Interview with Archimandrite Robert Taft, SJ

[Nine_Two]

I don’t see these as the same situations at all (and oh by the way, there was much agreement and even inter-communion between Patriarch Cryil Lucaris “the Calvinist Patriarch” and the Protestants). Catholics did not pressure the Orthodox to accept reunion at Lyons and Florence, if anything it was the other way around.
At the Council of Florence there was a higher approval rating by Orthodox bishops than at the first council of Nicaea. The reunion lasted until the Ottomans took over Constantinople and then it was collectively decided that a reunion never actually occurred in the first place because the faithful did not accept it. This was never a precondition of any previous council and thus should be considered an innovation (following Nicaea there were more Arian Christians than orthodox Christians for quite some time, how is that for the ratification by the faithful?).

Absolutely none of that has anything to do with anything I wrote. Your shots at Lucarus are as misguided as if I were to suddenly bring up Pope Honorius for absolutely no reason.

Attacks on other faiths aren’t necessary here.

 

[Schism_hater]

Absolutely none of that has anything to do with anything I wrote. Your shots at Lucarus are as misguided as if I were to suddenly bring up Pope Honorius for absolutely no reason.

Attacks on other faiths aren’t necessary here.

Not only that, it is factually inaccurate, at least what he said about Florence. It’s almost as if he hadn’t hear of Mark of Ephesus.

Until Roman Catholics are ready to look history in the eye, nothing is going to happen.

 

[Nine_Two]

Not only that, it is factually inaccurate, at least what he said about Florence. It’s almost as if he hadn’t hear of Mark of Ephesus.

Until Roman Catholics are ready to look history in the eye, nothing is going to happen.

Yep, Catholic pressure in the case of Florence took the form of promised aid. In the end I think that turned out to be 300 Austrian soldiers. And that acceptance was far from universal.

 

[Schism_hater]

Yep, Catholic pressure in the case of Florence took the form of promised aid. In the end I think that turned out to be 300 Austrian soldiers. And that acceptance was far from universal.

Well, I will agree with a previous poster than there was great interest among the Orthodox emperor, patriarch and some other bishops in getting that aid. That is the whole problem with Florence; it seems to have been largely motivated by non-spiritual concerns.

 

[dvdjs]

The definitions of Lateran IV, Lyons II and Florence that the Holy spirit proceeds eternally and equally from the Father and the Son as from one principle; the definitions of, inter alia, Trent concerning indulgences; and the definitions of Vatican I concerning papal supremacy, universal and immediate papal jurisdiction, and papal infallibility.

Joint theological commissions - first stringers - have reached the conclusion that it is difficult to attach any merit to regarding the filioque as church dividing issue. That is the type of finding that Fr Taft is talking about, however little traction that has in the trenches.

As to Trent and indulgences…

DECREE CONCERNING INDULGENCES.
Whereas the power of conferring Indulgences was granted by Christ to the Church; and she has, even in the most ancient times, used the said power, delivered unto her of God; the sacred holy Synod teaches, and enjoins, that the use of Indulgences, for the Christian people most salutary, and approved of by the authority of sacred Councils, is to be retained in the Church; and It condemns with anathema those who either assert, that they are useless; or who deny that there is in the Church the power of granting them. In granting them, however, It desires that, in accordance with the ancient and approved custom in the Church, moderation be observed; lest, by excessive facility, ecclesastical discipline be enervated. And being desirous that the abuses which have crept therein, and by occasion of which this honorable name of Indulgences is blasphemed by heretics, be amended and corrected, It ordains generally by this decree, that all evil gains for the obtaining thereof,–whence a most prolific cause of abuses amongst the Christian people has been derived,–be wholly abolished. But as regards the other abuses which have proceeded from superstition, ignorance, irreverence, or from what soever other source, since, by reason of the manifold corruptions in the places and provinces where the said abuses are committed, they cannot conveniently be specially prohibited; It commands all bishops, diligently to collect, each in his own church, all abuses of this nature, and to report them in the first provincial Synod; that, after having been reviewed by the opinions of the other bishops also, they may forthwith be referred to the Sovereign Roman Pontiff, by whose authority and prudence that which may be expedient for the universal Church will be ordained; that this the gift of holy Indulgences may be dispensed to all the faithful, piously, holily, and incorruptly.

… not sure if there is anything objectionable here.

For many, the difficulties really boil down too VI ecclesiology. I think that there is room to work to a modus vivendi on primacy. But it is interesting to note that the hearts of schism were hardened long before VI, or even Trent, could be used ad an excuse for perpetuating it.

 

[dvdjs]

You’re entitled to your opinion.

Yes of course. All are, and all are entitled to be dismissive of any opinon that don’t like.
But if one dismisses the opinion of a highly learned and connected individual like Fr Taft, then there is a lot of work to do to avoid looking like the people that he criticizes.

