Interview with Archimandrite Robert Taft, SJ

[ConstantineTG]

It is only surprising when it is ignored.

I actually can’t. My point is that, whatever was going on in Moscow, or Constantinople, the situation in between was more murky, and consolidated probably less than a century before Brest.

That was my point. We can’t even p(name removed by moderator)oint the actual date of the schism between Rome and Constantinople, how can we figure out when the other Churches went into schism from one another? But for sure Rome already recognized Ukraine’s break because she was sending the Jesuits to convert them to Rome. If there was no break, this would have been unnecessary.

Sorry, I don’t accept that. First, I don’t think in terms of sides, just in terms of my church and my people. What is the blood on our hands? And while I was not personally a victim, it is certainly the case that people, of living memory, in the old country were. No pretense about it.

The fact here is, for ever sad story you have from the Catholic side, there is one from the Orthodox side. That is why I said earlier, don’t act that your side is the victim here. This is a long and complicated history with so many levels to it, politics, religion, culture, etc. The sum total of this is that no one is innocent.

Not sure exactly of the meaning, but the point is that there is essentially no basis for considering these as “Orthodox lands”

Orthodox lands were clearly defined since Constantine because there was a rise in belief that the faith and the ruling power went hand in hand. This mentality still prevails today in many places like Russia.

 

[dvdjs]

The fact here is, for ever sad story you have from the Catholic side, there is one from the Orthodox side. That is why I said earlier, don’t act that your side is the victim here. This is a long and complicated history with so many levels to it, politics, religion, culture, etc. The sum total of this is that no one is innocent.

My side is the side of Greek Catholics in my homeland. Please do tell me about the guilt of my people. Tell me about how we had it coming.

Orthodox lands were clearly defined since Constantine because there was a rise in belief that the faith and the ruling power went hand in hand. This mentality still prevails today in many places like Russia.

Constantine? But the idea that “the faith and the ruling power went hand” totally undercuts any validity to the calim that Greek Catholics were somehow in Orthodox territory.

 

[ConstantineTG]

My side is the side of Greek Catholics in my homeland. Please do tell me about the guilt of my people. Tell me about how we had it coming.

Hey, I come from a land that was subjugated by the Spanish Inquisition through Catholicism. While I am thankful for it (because otherwise we’d be Muslim), that doesn’t mean we should overlook the atrocities committed by the Spaniards and the Church who were in cahoots back then. I know some people use that history to justify not being Catholic, or not being Christian at all. But I want to see it for what it truly is, and understand the faith for what it is. I’m not going to blame the entire Church for the atrocities when it is clear that at least in our case, the guilty ones are limited to a number of clergy. In fact not all clergy were villains, 3 of them are national heroes in our country.

Constantine? But the idea that “the faith and the ruling power went hand” totally undercuts any validity to the calim that Greek Catholics were somehow in Orthodox territory.

They were. Unless you can claim that in the history of your land you were rules by a ruler who never schismed from Rome.

 

[Peter_J]

The fact here is, for ever sad story you have from the Catholic side, there is one from the Orthodox side. That is why I said earlier, don’t act that your side is the victim here. This is a long and complicated history with so many levels to it, politics, religion, culture, etc. The sum total of this is that no one is innocent.

My side is the side of Greek Catholics in my homeland. Please do tell me about the guilt of my people.

“no one is innocent” seems about right (well, unless taken literally, i.e. no person is innocent). You said yourself:

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

 

[Nine_Two]

I’m sorry but I have to take issue with this comment. First off, there is no “territory” for the spreading of the Faith. Secondly, even if there were “territories,” the Greek Catholics of Ukraine and the Middle East would have MORE of a claim than the Orthodox since they have the legitimate lineage of the historic Patriarchs and Churches.

Is that why you have three Patriarchs of Antioch, two patriarchs of Alexandria, and zero Patriarchs in Ukraine?

Tell me about the legitimacy of these patriarchs.

