www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Recent interview with Fr. Taft

"Building Bridges Between Orthodox and Catholic Christians" - Recent interview with Fr. Taft. Article dated 5/1/13:

Catholic World Report [http]

Hmmm...I guess I didn't do that right, as the link doesn't seem to work. I'll paste it here, and see if that works:

http://www.catholicworldreport.com/...en_orthodox_and_catholic_christians.aspx

I'm always glad to hear what Fr Taft has to say, and to see him in the "news" outside of academia.

I picked up some "sister churches" terminology in Fr. Robert's remarks that may give the wrong impression of Catholic understanding and theology/ecclesiology. See the link on the interview page, upper right-hand-side: The CWR Blog "Sister Churches": A Clarification [catholicworldreport.com].

However, as Miller himself points out, Fr. Taft is not the only eccesiologist on the block. But Fr. Taft is learned enough to understand that even an ever so slightly ultramontanist ecclesiology post Vatican 2 tilt will derail any progress in ecumenical dialogue between the Church of Rome and the other Apostolc, Catholic Churches of Orthodoxy. The prime issue was, is and shall remain reaching consensus among the ancient churches as to defining the role of the primus.

Indeed, it would take many Miller's to fill just one of Archimandrite Robert's shoes.

So, we can add Fr. Taft to the list of those who "do not instruct their people adequately and update them"?

Or is Mr. Miller "One Catholic remedy for this—its usefulness proven by the rage it provokes in the exposed bigots—is the factual diffusion of their views, objectively and without editorial comment...permanently recorded for posterity, thereby exposing them to the public embarrassment they merit. This is especially important for some representatives... who speak out of both sides of their mouth, saying one thing at international ecumenical venues, and quite another for the consumption of [non-]Orthodox audiences or in publications they do not expect the []Orthodox to read."?

Why is someone "whose father was Ukrainian Catholic and whose mother was of the Latin rite" calling Fr. Taft "Abouna"?

You first have to get us to agree such a thing exists.

Not exactly the most important question, but I wondered exactly the same thing as Isa.

Many years,

Neil

I don't consider Fr. Taft an ecclesiologist which is why some latitude is in order in interpreting him and some additional commentary is in order to clarify. The original Catholic documents addressing the term "sister churches" must be consulted.

There is no need to fill shoes, just be precise and accurate.

All I said about Fr. Robert was: This is true.

Also, the full quote of Fr. Robert is: This is also true (and does not involve "sister churches" terminology).

Evidently, according to the second link, it does. It would be nice to clarify the actual lung tissue of the eastern lung according to the diagnosis of Fr. Taft and his magisterium.

"Sister Churches": A Clarification

May 02, 2013
By Michael J. Miller
http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Blog/2227/sister_churches_a_clarification.aspx

I met the Right Reverend Archimandrite Robert Taft, S.J., at an Eastern-rite monastery that I was visiting in 1985. The community was still in the refectory, whereas I happened to be near the vestibule, so I was the one who went to the front door when he rang. There was a moment of confusion: I had had no idea that the monks were expecting such a renowned guest, and the guest may have expected a more formal reception. Yet it was fitting that a Jesuit scholar of the Byzantine liturgy should be greeted by a “porter” whose father was Ukrainian Catholic and whose mother was of the Latin rite.

With all due respect to Abouna [Father] Robert, who for decades has served the Catholic Church well as an erudite scholar and a tireless ecumenist, he insistently uses the expression “Sister Churches” in a way that could easily be misleading in his recent interview with Catholic World Report. The editor helpfully linked the expression to a page that thoroughly explains the significance of “particular Churches” in post-Vatican-II ecclesiology. For those who have neither the patience nor the theological training to synthesize the wealth of information on that page, this blog post may help clarify the matter.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church begins its teaching about the article of faith from the Creed, “I believe in the holy catholic Church,” with a few notes on terminology. “In Christian usage, the word ‘church’ designates [1] the liturgical assembly, but also [2] the local community or [3] the whole universal community of believers. These three meanings are inseparable” (CCC 752). In everyday conversation we move easily and without confusion among these different meanings. “We went to church this morning [1].” “I’m registered at the Church of the Annunciation [2].” “Christ promised to be with His Church always [3].”

