Is it weird for Roman Catholic to switch?

Fair enough. If you read that quote in isolation, I can see where you’d think he’s wrong. But you have to read the rest.

"A Christian marriage should be about what Jesus Christ’s death and Resurrection has to do with marriage.

What does Christ tell us through St. Paul in Ephesians? Ephesians says Christian marriage is like the union between Christ and the church, a permanent union, a union of love, a union of shared life.

It’s not about the love of a man and a woman; it’s about the love of a man and a woman in the context of the fact that Jesus Christ died and rose for our salvation."

According to this, Christian marriage is not about a ritual expression of the love between a man and a woman. Christian marriage is about the spousal love between Christ and the Church. That’s why it’s a Sacrament. It points to something beyond itself. Incidentally, Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, in one of his many talks on marriage, said almost the exact same thing as what Fr. Taft said.

1 Like

Touche. Thank you.

1 Like

I’ll admit, I wsa thrown off by that line at first too. But knowing Fr. Taft, you know you have to read on. :grin:

I think that it’s the cleric who made the statement that needs to clarify it. It’s awkward at best.

What we think of as the EF didn’t yet exist at the time any of the four liturgies used by the Byzantine church came into existence. For that matter, Rome was still shifting to Latin at the time these liturgies came about (and the two most common are shortened versions of the older byzantine liturgy). Trying to connect latin to eastern liturgy as a source of liturgy just doesn’t make logical sense.

Interesting article.

I take exception to this:

“The purpose of the Eucharist isn’t to change bread and wine into Jesus Christ. It’s to change you and me into Jesus Christ.”

This is very poorly articulated. He should have said something like:

“The Eucharist is the Body and the Blood of Christ, veiled under the bread and wine. Through the Eucharist we are united to Jesus Christ, and have the potential to become bearers of God.”

Overall I found his article not on the same level of erudition nor depth as the article by Dr. Kwasniewski.

His complete disregard for sacred tradition as a source of authority in the Church is startling from an Orthodox perspective.

Please demonstrate how Fr. Taft disregards Sacred Tradition. And his Eucharistic theology is correct. From an Eastern theological perspective, changing the bread and wine into Jesus’ body and blood isn’t the end/purpose of the Eucharist. The end/purpose of the Eucharist is for us to receive Christ’s body and blood (the “transubstantiated” bread and wine), be transformed into His body on earth, and then to be “little Christs” (that’s the meaning of “Christian”) in the world. He’s not saying that the bread and wine don’t become Christ’s body and blood. He’s simply saying we can’t stop with that. There’s more to the Eucharist.

Bear in mind too, Taft’s article wasn’t an article. It was a conversation. An actual article by Taft would’ve been readable, but heavily footnoted (see, for example, his article Anamnesis Not Amnesia which is of similar length to Kwasniewski’s but has 37 footnotes as opposed to Kwasniewski’s 11). In his encyclopedic history of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, for example, you’ll find footnotes that go on for two or three entire pages.

Another thing I’d note is that Dr. Kwasniewski’s background is not in liturgy. It’s not even in theology. His background is philosophy. Fr. Taft’s background, on the other hand, is in liturgy, having completed his doctoral dissertation in 1970 under the Orientale’s great liturgist, Fr. Juan Mateos, and then teaching liturgy at the Orientale from 1975 until 2011. Fr. Taft took his research and writing very seriously. He sought after the truth of history as well as Truth Himself. And he had the humility to speak the truth even when it made people uncomfortable (no matter which side of the left/right spectrum they fell on).

1 Like

Additionally, what I find upsetting about the Kwasniewski article is that the only sources he cites in his footnotes are a couple of other articles he wrote. Otherwise he merely utilizes the footnotes to expound upon his own opinions - using them as an opportunity to indulge in tangents that would’ve otherwise derailed the main thrust of the article.

I also find it distasteful that he refers to Pope St. Paul VI somewhat derisively as “Montini”. He forgets that he’s not just talking about a Pope, but a canonized saint of his own Roman Church.

1 Like

Here is another article from Fr. Taft that’s well worth reading. This article shows that he’s not ignorant of the problems with modern Western liturgy. But he goes further to show that the problems of modern Western liturgy didn’t start with Vatican II, but go all the way back to the Council of Trent. He’s also very honest about the problems in Eastern liturgy.

1 Like

Bible Belt…

But let me say something here - Those are some good folks, and I can see their hunger for God, and their panic at the demise of their way of Faith… A kind of “Notes from the Underground” in reverse…

Power corrupts… It corrupted Constantinople… It can corrupt me…


Forgive me, I misjudged him and judged him too quickly…

Both vices to which I am acutely prone…

Thank you for sharing that article, I did not realize the earlier posted link was merely a conversation, although it did stand in stark contrast to his “Orthodox Constructions of the West”, which should have been a tip off for me.

I appreciate Fr. Taft’s balanced approach, although I do not neccesarily agree with all his conclusions.

Between Fr. Taft and Dr. Kwasnieweski I can begin to sketch a more balanced vision of what happened in the Roman Church during the past century.


Fr. Taft is one of those folks that even when you disagree with him, remains well worth listening to . . .

I’m currently trying to comprehend the current world in which, even though he and I have about nothing in common other than a strong “distaste” for Donald Trump and a love for the rule of law and Constitution, I’m agreeing with pretty much every word out of his mouth and pen . . . I’ve always thought he was well worth listening too–but it tended to be on topics on which we disagreed . . .

listen to anyone making sense, give them a fair hearing, and decide for yourself . .

1 Like

Fr. Taft welcomed disagreement, even encouraged it. But he challenged whoever disagreed with him to back their disagreement up with facts and then present the facts. The real challenge was discovering some fact with which he wasn’t already familiar and hadn’t taken into account, because he studied this stuff in such depth for so many decades. :grin:


well, we did already establish that he was a Jesuit :crazy_face: :rofl: :stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes:

In the best sense. Not all Jesuits encourage disagreement. :shushing_face: :crazy_face:

I never met that kind.

But you sure had better be able to seriously argue your position when dealing someone from a groups whose credo is that they can teach anything, to anyone, anytime, anywhere . .

This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit