the Pope, among several other factors.
Their communion is mostly an artificial political creation which on it’s present course stands a strong chance of collapsing.
This is what many of the most dedicated Eastern Catholics in the USA secretly worry about, but never speak about except within their own circles.The majority of Eastern Catholics as they move around and become transient in the USA are simply becoming part of Latin Catholic Churches or Eastern Orthodox Churches.
In Brasil 1 million melkites like myself are mostly without churches of their own and are quickly simply being absorbed into the larger Latin Catholic Church.

The Melkite Greek-Catholic Church in the USA alone has 49 or 50 parishes compared to the Antiochian Orthodox’s 244 parishes.
The difference being the Antiochian Church is absorbing converts and reserving original laity within it at a much faster rate than the Melkite Cath Church.
I fear my Church is slowly dieing out.
In fact when a friend of mine almost did die in a hospital and both Melkite and Latin Catholic priests came to give him Holy Unction they nearly wasted all their time arguing among themselves over which was the proper way to administer the sacrament. This is a great embarassment to the Church.
(he miraculously survived by miracle luckily)

One of the beautiful strengthes that Orthodox (non-papal) Catholicism has is: It keeps the world from being dominated by the solely by the papal Catholic Church.
In many ways they both keep each other in check. Eastern Orthodox have no Latin church to be absorbed into the way Eastern Catholics do. Therefore with their lack of competition and degree of certitude and unity in the faith they flourish and prosper.

The responses to this question have proven to me how big the problems in the Western Catholic Church actually are.
It will be a great trial for me to remain in a Church with such profound disagreement within it.

I can say it already has been difficult for me to be Eastern Catholic, and this was simply a way of having it in writing so it can stare me in the face. That way I avoid the sailing down long river called “denial”. My temptation to leave communion with Rome and enter communion with Constantinople & friends grows stronger over time. Where I will be in the future is a mystery to me at this time.

I am gravely concerned to witness such disagreement between Churches that claim to be one and the same as each other.
In fairness I recognize that no church is perfect. The Orthodox Church has a lack of unity in certain ways as well, over calendars for example, the difference would be that the disagreements within Holy Orthodoxy do not appear as important or as long standing as the ones within the Papal Catholic Communion. The worst I can currently say of non-papal Orthodox Catholicism is it might have more practicing freemasons in it. Though I know the Latin Church has plenty as well.

 

[otjm]

His response would make sense, if truth didn’t matter to the Catholic Church and it was a democracy. This would be great then as everyone would get what they want. All they would have to do is vote for it and get what they want instead of submit to authority.
Reading his response carefully shows a desire for personal values above obedience. I would stay well away from those sort of views as it leads to the sin of Adam, which is placing self above God.
Which eventually leads to,“I will not serve”, the sin of Satan.

Scylla

To begin with, you seem to be ignoring a good bit of history of the Church. One does not have to become a democracy to have a different way of picking bishops. Given that the Church has a history of both picking bishops from Rome, and picking bishops locally (with good and bad results both ways), ond does not have to take the position that one is not submitting to authority if the bishops are picked locally.

And where you get the point that he places desires for personal values above obedience is beyond me. To begin with, it appears he was speaking of a specific instance in which Rome managed to be a bit pig-headed; certainly not the first occasion, and probably not the last. Obedience does not require that one be mute.

The pope does not personally select the bishops; that information is massaged quite thoroughly before any list ever gets to him. He selects from the pool that is presented to him. If the pool is not well selected, one cannot blame the pope; one blames the process. Obedience is not the issue; the process is. There is a slight difference.

 

[otjm]

I think that the first problem is that most Roman rite Catholics have no understanding whatsoever of the Eastern rites or of the Orthodox.

The second problem is that most issues are decided way above the paygrade of the local pastor; and for that matter, above the paygrade of the bishops we have. It is decided by those in Rome, who may have any number of agendas.

It is sad that so many Catholics think that “Catholic” means Roman Catholic", but I suspect that historically that has been inculcated by leadership - whether specifically papal, or curial I will leave to the scholars. However, the “latinization” that seemd to have gotten into full swing in the Americas, and more specifically in the US, is shameful.

