I see that Peter Kwasniewski is expounding “the priority of religion and adoration over Communion” – lest anyone overemphasize dangers to the faith like, you know, the unity of the congregation in Christ or their sharing in the sacred banquet of the Eucharist.
All this is done with reference to the Council of Trent, with no mention of the Second Vatican Council. Odd, is it not, for a Catholic theologian to overlook an ecumenical council?
If anyone registered such an omission in treating the Christology of the first four ecumenical councils, it would be a glaring error. Why should it be any different with the Church’s teachings on liturgy at Trent and at Vatican II?
The first ecumenical council, Nicaea in 325, defined the full divinity of the Son, co-equal to the Father. It gave us the Nicene Creed. But since the divinity of the Holy Spirit had not been fully considered, the final section we know is missing. The creed from Nicaea simply ended with “And in the Holy Spirit.”
The second ecumenical council, Constantinople in 381, took up the Holy Spirit, and added to the creed the familiar words, “the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds…” What we call the Nicene Creed is more properly called the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. (Pedants, take note, and practice your pronunciation of that seven-syllable word so it rolls off the tongue effortlessly.)
The Council of Ephesus in 431 condemned Nestorianism and defined that Mary is the Theotokos – “God-bearer” or “Mother of God.” This is true because the human and the divine in Christ are so closely united that Mary could not be the mother of just the human Jesus, she is the mother of the divine Jesus – God – also.
But the Council of Chalcedon in 451 needed to clarify further, lest it be thought that the human nature of Christ is swallowed up swallowed up by the divine in this union. There are two distinct natures in Christ, human and divine, in one hypostatic union.
It would be odd, at this late date, to put forth a Catholic and orthodox teaching on Christ with reference to Nicaea, while ignoring Constantinople. Or to expound on Ephesus as a sure guide, while ignoring Chalcedon.
But that is precisely what Kwasniewski is doing with the Eucharist, with respect to Trent and Vatican II.
There is a constructive way to address the inadequacies in Catholic worship today – the silliness, lack of reverence, sloppiness, mediocrity, ugliness, and the like.
This ain’t it, Peter.
Better work on your sentire cum ecclesia, I’d say.