Catholic Culture’s “Split Mind”

Some believe we have gone far beyond the need for “aggorniamento,” i.e. updating” of church structures, language and reconnecting to the culture in the vernacular.

Perhaps we have just begun the aggorniamento process which needs to acknowledge that we have arrived at a split mind within the Western/Latin Branch of Catholicism…a place where Roman and Vatican II Catholics see things so very differently, that we speak two very different cultural languages as Catholics, akin to the 1054 East-West mystical/scholastic split mind in Catholicism, including the Eastern Churches which remained in union with Rome.

This “split mind” in our Church drove the direction of Vatican II and, according to the article below and other sources, this “minority mind” had such a great influence on the Church that we are still wrestling with its contributions today.

It was, after all, Patriarch Maximos and his small Melkite band in a sea of Latin Rite hierarchs, who managed to introduce such items as:

  • the use of the vernacular,
  • eucharistic concelebration,
  • communion under both species in the Latin liturgy,
  • restoration of the diaconate as a permanent order,
  • creation of what would become the periodically held Synod of Bishops
  • creation of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity,
    • championing new attitudes to and less offensive vocabulary in ecumenical relationships with Eastern Orthodox and other Christians,
      • recognition of Eastern Catholic communities for what they are, “Churches,” not “rites.”

From “Eastern Christians in Australia” by Lawrence Cross in Australian eJournal of Theology 19.2(August 2012)

So, we ask, “Should so many be so hesitant of even addressing the option of a Vatican II Rite standing next to its 22 Eastern siblings in union with “elder sibling” Rome?

Sisters Lea and Consilia
4vatican2rite@gmail.com

 

On “Relearning critical obedience and faithful dissent” by Massimo Faggioli

Massimo, you say, “…there is actually a deep theological and cultural rift around ecclesiology and in particular about the role of Vatican II in the practical ecclesiology of Catholicism today.”

Could there be at least two different valid interpretations of our Catholic faith, not just “continuity and rupture” or “obedience and dissent”?

As you well know, there is a split between the literal and “poetic” interpretations of Catholicism, well-documented by Catholic philosopher/theologian John D. Caputo in his books, RELIGION WITHOUT RELIGION, THE WEAKNESS OF GOD, and THE INSISTENCE OF GOD.

Vatican II pointed us in the poetic direction while retaining the literal hermeneutic. Might we have need for both literal and poetic interpretations of theology, governance and liturgy in the Church today? https://ritebeyondrome.com/201…

As for the Church, she has the tradition to address this problem in her agreement to allow differing interpretations of theology, governance and liturgy within the 22 other rites beyond her Roman walls. Apparently the Catholic Church, including the Roman patriarchy of earlier time, was not so hell-bent on its hegemony over Catholicism as it is today, you think?

To read Dr. Faggioli’s article and comments: Relearning critical obedience and faithful dissent – La Croix International