 

[dvdjs]

Hey, I come from a land that was subjugated by the Spanish Inquisition through Catholicism. While I am thankful for it (because otherwise we’d be Muslim), that doesn’t mean we should overlook the atrocities committed by the Spaniards and the Church who were in cahoots back then.

Who is asking that you to overlook anything?

The point is just the opposite: some people the cannot bring themselves to acknowledge atrocious behavior of the Orthodox in the liquidation of Greek Catholic churches. The party line, repeated over and over from the very top is an outrage against truth. This cannot be overlooked, even if the behavior, if admitted, could be forgiven.

They were. Unless you can claim that in the history of your land you were rules by a ruler who never schismed from Rome.

No that is not quite right. At some point, for example, areas in which our people lived were ruled by Calvinists, but it is difficult to support the idea that my ancestral lands were ever under an Orthodox ruler.

 

[neokarny]

Is that why you have three Patriarchs of Antioch, two patriarchs of Alexandria, and zero Patriarchs in Ukraine?

Tell me about the legitimacy of these patriarchs.

Don’t forget the now-defunct Latin Patriarch of Antioch.

 

[dvdjs]

“no one is innocent” seems about right (well, unless taken literally, i.e. no person is innocent). You said yourself:

I am not sure what, in anything, the political maneuverings in Constantinople have to do with the liquidation of the Greek Catholic churches. And while there might have been murder and mayhem on both pro- and anti-union sides in Constantinople, the murder and mayhem was one sided during the liquidation of the Greek Catholic churches. There is no moral equivalence between the thugs and the GCCs.

 

[Schism_hater]

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

The CC’s “dog in the hunt” is its unwillingness to reexamine its post-schism “dogmatic” teachings, because, of course, that would be an affront to its institutional prestige. If you’re saying the CC is willing to end the schism if the Orthodox unconditionally assent to all its post-schism teachings, well, sure. So what?

 

[Peter_J]

I am not sure what, in anything, the political maneuverings in Constantinople have to do with the liquidation of the Greek Catholic churches.

Nor am I. I was talking about “no one is innocent” in general, not specifically with regard to guilt for the liquidation of Greek Catholic churches.

Who is asking that you to overlook anything?

The point is just the opposite: some people the cannot bring themselves to acknowledge atrocious behavior of the Orthodox in the liquidation of Greek Catholic churches. The party line, repeated over and over from the very top is an outrage against truth. This cannot be overlooked, even if the behavior, if admitted, could be forgiven.

Exactly. Each side has to be willing to admit its wrongs.

No side has a monopoly on wrongs; nor does any side have a monopoly on the tendency to think themselves innocent.

 

[Peter_J]

The CC’s “dog in the hunt” is its unwillingness to reexamine its post-schism “dogmatic” teachings, because, of course, that would be an affront to its institutional prestige.

In a way, yes. But Rome’s stance is in some ways much different than it was centuries ago (or even than it was in the 1950s): in particular, she used to come down very strongly on the side of the “unionists” against the “anti-unionists”. But now we have:

Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Eastern, no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other

• Balamand Statement

 

[Defend_the_Keys]

Is that why you have three Patriarchs of Antioch, two patriarchs of Alexandria, and zero Patriarchs in Ukraine?

It is very easy and all based on the healing of past schisms - something that Catholics always strive for without compromising our Faith:

Antioch (Three distinct rites and communities):

1 Patriarch for the Byzantine-rite Christians who entered schism after Florence, later repented and accepted union with Rome - are legitimate heirs to the Patriarchal seat for the Byzantines of Antioch based on succession of bishops.

1 Patriarch for the Antiochene/Syriac-rite Christians who entered schism after Chalcedon, repented and accepted union with Rome - are legitimate heirs to the Patriarchal seat for the Syriacs of Antioch based on succession of bishops.

1 Patriarch for the Marionite’s who fled Antioch to evade Muslim conquest but never severed their communion with Rome - are the legitimate heirs to the Patriarchal seat for the original Christians of Antioch based on succession of bishops.

