From: Open Question to Father David Petras thread:



I thought this deserves special scrutiny since the above linked document by Fr. Taft is quite current and addresses the much invoked Liturgiam Authenticam.


I appreciate Fr. Taft's blunt style for getting to the point but I also found it quite polarizing. I found myself agreeing with some of his conclusions while being bewildered by the data he gives and its interpretation. For example:



I can also see his views being compatible with, or perhaps even influencing, the course -- the fixes ??? -- taken by the RDL.

Dn. Anthony

Pope Benedict XVI has spoken out strongly in favor of Liturgiam Authenticam. He has condemned the use of neutered language. From what Father Taft has written are we to conclude that he believes that Pope Benedict XVI is in need of "better liturgical formation" because he is leading the "reform of the reform"?

Maybe the fact that Father Taft rejects Liturgiam Authenticam explains how Archbishop Basil and the other bishops managed to ignore it?

Nothing is more unfortunate than Eastern Catholic theologians praising the liturgical reform that gave us the Novus Ordo, not to speak of the disastrous ICEL translations of the same. If folks like them, who are supposed to have an "Orthodox" understanding of the sacred, fail to see the damage that the liturgical reform and the ICEL inflicted on the Western liturgy, then how can we hope that the Eastern Catholics will indeed fully embrace their proper liturgical heritage? No, all of this bodes continued liturgical disaster in the Catholic CHurch, East and West (But at least, we in the West now have Summorum Pontificum)

You nailed it. I read the above link. Like many Jesuits, Taft is a Modernist. In the above link, he cites all the wrong sources-Bp. Trautman of Erie, for one. Trautman is horrible. He is an absolute dissident against orthodoxy. I, to my horror, watched an "Easter Liturgy" presided over by Bishop Trautman a few years ago on TV. There was a gaggle of women liturgical dancers in strange white robes bearing strange-looking incense bowls as part of the service. Trautman is heavy into dumbed-down, feminist, "inclusive" language, and is an enemy of Benedict XVI, and has rejected the work of the newly-established ICEL in producing an accurate translation of the Latin-Rite Novus Ordo Mass. I have, in my possession, a book by Taft entitled Beyond East & West, Problems in Liturgical Understanding . What is telling are some of the authors of favorable reviews of the book. One is written by Fr. Richard Mc Brien, a "theologian" who headed the Dept. of Theology at Notre Dame University (not a place to send one's children for an authentic Catholic education). He is a dissident against the accepted moral teachings of the Church. He is a priest of the Diocese of Brooklyn, NY. But, his column is banned by the Brooklyn Diocesan newspaper. In that book, Taft heaps praise on Raymond Brown's treatment of the infancy narratives of the Gospels. Brown is of dubious orthodoxy, and has taught that there are errors in Scripture (contrary to the teachings of the Magisterium-i.e. Providentissimus Deus of Leo XIII). Also, this Msgr. McManus for whom the award in the link is named, is, by reputation. one of the worst liturgical "wreckovators" in the Latin Rite Church in the U.S. I have heard that it was Taft who reviewed and approved the RDL before getting Patriarch Daoud to approve it. The above link would tend to lend support to that rumor. God help and save us.

In Christ,
Dn. Robert

Yes, one man in the same age as the group of Ruthenian Byzantines who designed this new Liturgy. Of course he would approve it -- he's a modernist too, from that same hippie dippie era.

All I have to see is the name Trautman and I know exactly where he stands!

"I can also see his [Fr. Taft's] views being compatible with, or perhaps even influencing, the course -- the fixes ??? -- taken by the RDL."

I am quite certain that when asked who was on the committee in the OC which approved the RDL, Fr. Taft responded, "You're looking at him."

Wow!!! Trautman, McBrien, Brown!!!

This explains a lot!

How very sad that this was permitted to seep into the Byzantine Catholic Church.

http://www.fdlc.org/NationalMeetings/Hartford/2007-McManusAward.htm

Fr. Taft shows his "true colors" on the above link. This is what I find to be especially galling. I don't trust Jesuits, to begin with (except for a noted few).

Dn. Robert

Father Taft is an incredible scholar and historian. His work is wonderful gift to the Church and will help understand the development of our Liturgy.

But the problem with liturgical historians (and historians in general) is that they tend to think that Liturgy reached perfection somewhere between the Mystical Supper and the beginning of the fifth century. After that it was all downhill as the Spirit went on vacation.

Liturgy - good Liturgy - is something carefully sculpted by the Holy Spirit over many centuries. A historian picking and choosing assorted customs from various times in history based on his personal likes and dislikes is only going to create something which does not work and chases people away. It is always best to stick with the official books, allow some liberty where appropriate, and let God work. That way no one gets hurt.

Well put. What you are describing is known as "organic development". In the Western Church, that was in place until the Novus Ordo Liturgy, the product of a committee consisting of a very suspect Archbishop and several Protestant clergy/advisors.