If that can be resolved I have no clue. But I seriously suspect that if it is to either reach resolution, or head that way, that papal authority may need to be exercised in a fashion other than how it is within the Roman rite. Whether or not we can carry on with essentially two different ways of exercising authority is another question.

 

[Woodstock]

This question was an experiment to show how united the (papal) Catholic Church truly is.
My goal was to see how much discrepancy there is between Western and Eastern Catholics.

You intentionally chose a specific sub-set of people most likely to be the least informed on a subject, falsely presented yourself, got pretty decent answers in line with your desired outcome, compared those answers to a sub-set of people most likely to be well-informed on the topic, and then revealed that your experiment had failed and the church lacked unity. I don’t understand.

Essentially I see with strong evidence that the Eastern and Western Catholic Churches have no true unity when it comes to the Role of the Pope, among several other factors.
Their communion is mostly an artificial political creation which on it’s present course stands a strong chance of collapsing.

Introspective Orthodox are saying the same things about the Orthodox communion and blaming the lack of a visible head. Maybe there is a third factor which is affecting both.

This is what many of the most dedicated Eastern Catholics in the USA secretly worry about, but never speak about except within their own circles.

The majority of Eastern Catholics are poorly catechized in eastern theology and spirituality, meaning the only thing they see as separating them from Roman Catholics are externals such as the liturgy, vestments, language, culture, and ethnicity. As such, they are most concerned about that list dying out than anything else.

The majority of Eastern Catholics as they move around and become transient in the USA are simply becoming part of Latin Catholic Churches or Eastern Orthodox Churches.

It is easy for the younger generations to go to the Latin church as they no longer identify with the eastern parish’s ethnicity. This is a problem the Orthodox are also currently facing among cradles in the US. They are picking up a number of evengelicals, as are the Roman Catholics. The Orthodox are able to capitalize on the “no pope, and no sinless Mary” issue while the Eastern Catholics have not yet discovered the voice of evangelization in the US to be able to say why unity with the pope is an important aspect of their faith, even if it hasn’t always been ideally executed.

The Eastern Catholic Churches need to evangelize themselves on what makes them unique, and pierogies should not rank in the top twenty list. Many of the Eastern Catholic Churches have undertaken that task.

In Brasil 1 million melkites like myself are mostly without churches

If there are enough people there to sustain a parish, get together enough support to establish a mission. That’s why the Orthodox are expanding.

I fear my Church is slowly dieing out.

That is a legitimate concern. The 50 year projections do not look great, but there is plenty going on that is providing a lot of hope.

One of the beautiful strengthes that Orthodox (non-papal) Catholicism has is: It keeps the world from being dominated by the solely by the papal Catholic Church.

And plenty of modern devout Orthodox today say behind closed-doors among themselves the opposite. Here’s one example.

The responses to this question have proven to me how big the problems in the Western Catholic Church actually are.
It will be a great trial for me to remain in a Church with such profound disagreement within it.

I’m still not seeing the disagreement you are talking about. Out of all the responses, I only saw one which “fell into your trap” and denounced Fr. Taft’s quote. You intentionally chose the sub-set of people (traditional Latin Catholics who visit internet forums about Catholicism and populate its Traditional Catholicism board) and yet you still only got one opinion that was divergent, so you’re saying you’re going to leave the Church over it?

 

[Woodstock]

Chris_McAvoy:

I am gravely concerned to witness such disagreement between Churches

I know plenty of Eastern Orthodox who will say their union with the Oriental Orthodox is all but rubber stamped. Pope Shenouda recently condemned the use of the concept of theosis. They can’t explain that. My local Greek and ROCOR Orthodox parishes have a great number of disagreements over what it means to be Orthodox as well. Even my local Greek and OCA parishes don’t intermingle because they view each other as anti-Orthodox.

In fairness I recognize that no church is perfect. The Orthodox Church has a lack of unity in certain ways as well, over calendars for example, the difference would be that the disagreements within Holy Orthodoxy do not appear as important or as long standing as the ones within the Papal Catholic Communion.

