www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Fr. Taft 2007 on liturgical reform, Liturgiam Authenticam, etc.

From: Open Question to Father David Petras thread:


I thought this deserves special scrutiny since the above linked document by Fr. Taft is quite current and addresses the much invoked Liturgiam Authenticam.


I appreciate Fr. Taft's blunt style for getting to the point but I also found it quite polarizing. I found myself agreeing with some of his conclusions while being bewildered by the data he gives and its interpretation. For example:



I can also see his views being compatible with, or perhaps even influencing, the course -- the fixes ??? -- taken by the RDL.

Dn. Anthony

Pope Benedict XVI has spoken out strongly in favor of Liturgiam Authenticam. He has condemned the use of neutered language. From what Father Taft has written are we to conclude that he believes that Pope Benedict XVI is in need of "better liturgical formation" because he is leading the "reform of the reform"?

Maybe the fact that Father Taft rejects Liturgiam Authenticam explains how Archbishop Basil and the other bishops managed to ignore it?

Nothing is more unfortunate than Eastern Catholic theologians praising the liturgical reform that gave us the Novus Ordo, not to speak of the disastrous ICEL translations of the same. If folks like them, who are supposed to have an "Orthodox" understanding of the sacred, fail to see the damage that the liturgical reform and the ICEL inflicted on the Western liturgy, then how can we hope that the Eastern Catholics will indeed fully embrace their proper liturgical heritage? No, all of this bodes continued liturgical disaster in the Catholic CHurch, East and West (But at least, we in the West now have Summorum Pontificum)

You nailed it. I read the above link. Like many Jesuits, Taft is a Modernist. In the above link, he cites all the wrong sources-Bp. Trautman of Erie, for one. Trautman is horrible. He is an absolute dissident against orthodoxy. I, to my horror, watched an "Easter Liturgy" presided over by Bishop Trautman a few years ago on TV. There was a gaggle of women liturgical dancers in strange white robes bearing strange-looking incense bowls as part of the service. Trautman is heavy into dumbed-down, feminist, "inclusive" language, and is an enemy of Benedict XVI, and has rejected the work of the newly-established ICEL in producing an accurate translation of the Latin-Rite Novus Ordo Mass. I have, in my possession, a book by Taft entitled Beyond East & West, Problems in Liturgical Understanding . What is telling are some of the authors of favorable reviews of the book. One is written by Fr. Richard Mc Brien, a "theologian" who headed the Dept. of Theology at Notre Dame University (not a place to send one's children for an authentic Catholic education). He is a dissident against the accepted moral teachings of the Church. He is a priest of the Diocese of Brooklyn, NY. But, his column is banned by the Brooklyn Diocesan newspaper. In that book, Taft heaps praise on Raymond Brown's treatment of the infancy narratives of the Gospels. Brown is of dubious orthodoxy, and has taught that there are errors in Scripture (contrary to the teachings of the Magisterium-i.e. Providentissimus Deus of Leo XIII). Also, this Msgr. McManus for whom the award in the link is named, is, by reputation. one of the worst liturgical "wreckovators" in the Latin Rite Church in the U.S. I have heard that it was Taft who reviewed and approved the RDL before getting Patriarch Daoud to approve it. The above link would tend to lend support to that rumor. God help and save us.

In Christ,
Dn. Robert

Yes, one man in the same age as the group of Ruthenian Byzantines who designed this new Liturgy. Of course he would approve it -- he's a modernist too, from that same hippie dippie era.

All I have to see is the name Trautman and I know exactly where he stands!

"I can also see his [Fr. Taft's] views being compatible with, or perhaps even influencing, the course -- the fixes ??? -- taken by the RDL."

I am quite certain that when asked who was on the committee in the OC which approved the RDL, Fr. Taft responded, "You're looking at him."

Wow!!! Trautman, McBrien, Brown!!!

This explains a lot!

How very sad that this was permitted to seep into the Byzantine Catholic Church.

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

Fr. Taft shows his "true colors" on the above link. This is what I find to be especially galling. I don't trust Jesuits, to begin with (except for a noted few).

Dn. Robert

Father Taft is an incredible scholar and historian. His work is wonderful gift to the Church and will help understand the development of our Liturgy.

But the problem with liturgical historians (and historians in general) is that they tend to think that Liturgy reached perfection somewhere between the Mystical Supper and the beginning of the fifth century. After that it was all downhill as the Spirit went on vacation.

Liturgy - good Liturgy - is something carefully sculpted by the Holy Spirit over many centuries. A historian picking and choosing assorted customs from various times in history based on his personal likes and dislikes is only going to create something which does not work and chases people away. It is always best to stick with the official books, allow some liberty where appropriate, and let God work. That way no one gets hurt.

Well put. What you are describing is known as "organic development". In the Western Church, that was in place until the Novus Ordo Liturgy, the product of a committee consisting of a very suspect Archbishop and several Protestant clergy/advisors.

Dn. Robert

On the Novus Ordo: I have just commented in the Modernism thread.

While I cannot agree with Archimandrite Robert that the liturgical renewal in the West has been a great success, that is due to the infidelity and disobedience of clerics. The fact that there has been abuse he does seem to recognize.

Whether he also recognizes the extent of the abuses he alludes to is doubtful.

He is right to say that the Western Church should concentrate on fixing what was poorly done or not done at all. I also cannot agree with him on the language issue, however.

I must say, with all due respect to Dn. Robert, that I find it somewhat comic to accuse Archimandrite Robert of modernism, considering that he chose to live the liturgical and spiritual life of the Russian-Orthodox Church in Union with Rome. Nothing less open to Modernism can be imagined.

Perhaps Archimandrite Robert is suffering from Ivory Tower Syndrome. He is an academic. He has been working for years on a history of the Byzantine Liturgy. He celebrates the Russian Liturgy. How much personal experience has he of how the Western Mass has been dealt with in the parishes of the world? Maybe not much. How closely has he studied the ICEL texts? One wonders. One wonders, too, what he would have said if he had viewed that amazing Easter Liturgy of Bp. Trautman's that Dn. Robert refers to.

edmac

Dear Edmac,

I base my comments on Fr. Taft's comments relative to Liturgy in that piece that was posted, as well as on his tendency to "run" with those of modernist inclination, i.e., Richard McBrien, Raymond Brown, Bishop Trautman, et al. As to his living the Russian liturgical and spiritual life, I do remember Pius X commenting that many modernists will use the same externals as the orthodox, but simply attach different meanings to them. At least, this is my "read" on Robert Taft. Hoping that I am wrong!

In Christ,
Dn. Robert

P.S. I am still holding open the possibility of getting to your Russian Catholic parish in the near future-probably in a month or two.

This would have been my appraisal also. So I was somewhat bewildered to read this in his remarks:



As an historian I'm sure he is aware of the background of �semper reformanda� as the clarion call of Lutheranism and Protestantism; it is a phrase with significant theological implications. But just to be precise, did the Council (VC II) actually use that phrase, as he states?

I did find this, REFLECTIONS BY CARD. WALTER KASPER [vatican.va] :


One does find in the DECREE ON ECUMENISM, UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO, the (also) more nuanced "Christ summons the Church to continual reformation [perennem reformationem] as she sojourns here on earth."

Dn. Anthony

Mine as well; his Liturgy of the Hours in the East and West is the best yet on the subject in my opinion.

But sometimes a good bull can get into the wrong pasture and make a lot of trouble.