Interview with Archimandrite Robert Taft, SJ

[5Loaves]

Catholic World Report had the recent privilege of asking Archimandrite Robert Taft, SJ for his perspective on current Orthodox-Catholic relations.

Fr. Robert always knows how to cut to the chase! He’s an equal opportunity supporter and critic, pointing always to the truth wherever it may be found.

 

[newlywed8]

Thanks for posting!

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

I just finished reading this post before popping over here to CAF. Pleasantly surprised to see someone has already posted it (thanks 5Loaves: hope you are well).

As always, Fr. Taft gives a no-nonsense down to earth commentary on the issues. It’s always a please to read or listen to him. So happy I know him and have had the good fortune to talk with him on a number of occasions.

 

[Basilios]

Short hair, no beard, no klobuk :nope:

 

[UncleBill]

Short hair, no beard, no klobuk :nope:

Every time I have met Fr Robert he has had a beard, as he does in the photo. And certainly wears a Klobuk at the proper time.

Great article! Thanks for posting it 5!

 

[CharlesdeFoucld]

Great article with a giant of ecumenical dialogue.

My only quibble was with the following quotation: (Taft): ‘The new Catholic “Sister Churches” ecclesiology describes not only how the Catholic Church views the Orthodox Churches. It also represents a startling revolution in how the Catholic Church views itself: we are no longer the only kid on the block, the whole Church of Christ, but one Sister Church among others.’

This does not seem to take into account the Vatican’s ‘Note on the Expression 'Sister Churches’’, which acknowledges that particular churches can be sisters. Thus, the Roman church can be a ‘sister church’, but the Catholic Church is ‘mother’.

 

[Defend_the_Keys]

I really enjoyed his comment about the bigotry amongst some Orthodox, especially the monastics. They hold a lot of power within Orthodoxy and to me seem to be a major obstacle to reunion.

 

[Peter_J]

"Fr. Taft:

As for “ecumenical councils,” the Catholic Church might specify more clearly its list of those, which as far as I know we have never defined. Are the purely Roman Catholic post-schism councils to be considered ecumenical councils of the undivided Church? If so, says who?

I think Fr. Taft is being a bit over-optimistic if he thinks all of the post schism councils will be deemed non-ecumenical councils. Some, most notably the Council of Florence, will surely continued to be labeled ecumenical. (Although to be fair I should add that some take the opposite view to Fr. Taft’s “minimalist” view, namely the “maximalist” view that all 21 councils absolutely must be considered ecumenical councils.)

Great article with a giant of ecumenical dialogue.

My only quibble was with the following quotation: (Taft): ‘The new Catholic “Sister Churches” ecclesiology describes not only how the Catholic Church views the Orthodox Churches. It also represents a startling revolution in how the Catholic Church views itself: we are no longer the only kid on the block, the whole Church of Christ, but one Sister Church among others.’

This does not seem to take into account the Vatican’s ‘Note on the Expression 'Sister Churches’’, which acknowledges that particular churches can be sisters. Thus, the Roman church can be a ‘sister church’, but the Catholic Church is ‘mother’.

Good point. Should be: “we are no longer the only kid on the block, the whole Church of Christ, but -]one/-] twenty-three Sister Churches among others”

 

[Peter_J]

CWR: Many Orthodox theologians claim that even if the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople or the Patriarch of Moscow were to unite with Rome tomorrow, the lay faithful and the monastics would probably not accept it and therefore there would be no actual union. Given the history of Lyons and Florence do you think this is true, or has the Orthodox mood changed recently?

This ^^ is quite the loaded question. I wish Fr. Taft had pointed that out.

 

[Schism_hater]

I really enjoyed his comment about the bigotry amongst some Orthodox, especially the monastics. They hold a lot of power within Orthodoxy and to me seem to be a major obstacle to reunion.

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.

That is what most Roman (and Eastern) Catholics just don’t get: it mostly really is about theology.

 

[Nine_Two]

This ^^ is quite the loaded question. I wish Fr. Taft had pointed that out.

The answer he gave rather soured me to the whole article. I was enjoying it before that point (although I discovered and read the article last week).

 

[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.

What definitions, exactly?

That is what most Roman (and Eastern) Catholics just don’t get: it mostly really is about theology.

I think that Fr Taft in a very good position to get what it is really about, informed by his interactions with the all of the first string theologians that he refers to and interacts with. He probably does not share the views of second stringers - and beyond. I see little evidence to support the idea that the major obstacles are theological.

 

[Schism_hater]

What definitions, exactly?

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.

 

[Schism_hater]

I think that Fr Taft in a very good position to get what it is really about, informed by his interactions with the all of the first string theologians that he refers to and interacts with. He probably does not share the views of second stringers - and beyond. I see little evidence to support the idea that the major obstacles are theological.

You’re entitled to your opinion.

 

[Nine_Two]

You’re entitled to your opinion.

I’m reminded of the the time, during the Protestant reformation, when the Lutherans approached Constantinople for support. Instead they got a bunch of platitudes. Interpreting them positively, the Protestants pushed and pushed to get the Patriarch to issue something definitive. Finally they got him cornered and he told them he did not agree with them, but liked the idea of friendship between their people, but if they kept pushing, Friendship would be impossible.

I think this is what Catholics are coming up against. They put more traction on those discussions than we do, and when they hear positive feedback, there is an assumption that it means there is agreement.

If someone seems to be saying two things, pay attention to what they say to their own in group, and interpret what they say to you in that light. Also accept that positions change, and what someone said 10 years ago, is not binding on them now.

 

[Defend_the_Keys]

I’m reminded of the the time, during the Protestant reformation, when the Lutherans approached Constantinople for support. Instead they got a bunch of platitudes. Interpreting them positively, the Protestants pushed and pushed to get the Patriarch to issue something definitive. Finally they got him cornered and he told them he did not agree with them, but liked the idea of friendship between their people, but if they kept pushing, Friendship would be impossible.

I think this is what Catholics are coming up against. They put more traction on those discussions than we do, and when they hear positive feedback, there is an assumption that it means there is agreement.

If someone seems to be saying two things, pay attention to what they say to their own in group, and interpret what they say to you in that light. Also accept that positions change, and what someone said 10 years ago, is not binding on them 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?).

 

[Defend_the_Keys]

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.

That is what most Roman (and Eastern) Catholics just don’t get: it mostly really is about theology.

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!

 

[Peter_J]

I think that Fr Taft in a very good position to get what it is really about, informed by his interactions with the all of the first string theologians that he refers to and interacts with.

Wait a minute! Aren’t web discussion forums the first string?

 

[Peter_J]

Wait a minute! Aren’t web discussion forums the first string?

Kidding.

 

[neokarny]

(and oh by the way, there was much agreement and even inter-communion between Patriarch Cryil Lucaris “the Calvinist Patriarch” and the Protestants).

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.