www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West I am Concerned about Fr Robert F Taft

I must say beforehand that I hope I am not violating any rules by asking a question about a specific person. A person who I have met once at a conference and casually admire from a distance. If this post has violated any rules I respect and agree to it's removal and will remember not to make the mistake in the future - if in fact I have made one at all.


I came across this interview a few months ago
NCR Taft Interview link [ncronline.org]



Fr. Robert Taft appears to be well known in certain circles, being the foremost liturgical scholar in the world or a similar type of expert. I have showed this particular quote regarding the Papacy being a problem to a western canon lawyer(he's never even been in an Eastern liturgy before) and he believes that Fr Robert may have an "agenda" to promote which is not truly "Catholic".

#1 I would like to know what others have to say about his comments in this interview.

#2 I would like to know if anyone has knowledge to show he disagrees with the magisterium or important (papal) Catholic teachings - meaning he has his own agenda.

#3 the National Catholic Reporter appears to have a reputation as being a magazine destructively criticizing the (papal) Catholic Church and many of its most central teachings, featuring dissidents such as Sr Joan Chichester. Does Fr. Robert Taft know this and recognize that his appearance in this magazine may not be the most prudent decision to have made if he wishes to have respect from other (especially westerners that never heard of him) Catholics?

with wishes to a heavenly reward to all hardworking virtuous brothers and sisters,

Xristoforos.

I don't approve of the tone of the above article. However, he makes some valid points. In the light of the Eastern Churches the Pope really shouldn't be appointing Bishops. I can't for the Western Church.

Speaking as a Latin I have no problem with anything Fr. Taft said. Everything he mentioned as a recommended change is something that was once the way it worked. There's nothing he said which violates Catholic tradition, though it certainly would be a change in modern Canon Law, which is precisely what Fr. Taft is recommending.

I don't even especially mind the tone; he's always rather forward and brusque, but he's also a very dedicated Catholic.

Peace and God bless!

Is it directly against Church teaching, no at least it doesn't appear to be so because he is making a historical point.

I do not agree with him though.

The evolution of the papacy, while it is something that troubles east west relationships, I believe has been guided by the Holy Spirit. Yes, we could have a synodal structure like the East, but in the West I think we need a figurehead. Our Tradition arises from Medieval Europe where a central figure was indeed someone to rally around.

Now it appears to be the same way. The Catholic world rallies around the Pope.

I also think it is a shame to say that there is absolutely nothing in the NT or Tradition that would argue for the modern papacy. Like Peter's speech in Acts of the Apostles, or the intervention of the pope and Rome in the Donatist controversy of ancient africa.

Maybe a slight decrease of strength of the office is needed, but it has served hundreds and thousands of saints and others throughout history for at least the last several hundred years in its current form. I think that this sort of history should be given at least some credit.

I would join myself to the views of the other Latins who have responded before me.

I don't know Father Taft, but I have read a number of his articles, and this interview, and he strikes me as a historian who is feisty about cant, but honest. And he has been employed by the Successor of St. Peter for decades!

I think what he says is his honest opinion. When he says of the Papacy "what we have made of it", he is obviously referring to non-essentials, because the essentials were established by Christ. Others, including canon lawyers, will have their honest opinions.

We'll have to see over the next couple hundred years whose opinion is closer to the truth!

God bless.
Michael

P.S. While NCR is viewed, generally speaking, as having a "liberal" agenda, I think the actual interviewer, John Allen, is well regarded by all as an honest reporter.

I'm as Catholic as they come, I think, and I don't think that the Pope should be naming bishops. Absolutely not.

On the issue of whether the Pope should appoint bishops for the Roman Church, I will refrain from a comment.

However, in light of the fact that the Holy Synod appoints Bishops in both the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox tradition, I don't see Archimandrite Robert's comment as wrong or inflammatory. I agree with Ghosty.

I don't absolutely disagree about whether the Pope should appoint bishops or not. However, the other side of the same question is whether I think the Catholic Church in America would "survive" if American bishops were selected "internally": at the present time, I think not. Will a good time happen in which that becomes a possibility? One can hope so, but only time will tell, so I don't think I'll see it in my lifetime.

