www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Is the scientific method appropriate for the study of liturgy ?

Getting back to the quote by Fr Taft. I am seeking clarification. Maybe I am missing the bigger picture, and as always I welcome correction.

I guess I am quite confused Fr Taft's assertion that "modern theological enterprise is scientific and common, seeking the truth wherever it is found".

What is truth? Where can it be found?

So modern theological enterprise is scientific and can find the truth? Does this subject science to the faith? Or visa versa?

I am confused. Fr. Serge, please explain what this means.

thanks a bunch,
jody

Agreed. However, with respect to inclusive language (which I take as one example) Fr. Taft appears to hold the use of inclusive language as an axiom, rather than a conclusion from self-evident first principles. Fr. Serge rightfully disagreed with him and said that inclusive language is more a postulate.

Since it is not self-evident that we ought to have "inclusive langage" (in the Creed a word has just been dropped), I can't analyze Fr. Taft's thinking on this matter. I think corsair on another thread asked for someone to set down reasons why we should use "inclusive language." (Indeed, that we even accept the term indicates we may have lost the battle. The real issue is why in the Liturgy and Creed we should have deliberate mistranslations.) Has there been a satisfactory response?

It seems to me Fr. Taft should, as a world recognized scholar who is in favor of inclusive language, defend it, and see if it meets the test of the sensum fidelium.

I agree...substantially ...sorry...couldn't resist.

By the same token, and based on what you've said here, I don't think it is a problem of the substance being overwhelmed by the method at all.

I doubt that the method has any bearing on Father Taft's attitudes, and I believe his support for trading us'ns for him, is primarily a product of an attitudinal, as well as, an emotional response. Pretty non-scientific stuff, I am inclined to believe.

Mary

That's actually my point. The scientific method does often create in us men (take that as marked or unmarked as you please) an attitude that we know better than God or the Pope. It's not necessary of course. (Here I am reminded of the story of Louis Pastuer who was being chastised by some man on a train (about the marvels of modern science and uselessness of religion) while Pastuer was saying his rosary. The man did not know who Pastuer was!)

The classical scientific method, unlike the truly modern one, makes us think we are just observers and can think outside the box in some super-vacuum outside of nature or in this case history. But in fact we are always actors in a bigger box-God's-and in the case of the Revised Liturgy, this is having rather jolting consequences.

The solution of course to such a problem is that Liturgy ought not to be changed mechanistically and scientifically by experts. There is room for organic growth and pruning (the imagery here is startling--the scientific change is mechanistic, the other bespeaks new life) , and that is most likely to occur almost imperceptibly and with the support of the faithful who would probably respond to such change with, "That's a good idea, I kind of thought that myself." In fact the best scientists always work with nature, not agaisnt her. Compare the doctor who heals with Frankenstein. There is a big difference!

It appears that Fr. Taft has had his hand in real restorations which are absolutely good and for those we should be grateful. But with respect to the inclusive language.......?

Jody asks:


Truth itself is not a thing; Truth is the Lord Jesus Christ, the Eternal Son of God.

On the other hand, let us suppose that there is a disagreement about the meaning of some word in the Scripture. One does not immediately pray for a private revelation, one does some work - asking God's blessing upon that work. One traces the word in Greek (or in Hebrew, if that is one's preference - and right there is a major disagreement) and in old translations (Aramaic, Latin, Georgian, Armenian, et alii), and one tracks the word through the Holy Fathers, trying to discern how each Father who used the word at all used it in his preaching and writing.

The results of such effort are often surprising - not least to the scholars who engage in the effort, and find that their initial guess was incorrect.

There does, of course, arise a moment when something is up to the Church's teaching authority. But the methods I have just alluded to are also used by the Church's teaching authority.

Meanwhile, I remember - still with annoyance - someone about 25 years ago who insisted that one must believe various examples of pseudo-pious claptrap because to refuse obedience (to that which no Church authority has ever pronounced upon, and which rests on zero evidence) betrays a lack of "humility".