 

[neokarny]

For many, the difficulties really boil down too VI ecclesiology. I think that there is room to work to a modus vivendi on primacy. But it is interesting to note that the hearts of schism were hardened long before VI, or even Trent, could be used ad an excuse for perpetuating it.

I think ecclesiology is indeed the largest problem. Dogmatic statements can also be problematic, often related to said ecclesiology. Not that the statements themselves are necessarily the problem, but rather the insistence on their universal dogmatic acceptance as the sole possible interpretation of a given belief.

The filioque you mentioned is a good example. Indeed, I don’t think it’s necessarily a church-dividing issue (although I am a bit ignorant regarding this area of theology), but the attempt to universally dogmatize it certainly is. In a hypothetical reunion scenario, I think many Orthodox would be fine if the Latin Church continued to believe the filioque so long as the other Churches could continue to disbelieve it. This, as mentioned above, is problematic with Catholic ecclesiology as can be seen by the Eastern Catholic model, which permits the absence of the filioque in the creed but it is still required to be believed, so far as I understand.

 

[dvdjs]

The comments on Florence by Defend the Keys, while not complete, are accurate, unlike those of others posting here.

In the aftermath of Florence, there was political maneuvering on both pro and anti union sides in Constantinople. While i am sure there were many high minded individuals, it cannot be discounted, that there were factions who just could not put aside their loathing of the Latins, and who could always dredge up some point of theology or practice - even trifles like azymes. These politics had been going on for better part of six centuries, but especially since the beginning of the Crusades, when the West, upon request, was sending large forces at great sacrifice to recover Western Anatolia and secure passage to, and safe conduct within the Holy Land. But thew salient fact is that the pro-union side prevailed Constantinople until the after the fall when religious leaders were selected by the Sultan.

At the battle, foreign troops accounted for about 30% of the forces fighting to defend Constantinople. (Moreover, the forces at the earlier defeat Varna were Poles and Hungarians.) The non-Byzantine forces at Constantinople included Venetians and Genovese, among others - including some Turks. Interestingly, these forces were about equal in number to the Orthodox Christians who were fighting for the Ottomans, mostly Greeks and Serbs.

 

[Schism_hater]

But if one dismisses the opinion of a highly learned and connected individual like Fr Taft, then there is a lot of work to do to avoid looking like the people that he criticizes.

I wasn’t being dimissive of Fr. Taft. I do dismiss the viewpoint that there are no serious theological issues dividing Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy. I seriously doubt Fr. Taft entertains that notion either.

 

[dvdjs]

The major obstacle to reunion are the post-schism definitions by Rome. If those are ignored, most of the “bigotry” Fr. Taft talks about would disappear, overnight.

 

[Peter_J]

Hi. I didn’t read these two posts until just now:

I don’t see these as the same situations at all (and oh by the way, there was much agreement and even inter-communion between Patriarch Cryil Lucaris “the Calvinist Patriarch” and the Protestants). Catholics did not pressure the Orthodox to accept reunion at Lyons and Florence, if anything it was the other way around.
At the Council of Florence there was a higher approval rating by Orthodox bishops than at the first council of Nicaea. The reunion lasted until the Ottomans took over Constantinople and then it was collectively decided that a reunion never actually occurred in the first place because the faithful did not accept it. This was never a precondition of any previous council and thus should be considered an innovation (following Nicaea there were more Arian Christians than orthodox Christians for quite some time, how is that for the ratification by the faithful?).

With all due respect, this has little to do with theology. If all the current bishops of Orthodoxy accepted reunion, then how could that not mean that all theological issues had been resolved since they are ones that are the successors of the apostles and who have the authority to determine what is orthodox belief and what is not?

If, in this hypothetical situation, the laity and monastic’s still do not accept reunion, then it is due to bigotry plain and simple.

Of course, we have sort of been down this road before with the Council of Florence, but in that case I see the “faithful never accepting it as being grounds for a nullification” as a cop-out for the bishops who were being pressured by their Ottoman rulers and wanting to “wish away” the reunion that their legitimate predecessors had agreed to.

It is all very complicated and there is no doubt that the Holy Spirit will be required for a successful reunion. Let’s all pray for this!

Wow. Do you seriously think that this ^^ is compatible with being a good Catholic?

 

[Defend_the_Keys]

Wow. Do you seriously think that this ^^ is compatible with being a good Catholic?

Please explain to me in detail on how anything that I said in any way would indicate I am not a “good Catholic.” To my knowledge nothing I stated was false, and if I am in error please show me. I did not make any personal attacks or insults, unless one would consider the truth to be such an attack. In your opinion is Father Taft also not a “good Catholic?” I am deeply confused by your statement…

 

[Defend_the_Keys]

I hear often that there’s doubt whether that Patriarch had actually wrote the Calvinist document or not, much less full-blown agreements and official intercommunion. I don’t know much about the subject, but I know enough to realize you’re grossly over-simplifying it for the sake of polemics.