Alexandria (Two Distinct rites):

1 Patriarch for the Melkite’s who accepted the teachings of Chalcedon (same person as listed above for Antioch)

1 Patriarch for the Coptic’s who entered schism after Chalcedon and later repented and accepted union with Rome

Kiev/Ukraine:

In all likelihood there is no Patriarch for ecumenical reasons with the Russian Orthodox even though should the elevation occur, the Patriarch would be the legitimate heir to the Patriarchal seat for Kiev based on succession of bishops. The current Orthodox Moscow Patriarch has expressed concern over the elevation of the current Greek Cahtolc Metropolitan to the title of Patriarch and stated that if it happens, it will shut down all talks between the Russian Orthodox and Catholics (even though the Catholic Metropolitan has the true historic lineage). How on earth an Orthodox apologist could “ding” the Catholics for this is beyond me?

 

[UncleBill]

It is very easy and all based on the healing of past schisms - something that Catholics always strive for without compromising our Faith:

Antioch (Three distinct rites and communities):

1 Patriarch for the Byzantine-rite Christians who entered schism after Florence, later repented and accepted union with Rome - are legitimate heirs to the Byzantines of Antioch

1 Patriarch for the Antiochene/Syriac-rite Christians who entered schism after Chalcedon, repented and accepted union with Rome - are legitimate heirs to the Syriacs of Antioch

1 Patriarch for the Marionite’s who fled Antioch to evade Muslim conquest but never severed their communion with Rome - are the legitimate heirs to the original Christians of Antioch

Alexandria (Two Distinct rites):

1 Patriarch for the Melkite’s who accepted the teachings of Chalcedon (same person as listed above for Antioch)

1 Patriarch for the Coptic’s who entered schism after Chalcedon and later repented and accepted union with Rome

Kiev/Ukraine:

In all likelihood there is no Patriarch for ecumenical reasons with the Russian Orthodox. The current Orthodox Moscow Patriarch has expressed concern over the elevation of the current Greek Cahtolc Metropolitan to the title of Patriarch and stated that if it happens, it will shut down all talks between the Russian Orthodox and Catholics (even though the Catholic Metropolitan has the true historic lineage). How on earth an Orthodox apologist could “ding” the Catholics for this is beyond me?

Rome has never appointed a Patriarch of a non Apostolic See. That is the main reason for the Ukrainians not having a Patriarch, although dealings with Moscow are important as well.

 

[Nine_Two]

It is very easy and all based on the healing of past schisms - something that Catholics always strive for without compromising our Faith:

Antioch (Three distinct rites and communities):

1 Patriarch for the Byzantine-rite Christians who entered schism after Florence, later repented and accepted union with Rome - are legitimate heirs to the Patriarchal seat for the Byzantines of Antioch based on succession of bishops.

1 Patriarch for the Antiochene/Syriac-rite Christians who entered schism after Chalcedon, repented and accepted union with Rome - are legitimate heirs to the Patriarchal seat for the Syriacs of Antioch based on succession of bishops.

1 Patriarch for the Marionite’s who fled Antioch to evade Muslim conquest but never severed their communion with Rome - are the legitimate heirs to the Patriarchal seat for the original Christians of Antioch based on succession of bishops.

Alexandria (Two Distinct rites):

1 Patriarch for the Melkite’s who accepted the teachings of Chalcedon (same person as listed above for Antioch)

1 Patriarch for the Coptic’s who entered schism after Chalcedon and later repented and accepted union with Rome

Kiev/Ukraine:

In all likelihood there is no Patriarch for ecumenical reasons with the Russian Orthodox even though should the elevation occur, the Patriarch would be the legitimate heir to the Patriarchal seat for Kiev based on succession of bishops. The current Orthodox Moscow Patriarch has expressed concern over the elevation of the current Greek Cahtolc Metropolitan to the title of Patriarch and stated that if it happens, it will shut down all talks between the Russian Orthodox and Catholics (even though the Catholic Metropolitan has the true historic lineage). How on earth an Orthodox apologist could “ding” the Catholics for this is beyond me?

You told me why they exist (or not), you didn’t tell me how they could be “legitimate” while the Orthodox Patriarchs are not. That was the entire point.

