www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News TAFT ARTICLE IN AMERICA

Be sure to get the latest (May 26 - June 2) issue of "America" magazine and read the superb article by Fr. Robert Taft, SJ, on liturgical reform in the West. Fr. Taft's deep knowledge of liturgical history, both the East and West, provides many helpful insights.

UGCC readers particularly will also appreciate the excellent photo of Patriarch Lubomyr and Fr. Mark Morozowich of Catholic U. in DC, that accompanies the article.

Will you be able to get the article out online? I will ask one of the Jesuit priests around tmrw if he is going to get the latest issue.

Fr. Robert Taft was by the way, spoken highly by one of our Malaysian bishops who, prior to his episcopal appointment, was the Regional Assistant to former Jesuit Father-General Hans Kolvenbach.

The article is available on-line only to subscribers. There is an extract (with the photo) on the website <www.americamagazine.org [americamagazine.org]>.

Posting the �teaser� to an article in a magazine on another website is almost always acceptable under �fair use�.

I am eager to see the entire article, but I don�t subscribe to America magazine. I do think that there are a few things we can discuss from the teaser. As the leader of the �Reform of the Reform� Pope Benedict XVI (and those who support the effort) most certainly do not �look back in anger�. I believe it much more a matter of reforming the problematic elements of what was accomplished in the name of Vatican II and which probably would not have been acceptable to the Council Fathers themselves. Father Taft himself notes that the �reform mandated by the council was not perfect�. His attribution of "anger" to those who disagree with some or all of the Vatican II reforms is unfair, and immediately places the whole article under question.

The renewal of the Liturgy of the Latin Church did not begin with Vatican II. It was already well underway. One can see evidence in this with the experimentation in the 1950s and early 1960s of giving the texts normally recited by the altar server back to the people, with a lesser experimentation of using the vernacular. Surely this trend would have continued even without Vatican II.

I will be very curious to see the listing of the parts of the reform that Father Taft considers not to have been done well.

I will also note that one does not base a reform on the opinions of historians alone, even though they be scholars as tremendous as Father Taft. Historians tend to think that some point in history contained the perfect liturgy. Or, sometimes, they tend to pick and choose this and that from different times in the near and distant past and kludge them together for something they consider to be perfect. Liturgical renewal must always start and respect what has been received, as it has been received. Change must be organic and be accomplished slowly so that people are not hurt. We can see the hurt caused by the forced Vatican II reform in the Latin Church and in the Ruthenian Catholic Church with the 2007 liturgical revisions.

Finally, since it will probably enter into this discussion, I will give my two cents on what the Latin Church should do, limiting these suggestions to pastoral ones. First, I�d continue with the preparation of accurate translations (as literal and as elegant as is possible). Second, I�d have the priest face East (the altar) for the Eucharistic Prayer. Third, I�d make it possible for the individual priest to pray the Eucharistic Prayer quietly. [These last two elements are based upon Cardinal Ratzinger�s analysis of the problems in the Mass of the Latin Church.] Finally, I�d slowly work towards a better quality of music for the proper texts of the Mass rather than anchoring the Mass around four hymns. That would be more then enough change for one generation.

It might have been advisable to allow Fr. Taft's article to speak for itself before succumbing to an attack of "cachoethes commentandi" (itch to comment). One of the unfortunate things about this forum is the tendency of some contributors to shift the focus of a topic away from the theme or issue raised in the first posting. I do not necessarily have any problrms with the Administrator's views, but I would rather let folks read Fr, Taft's entire article and then see an exchange of views on what he said, rather than veer off into an exchange of views on what the Administrator has written.

Tim,

A good post. You are most correct. I recommend that my post above be understood to comment only on the "teaser".

John

I am definitely NOT a fan of Robert Taft. The above excerpt is pretty much in line with some prior comments of his posted on this board from his recent talk at a Jesuit function in Arizona. He thinks that inclusive language is wonderful, he saw Liturgiam Authenticam as problematic, and commented very positively about Bishop Donald Trautman of Erie, Pa., also an enemy of Liturgiam Authenticam, and of the "Reform of the Reform". America Magazine, in recent years, has been out there leading the forces of dissent against Catholic orthodoxy. Of course, it is Jesuit, and they, with some exceptions (Miceli, Fessio, Pacwa), have been problematic in recent years. Just my two cents.

Dn. Robert Behrens

I see that Deacon Robert continues in the tradition of some other contributors. I am not sure that such "venting" is helpful. If anyone reads the ariticle and disagrees with it, let them post their reasoned criticisms, by all means.

Because I've read Taft in the past, and have some of his books at home, along with having read the text of the aforementioned Arizona talk, I feel that I can comment with some accuracy as to where his mind is on these issues. I would be shocked if the America article produced anything but an affirmation of my comments. With all of that being said, I'd be happy to read the article if somebody will produce a copy of it.

Dn. Robert

I am rethinking my earlier post. While Tim certainly has a valid point about commenting on the whole article, it is certainly fair to note that Father Taft starts off on the wrong foot by stating that those who disagree with his position that the Vatican II renewal was an "overwhelming success" really just "look back in anger".