And regardless, Nine_Two was specifically referring to the historical relationship with Lutherans, not Calvinists and other Protestants.

Actually the reason it was brought up was because Nine-Two made an analogy of Catholics trying to force reunion with Orthodox in the same way Protestants did at the time of the reformation. My bringing up of the “Calvinist Patriarch” had nothing to do with polemics and everything with showing what a ridiculous analogy that was.

 

[Defend_the_Keys]

Absolutely none of that has anything to do with anything I wrote. Your shots at Lucarus are as misguided as if I were to suddenly bring up Pope Honorius for absolutely no reason.

Attacks on other faiths aren’t necessary here.

My comment was totally relevant to the analogy that YOU MADE. If that is an “attack” on your faith, then I’m sorry that your faith is so fragile (please note I acknowledge that you did not attack my faith by mentioning Pope Honorius).

 

[Peter_J]

Please explain to me in detail on how anything that I said in any way would indicate I am not a “good Catholic.”

I think the sense of “entitlement” among posters gets stronger every day.



But kidding aside, I’ll do the next best thing, namely give you a change to see how different the recent popes are from radically unecumenical Catholics such as yourself:
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/sub-index/index_orthodox-ch.htm

In your opinion is Father Taft also not a “good Catholic?” I am deeply confused by your statement…

So … you think you’re like Fr. Taft? Seriously?? :ehh:

 

[Defend_the_Keys]

Not only that, it is factually inaccurate, at least what he said about Florence. It’s almost as if he hadn’t hear of Mark of Ephesus.

Until Roman Catholics are ready to look history in the eye, nothing is going to happen.

Yes indeed I have heard of Mark of Ephesus. He was the ONLY bishop at Florence to vote against reunion. How exactly this supports your agument I am not sure…

 

[Defend_the_Keys]

The comments on Florence by Defend the Keys, while not complete, are accurate, unlike those of others posting here.

Thank you!

Interestingly, these forces were about equal in number to the Orthodox Christians who were fighting for the Ottomans, mostly Greeks and Serbs.

Be careful or you may be accused of not being a “good Catholic” like myself

 

[Defend_the_Keys]

As to Trent and indulgences…

… not sure if there is anything objectionable here.

For many, the difficulties really boil down too VI ecclesiology. I think that there is room to work to a modus vivendi on primacy. But it is interesting to note that the hearts of schism were hardened long before VI, or even Trent, could be used ad an excuse for perpetuating it.

Well since you brought up the theology of indulgences, the Orthodox actually did not stop the sale of their version of indulgences, Absolution Certificates, until the earth 20th century. Interestingly, the website Orthodoxwiki blames the RC Church for its influence which led the development of Absolution Certificates in the Orthodox Churches:

orthodoxwiki.org/Absolution_Certificates

So much for the EC Churches being the ones that are “Latinized!”

 

[jwinch2]

So … you think you’re like Fr. Taft? Seriously?? :ehh:

I could be wrong, but I believe he was indicating that his position was consistent with Fr. Taft’s, not that he was on the same level of learning regarding the issue. Perhaps I am misunderstanding the situation.

+Pax

 

[Defend_the_Keys]

But kidding aside, I’ll do the next best thing, namely give you a change to see how different the recent popes are from radically unecumenical Catholics such as yourself:

So first you stated I was not a “good Catholic.” Now you have stated that I am “radically unecumenical.” You have yet to justify what exactly I have said that leads you to make these slanderous statements.

So … you think you’re like Fr. Taft? Seriously?? :ehh:

Well, since you do not know anything about me other than the fact that I have defended the Catholic Faith on a Catholic internet form, I could only surmise that you believed I was not being a “good Catholic” because I pointed out some relevant facts that were inconvenient for our Orthodox brethren.

Did Father Taft not do the same thing by discussing bigotry amongst Orthodox monastic’s? Did Father Taft not commend a Catholic journal that captures the contradictory statements made by Orthodox leaders who on one hand praise ecumenism with Catholics and on the other feed the bigots’ hatred of Catholics?

One cannot be a good Catholic and profane the Truth simultaneously. By all means let’s celebrate our agreements, but as Catholics we cannot all allow falsehoods to go unchallenged. The Council of Florence was an Ecumenical Counsel in EVERY sense of the word. To say it was not is a falsehood, period. Our Orthodox brethren can say “well haven’t you heard of St. Mark of Ephesus” or the “bishops were pressured in to the reunion for political reasons” or “the people never accepted it” or whatever else they might come up with, but the fact remains, the Orthodox accepted reunion and Catholic theology at an Ecumenical Counsel with 99% acceptance by their clergy and later reneged on it.