Interview with Archimandrite Robert Taft, SJ

[Cavaradossi]

Wonderful mythos. But it ignores too much history.
The anti-Latin group had strong political motives that had been demonstrated over the previous four centuries in internal Byzantine politics and policies. And the union, while contested, was alive and in force, until the Ottoman conquest and the selection of the Patriarch by the Sultan, and elevation to supremacy within the empire.

This sort of argument against the repudiation of Florence is unsound, because it simply involves a matter of perspective, does it not? Just as those with who argue that Constantinople fell because of the schism. While some hold that perspective, others quite humorously blame the union of Florence for Constantinople’s misfortunes.

Is it not one-sided to characterize the anti-unionists as being motivated by politics, when the union received major support from being imperial policy? Similarly, how could it possibly be said that politics did not influence the unionists, when after the imperial policy which helped prop up the union was removed (with the death of the last emperor), the union fell apart? In fact, did not politics influence much of the history of the Church (let us not pretend, after all, that the Seven Ecumenical Councils were not also very political affairs)? Yet they are all given a free pass, while the anti-unionists alone are criticized for having political motives? Seems like a rather biased omission to make, no?

 

[Nine_Two]

But having said that, it continues to bother me that people speak as though they’re assuming that Fr. Taft is a clone of “Defend the Keys”. Let’s let Father speak for himself, eh?

No worries.

I was responding to what Defend the Keys said. Fr, Taft used some of the same language, and I would rebuke that as well. But that reply was meant specifically for the attitude Defend the Keys brings.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Most serious Orthodox apologist do not go as far as you have gone in citing Mark of Ephesus as the “veto” vote of the council as this would be a clear innovation since prior councils always had orthodox bishops who dissented on certain votes but in the end accepted the authority of the council or became schismatic. In my understanding, Orthodox theologians justify the nullity of the council because the Orthodox laity and monastic’s never fully accepted its teachings (the same issue that Fr. Taft expresses concern over with modern Orthodox monastics/laity and a potential reunion). The fact that there was one dissenting vote from a bishop at Florence seems to provide great comfort to Orthodox laity as yourself in that at least not all of you anointed leadership with the power to bind and loose accepted a reunion, but this does not negate that face that the near unanimous majority accepted the reunion (and Catholic theology, papal primacy ect.)

This raises many interesting issues in my mind. What is the time frame for the faithful to accept a council’s teachings? 50 years? 100 years? 1000 years? According to this theology, not only can no one person in Orthodoxy speak definitively, but no council can speak definitively at any moment in time. A council would be limited to “speaking,” and then at some point in the future the “speaking” could become definitive if accepted by the faithful, or could be become heretical if not accepted by the faithful. This also leads me to wonder how on earth Orthodoxy will combat its major new threat in the modern world – moral relativism. We already see Orthodox leadership changing its long held views on contraception. What will be next?

It is not about “veto”. A council can only be accepted by assent of all bishops. Even if one does not accept, then there is more discussion. And either that one accepts the decision of the many, or the many accepts the charges of the one, or a schism happens. Remember that St. Athanasius the Great was one against many. Did he schism? Did he leave the Church? No. He defended orthodoxy. St Mark of Ephesus was the same way.

We don’t put timeframes on things. Yes, sometimes something gets left unsettled for centuries. Why put a time limit on truth. If you want to know the truth, can you put a deadline on it? Can you say, “okay, if we can’t settle this in 50 years then majority wins and that is the truth.” Is that what you want? That is not the truth. The truth transcends time. Why put a time limit on it? Let the people debate and debate and debate. If they can’t agree on the truth then why make them stop and accept something that we are not sure if it is the truth or not?

 

[Peter_J]

It is not about “veto”. **A council can only be accepted by assent of all bishops. **Even if one does not accept, then there is more discussion. And either that one accepts the decision of the many, or the many accepts the charges of the one, or a schism happens.

I’m sorry but ^^ this just isn’t right.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I’m sorry but ^^ this just isn’t right.

How come? If one bishop does not accept a council, how would that council be applied to all the Churches?

 

[dvdjs]

This sort of argument against the repudiation of Florence is unsound, because it simply involves a matter of perspective, does it not? Just as those with who argue that Constantinople fell because of the schism. While some hold that perspective, others quite humorously blame the union of Florence for Constantinople’s misfortunes.

Is it not one-sided to characterize the anti-unionists as being motivated by politics, when the union received major support from being imperial policy? Similarly, how could it possibly be said that politics did not influence the unionists, when after the imperial policy which helped prop up the union was removed (with the death of the last emperor), the union fell apart? In fact, did not politics influence much of the history of the Church (let us not pretend, after all, that the Seven Ecumenical Councils were not also very political affairs)? Yet they are all given a free pass, while the anti-unionists alone are criticized for having political motives? Seems like a rather biased omission to make, no?

My post #28.

In the aftermath of Florence, there was political maneuvering on both pro and anti union sides in Constantinople.

I think that is not a matter of perspective but of fact.
And holding to one “perspective” while calling the “perspective” false - that is a mythologized view of history,

 

[Defend_the_Keys]

Interesting questions which even plagued your own Church. That the modern method of papal confirmation making a council automatically be Ecumenical and of indisputable authority was unknown even in the West is demonstrated remarkably well by the council of Trent, where the German and French delegates refused to recognize Florence as having been an Ecumenical Council. This idea that councils were signed and instantly recognized as having been ecumenical is most assuredly false when tested against history.

