Interview with Archimandrite Robert Taft, SJ

  • Thread starter Thread starter 5Loaves
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
jwinch2 said:
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
Click to expand...
You understand the situation perfectly. God bless you.
 
Defend_the_Keys said:
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.

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.
Click to expand...
That’s how the Orthodox roll. Just because it gets accepted, initially, it takes years, for it be truly ratified… and there’s a reason why Mark of Ephesus is a saint…
 
Defend_the_Keys said:
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.
Click to expand...
Nope, that isn’t what I was bringing up. I didn’t talk about anyone trying to force reunion with anyone.
 
Defend_the_Keys said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, those monastics always cause trouble. Imagine if that monk St. Maximos the Confessor, if he didn’t create trouble and just submitted to his bishops in the East… :rolleyes:
 
ConstantineTG said:
Yes, those monastics always cause trouble. Imagine if that monk St. Maximos the Confessor, if he didn’t create trouble and just submitted to his bishops in the East… :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
In that particular interview Fr. Taft harped a bit on “the bigotry of many of the monastics and others towards anyone who is not Orthodox”; but reading some of his other writings I think you’ll see that he’s actually pretty fair toward the Orthodox, and doesn’t give Catholics a pass. It’s like 5Loaves said in the OP: “He’s an equal opportunity supporter and critic.”
 
Peter_J said:
In that particular interview Fr. Taft harped a bit on “the bigotry of many of the monastics and others towards anyone who is not Orthodox”; but reading some of his other writings I think you’ll see that he’s actually pretty fair toward the Orthodox, and doesn’t give Catholics a pass. It’s like 5Loaves said in the OP: “He’s an equal opportunity supporter and critic.”
Click to expand...
My point is that we shouldn’t be quick to dismiss any “bias” of the monks. Sure, they are not always correct, but they’ve also proven over time to get us out of trouble (also create some real ones themselves).
 
ConstantineTG said:
My point is that we shouldn’t be quick to dismiss any “bias” of the monks. Sure, they are not always correct, but they’ve also proven over time to get us out of trouble (also create some real ones themselves).
Click to expand...
I can’t really disagree with ^^ this post. 🙂
 
Defend_the_Keys said:
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…
Click to expand...
Because it ended up he spoke for Orthodoxy, that’s how! Orthodoxy was there at Florence in the person of one bishop. The story goes (I can’t swear to its historical accuracy) that the Pope of the time, when he heard that Mark of Ephesus had not signed on to the decree of Florence, said, “Then we have achieved nothing”. He got it. We don’t keep track of numbers, so much as divine inspiration.

You may have heard of Athansius the Great, and the saying “Athanasius against the world”. He was only one bishop also.

The hard truth is that there was no need for Ottomans to influence the Orthodox against Florence; Florence was dead as soon as Mark of Ephesus said “non signat” (or whatever the correct Latin would be). The Orthodox made a hard choice in a regrettable situation: subjugation by pagans rather than compromise of the Faith.
 
Given that this thread was originally about Fr. Taft, not about who has a proper view of Florence and who twists the facts to suit there own bias, perhaps we should ask: Has Fr. Taft ever written anything about Florence?
 
Schism_hater said:
The hard truth is that there was no need for Ottomans to influence the Orthodox against Florence; Florence was dead as soon as Mark of Ephesus said “non signat” (or whatever the correct Latin would be). The Orthodox made a hard choice in a regrettable situation: subjugation by pagans rather than compromise of the Faith.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Peter_J said:
Given that this thread was originally about Fr. Taft, not about who has a proper view of Florence and who twists the facts to suit there own bias, perhaps we should ask: Has Fr. Taft ever written anything about Florence?
Click to expand...
Interesting question. I found a couple of things from him, but haven’t seen anything along those lines.
 
