Christ is Risen!

Yesterday evening I (and several others here) attended the lecture by Archimandrite Taft in Pittsburgh. It was a marvelous experience. I was struck by his frankness, and his surprising balance.

The event was recorded, and a tape should be available to order soon. Among the MANY interesting things he said:

* The ban on married men being ordained as priests in North America is effectively dead! Rome no longer opposes our efforts to ordain married men as priests. It's now up to our bishops. To quote Archimandrite Taft, "Our side won the battle!"

* Eastern Catholics must develop our own distinctive theology. Rather than merely parroting the Roman Catholics (as we did in the past), or parroting the Orthodox (as we are tempted to do these days), we need to develop a distinctive theological perspective. We need to be ourselves, instead of trying to be someone else.

Very interesting!

Anthony

Hi Anthony --

"* Eastern Catholics must develop our own distinctive theology. Rather than merely parroting the Roman Catholics (as we did in the past), or parroting the Orthodox (as we are tempted to do these days), we need to develop a distinctive theological perspective. We need to be ourselves, instead of trying to be someone else."

An unfortunate comment, in my opinion. I would have thought that Eastern Catholics were *supposed* to have the same theology as Orthodox Christians, but what Fr. Taft appears to be proposing here seems close to a "via media" type of approach, which seems more of a step backward than a step forward. Somewhat surprising coming from him, but then again it seems that in recent years he has become increasinbgly disillusioned with the Orthodox, and perhaps this is a reflection of that.

In my opinion, a theological via media for Eastern Catholicism is not the way to go, but then again I'm not an Eastern Catholic!

Brendan

Dear Brendan,

Unfortunately or fortunately (depending on one's perspective) I agree with you!

Fr. Bohdan Lypsky (the one that did a Byzantine May devotion) always told us that, apart from the commemoration of the Pope, there should be no difference between Eastern Catholics and Orthodox, not in the slightest, not with respect to Rite or theology etc.

A number of Ukrainian Catholic bishops hold to Fr. Taft's views and this is what leads them to, for example, establish feasts that look like Orthodox ones, but which are, nevertheless slightly different or else are held on other days (e.g. the Feast of All Saints of Rus' is on the Second Sunday of Pentecost in Orthodoxy but on the Fourth Sunday in the Ukr. Cath. Church).

On the other hand, Brendan, could you help me with something here? (I am so very grateful for all your help, friend, and also for the fact that you pulled me out of my "dark night of the soul" even though you may not realize it).

If Eastern Catholic theology is to be the same as Orthodox theology, and I think most Byzantine Catholics on this Forum would subscribe to this paradigm, then doesn't this "naturally" conflict with our acceptance of the Papacy since Orthodoxy does not accept it as it is today?

I have often thought this to be a contradiction. Does the Byzantine Jesuit (again, no pun intended) Fr. Taft overcome this with his idea of a specifically "Byzantine Catholic" theological tradition?

Your servant, Sir,

Alex

>>>Yesterday evening I (and several others here) attended the lecture by Archimandrite Taft in Pittsburgh. It was a
marvelous experience. I was struck by his frankness, and his surprising balance.<<<

Taft's lecture (which I am truly sorry to have missed) took two years to arrange; it has been scheduled for more than a year. So guess which bishop decided his eparchy just HAD to have its presbyteral week THIS WEEK to ensure that none of HIS priests could go hear it? Althought we are a Byzantine Church, some of our members have a rather Sicilian concept of revenge.

>>>I would have thought that Eastern Catholics were *supposed* to have the same theology
as Orthodox Christians, but what Fr. Taft appears to be proposing here seems close to a "via media" type of approach, which
seems more of a step backward than a step forward. <<<

Actually, having spoken with him, and heard and read more of his thoughts on this thread, I can say with some certainty that Brendan is misinterpreting Taft's remarks--which would indicate a better choice of words is needed.

What Taft actually advocates is the inherent right of every particular Church to engage in its own theological speculation within Holy Tradition--a right shared by every Orthodox particular Church, every non-Chalcedonian particular Church, and every Catholic particular Church. When he speaks of "slavish imitation" of the Orthodox, he is not speaking of central tenets of Byzantine theology, which are integral to Holy Tradition, but many of the more recent developments in Orthodox theology which are a reflection of the experience of individual Churches within that communion. Nor is he saying that the Eastern Catholics should follow blindly Roman theology. Rather, he advocates that all particular Churches, in all communions, should be developing their own theology from within their own unique experience of the Holy Spirit. In the case of the Byzantine Catholics in America (Taft's audience), that means working from the starting point of the authentic Byzantine Tradition and arriving at a theology and pastoral practice suitable to our situation in time and place, rather than trying to be, as Alexander Schmemman wrote, "Byzance apres Byzance".

Brendan,

I suspect that your via media is probably correct. However, I suspect the reason has less to do with disillusionment with the Orthodox and more the reality in which the Eastern Catholic Churches find themselves.