You see it wasn't always that way! But for good historical reasons, like the lay investure controversy, the need for a reform of the Church, it became reserved for the Holy See to name Bishops. I for one have no problem with us saying; "Look, now that the problems of the past have realtively been solved, we can set new canons to deal with a new situation.
Churches can appoint their own Bishops, howeve I would think, for the sake of unity and sanity, they need to then be accepted by the Universal Church.
We saw this with the canon which had forbidden cremation, this was instituted because of a real danger to the faith, the denial of the resurrection of the dead. When that danger passed the Church then abrogated that canon and allowed for creamtion.
Stephanos I
After all we have seen a reinstatement of the idea of collegiality renewed by the Council of the West, Vatican II.
Jesus tells us to launch out into the deep, we need to follow in faith and not just remain in the harbour. If we do there will be no catch and the nets will be empty and grow useless.

Spirit of the Living God fall afresh on your Church make her a bold witness to all the ends of the earth, renew us and refresh, recreate us and fashion us and truly you will renew the face of the earth.

Remember, he is suggesting that Rome have veto power and that is important especially when considering places like China or some of the silly things that go on in the US.

That you use an example of an innovation favoured by atheists and enemies of the Church such as cremation which will always be unacceptable to Holy Orthodoxy to compare to a favourable change of Papal authority is a grave error. Until this type of innovative "Vatican II" relativistic mindset ends Catholic and Orthodox Churches will not come close to having communion.

It has become obvious to me that (papal) Catholic Church Communion is confused about what role the Pope should properly have. That there is such ambiguity and disagreement on such an important question amazes me. This does not reflect well on my Church. It does not give my church the strength it needs to grow and expand as the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese has among Anglicans.

We will see what happens to the 1 million Melkite in Brasil, whether they are absorbed by the Latin Church into history or by some miracle they are saved from rite extinction to further contribute as a unique particular sui juris Church within South America for the greater good of God.

Sorry if I sound anti-catholic or pessimistic, this is how I see things at this time.

O Lord and Master of my life, take from me the spirit of sloth, despondency, lust for power and idle talk.

But grant unto me, Thy servant, a spirit of chastity, humility, patience and love.

Xristoforos

Even veto power doesn't seem to be enough.

I guess I would wonder why the pope wouldn't appoint bishops. In the West the controversy comes from over-zealous rulers who liked to put their friends in bishoprics. It forced us to affirm over and over again that bishops are members of the Church, not just the king's friends. Eventually I think this is how power for appointing bishops was consolidated in Rome.

At the moment, I fail to see why that is a bad thing though.

Dear Friends,

I had heard somewhere, perhaps it was EWTN, that cremation was allowed because of dispensation to the Catholics in India, and the deep held traditions of cremation which they held.

If that were or is the case, I do believe that it should have been kept allowable as a dispensation to that local church, and not allowed in the universal church...

I find that burying is so much more respectful of the temple of the Holy Spirit, which will be raised in the second coming.

Ofcourse, ultimately, God will bring back together all bodies, despite the state of their remains...

Just my opinions,
and anyway, we digress!
Alice

Dear Xristoforos,

Please try to be a bit more respectful in addressing a respected and beloved member of the clergy such as Fr. Stephanos. Please choose the words to your opinions and thoughts a bit more carefully and charitably. Thank you.

Alice, Moderator

I have shown no disrespect towards Fr. Stephanos. I stand up for the truth of the Church where others have fallen.

Why do you Alice persecute me for expressing a teaching of the Holy Orthodox Church?

If this is the behavior of an administrator to accuse me of slander than this forum will have no further part in my life.

Please where is there agreement that I have slandered a fellow servant of God? I stand up for truth as best I can. I do not persecute.

Xristoforos,

Calm down!

NO ONE has accused you of slander! NO ONE is persecuting you. If you read my post more clearly and less emotionally, you will see that I have even agreed with you.

All I was saying is that you try to not to come on so strong about differences in our churches.

Thank you,
Alice