Monomakh - I couldn't agree more; the failure to release this letter betokens a displeasing aroma. But there is no reason to blame this on Father Archimandrite Robert.

Fr. Serge

According to this thread, Fr. Archimandrite Robert Taft celebrates the Divine Liturgy according to the Russian recension. Strangely enough, he doesn't appear in any of the online directories of Russian Catholic clergy and chapels (unlike Fr. Archimandrite Serge Keleher). Where does Fr. Taft regularly celebrate the Divine Liturgy?

Nicholas should note that I have not bought any propaganda
line inasmuch as I have read but little of the propaganda.Whether
the revision of the Ruthenian Liturgy was well- or ill-done,
and to what extent is not a matter I will discuss since I am
not a Ruthenian. In any event,we are both agreed that the responsibility lies with the bishops.

My problem has been with the attacks on Fr. Taft, which is
my business since he is a priest (and Mitred Archimandrite)
of my Church. Nicholas himself states that Fr. Taft did
what he was mandated to do, and moreover went beyond
that in providing private criticisms of elements he was not mandated to review.

There have been irresponsible and uncharitable allegations
made against Fr.Taft in this thread which leads me to think
that some of us should stop agonizing so much over the Revised Liturgy and agonize more about the state of our souls.
It's the time of year for it.

On a more worldly note, people who rant, rave and make wild
statements are very easily and quickly written off by bureaucrats, clerical or lay. You may well have good reason
to be upset, but you also want to be heeded. That is not the
way to make it happen.

Edmac

"Where does Fr. Taft regularly celebrate the Divine Liturgy?"

The Church of Saint Athony the Abbot, the Russian National Church attached to the Russicum and Oriental Institute.

Fr. Deacon Lance

What uncharitable accusations are those? If anything uncharitable has been alleged, please report it to the moderator.

1. I disagree with Fr. Taft (if indeed he approves of the Revision of the Liturgy of our Church).

2. I do not understand how he can write what he does about the integrity of the Russian Recension, and then approve of the demise of the Ruthenian Recension. It seems like a double standard or at least a contradiction, please correct me if I am wrong?

Because I do not agree with him, and point out what seems to be a contradiction, does that make me uncharitable? I don't think so. All it means, is that I don't agree with him, and I don't understand the contradiction. Gentlemen may disagree. It happens all the time, it is not unchatirable or an allegation. It is a disagreement.

I think it is uncharitable, that every time someone is bold enough to hold another opinion, they are accused of being 'uncharitable'.

Nick

Nicholas: I was not accusing you personally of being uncharitable, and I would have to go through this rather
distasteful thread to identify those who were and what they
said.

1) I have no problem at all with you disagreeing with Fr.Taft
about the revision of the Liturgy, but, as you yourself have
said, his mandate (I actually don't like that word, but it's useful) was restricted. In what,specifically, do you think he
was wrong? Remember, we are talking about things that are
or might be seen to be expressly contrary to the Faith.
Language is not one of the issues, since Rome has tolerated
politically correct language in the Roman Rite for forty years.
(Not to mention miserably bad translations, but that may perhaps
be changing).

2)Your second point pretty much echos the first. He was not
asked if he LIKED the way the Liturgy was revised, but if the
revision was theologically ACCECPTABLE. From what you said,
he didn't like the way it was done, but that was outside his
jurisdiction. It may be that he thinks the Russian Recention
the greatest thing since sliced bread and the Revised Ruthenian
Liturgy a pretty poor piece of work, but it's not his job to
fix that. Again, you have said that he wrote to your bishops
with criticisms. What more could he do? He's not the Pope, and
they don't have to pay any attention to him as long as he
doesn't tell them they've violated orthodoxy.

(I wonder what the language of the revision he reviewed were
in, or languages, perhaps. English only? Also Slavonic?
Rusyn? Slovak? Magyar? Can you be politically correct
in Slavonic?)

Edmac

I am not a Ruthenian either, but I have written an entire book expressing serious criticisms of the revised Divine Liturgy.

Does my name appear in some directory of Russian clergy? I'm not aware of it, and I am not a Russian (I'm Irish, in case anyone doesn't already know it!).

By the way, Saint Antony's in Rome is a Russian Catholic Church, not a Russian National Church.

Fr. Serge

Fr. Serge: You may have the standing to do so. I do not.
Nor do I have a desire to stick my nose in where it might not
be wanted.

That you are a New Yorker of Irish descent and present Irish
habitation I am well aware, since we have met on a number
of occasions.

Who ever suggested that you were of the Russian Church? That you
have celebrated in a Russian church more than once I bear
eyewitness.

What has St. Anthony's in Rome got to do with anything?

Edmac

Edmac

Father, bless!

You are listed here:

http://stmichaelruscath.org/outbound/parishes/ireland.php

I didn't claim that you are of Russian ethnicity or nationality. What I meant was that you are listed as a member of the clergy of the Russian Catholic Church worldwide.

I guess St. Antony the Abbot in Rome is where Fr. Archimandrite Taft "liturgizes" regularly.

Upon reviewing my comments posted earlier in this thread, I would amend a few things.
First, when I stated that Father Taft "is a Modernist", I probably went beyond what I am capable of knowing about him, since I've never heard him state that to be the case, nor have I seen anywhere that he has defended classical theological Modernists, such as Loisy or Tyrrell. Rather, given the opinions he has expressed on the Roman Liturgy, especially his praise of Bishop Trautman, a defender of the horrid, politically-correct, pedestrian, ICEL (tho older incarnation of ICEL-prior to Vox Clara) English translation of the Novus Ordo Mass, an enemy of those, in Rome and elsewhere, who want to clean up that bad translation in the Latin Church, his hostility toward Liturgiam Authenticam, along with his praise, in writing, of Raymond Brown in the area of Scripture, and, given that his work has received the praise of notable dissidents such as Richard Mc Brien (who dissents against many moral teachings of the Magisterium), it would probably be more accurate for me to state that it is my opinion that Fr. Taft may have neo-modernist leanings, since Trautman, Brown, and Mc Brien tend to move in neo-modernist circles, and it is the neo-modernists who have an agenda against Liturgiam Authenticam. I have nothing against Fr. Taft, personally. But, I do disagree, vehemently, with him in the areas outlined above.
Secondly, when I stated that I had viewed an Easter Liturgy presided over by Bishop Trautman on TV, my memory failed me at that time. I now remember that it was presided over by Bishop Pila of Cleveland (another "Progressivist"). But, I am sure that Bishop Trautman would probably have approved of what went on around Bishop Pila. Just looking to "clear the air" on some things.

In Christ,
Dn. Robert

Fair enough, Fr. Deacon Robert.

Maybe it's time to close this one down?

Edmac

I agree . No sense in "beating a dead horse". Let's look for some live ones!

Dn. Robert