Dn. Robert

On the Novus Ordo: I have just commented in the Modernism thread.

While I cannot agree with Archimandrite Robert that the liturgical renewal in the West has been a great success, that is due to the infidelity and disobedience of clerics. The fact that there has been abuse he does seem to recognize.

Whether he also recognizes the extent of the abuses he alludes to is doubtful.

He is right to say that the Western Church should concentrate on fixing what was poorly done or not done at all. I also cannot agree with him on the language issue, however.

I must say, with all due respect to Dn. Robert, that I find it somewhat comic to accuse Archimandrite Robert of modernism, considering that he chose to live the liturgical and spiritual life of the Russian-Orthodox Church in Union with Rome. Nothing less open to Modernism can be imagined.

Perhaps Archimandrite Robert is suffering from Ivory Tower Syndrome. He is an academic. He has been working for years on a history of the Byzantine Liturgy. He celebrates the Russian Liturgy. How much personal experience has he of how the Western Mass has been dealt with in the parishes of the world? Maybe not much. How closely has he studied the ICEL texts? One wonders. One wonders, too, what he would have said if he had viewed that amazing Easter Liturgy of Bp. Trautman's that Dn. Robert refers to.

edmac

Dear Edmac,

I base my comments on Fr. Taft's comments relative to Liturgy in that piece that was posted, as well as on his tendency to "run" with those of modernist inclination, i.e., Richard McBrien, Raymond Brown, Bishop Trautman, et al. As to his living the Russian liturgical and spiritual life, I do remember Pius X commenting that many modernists will use the same externals as the orthodox, but simply attach different meanings to them. At least, this is my "read" on Robert Taft. Hoping that I am wrong!

In Christ,
Dn. Robert

P.S. I am still holding open the possibility of getting to your Russian Catholic parish in the near future-probably in a month or two.

This would have been my appraisal also. So I was somewhat bewildered to read this in his remarks:




As an historian I'm sure he is aware of the background of “semper reformanda” as the clarion call of Lutheranism and Protestantism; it is a phrase with significant theological implications. But just to be precise, did the Council (VC II) actually use that phrase, as he states?

I did find this, REFLECTIONS BY CARD. WALTER KASPER :



One does find in the DECREE ON ECUMENISM, UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO, the (also) more nuanced "Christ summons the Church to continual reformation [perennem reformationem] as she sojourns here on earth."

Dn. Anthony

Mine as well; his Liturgy of the Hours in the East and West is the best yet on the subject in my opinion.

But sometimes a good bull can get into the wrong pasture and make a lot of trouble.

I came across the ending of Father Taft's most interesting article "The Evolution of the Byzantine Divine Liturgy" in Orientalia Christiana Periodica XLIII, Roma 1977, p. 8-30.

This quote is very appropriate to the discussion and really bolsters the position I have supported (stick to the official books and let God work in His own time):


Trust the living tradition! Wonderful! Definitely a message worth listening to. Sensus Fidelum anyone?

It seems his own tastes and opinions have "evolved" as well. His essay Russian Liturgy: Mirror of the Russian Soul from 1986 that I use in my college class is even stronger about the necessary integrity of the Russian liturgy and praises fidelity to the received tradition.
FDRLB

Chuckle! This morning at Divine Liturgy antidoron was placed into my hand by Archimandrite Robert Taft, S.J.! Talk about it being a small world. If only he would have had the time to sit and talk I would have had a thousand questions....

Many years, Archimandrite Robert!

Maybe he doesn't expect the same high standards of us poor Ruthenians, as he expects from the Russians? Could it be that he still feels that the Russian recension should be maintained, but that the Ruthenian recension is not worth keeping?

Nick

The revision of the Ruthenian Liturgy was undertaken at the
direction of the Ruthenian bishops, who have the right to do
so. That revision was then submitted to Rome who assigned Fr.
Taft, as the resident expert on Byzantine Liturgy, to determine
if it was acceptable. He judged that it was. It was not his
business to impose his opinions of what constitutes "high
standards" on the Ruthenian bishops. If some members of the BCC
are not happy with what was done, they have no right to blame it
on Fr. Taft, as if he had imposed it on them. Let them address
their bishops.

My parish celebrates the Liturgy according to Russian Orthodox
Synodal use. Now, only only Fr. Alexander Schmemann but the
highly conservative Russian Orthodox hierarchy (in 1917) considered that the Russian Liturgy was in need of revision.
For Fr. Schmemann's views see:

http://www.jacwell.org/Supplements/liturgical_practices.htm

Liturgies change. They accumulate accretions. There is nothing
sacrosanct about any of these, even if they have been in use
for centuries. It is certainly appropriate that the responsible
hierarchs review the form of Liturgy as celebrated in their days
to ensure that it has not become overgrown with unnecessary
additions. Such work must certainly be done with care and reverence, but it should be done. How well the revision question
was or was not done is not something I can address, not being
of that Church.