Certainly both Latin and Eastern Catholics draw upon the same patrimony as the Orthodox, but theology is not just about history -- it's also about a lived relationship with God. As such, it must also reflect the conditions in which that relationship is lived out.

This is clearly seen in the discrete components of our great patrimony. The theology of the Desert Fathers certainly provides a dimension that is missing from, say, that of the episcopal Church Fathers. At the same time, the diaconal contributions to our theological patrimony reflect another dimension. It is in the harmony of all components interacting and playing off the other that we get the melody we have today.

What Taft is suggesting, I believe, is that this reality today is different for Eastern Catholics than it is for the Orthodox or the Latin Catholics. As such, our theology should reflect how we live out our relationship with God.

In fact, some of this is evident in Orthodoxy if one looks at, for example, the writings of Vladimir Lossky where the Orthodox patrimony clearly shines through, but where the lived experience provides a shading of light and color that is part of his reality.

Edward, deacon and sinner

Okay.

Stuart -- if that's what he's saying, that seems fine to me, generally speaking. It certainly wasn't what Anthony indicated in his post, but then again it's hard to summarize these ideas succinctly without losing meaning, I think.

Alex -- I would think that ecclesiology would be the one area where Byzantine Catholics are encouraged *not* to follow the Orthodox view (I should have excepted that from my earlier statement). Orthodoxy doesn't accept that, but that's why there's a difference between Eastern Orthodoxy and Eastern Catholicism. I'm not sure if that's what Fr. Taft was getting at -- impossible to tell based on what's been said here, really.

Fr Dn Edward -- fine remarks. Thanks for the insights.

Brendan

Dear Friends Ed and Stuart,

What you say is wonderful.

However, how does the whole idea of a specific theology that reflects the reality of the lived experience of the Eastern Catholic Particular Churches square with the reality that the very theology that gave rise to these Churches is today rejected by Rome as it is by the Orthodox?

The model of church unity that we express is no longer "real." In many ways, we are an ecumenical problem. Eastern Catholic theologians are not invited to participate in discussions where Eastern Catholic issues are raised by RC's and Orthodox. Two of my cousins who are Byzantine theologians and priests have told me horror stories in this regard.

So, my question is so what if the Byz Cath Churches develop their own theologies etc. Other than they themselves, who cares about it? They seem to have enough of a challenge on their hands to try and defend themselves against the charge of irrelevance or providing ongoing offence to the Orthodox.

And Brendan's question still stands. If the Eastern Catholic Churches develop along different lines than the Orthodox, and they have done that often enough in the past, following Western models, then what is the point of having Eastern Churches that point to the ideal of "being Eastern and in union with Rome?"

Go ahead, we're all listening . . .

Alex

I would have thought that Eastern Catholics were *supposed* to have the same theology as Orthodox Christians, but what Fr. Taft appears to be proposing here seems close to a "via media" type of approach, which seems more of a step backward than a step forward.

Agreed. Byzantine Catholicism is not meant to be a tertium quid neither Latin fish nor Orthodox fowl. It’s supposed to be Orthodox.

Serge


<A HREF="http://oldworldrus.com">Old World Rus’</A>

Anthony -- I have taken the two points I find the most interesting, but also the ones I think I need to ask a couple questions.

What does Fr. Taft mean by the ban being no longer alive? I mean, technically we know we can have ordained married men -- if Rome approves of the candidate. Is this what he really means? Does he thinks Rome would approve every candidate proposed, and thus it is "dead" - or -- does he think that if our next Metropolitan seeks to change the Canons again, we will get it so we don't even need that approval from the Vatican?

Secondly, I actually agree with Fr. Taft on the need for us to display ourselves as our own. I think the example of someone like Vladimir Solovyov and Solovyov's philosophical/theological perspective is the starting point for our own distinctive theology. I don't think it is a via media between Rome and Constantinople (or Moscow) as some think, but rather it is a legitimate interpretation/development from the patristic era which we as Byzantines represent. It will also help us re-establish ourselves in this time of post-latinization era of our church, and in doing so, as we need to do, establish a reason for someone to be Byzantine instead of just going with the flow in the US and becoming Roman.

Brendan,

My very brief summary does not do full justice to what Father Taft was getting at. I strongly recommend getting the tape and listening to it with care. I will post the details here once the tape is available for purchase through the seminary.

Father Taft is not at all advocating that old, outdated "via media" approach. It bastardizes our tradition, and causes us to bear no fruit. Instead, he believes that we should develop a distinctive theology drawn ENTIRELY FROM OUR EASTERN SOURCES, but influenced by our lived experience as an Eastern Church in communion with the West.

Father Taft believes that the West actually has something positive to contribute, and that our communion with it can be a plus for our life as a Church. He is also critical of the slavish imitation of Orthodox theology that many of us are tempted to engage in. Why? Because it denies the reality of our situation.