Acknowledging again that Tim has a point about needing to read the whole article, I think that Deacon Robert also has a valid point that the "teaser" is standard Taft.

Maybe Tim can give us a summary of the remainder of the article?

John-

Father Robert would be the first one to disagree with your statement about historians and the perfect liturgy. It was in fact as a result of his historical research that Fr Taft would say the notion of the "perfect liturgy" on earth is a construct of the person who has no sense of history (my paraphrase).

Deacon Robert-

I was present for Fr Robert's address in Phoenix, I was not aware the text was available. Is it online?


Regarding the actual topic at hand, Fr Robert Taft is critical of Vatican II on 3 points- Initiation, Liturgy of the Hours, and Communion from the Tabernacle.

Initiation- the holistic patristic unity of was dissolved during the Middle Ages, and further devolved by Pius X. As a result of communion before confirmation, penance became an initiation rite of the Latin Church.

Liturgy of the Hours- in the revision of the Divine Office, the communal office of prayer essentially became an office of private prayer. As a result, it is no longer liturgy, but truly a breviary.

Communion from the Tabernacle- in spite of magisterial teaching, this abuse continues as common practice in the West.

You might be correct that Father Taft would disagree with my statement about historians and perfect liturgy. And yet some of what he has written and several interviews in recent years seem to testify that while he may not think he can offer a perfect liturgy based upon selections through history he most definitely does have opinions on the content of the reform, East and West. Any man who starts an article that says those who disagree with some (or much) of the Vatican II Liturgical Reform in the Latin Church �look back in anger� is not speaking as an unbiased historian!

I suppose, though, that one must define the term �perfect liturgy� � and perhaps there is a better term that can be used. Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky offers something helpful here. In his critique �The Liturgical Theology of Fr. A. Schmemann� (1962) Protopresbyter Pomazansky wrote: �The Typicon, in the form which it has taken down to our time in its two basic versions, is the realized idea of Christian worship; the worship of the first century was kernel which has grown into maturity in its present state, when it has taken its finished form. We have in mind, of course, not the content of the services, not the hymns and prayers themselves, which often bear the stamp of the literary style of an era and are replaced by one of another, but the very system of Divine services, their order, concord, harmony, consistency of principles and fullness of God�s glory and communion with the Heavenly Church on the one hand, and on the other the fullness of expression of the human soul � from Paschal hymns to Great Lenten lamentations over moral falls.�

So I will agree with Father Taft when he says that there is no perfect liturgy to be created by picking and choosing from various points in history. And I will also note that Liturgy is something that continues to develop organically (mature) under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Taft certainly has a voice in liturgical renewal. But so does Pomazansky. And good pastors.

Thank you for your listing of the 3 points that Father Taft is critical about Vatican II (Initiation, Liturgy of the Hours, and Communion from the Tabernacle). I am curious about the content of this article since upon those 3 points there is much agreement across the Latin Church, and Father Taft would stand with Pope Benedict XVI on many or most of those elements. The issues with the order of the Sacraments of Initiation can and will be fixed. One of the bishops in the Dakotas (or maybe one of the surrounding states) did a very good pastoral instruction on the history of these Sacraments as celebrated in the West as part of why he was making some changes (although the renewal will need be accomplished across several generations). Communion from the tabernacle is difficult as there is a tendency never to want to �run out� of the Eucharist. [Maybe that can be solved by moving back to a real loaf and having more deacons to do the ablutions?]

PS to Tim: Sorry, Tim! But a summary of the remainder of the article would be helpful!

Here is a link. I thought it was the Phoenix address. As it turns out, it was an address in Hartford, Conn. I have to plead "senior moment" (age 57-creeping old age).
Dn. Robert

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

From the article I gleamed that he is a "Spirit of Vatican II" person...& I can't post a comment about Bishop Trautman.

Sorry...

There a two comments by Fr. Taft that are highly questionable and offensive. The first:


"Reputable Catholic "scholars and theologians" have "whipsawed the laity" as Ralph McInerny argues in his book, The Catholic Crisis Explained. (McInerny of course is as great a modern scholar as one can find.) How did the scholars and theologians do this? As McInerny argues, they set themselves up as a rival magisterium in competition with the Magisterium. I think this happened not only in matters of faith and morals, but liturgy as well.

Furthermore, Fr. Taft insults many faithful Catholics who have adhered to the Magisterium and have suffered at the hands of the "scholars" because of their faithfulness.

To the second point:


Fr. Taft himself publically speaks ill against an authorative document of the Roman Church by referring to it as "unfortunate" and telling his listeners that the scholars know better.

We, the laity, are fortunate indeed that the man who now sits in the chair of Peter is himself the finest of scholars and a man of incredible faith. As he writes in his book, The Spirit of the Liturgy,



One need not be a liturgical scholar to see that the first 40 years of liturgical renewal after Vatican II were a dance around the liturgical golden calf. One need only have the eyes to see.