Fr. Serge

The question which LM poses was asked also in reference to the interpretation of Sacred Scripture. A noted theologian provided this reply:


This response was given by then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in the Preface to the PBC document The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church , 1994.

If the historical-critical method can be used in the study of one form of Holy Tradition (Sacred Scripture) it may certainly be used in the study of other aspects of Holy Traditon (Liturgy).

Hello Deacon John,

That is a very excellent quote from the Holy Father. He clearly understands and appreciates the benefits and the risks involved in the historical critical method. And there are risks. I suggested in my original post that historical-critical method could not have the final say, and it seemed to me what Fr. Taft's article is suggesting that it does have the final say. The final say must come from the Pope himself. And I think the author you quote would agree with that, don't you?

I hope all is well with you and yours.

lm

Thank You Father Serge!

I did know the answer to the first question.

Thank you for explaining the scholars 's work.

jody

Luke,

we are well, thank you for asking.


In our Catholic understanding of ecclesiology, yes, the Pope has the "final say" as you put it, but that does not neccesarily mean that the Pope of Rome will personally review each and every document. Let's recall the following:


In light of this, ISTM, Fr Archimandrite Robert in his work for the Congregation of Eastern Churches does speak for the Pope.

I would disagree with your conclusion related to the article you linked. You would really need to take into consideration the whole body of Fr Archimandrite's work, not just one essay.

Let's look at how Fr Robert qualifies the scientific method

emphasis added

Luke, you missed this one crucial point.

In light of the Pope's comments above, I reread some points he made in "Truth and Tolerance," where he considers the historical-critical method in light of John Paul II's encyclical, "Fides et Ratio." I also reread Fr. Taft's article to which I referred in my original post. In that article, Fr. Taft certainly exceeds the legitimate good work of the historical-critical method.

Fr. Taft in the 2nd to last paragraph states:


Since when has the Church been interested in making Christianity a "viable lifestyle" in order so that it can survive?

In "Truth and Tolerance" the Pope quotes Screwtape regarding the "Historical point of View."


Making Christianity a viable lifesyle for modern men and women is diverting us from the real question which is, "Is it true --Is Jesus Christ the Truth?"

In this one article, Father Taft has ventured beyond his expertise, and in this article, he is leading us down the wrong path.

Deacon John,

How so?

Luke,

you have taken the quote out of context. Fr Archimandrite has written that the scientific method cannot be considered apart from faith and love, that is, the scientific method cannot be considered apart from the lived experience of the Church which is founded upon Truth.

Deacon John,

Does Benedict XVI know that Fr. Archimandrite Robert was speaking for him? Couldn't have been, of course, because Benedict XVI wasn't Pope then!

Fr. Archimandrite can only speak for the Pope, if he is in agreement with him. Liturgiam Authenticam (which was promulgated after the approval of the RDL by the OC ), which has not been repudiated by Benedict XVI, is the Pope's position on Liturgy. Although technically and legally, LA only applies to the Romans, nonetheless, by the nature of the matter which it deals with in some instances, e.g., on the correct translation of anthropos, LA expresses the mind of the Holy Father.

I repeat, Fr. Taft can only speak for the Pope if he is in agreement with him.

lm

Luke,

when it comes to the question of liturgical translations, the Holy Father (whoever he may be) admits in the CCEO that the sui juris Eastern Catholic Churches, in their respective leadership, have the compentance to promulgate translations of liturgical books.

Liturgiam Authenticam was not not formed in a vacuum. The ideas expressed therein were certainly around before the approval of the new translation.

The real question is this, "who is properly interpreting the mind of the Church?" Is it the hierarchs who have been selected by the Pope of Rome or you?

Unless the Holy Father says otherwise, I am willing to admit that our hierarchs and Fr Robert Taft, SJ have followed the proper guidelines and the mind of the Church in this current translation.

In response to Father Deacon's question, we might note that a similar question was posed to Saint Maximus the Confessor - a simple monk who never held Holy Orders. Eventually it was Saint Maximus whom the Church vindicated - and Pope Honorius, various Patriarchs and others in high ecclesiastical places whom the Church anathematizes.

Fr. Serge