 

[Aramis]

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.

Several falsehoods there, intentional or otherwise. Otherwise, there would be no OCA and no HOCNA. No Russian Orthodox in Rome, London, or Paris.

The Orthodox Churches did use the sword in the 19th and 20th centuries… In Poland, the Ukraine, and other Eastern European areas of long mixed Catholic and Orthodox. Sure, it wasn’t in crusades… it was in accepting a protected place while the Tsars and later the Communists used military force against the Catholics.

And Russian priests have been attempting to preach to Roman Catholics in Rome itself. And in Paris. And in Germany. Since the 1600’s, the Orthodox have decided systematically that Catholics are heretics and to be converted by any means that doesn’t directly put blood on the hands of the ordained.

 

[Schism_hater]

Since the 1600’s, the Orthodox have decided systematically that Catholics are heretics and to be converted by any means that doesn’t directly put blood on the hands of the ordained.

That is a patently false statement. If anything, the Orthodox have been recalcitrant in not trying to engage Catholics and other types of Christians, and not seeking to evangelize.

If what you were saying was true, we would be seeing the Orthodox equivalent of Byzantine Catholic churches in countries like Mexico; i.e. Orthodox churches with a Mexican folk liturgies. We don’t, obviously. The Orthodox have never set up a rival Patriarchate in Rome.

 

[Seamus_L]

we are no longer the only kid on the block, the whole Church of Christ, but one Sister Church among others. Previously, the Catholic Church saw itself as the original one and only true Church of Christ from which all other Christians had separated for one reason or another in the course of history, and Catholics held
Here's another statement for the best of Archimandrite Taft :D

 

[Aramis]

That is a patently false statement. If anything, the Orthodox have been recalcitrant in not trying to engage Catholics and other types of Christians, and not seeking to evangelize.

If what you were saying was true, we would be seeing the Orthodox equivalent of Byzantine Catholic churches in countries like Mexico; i.e. Orthodox churches with a Mexican folk liturgies. We don’t, obviously. The Orthodox have never set up a rival Patriarchate in Rome.

there is a Russian bishop, exarch IIRC, over the Roman parishes, and the OCA has an exarchate for Mexico. Do your homework. The Antiochians use the Western Rite to actively engage protestants, as does ROCOR.

And Muscovite Patriarchate actively involved itself with the Soviets in the persecutions of Catholis in the Ukraine and Russia, and of ECCs in Poland and Belarus.

 

[neokarny]

The Antiochians use the Western Rite to actively engage protestants, as does ROCOR.

I’m not necessarily saying Orthodoxy engages Protestants or not, but I don’t think the Western Rite is necessarily a tool primarily for that end. It seems to me more of a way to receive those mostly Anglican parishes that are already interested in converting, and not a tool to pull Anglicans out. WR was, and I believe still is, completely absent in the UK because of the hierarchy’s refusal to even appear to be directly competing with the Church of England. Further, most outspoken proponents of the Western Rite are by far the ex-Anglicans themselves.

Similarly, is the Anglican Ordinariate (not perfectly analogous to WR since it includes church structure and not just a Rite) primarily a tool for receiving Anglican converts, or is it a tool to actively engage Anglicans?

 

[UncleBill]

I’m not necessarily saying Orthodoxy engages Protestants or not, but I don’t think the Western Rite is necessarily a tool primarily for that end. It seems to me more of a way to receive those mostly Anglican parishes that are already interested in converting, and not a tool to pull Anglicans out. WR was, and I believe still is, completely absent in the UK because of the hierarchy’s refusal to even appear to be directly competing with the Church of England. Further, most outspoken proponents of the Western Rite are by far the ex-Anglicans themselves.

Similarly, is the Anglican Ordinariate (not perfectly analogous to WR since it includes church structure and not just a Rite) primarily a tool for receiving Anglican converts, or is it a tool to actively engage Anglicans?

I wouldn’t consider St. JOhn Maximovich an Anglican…he was a big proponent of the Western Rite.