One of the most pernicious consequences of the Latin West's downgrading of theologia secunda [systematic reflection on the lived mystery of the Church] is its concern for validity, the automatic product of doctrinal orthodoxy, to the neglect of authenticity, the natural fruit of orthopraxis. Differently put, this is making text all-important and context a matter of indifference. Indeed most Catholic debate about the liturgical revolution has centered on the question of whether the new official text makes the Mass and sacraments valid or not; the cultural packaging of the same rites is meanwhile relegated to the realm of relatively unimportant 'externals'.Addendum: A number of readers have asked for clarification. Just a word now, and perhaps something more substantial in a later post. As a system of beliefs, Catholicism is propositional; but it is far more than that: it is also a way of life, the primary work of which is worship -- a fact indicated by the etymology of "liturgy" -- from Ancient Greek λειτουργία < λειτ-, from λαός, people + -ουργός < ἔργον, work (the public work of the people done on behalf of the people) (Wiktionary). Geoffrey Hull writes (p. 42): "... for centuries orthodoxia 'right worship' had been giving way, in the Western theological hierarchy, to orthopistis 'right believing', and orthodidascalia 'right teaching'."
An undue emphasis on one to the exclusion of the other results in distortion. Thus, the emphasis of existential theolgians (e.g., Barth) on "personal encounter" at the expense of downplaying or excluding the propositional content of revelation and Church teaching tended toward an irrational fideism in the last century; while an undue emphasis on propositional teaching to the neglect of the conventional habitus of Catholic devotional life, results in a disembodied doctrinalism lacking the necessary practical reinforcement to sustain it as a way of life. This, I think, is at least in part the reason for the phenomenon of Catholic converts from Protestant backgrounds sometimes reverting to their erstwhile Protestant communions. They may have been intellectually convinced, after having spent arduous hours in apologetic games of one-upmanship; but Catholicism never 'took' for them, since it remained a disembodied system of beliefs.
For some time I have thought that a good many of those Protestants who have been converting to the Catholic Faith persist in having an overly propositional 'take' on Catholicism, and that even major portions of the conservative wing of contemporary Catholic life exhibit something of this tendency. In this light, I found it interesting that the next paragraph following the one I extracted (above) in the original post, Hull writes: "this problem has been exacerbated by Protestant influence channelled through converts who apply to study for the priesthood and are accepted as ordinands by vocations directors, seminary professors and bishops typically unconcerned to scrutinize the candidates' mentality and cultural outlook which, far too often, are alien and antagonistic to Catholicity." He even goes on to refer to a "veritable 'Trojan horse' phenomenon," which occurs "when such convert-clerics who have recently acquired a Catholic mind but (through no fault of their own) have never had a Catholic heart" are received into the Church and elevated to positions of authority and influence (p. 38).
Cardinal Dulles, the Presbyterian convert to Catholicism, for example, once averred in the pages of the evangelical magazine, Christianity Today, that he could imagine a Protestant convert to Catholicism never developing a Marian devotion -- never praying the Rosary, the Memorare, or even embracing the intercession of the Saints as part of his or her personal devotion -- and finding this quite acceptable as long as the convert did not explicitly reject Church teaching on the matter. Dulles, himself something of a minimalist when it comes to what he considered extraneous packaging of the Faith, once wrote: "If there be anyone who contends that in order to be converted to the Catholic faith one must be first attracted by the beauty of the liturgy, he will have me to explain away. Filled as I was with a Puritan antipathy toward splendour in religious ritual, I found myself actually repulsed by the elaborate symbolism in which the Holy Sacrifice is clothed" (Hull, p. 38).
Note the word "clothed" here; and then return to the distinction drawn in the original post between text and context. Text (propositional doctrine) is obviously critically important, but ignoring context is far from being an indifferent matter. True, a validly consecrated Host is the true Body of Christ whether I receive Him kneeling on my tongue at the altar rail or in my hand while lounging in a papasan chair with my other arm lolling over the side. But eventually the practical disposition and deportment is going to have its effect -- either to reinforce belief in Christ's true Bodily Presence, or to erode it in such a way as to spiritualize Christ's presence, if the conviction is sustained at all. One "language-of-the-body" says "I believe this is Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of my Lord Jesus Christ." The other says ... or rather yawns, "Yeah, whatever."