Because a diocese is normally headed by a bishop, who has the fullness of Holy Orders, while a parish is usually headed by a priest, in theological discussion the second usage of “Church” usually refers to a “local Church” or a “particular Church”. In the Latin rite this is called a diocese or an archdiocese; “eparchy” and “archeparchy” are names for it in the Byzantine rite. The relations between this “mid-sized” Church [2] and the other two connotations of “Church” can be discerned in the New Testament and are stated clearly as early as the second century in the Letters of Saint Ignatius. The local Church exists—for example, in Philadelphia or in Ephesus—for the sake of liturgical worship, which inaugurates and sustains the life of grace in Christians; moreover the Eucharist and even the sacrament of marriage is always to be celebrated in union with the local bishop (i.e. with his approval if he does not actually preside). The connection between the local Church [2] and the universal Church [3] is evident in Ignatius’ insistence on the unity of faith and the reality of Christ’s [Mystical] Body.

The expression “Sister Churches” is not theological but historical and (in recent years) diplomatic. Fr. Adriano Garuti, O.F.M., a professor of ecclesiology and ecumenism who has served with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, writes: “The intention behind such language is the establishment of the reality of sister Churches as a possible way to ‘envisage reunion among divided traditions as a family reconciliation’.... One does get the impression, however, that a certain ambiguity and lack of continuity prevail in the use of the term.” The uses and misuses of this expression are examined in depth in his essay “Sister Churches: Reality and Questions” (reprinted in the book Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and the Ecumenical Dialogue by the same author.)

The early Church in the East was organized not only by locality but regionally. A “Metropolia” united several local eparchies and/or archeparchies in an administrative unit. Within such a unit, two neighboring eparchies would be regarded as “Daughter Churches” of the Metropolia and therefore “Sister Churches” to one another. Fr. Garuti notes “the special sensibility of the Eastern Christians for the fraternity that exists among the individual [local] Churches [2]”. He immediately goes on to add, however, that “when it is a question of the principles on which to build unity, ... the [Universal Catholic] Church [3] cannot be considered a sister [e.g. to the Orthodox Churches (2)], but rather the Mother of the local Churches.”

When Pope Francis referred to himself as “the Bishop of Rome” in his first public speech on the balcony of St. Peter’s Basilica, he was humbly acknowledging that in the first place he had been elected the Bishop of Rome, a local Church. As Bishop of Rome he can greet Orthodox bishops of other localities as “brother bishops”, since they head “sister Churches [2]”. But the Bishop of Rome is also ex officio the Pastor of the Universal Church [3], and there is no corresponding office or “unit” in the Orthodox world, nor could there ever be.

Joseph Ratzinger pointed this out as early as 1966, just after the completion of the Second Vatican Council. At a Catholic Conference in Bamberg he urged caution when speaking about “the Churches” in the plural, warning against “a euphoria ... that forgets to makes difficult demands on itself and overlooks the fact that the Catholic Church dares and must dare to take the paradoxical position of attributing to herself in a unique way the singular form, ‘the Church’ [3], despite and in the midst of the plurality [2] she has accepted.” (Quoted in Joseph Ratzinger: Life in the Church and Living Theology by Maximilian Heinrich Heim.) Because it can lead to misunderstandings between Catholics and Orthodox, Joseph Ratzinger scrupulously avoided the expression “Sister Churches” in his extensive writings on ecumenism.

In conclusion: the Right Rev. Archimandrite Robert Taft is not the only ecclesiologist on the block. If he had used the expression “particular Churches” in his interview, he would have been more accurate, because that (and not “Sister Churches”) is the expression that has been enshrined in the Catechism and in post-conciliar Catholic ecclesiology.

About the Author: Michael J. Miller translated Joseph Ratzinger: Life in the Church and Living Theology: Fundamentals of Ecclesiology with Reference to Lumen Gentium, by Maximilian Heinrich Heim for Ignatius Press.

Indeed. He said: "we are no longer the only kid on the block, the whole Church of Christ, but one Sister Church among others" but that should be: "we are no longer the only kid on the block, the whole Church of Christ, but one twenty-three Sister Churches among others".