Edmac

I would say that it is understood where the buck stops -- the Bishops -- but a reasonable question has been raised as to where is may have started -- Fr Taft(?).



That link and Fr. Schmemann's views have been discussed recently on this forum with some of the most forceful criticisms coming from Orthodox participants.

That was done to the most general extent ca. 1941 culminating in the publications according to the Ruthenian Recension link . Everyone seems to agree that it was done quite well. The present debate is whether its translation into English and implementation in the form of the RDL is sub-standard and defective.

Dn. Anthony

I don't think so. Were you there? This misinformation needs to be corrected, in case anyone thinks it is true.

The Liturgical commission was authorized to correct any errors in the translation, to prepare a new edition of the Liturgy. They were never asked to revise, rewrite, reorganize or reinvent the Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom. In the long illness of the then episcopal moderator, this group got carried away, and clearly exceeded their remit. The rest of the bishops were then bullied into accepting this revision, mostly against their will.

Father Taft is on record as saying that he was not asked to review the work of the revision. He was only asked to check for heresy and grave moral error. He does not approve of the Revision. In fact, he wrote three pages of criticisms of the work, it was not an approval, and that is why the bishops cannot publish the letter.

Fr. Alexander's work was great, but it is now dated. Obviously the priestly members of the committee, invoke his name (as they invoke Fr. Taft), who very much championed the liberal liturgical ideas of the last generation. People need to read the journals, and the current liturgical theology to see just how much this debate has ensnared the Roman Catholic Church, and divided scholars and polarized the argument. That the committee for the Revision of the Liturgy has taken our Church into these terrible waters is a great scandal. By espousing loose translations, re-interpretations, inclusive language nonsense, and wholesale rewriting of sections of the Liturgy, they have made a political statement out of our new Revised Liturgy, and taken us all along a road we did not need to travel.

Yes, the Bishops have a duty to direct the Liturgy, and authorize translations. BUT, they should have also carefully considered their duty to preserve the tradition, hand on the heritage they have received WHOLE and ENTIRE. They have the duty to work together with other Greek Catholic Churches and the Orthodox. They have the duty to guard the consciences of the faithful. They have the duty to pastoral care, protecting the flock of Christ, and preserving it from the temptations of this generation.

Yes, the bishops have the authority to authorize translations. But whether they have the authority to revise our common Liturgy, and rewrite bits of it that they think are out of date or out of style, is another matter. I hope that Rome looks at this again, and this time, they don't give it to Fr. Taft.

Edmac has obviously bought the propaganda line, and the half truths that have been spun to support this bad job, a poor attempt to revise a Liturgy, that needed no revision at all.

Nick

I'm confused regarding what this is saying about Taft: "Does he or doesn't he"?

Father Archimandrite Robert is in no need of defence from me. But since we have been friends for decades, it perhaps behooves me to speak up anyway.

We do not always agree - but I can assure anyone that whosoever would disagree with Father Robert would be well advised to have his sources at his fingertips. Father Robert does not express stentorian opinions on matters concerning which he is not qualified.

Modernism? He admires modernity to some extent, but that is not the same phenomenon. If I were "writing tongue in cheek", so to speak, I might comment that I find the Russian Nikonian Liturgy, which Father Robert uses on a daily basis, is from my preferred vantage point clear evidence of a predilection for modernism - but then my preferred liturgical vantage point is the pre-Nikonian tradition maintained by the Old Ritualists. And to return to being serious, Father Robert is far from being closed to that pre-Nikonian tradition.

I've never heard him suggest that any "Golden Age of Liturgy" existed, and the only reason that might conceivably move him to attempt a "renactment" of a liturgical form currently in desuetude could be the possibility such an exercise might offer for study and education. As he himself has both said and written, the liturgical historian provides others with some of the raw material in the work of liturgiology.

His contributions to the study of the Byzantine Liturgy are both invaluable and incalculable. We would be very much the poorer if we did not have him and his work. For us, it is an act of selfishness to wish him most sincerely: Mnogaia Lieta!

Fr. Serge

Father bless!

I don't doubt for a minute all the wonderful things you say about him. But the Revisionists say he approves of the Revised Divine Liturgy. This is one point on which Fr. Taft and I would disagree. From what he has written (cited above) about the Russian Liturgy, do you not see a worrying contradiction?

Nick

Interesting. I'd like to develop this a little more. Do we have an authoritative source to invoke?

Dn. Robert

No, we only have hearsay. Nothing authoritative, because they won't publish the letter in question. Until they do, we only have third and fourth hand reports of it.

Nick

Dear Nicholas,

Yes, I do see a contradiction - which is why I prefer to reserve judgement until and unless I see an authenticated text of this letter.

Fr. Serge

It is admirable to not rush to judgment, however the mere fact that the letter has not been shared just doesn't pass the stink test, something is up with the letter and concealing it only fuels speculation and rumor.

Monomakh

Hmmm, What they don't know won't hurt them?

Prayers for the restoration of the official Ruthenian liturgy.

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