Literal & Poetic Interpretations of Catholicism, the real split?

For too long, we have not tackled the task of transvaluing* the very important doctrines which have provided structure and meaning to our faith…for so long.
Could our Catholic doctrines have been so guarded and locked down that they gradually diminished in ability to develop their fullness of spirit in each modern age,
culminating in the rejection of Catholicism so evident today?

As more than one theologian has said, we DO need “right” theology.
We also need to transvalue,* not dilute it, according to each new epoch.
The problem, of course, lies in what is the “right theology” and
what is vehicle for the faith which has carried us into the 21st century.
There are and always will be great differences of opinion on this question.

However, too many people today cannot “buy” the essence of Christianity
according to the literal “died for our sins” version
that many still hold so very sacred.
This rejection of theological understanding in the Catholic Church today
is likewise going on in other Christian denominations.

There is a split  between the literal and “poetic” versions of Catholicism
and it is well documented by philosopher/theologian John D.  Caputo in his books,
RELIGION WITHOUT RELIGION, THE WEAKNESS OF GOD,
and THE INSISTENCE OF GOD.

Could there be at least two different valid interpretations of our Catholic faith
…not just “continuity and rupture”?
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?
…even if that means “allowing” (if not “fostering”) the development of a new rite
in our Church which has managed to “allow” 22 other rites in union with the Roman Rite of the Jerusalem Church of Saints Peter and Paul and the earliest Christians?

Sisters Lea and Consilia welcome your feedback…even a “like” if you are so inclined.
Thanks!

***

*transvalue here meaning:  “To represent or evaluate something according to a new principle, causing it to be revalued” differently…with the “new principle” being the work of the Holy Spirit in Vatican II and the world.

See Position Paper:  Resolving Polarization of Vatican II and Roman Catholic Visions
https://www.scribd.com/doc/311664852/Resolving-Polarization-of-Vatican-II-and-Roman-Catholic-Visions

No Vatican II Rite!  What Loss to World and Church
https://wordpress.com/post/ritebeyondrome.com/1469

Doctrine Begs for Change: Why Are We So Afraid of This?

Doctrine is the foundation of all Catholic belief, practice and ritual. Isn’t it time to attend to doctrine and its transvaluation, broadening our understanding of doctrine beyond Trent and even beyond Vatican II?

At the Vatican Synod on the Family, some bishops drew a distinction between doctrine and discipline, but conservatives among the synod fathers said any change in discipline implies a change in doctrine.

I would agree with our conservative brothers that any change in discipline does imply a change in doctrine…doctrine which is sorely in need of change.

The words “change, update, reform” as regards discipline trigger fear in our conservative brothers. These same words trigger fear in many of our moderate and liberal sisters and brothers when the word “doctrine” is mentioned, as if doctrine should be frozen in time or the Church will fall apart.

Yet doctrine is the foundation of all Catholic belief, practice and ritual. Isn’t it time to attend to doctrine and its transvaluation, broadening our understanding of doctrine beyond Trent and even beyond Vatican II?

Or don’t we trust the doctrine and its gold beneath the accumulated dusty clay of ages past?