Schism_hater said:
Because it ended up he spoke for Orthodoxy, that’s how! Orthodoxy was there at Florence in the person of one bishop. The story goes (I can’t swear to its historical accuracy) that the Pope of the time, when he heard that Mark of Ephesus had not signed on to the decree of Florence, said, “Then we have achieved nothing”. He got it. We don’t keep track of numbers, so much as divine inspiration.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Peter_J said:
Given that this thread was originally about Fr. Taft, not about who has a proper view of Florence and who twists the facts to suit there own bias, perhaps we should ask: Has Fr. Taft ever written anything about Florence?
Click to expand...
The reason that Florence is so important is for the old adage that “those who do not know history are bound to repeat it.” Yes, there are great signs of hope in the modern Church that relations are beginning to thaw amongst the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches, but mostly at the upper levels. However, Florence shows us that even if the Orthodox bishops and Patriarchs overwhelmingly accept a reunion, their remains a serious problem with the bigoted monastic’s and laity, and this is exactly what Fr. Taft identifies in the interview that started this thread. Until the monastic’s and laity overcome this, they will most likely dismiss any reunion or inter-communion that is established by their Patriarchs with the Catholic Church, just like what occurred after Florence.
 
Peter_J said:
Dvdjs, you might read: ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=370923&Pg=&Pgnu=&recnu=

(I’m not suggesting that ewtn.com is infallible, of course; but I’m guessing that you’ll give more weight to that than to some post by “Defend the Keys”. Am I right?)
Click to expand...
Was the council of Nicaea not convened because Emperor Constantine, at the time un-baptized, dictated the council be convened? Would the fact that the bishops in attendance were not there because they “wanted” to be there, but because they were told to be there by the emperor, give grounds to the Arians to nullify the council? It would seem so according to the logic presented by some against Florence.

Regardless of the reasons and/or circumstances of “why” all the major bishops of the world, east and west, were assembled at Florence, the fact remains that they were assembled, and they spoke with one voice, and the Church fully breathed with both lungs at that moment in time.
 
Defend_the_Keys said:
The reason that Florence is so important is for the old adage that “those who do not know history are bound to repeat it.” Yes, there are great signs of hope in the modern Church that relations are beginning to thaw amongst the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches, but mostly at the upper levels. However, Florence shows us that even if the Orthodox bishops and Patriarchs overwhelmingly accept a reunion, their remains a serious problem with the bigoted monastic’s and laity, and this is exactly what Fr. Taft identifies in the interview that started this thread. Until the monastic’s and laity overcome this, they will most likely dismiss any reunion or inter-communion that is established by their Patriarchs with the Catholic Church, just like what occurred after Florence.
Click to expand...
That’s part of the problem. You call people Bigoted, and they are less willing, not more willing, to talk with you.

Yes, you are going to have to work to convince the laity and the monastics, but if you have a truly compelling case you’ll have the clergy on your side helping your argument. It is a daunting task, but by no means impossible. Unless of course we keep the insults going, then it probably is impossible.

As it is, getting upset of the monastics is premature. Rome hasn’t convinced any section of the church that it shares the same faith as us, and is ready to be restored to the diptychs.
 
Nine_Two said:
That’s part of the problem. You call people Bigoted, and they are less willing, not more willing, to talk with you.

Yes, you are going to have to work to convince the laity and the monastics, but if you have a truly compelling case you’ll have the clergy on your side helping your argument. It is a daunting task, but by no means impossible. Unless of course we keep the insults going, then it probably is impossible.
Click to expand...
Hi again. I don’t by any means want to beat this to death (hopefully I haven’t already ;)) but here’s another thought or two…

I don’t, of course, think Fr. Taft is infallible or anything. And indeed I (along with many other ECs I’ve spoken with) do find him to be a bit too insulting at times, possibly including all his talk about “the bigotry of many of the monastics and others towards anyone who is not Orthodox” etc. (On the other hand, I think the statement right before that about laity, “Part of the problem is that some Orthodox do not instruct their people adequately and update them, so ecumenical progress on the upper level often does not filter down to the ordinary faithful.” was justified.)

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? 👍
 
Defend_the_Keys said:
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.)
Click to expand...
A near unanimous majority of some two dozen bishops. We might as well then claim that Pope Vigilius’ First Constitutum with 17 signatures from other bishops reflected the mind of the Church, since there was unanimous agreement amongst the signatories, those present with Vigilius when he had completed the document. But the two dozen bishops there did not reflect the mind of the Church, which can be seen by the immediate resistance which sprung up not only amongst the laity (as it is often claimed), but amongst the clergy in Constantinople.
Defend_the_Keys said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top