What really changed with Vatican II?
(07-08-2014, 10:47 AM)formerbuddhist Wrote: No matter what recent Popes have said or written little has been done in the way of fostering a traditional understanding of Catholicism in terms of the Latin Rite as it was prior to the Council.

Not even that, as a wholesale return to preconciliar thinking is unlikely - virtually nothing is done to show that the two understandings are even compatible, if indeed they are. Considered in itself, there is nothing wrong with describing the Eucharist in terms of a meal, as it is the foretaste of the heavenly banquet, nor with calling the altar a table, as indeed it is that as well, and, besides, the Eastern rites have always used these images without problem. If it could be said (and maybe it could, though I wouldn't personally) that preconciliar Eucharistic thought focused too narrowly on the sacrificial aspect of the Eucharist to the exclusion of other aspects, it is not an improvement to commit the same error by focusing purely on the meal aspect, which is in fact worse since it can easily be construed as a Protestantization and implicit rejection of the Tridentine dogmas.

Messages In This Thread
What really changed with Vatican II? - by Heorot - 07-07-2014, 11:31 AM
Re: What really changed with Vatican II? - by aquinas138 - 07-08-2014, 11:18 AM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)