You aren’t looking too hard, then. Orthodoxy has its flaws. Its problems. Its lack of unity. The gulf between cradle and convert is huge. If you intend to convert to Orthodoxy, you need to understand and accept all of these things. Conversion should not be because living in the Church is too hard or not perfect. You shouldn’t be running from Catholicism or the declining Melkite Church. The only reason to convert to Orthodoxy is because you are fully informed through prayer and study about all of its ups and downs, pros and cons, struggles and failures, and yet you still feel it is the Church of God.

I believe the Catholic Communion needs to make some changes. I believe it is doing so. I believe I might not live to see them all come together. I believe it is the Church of God and there is nothing to do but work to overcome the human failures which have kept it from living up to its calling.

 

[Volodymyr_988]

Woodstock,

Did you know that Father Chrysostom, whose article you posted, is now Catholic. He is the head of a Russian Catholic mission in the Denver area.

And, a good priest.

Sincerely,

Snoopy

 

[Hesychios]

The pope … selects from the pool that is presented to him. If the pool is not well selected, one cannot blame the pope; one blames the process. Obedience is not the issue; the process is. There is a slight difference.

Very good comment, especially concerning the process.

I think that the first problem is that most Roman rite Catholics have no understanding whatsoever of the Eastern rites or of the Orthodox.

Quite so…

The second problem is that most issues are decided way above the paygrade of the local pastor; and for that matter, above the paygrade of the bishops we have. It is decided by those in Rome, who may have any number of agendas.

I can think of some very specific examples, for instance the deliberate suppression of the Russian Catholic hierarchy (the real ones, not the Roman Catholics in Russia). It has much more to do with the Realpolitik of the situation between the Vatican and Moscow than the needs of the faithful down at “pew level”. There is much bitterness and hurt among the Russian Catholics right now…

It is sad that so many Catholics think that “Catholic” means Roman Catholic", but I suspect that historically that has been inculcated by leadership - whether specifically papal, or curial I will leave to the scholars. However, the “latinization” that seemd to have gotten into full swing in the Americas, and more specifically in the US, is shameful.

Pretty insightful.

It is actually a disgrace, and puts the Uniate Catholics (in general, as a group) in the position of being obstacles to Christian unity instead of the catalysts they might wish to be.
.

If that can be resolved I have no clue. But I seriously suspect that if it is to either reach resolution, or head that way, that papal authority may need to be exercised in a fashion other than how it is within the Roman rite. Whether or not we can carry on with essentially two different ways of exercising authority is another question.

Mike’s comment: This would be possible if there were controls placed upon the office of the Supreme Pontiff. In other words specific formal limits to his authority, beyond which he had no automatic right to interfere, but was able by invitation to participate in resolutions.

That is not actually possible under Ultramontanist theory, which is dominant in the RC since 1870AD. There can be no limits placed upon the Pope at all, ever. So these systemic problems are unresolveable.

Michael

 

[Hesychios]

Woodstock,

Did you know that Father Chrysostom, whose article you posted, is now Catholic. He is the head of a Russian Catholic mission in the Denver area.

And, a good priest.

Sincerely,

Snoopy

He has been a Catholic for a long time, since about 2000, I think. With Roman Catholic sympathies some years before.

 

[Hesychios]

Woodstock,

Did you know that Father Chrysostom, whose article you posted, is now Catholic. He is the head of a Russian Catholic mission in the Denver area.

And, a good priest.

Sincerely,

Snoopy

He is also a teacher of theology at a Catholic University, and a Roman Catholic pastor. He has been a Catholic for a long time, since about 2000, I think. With Roman Catholic sympathies some years before.

It is somewhat deceptive of CA to keep publishing that article as if he were a typical Russian Orthodox priest endorsing Catholic ideas, he was in the process of conversion as he wrote that.

I don’t have a problem with father Chrysostom Frank (he was genuinely expressing his own ideas and sentiments as a man on a journey), but with how Catholic Answers and others use this stuff to misrepresent the thinking of Orthodox in general. Or to portray the Orthodox community as being of two minds on a subject.

