www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Auto Cephalic Churches

It always makes me sad whenever my wife's low opinion of reading comprehension skills in the general population are confirmed. Therefore, I would prefer to think that you are perfectly aware of what Taft meant, and are simply being disingenuous. For, if you go through the entire article, you can see that all Taft implies in the lines you cited is both sides are correct within the context of their own self-definition. But Taft also makes quite clear that the self-definition of the latinizers is wrong, that the beliefs and practices to which they cling are, for the most part, medieval innovations of the Latin Church which the Latins themselves now disavow (even if they have not totally been able to suppress them), and that the only correct way forward for Eastern Catholics is the reclamation of their authentic Tradition.


Here you are being disingenuous, as the wink indicates. Taft does not advocate the liturgical, spiritual and doctrinal renewal of the Eastern Churches because the "supreme Magisterium" directs it; he advocates it because it is the right and proper thing to do. He recognizes, however, that his audience (which, I remind you again, was the assembly of Eastern Catholic bishops from North America and Australia) do not, for the most part, concur with his point of view. Rather, they believe, implicitly if not explicitly, in the praestantia ritus Latini, and that latinizations make one more authentically Catholic. Since such people also tend to exalt their own personal fidelity to the Holy See, Taft is (in his inimitably sarcastic manner) suggesting that if they are so loyal to the Pope, they should get with the program and do what the Pope has said.

For the most part, it would seem, they have not. Like a lot of Jesuits I met at Georgetown, it's not that they think they are more Catholic than the Pope, but that they need to protect the Pope against his own bad decisions.

I read it slightly differently; that he was just arguing that he is right within his self definition, but he acknowledged that others define themselves differently and that that is ok because however you define yourself ecclesiologically you should end up in the same place, with a properly eastern liturgy.

It is statements like that above that make me glad we do not allow free exegesis of Scripture. I guess you overlooked that part about


And for those who mistakenly believe "ritualism" is a good thing, remember what Jesus said about whitened sephulchres, and Jaroslav Pelikan's telling remark about the "dead faith of the living". We aim to rediscover our Tradition, not bury ourselves in "traditionalism".

A very important point.

I think a lot of Eastern Catholics do a lot to *look* or *act* Byzantine, but leave their mind and their worldview very much anchored in the West.

It ends up doing more harm to the Catholic communion of churches and to ecumenism in general than it does good, and by a lot.

Probably what the Pope was thinking when he pointed this out.

Of course, the same can be said of many Orthodox Churches and Orthodox Christians. It was precisely that which drove Alexander Schmemann to distraction.

You are paraphrasing me poorly. I said it is not the bad thing it is made out to be. A lot of people are trying honestly, but for want of good ritual are lost. Good ritual is important and can represent the beginning of a restoration. Certainly restoration is impossible without it.

On the contrary, the West is over and almost nobody thinks with the mind of the West any more. Instead they think with the mind of this secularist post-modern monster which is at once dying and murderous, and walking around in the suit it stole off the corpse of Western Civilization; it's victim (and father, come to it).

I don't think that invalidates my interpretation of Taft's statement. It builds on that interpretation by saying that those who end up in the same place (eastern liturgy) by some other route than an "interior renewal of Eastern ethos and spirit" (whatever that means - it's subjective, loaded and something that orthodox can't agree on) are ritualists. That's a contestable point and not contingent at all on my interpretation of the statement about "they are both right" being wrong.

I'm not one of those people who believe that texts are simply privileged places in which to broker power relationships. Nor do I believe all narratives are equally valid. You can claim yours is a valid interpretation, but the text as a whole does not support that, nor would the opinions of its author, as expressed in numerous other books, essays and lectures.

I'm happy with that, given that that is exactly what we are dealing with here, opinions. Whether Fr Taft meant what you think he meant or what I think he meant is a question best asked of him. Until that happens I think we are all aware that what is an obvious interpretation of a text to you is not necessarily obvious to other people; that has been demonstrated amply on this forum in many threads.

Absolutely.

I think it bothers me more in the ByzCath sense because of the heavy dual ecumenical burden of our churches. Our errors truly resonate in a unique way, and itcan be very damaging, and discouraging.

I apologize JDC. While I see where you're coming from, I completely disagree with the above statement.

To my mind, what Father Taft is calling ritualism a blind adherence to the rubrics of our liturgies (i.e. the Typikon, Evkologion, Horologion, Menaion etc.) without any knowledge, care or interest in the reasons behind them. I don't think anyone sensible argues against following the current rules or wants to arbitrarily modify them. But I think that this "ritualism" is not good for us.

