What really changed with Vatican II?
#11
(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.
Reply
#12
(07-08-2014, 11:18 AM)aquinas138 Wrote:
(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.

If anything, Vatican II put the final nail in the coffin of Counter Reformation Catholicism and the post Tridentine way of doing things. The Church clung to by sedevacantists and other rad trads, the Church of the 1917 code of canon law, a Latin Rite and scholastic theology superiority complex and all the pomp of late 19th century western european aristocratic Catholicism is at best, an option among many. That will never come back as the norm---EVER. I firmly believe that. 

As you say there is nothing wrong with the the Eucharist being described as a meal or the altar as a table, as long as it's balanced. The problem is that there is little balance. The Novus Ordo is an absolute novelty, a rejection of the patrimony of the Latin Rite. That is a huge problem. Any kind of balance must occur within that which was handed down to us. The problem is that the new rites themselves are a rejection of the past. It's funny that after the Council there was all this talk about letting each Rite go back to it's essentials and it's own theology and expressions and yet the Latin Rite was to be basically abolished, it's theology, it's prayers, it's rites, it's gestures, it's rituals, it's piety to be distorted and trashed beyond recognition.

The Roman Catholic Church literally turned it's back on it's own patrimony after the Council, at least in it's Latin Rite, and it's been busy persecuting, ridiculing and trampling on it ever since. That is a problem. How, if at all, does the Church find that balance? Is it even possible with a committee created rite with absolutely no precedent in history or tradition? Is it even possible to have a theology and piety in the Latin Rite without scholasticism and without the post Tridentine way of looking at things? I'm just throwing this out there... Honestly, I mean, could one actually  be an Eastern Rite Catholic or an Orthodox Christian and make sense of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom or icons without the theology of the East? I'm not sure it's possible...

All that being said perhaps rites should remain within the cultural and theological milieu that they developed in. Maybe there has to be a balance but how?

I still think the Church of Pius XII is dead though, it's just an option.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)