Unfortunately you are confusing two distinct issue here: accepting the authority of a council vs. understanding the teachings of a council. Even today, 50 years after the 2nd Vatican Council, the Catholic Church as a whole is only now truly beginning to digest all the teachings of the council and actually implement them properly. This has been the case with all councils, but this does not mean in any way that immediately following a council that the Church does not accept the council’s teachings as infallible. Many attending members of Vatican II, like Benedict XVI, have understood the council’s teachings all along, but it has taken a life of writing and teachings from him and others like him for the teachings of the council to be fully understood within the Church. The same can be said for Nicaea and the rest of the councils in between.

This is NOT the same thing as the outright rejection of a council like what occurred in Orthodoxy after Florence, especially considering that the Othodox Patriarch and bishops who accepted the council’s teachings were never considered un-orthodox or ousted as heretics in their post-council lifetimes. Also of note is that Florence occurred before the splintering of Orthodoxy into regional Churches, so the Patriarch of Constantinople had more real-world authority than his successor does today.

 

[ConstantineTG]

My post #28.

I think that is not a matter of perspective but of fact.
And holding to one “perspective” while calling the “perspective” false - that is a mythologized view of history,

And the RC view isn’t mythologized?

 

[Peter_J]

And the RC view isn’t mythologized?

No, the Catholic view isn’t mythologized.

Of course, you don’t automatically assume that every statement you ever hear from a Catholic must be “the Catholic view”, right? (In case you’re going to ask “Does that apply to you too?” I say “Yes, that includes me.”)

 

[dvdjs]

And the RC view isn’t mythologized?

The CC does not have a dog in the hunt of differentiation and continuing schism.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The CC does not have a dog in the hunt of differentiation and continuing schism.

Right. RC doesn’t want differentiation, they want everyone to be RCs

 

[ConstantineTG]

No, the Catholic view isn’t mythologized.

Of course, you don’t automatically assume that every statement you ever hear from a Catholic must be “the Catholic view”, right? (In case you’re going to ask “Does that apply to you too?” I say “Yes, that includes me.”)

I’m sure your own Church disagrees. Reading history from the Catholic point of view where the Catholic Church can do no wrong, sounds dubious to me. If we really want to resolve the schism we need to be honest about everything and admit our faults, not pretend that there weren’t any. Saying that you’re never wrong and the other side is always wrong is perpetuating the schism.

 

[dvdjs]

Right. RC doesn’t want differentiation, they want everyone to be RCs

As a BC, I certainly don’t see it that way.

 

[ConstantineTG]

As a BC, I certainly don’t see it that way.

I certainly saw it that way that is why I left

 

[dvdjs]

… Reading history from the Catholic point of view where the Catholic Church can do no wrong, sounds dubious to me. If we really want to resolve the schism we need to be honest about everything and admit our faults, not pretend that there weren’t any. Saying that you’re never wrong and the other side is always wrong is perpetuating the schism.

There is no parallel here. Popes have explicitly confessed and sought forgiveness for sins committed by members of the CC and in the name of the CC. I haven’t seen that from EO, but I would love to see it.

We could start with the complicity of the EOC in the liquidation of Greek Catholic Churches. I have never been able to get such an acknowledgement of fault even from rank and file EOs.

 

[dvdjs]

I certainly saw it that way that is why I left

Mileage varies. As does degree of experience.

 

[ConstantineTG]

There is no parallel here. Popes have explicitly confessed and sought forgiveness for sins committed by members of the CC and in the name of the CC. I haven’t seen that from EO, but I would love to see it.

We could start with the complicity of the EOC in the liquidation of Greek Catholic Churches. I have never been able to get such an acknowledgement of fault even from rank and file EOs.

How about being sorry that there are Catholic parishes in Orthodox territory in the first place? As much as there are a lot of spiritual pride to pass around, the Orthodox never marched into Roman Catholic territory and took over their lands or actively proselytized their people. Sure, Latins were maligned within Orthodox jurisdictions, but not in Catholic jurisdictions.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Mileage varies. As does degree of experience.

True enough. I was clearly speaking from my experience.

 

[Nine_Two]

Unfortunately you are confusing two distinct issue here: accepting the authority of a council vs. understanding the teachings of a council. Even today, 50 years after the 2nd Vatican Council, the Catholic Church as a whole is only now truly beginning to digest all the teachings of the council and actually implement them properly. This has been the case with all councils, but this does not mean in any way that immediately following a council that the Church does not accept the council’s teachings as infallible. Many attending members of Vatican II, like Benedict XVI, have understood the council’s teachings all along, but it has taken a life of writing and teachings from him and others like him for the teachings of the council to be fully understood within the Church. The same can be said for Nicaea and the rest of the councils in between.

This is NOT the same thing as the outright rejection of a council like what occurred in Orthodoxy after Florence, especially considering that the Othodox Patriarch and bishops who accepted the council’s teachings were never considered un-orthodox or ousted as heretics in their post-council lifetimes. Also of note is that Florence occurred before the splintering of Orthodoxy into regional Churches, so the Patriarch of Constantinople had more real-world authority than his successor does today.

What about the outright rejection of Trent by the Gallic Church?

 

[Peter_J]

Right. RC doesn’t want differentiation, they want everyone to be RCs

Question: Do the Orthodox want everyone to be Orthodox? (I’m pretty sure that the correct answer is Yes.)