Concerning this point, I think that he is right. Byzantine Catholics uncritically adopting Orthodox theology can lead to a certain peculiar identity crisis. I believe that Father Taft included ecclesiology as a subdivision within theology (which it is). Like it or not, we are in communion with the West. This fact needs to have some place in our theology. Otherwise, we are hypocrites.
If we believe that the Orthodox ecclesiology is perfect and pristine, what the heck are we doing wasting our time being in communion with the heretical West? The only logical conclusion is to become Orthodox. This is especially clear to those who have no ethnic ties to the Byzantine Church.

Of course, my summary cannot do justice to Taft's position. You will have to listen to the tape to get the full picture.

Anthony

Alex,

It's not the "theology" that gave rise to the current state of the Eastern Catholic Churches that's dead. First, we need to recognize that the Eastern Catholics Churches (we'll omit the Maronites for this discussion) pretty much came into existence because of problems with the Orthodox from a political standpoint (as brilliantly explained by Fr. Taft!). Even if we grant the presence of a political agenda in the formation of the Eastern Catholic Churches (a point I'm not completely willing to concede), there is still validity in the existence of those Churches.

Any Church that validly exists has a right to define, for itself, certain characteristics that are, at the core, the sine qua non of their existence. Most of this, regardless of whether we are speaking of Latin, Eastern Catholic or Orthodox is the same -- it's the kerygma and the patristic writings coupled with the Ecumenical Councils.

What makes each Church unique is the self-definition that it carries about as part of its consciousness. Why is a Russian Orthodox Church different from a Greek Orthodox Church? Clearly it's not primarily theological but, rather, ecclesiological and sociological.

What makes an Eastern Catholic Church different from a Latin Catholic Church? The theologies are 98% identical so it's not primarily theological. It is, in fact, in how that theology is lived out.

Is there a great significant difference between, say, a metany and a genuflection? Of course not -- yet each fit nicely within their own constructs and not well in the other (although the metany is actually found in all traditions while the genuflection is not).

Does that help to clarify my thinking on this?

Edward, deacon and sinner

Anthony,

Thanks for the great postings. From the little I have read of Fr. Taft it seems that any sort of "via media" would have been ruled out from the beginning. It is great to hear that he is suggesting a development of theology that accurately reflects the lived experience of the Byzantine Churches. An uncritical acceptance of either the Latin Church's or the Orthodox Churches' theology with no reference to the experience that your Church is now in seems disingenuous.

Henry,

Solovyov is, of course, a genius and it’s sad he’s so under appreciated. I was happy to see him mentioned in the Pope’s “Fides et Ratio.” Hopefully this will encourage further study in his thought by both Eastern and Western theologians and philosophers.

(Don't look so surprised that I agree with you. You're right, this time )

Bless, Reverend Father Deacon!

I agree with you, as I am also a Byzantine Catholic and have no wish not to acknowledge a legitimate reason for the existence of my Church!

Perhaps we don't appreciate the extent to which so many "out there" think we are a carry-over of Rome's Jesuitical uniate approaches to church unity.

Recently, the Orthodox Church told the Pope not to bring a high-ranking Byzantine Catholic prelate with him because he is a "uniate."

And guess what . . .

Fr. Taft's position on ecumenism with the Orthodox, especially in the light of 1946, are not exactly those of Vatican officialdom - to his great credit of course!

I am not trying to demean the need for a Particular Eastern Church theology - heaven forbid!

I am simply saying that, apart from what concerns Eastern theology experts, it may be one of the greatest "nobody gives a darns" of contemporary times.

That is not to say we shouldn't go ahead with it, only that the attitude of the Vatican is that we should be as "Orthodox" as possible and as quiet as possible about the Unia.

I think the main priority for the Eastern Churches now is to develop a "theology of legitimate existence" for itself that Rome can officially accept apart from any condescending "yes we know you are here, good boys!"

Again, I just don't think we appreciate how much we are not appreciated by both Rome and Orthodoxy (apart from Brendan who is too wonderful for words!).

I wish we had you in my Eparchy, Fr. Deacon!

Alex

>>>What does Fr. Taft mean by the ban being no longer alive? I mean, technically we know we can have ordained
married men -- if Rome approves of the candidate. Is this what he really means? Does he thinks Rome would approve
every candidate proposed, and thus it is "dead" - or -- does he think that if our next Metropolitan seeks to change the
Canons again, we will get it so we don't even need that approval from the Vatican?<<<

Based on Taft's statements to the Eastern Catholic bishops in November 1999, I believe he means that the requirement for Vatican approval is merely an interim measure meant to appease the Latin hierarchy, and that all submissions would be approved pro forma. Taft was particularly harsh on the Eastern bishops for choosing NOT to recognize this fact as an excuse NOT to ordain married men. Last year, old Archbishop Sulyk returned from the Ukrainian Greek Catholic synod in Lviv, and stated quite bluntly that he did not favor married priests. That is the attitude agaist which Taft is inveighing.

>>>What makes an Eastern Catholic Church different from a Latin Catholic Church? The theologies are 98% identical so
it's not primarily theological. It is, in fact, in how that theology is lived out.<<<

I was tempted to point out that homo sapiens share 98% of their genes with the chimpanzee, but then I thought that would start a fight over who is who.