All prayer is a request, a praise, or an entreaty to God. We do it in a fixed, given way - especially when the body of Christ (the church) is gathered - because holy people before us have given this to us (notwithstanding that our litugies have changed in the past and could change in the future if the Church wanted it to). To worship without any understanding of the purposes behind it - the mystagogies of St Germanus, Nicholas Cabasilas, as well as the liturgical studies we've had from, among others, Father Taft - would show either an ignorance (which would need to be corrected but is not a huge problem) or a lack of true desire to really pray (big problem). In this sense, I'd agree with you that ritual feeds the ethos and the spirit - but all three have to be there,

Even more important is our own interior state. I think our inheritance of and participation in the Son of God's incarnation depends on our willingness to accept Him and cooperate with Him if we really want to be the salt of the earth. The virtues of prayer discussed in, among other places, Metropolitan Kallistos' "The Orthodox Way" - e.g. attentiveness/watchfulness, silence, etc. - are critical to our worship. I think you can perceive this in church, and I think you and even hear this on CD - to my mind, these qualities are what seperates great Byzantine Chant recordings from run-of-the mill recordings. Of course, there are periods of despondency and the like that we often go through when we pray, but we live with that knowing that God is still there.

I don't mean that God is "displeased" or doesn't listen to you if all one does is disinterestedly follow of the ritual. Nor is it to say that our attentiveness "makes" God more likely to do something, or in scholastic terms that the recipient can invalidate a sacrament. But "authenically" praying to my mind shows our willingness to walk with God and participate in his life with us, whereas disinterest or ritualism simply means that we pray because that's what we've always done, and that our hearts are elsewhere. To me, that would be a truly sad disinterest in people of god's Royal Priesthood, and would give no reason for others to participate with us.

Sorry to go on about this and sorry to sound preachy - you may in fact agree with me 100%. I certainly don't disagree that our liturgies are made to edify the people. Maybe my hope that someday I can pray "authentically" and mean what I pray makes me a bit ornery about this.

Soson,

We then should pray for ourselves and pray for each other. Perhaps more people are more sincere in their prayers than either of us imagine.

CDL

Canon 34 of the apostolic canons I would think primarily.

Canon 6 of the First Council of Nicaea recognized the regional primacies of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch, and the authority of those bishops over their neighboring metropolitan provinces. The same canon acknowledges that Church organization should mirror civil organization; i.e., the so-called "principle of accommodation". This had been the de facto organizing principle of the Church almost since its inception, because it was practical and efficient.

So, if one wants to be historical about this (I doubt that's what Daniel wants, but who cares?), in the beginning, all Churches were essentially "autocephlous", in that they were purely local entities, Eucharistic societies as described by Ignatios of Antioch; each had the fullness of the Christian faith, and all bishops were equal in grace and dignity.

As the Church spread, however, some Churches spawned daughter Churches, while smaller and poorer Churches tended to look to larger and richer ones for support; yet other Churches began to attract leading theologians, and became resources for the resolution of doctrinal disputes. Not surprisingly, the three largest cities of the Empire (Rome, Alexandria and Antioch) soon established leading positions among the Churches in their region. Even before Nicaea, these three Churches were essentially patriarchal, thus "autocephalous" in the modern sense--self-governing and not under the authority of any other Church ("sui juris" would be the Roman legal term, but as Catholic canon law uses the term in a very different way, it's not very helpful).

After Nicaea, there were a number of fairly large regional Churches which also could be called "autocephalous". The Church of Africa, for instance, did not consider itself under the authority of Alexandria, and the Bishop of Alexandria did not appoint bishops in Carthage or Hippo Regia, as he did throughout Egypt. The Church of Gaul was also effectively autocephalous, and very jealous of its independence from Rome as well. Early Latin Church history is full of attempts by the Bishop of Rome to expand his jurisdiction beyond that given to him at Nicaea, and being consistently rebuffed by bishops in Spain, Gaul, and Africa. Only with the collapse of the Western Empire is the Bishop of Rome able to extend his authority (in principle, if not always in fact) throughout Western Europe.

In the East, there were also autocephalous Churches outside of Alexandria and Antioch. Edessa, for instance, was effectively both patriarchal and autocephalous, with only tenuous ties to Antioch. Also, most of Greece, Thrace, and western Anatolia were not under the jurisdiction of either Rome, Alexandria or Antioch, thus also autocephalous.

Later councils confirmed Canon 6 of Nicaea, and erected new patriarchates. Constantinople recognized the patriarchal status of Constantinople as the second capital of the Empire, following the principal of accommodation, and gave it a wide-ranging authority in Anatolia and the Balkans. Chalcedon confirmed the ruling of Constantinople, and formally elevated Jerusalem to patriarchal status (something implicitly granged by Canon 7 of Nicaea). The rise of these independent, self-governing Churches with extraterritorial authority tended to bring most Churches under patriarchal jurisdiction through the system of metropolitan synods. A few archepiscopal Churches, in recognition of their long-standing independence, were granted autocephaly in the ancient sense: rather than answering to a metropolitan synod, they were directly under the authority of a patriarch, the classic example being the Church of Cyprus, whose archbishop reported to the Patriarch of Constantinople.