www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Fr. Taft article

While this article was a decent read, I felt I had to post this paragraph:

"We must fight to insure that Latinism and Catholicism are no longer synonymous, that Catholicism remains
open to every culture, every spirit, and every form of organization compatible with the unity of faith and
of love. At the same time, by our example,we must force the Orthodox Church to recognize that a union .
. . with the See of Peter can be achieved without their being compelled to give up Orthodoxy or any of the
spiritual treasures of the apostolic and patristic East which is open toward the future no less than toward
the past."

http://www.byzantinecatholic.org/Heritage/taft.pdf

Hmm, force the Orthodox? I would have chosen my words better. No wonder the schism remains unhealed almost a thousand years later.

Hmmm, force is a brute-force word to use but again, where do you think they will be if we just ENCOURAGED them?

Excuse me! This is not an article, this is a pamphlet which Father Archimandrite Robert published almost fifty years ago. Moreover, Father Robert did not write the passage to which you take exception; it is quoted from Patriarch Maximos IV (I've noticed over the last many years that people are increasingly unfamiliar with the significance of quotation marks).

Most importantly of all, what the Patriarch said was:

"by our example,we must force the Orthodox Church to recognize that a union .
. . with the See of Peter can be achieved without their being compelled to give up Orthodoxy"

The Patriarch was not a native speaker of English, so one would naturally give him a bit of leeway. But what he said is not offensive; in fact he anticipated what Vatican II sets forth in Orientalium Ecclesiarum:


It is bad enough that the word Filioque provokes division. There is no need to quote something doubly out of context and simultaneously failing to provide the setting of the text in question. When I make whipped cream, or whipped egg whites, I "force" air into the cream or the egg whites - I trust this does not make me a man of violence and that nobody would consider it proper to refer to an egg beater as a weapon of mass destruction.

Fr. Serge

Fr. Serge, you still haven't lost it. Your wit is still... CLASSIC!

Dear Collin,

Thanks; you reassure me!

Fr. Serge

My bad. It was the Patriarchs words, not Father Taft. Sorry for the misquote. I still think the word "force" is kind of excessive, especially when used in a religious sense.

I must confess myself to be conservative in most things. Language is no different. Turning adjectives into nouns is something I really don't like, but the expression "my bad" really gets on my nerves. What is really so difficult about using the standard English expression "my mistake"? I apologise that I am demonstrating that fact that I am a grouchy middle-aged priest.

Fr David Straut

Be at peace, those who use it are just quoting the bard:


SONNET 112
Your love and pity doth the impression fill
Which vulgar scandal stamp'd upon my brow;
For what care I who calls me well or ill,
So you o'er-green my bad, my good allow?...

-- William Shakespeare

Father David,

I sympathize - and Shakespeare, although admirable, is not always exemplary. I'm a linguistic conservative myself - but I do remember my little brother, as a small child, saying "baddie gum drop", which used to bring a smile to my face! I'm not sure I'd smile at hearing the same thing from an adult.

Fr. Serge

Be at peace, you're not the only one.

I dunno. <- Gratuitous use of bad grammar
Mrs. Dumpty might disagree . . .



hawk

I don't think the word force is really a big deal. I also don't think the Eastern Catholics being a good or bad example is really going to affect things one way or another.

Thank you for rerailing the topic.

P.S., Father Serge, whats the difference between an article and a pamphlet? That was a pretty long pamphlet.

Not to de-rail after a re-rail...

But, "My mistake, pardon me" sounds too formal and educated in some circles where that will get one castigated. Working in a community that is rather racially mixed, I hear folks speak who readily move from one style to the other based on the audience involved.

Dare I suggest their is actually MORE identity politics in how one speaks than there is in the ecclesial world?

I dare!

Sure, the real problem is this


Orthodoxy is not about the maintenance of the apostolic and patristic East, but the apostolic faith of the universal church (East and West) as handed to on to us. Maybe the old fear was that the liturgy will change, or married priests will be banned, or whatever; but that's not the issue.