www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy Interviewing Liturgical Leaders: Robert Taft, S.J.

Pray Tell's Nathan Chase stated the following in the comments section, due to a lot of negative comments regarding the interview:

Pray Tell interviewed Robert Taft and asked him to be witty, humorous and engaging. Taft delivered. We decided to post his responses in their unedited form due to the nature of the post, i.e. an interview in which we requested wit and humor.
It is important to realize that many years of scholarship lie behind Taft’s responses, so they are not just flippant remarks. They are perhaps embellished by Taft’s characteristic wit, but not flippant. Instead of critiquing the tone of Taft’s interview, this thread should discuss the issues that Taft’s responses bring up.

There is one more line in this response by Nathan Chase:He might better have said that to Taft from the get go.

2lungs,

Some of Archm. Robert's remarks didn't sit well with me, either. I am a great believer in the notion that true ecumenism *has* to work in both directions--otherwise, the ecumenists on both sides (of whichever division we're considering) will have their "dialogues" and might even achieve a kind of "reunion," but since the stalwarts (or "NCWs") on both sides have already excommunicated them in their minds, what have they achieved? Just another iteration of the old adage that "when two churches unite, the result is three churches."

(Actually, I find it rather strange that ecumenists can be *so* patient and accepting of diverse points of view--as long as those points of view are on the other side of the fence.)

Hmm ... I'm curious as to why you consider them "Manichean."

Now, here it depends entirely on what you are calling "abuses." AFAIK, a practice can only be called an "abuse" if it is in violation of the current liturgical norms of the RCC.

Aside from poor homiletics (and people performing liturgical roles without any kind of liturgical garb), my #1 complaint about the current RC practice is something that Dom Gueranger himself was complaining about over 150 years ago--the absence of (or lack of attention to) congregational singing!

From it's very inception, a major principle of the RC "Liturgical Movement" was that the faithful needed to be actively involved in the Liturgy itself (i.e. not merely the usual para-liturgy of hymns and prayers taking place during Mass). This meant singing and chanting the actual liturgical parts that pertained to the people. The problem then, as now, was that few priests really perceived music as an integral part of the Liturgy, and therefore would be willing to take the trouble to try and get a reluctant congregation to learn the simple chants and then sing them--with very few changs--every week. It was/is *much* easier to have a "real" choir (often with a paid choir director) who can "perform new material" every week while everyone else--the priest included--only has to listen. (And if for some reason this was not possible, no music at all was "just fine!")


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Roman,

While this is certainly true, Divine Truth in its purest form cannot be expressed in human language. What is expressed in human language is always subject to interpretation, for which context plays an important role--*that's* what Fr. Taft is talking about. (Just think of all the times when heretics have taken scripture passages out of context!)


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Thank you, for clarifying this.

Father Taft is most assuredly NOT the author of the RDL, which was the internal product of the Byzantine Catholic Church's Intereparchial Liturgical Committee--of which Taft is NOT a member. Taft was asked by the Congregation for the Oriental Churches to review a draft of the RDL, but was instructed ONLY to look for overt instances of heresy or gross theological errors. Of course, he did not find any. This does not mean he approves of the RDL, and his statement above is largely conditioned by his experience with it.

From the general tenor of the comments on this thread, I conclude that a lot of the participants are not intellectually equipped to deal with Archimandrite Robert in an intelligent manner. You just have no idea what he is saying--and worse, you have no idea what YOU are saying.

Well, I'm certainly not so equipped to deal with either Father Archimandrite Taft or Stuart!

That doesn't prevent me from enjoying reading both while trying to comphrehend them.

Context is very important when trying to understand the very precise mind of Father Taft whose conclusions may sometimes startle people. That is because his mind is racing way above my own speed limit, for example.

Usually, in such a case, I blame myself and go back to the drawing board of a slower and more comprehensive approach that could/should go beyond the parameters of an interview or the like.

My two cents' worth.

Alex

Stuart,

Sorry if any of my comments have given you that impression.

However, I should have to note that in this interview, Archm. Robert
makes a number of offhand remarks that *probably* sound a lot more normal to someone like yourself, who know him much better than we do. But to the uninitiated, they *do* come off as echoing statements we've all heard numerous times--often from some, shall we say, less-than-qualified sources.

The one item in particular that had me scratching my head was this one:Is he actually saying that *no* oriented altar existed in the Sistine Chapel until Pope Benedict added one?

This one also had me puzzled:One might assume here that he's talking about the RDL, but the implication is that *no* decent translations exist. Also, the implication certainly appears to be that the problem is entirely that *all* existing translations try too hard to match the originals, with the quality of English expression suffering as a result--is that really what he means? (That hardly seems to be the case with the RDL.)


Peace,
Deacon Richard

He's eighty-something and in the Honey Badger phase of his life. He's earned the right to say what he wants and not care how people take it.


The problem exists in both dimensions. The RDL, for instance, swings wildly between excessive (and unnecessary) literalism to pure paraphrase, and in neither case do the translators demonstrate any really felicity with the English language.

Liturgical translation is an art, one which requires one to be fully fluent both in English and in the original language, as well as having a grasp of the intricacies of liturgics. Above all, since liturgy is poetry, one must also be a poet.

Too many people trying to do liturgical translation lack ability in one or more of these areas. And some of the most prominent lack ability in all of them.

It is impossible to overestimate the contribution Bob Taft has made to liturgical studies over the past fifty years. My wish for my dear old friend and kindly mentor is best expressed by Dylan Thomas, "Do not go gentle into that good night,/ Old age should burn and rave at close of day;/ Rage, rage against the dying of the light."

With all due respect, Fr. Taft needs a new pair of glasses.

Here is a photograph of the Sistine Chapel where His Holiness Francis celebrated his first Mass as Pope: Link. [i30.photobucket.com]
You can clearly see that the altar where His Holiness Benedict XVI would celebrate Mass had obviously not been "tossed out".

Did Fr. Taft forget that His Holiness Francis would later celebrate Mass for the feast of the Baptism of the Lord on the altar that he allegedly had thrown out?: Link. [hocsigno.files.wordpress.com]

I am surprised that Fr. Taft would make such a blunder.
Happy retirement!

Carefuld Griego!

Honey Badgers can be dangerous!

Alex