I myself wrote a lot of pro-Orthodox material while I was still a Catholic, even before I was willing to consider conversion. It reflected how I really thought at the time! Some of that material can be found posted in CAF, but I would not represent that as being typical Roman Catholic thinking, or that there were plenty of others thinking like me, or even to claim that as evidence the RC community was somehow divided! That’s just plain silly!

Another point to keep in mind is that when Orthodox convert, it is usually to Roman Catholicism (at least in spirit, if not in fact), not traditional Byzantine Catholicism. I don’t know if it is due so much to being immersed in western culture or not, but they usually buy into the whole Papal complex of theological constructs, plus accept purgatory, the filioque, the latin idea of First Sin and the whole enchilada. In other words, a Latin mindset. This is, I believe, typical. Such people might think of Byzantine Catholic theology as going only half way, and that is often not enough for them.

Michael

 

[Chris_McAvoy]

I know plenty of Eastern Orthodox who will say their union with the Oriental Orthodox is all but rubber stamped. Pope Shenouda recently condemned the use of the concept of theosis. They can’t explain that. My local Greek and ROCOR Orthodox parishes have a great number of disagreements over what it means to be Orthodox as well. Even my local Greek and OCA parishes don’t intermingle because they view each other as anti-Orthodox.

^anti-eastern christian unity propaganda is above^

reality is below:

The statement by St. Athanasius of Alexandria, “The Son of God became man, that we might become God”, indicates the concept beautifully. II Peter 1:4 says that we have become " . . . partakers of divine nature." Athanasius amplifies the meaning of this verse when he says theosis is “becoming by grace what God is by nature” (De Incarnatione, I). What would otherwise seem absurd, that fallen, sinful man may become holy as God is holy, has been made possible through Jesus Christ, who is God incarnate. Naturally, the crucial Christian assertion, that God is One, sets an absolute limit on the meaning of theosis - it is not possible for any created being to become, ontologically, God or even another god.
what Pope Shenouda rejects is that some people thought that human beings can become God, also some others thought a human being can become one with God exactly as Lord Jesus was. that is what he rejects and he is right about it. his view is what is taught in both Orthodox families; Oriental and Eastern.

Theosis does not represent any unique or strange controversial theology. Fathers of the Western Church perfect expressed it just as well as the Eastern ones. Even if it isnt mentioned as much in the west today the idea is still inherently in the west’s subsconcious mind.

---

Author: Irenaeus
Location: Lyons (modern-day France)
Period: mid 2nd century.

…but following the only true and stedfast Teacher, the Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through His transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself.

---

Author: Tertullian
Location: Carthage (modern-day Tunisia)
Period: late 2nd/early 3rd century.

For we shall be even gods, if we, shall deserve to be among those of whom He declared, “I have said, Ye are gods,” and, “God standeth in the congregation of the gods.” But this comes of His own grace, not from any property in us, because it is He alone who can make gods.

(see here (ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-03/anf03-37.htm#P8228_2331629)).)

---

Author:: St Cyprian
Location: Carthage (modern-day Tunisia)
Period: early-mid 3rd century

[cite=Treatise XII Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews, Ch 6]Also in the eighty-first Psalm: “God stood in the congregation of gods, and judging gods in the midst.” And again in the same place: “I have said, Ye are gods; and ye are all the children of the Highest: but ye shall die like men.” But if they who have been righteous, and have obeyed the divine precepts, may be called gods, how much more is Christ, the Son of God, God!

---

Author: St Hilary
Location: Poitiers (modern-day France)
Period: mid 4th century

This is a mystery, not for Himself, but for us. The assumption of our nature was no advancement for God, but His willingness to lower Himself is our promotion, for He did not resign His divinity but conferred divinity on man.

For the object to be gained was that man might become God.

---

Author: St Ambrose
Location: Milan (modern-day Italy)
Period: mid 4th century

But if they think He is called God because He had an indwelling of the Godhead within Him, - as many holy men were (for the Scripture calls them Gods to whom the word of God came), - they do not place Him before other men, but think He is to be compared with them; so that they consider Him to be the same as He has granted other men to be, even as He says to Moses: “I have made thee a god unto Pharaoh.” Wherefore it is also said in the Psalms: “I have said, ye are gods.”

stmarysorthodox.org/salvation-by-christ.html