secularism is rampant from last century and plus, of calling tradition rigorous and unbending for faith therefore secular rids tradition and continues to dissolve all matters of truth into subjective individual relativism… secularism has not settled therefore we must do as Habermas the great secularist suggests keep moving toward a post secular post hegelian demur toward a transcendent faith steeped in tradition which does not define rigidity…pg 182 dictatorship of relativism
A confusing analysis. As I read the constitutional documents I could find nothing to take exception to but then "the devil is in the details" as always, is it not? What came after is more telling.
My reaction to the changes brought about in the name of Vatican II is that they seem to have been unnecessary. It addressed a problem some have described -convincingly- as nonexistent. However it seems to have provided an opportunity to 'modernize' (read secularize) the church. The year it ended,1965, ushered in the moral decay of the West especially of the USA. Moral decay of the most depraved sort became rampant reaching into the church itself. At this point we seem to actually be heading rapidly for the end of civilization itself.
The biggest issues with Vatican II seem to have been church leaders and church scholars reading the Vatican II documents in the "spirit of the age" (which remember, was the '60s) rather than what the documents actually said.
For example, devotees of the traditional pre-Vatican II Mass will complain that the post-sVatican II liturgy went well beyond the directives of "Sacrosanctum concilium" which called for much more gradual reforms. I tend to think they have a point.
For one thing, it took a long time to start really addressing one of the worst wounds of Christianity as in split of the Reformation era. In hindsight, it's not hard to imagine how grieved Christ would be by that division of His people. Hence, Nostra aetate shines with special holiness in my opinion. https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html
secularism is rampant from last century and plus, of calling tradition rigorous and unbending for faith therefore secular rids tradition and continues to dissolve all matters of truth into subjective individual relativism… secularism has not settled therefore we must do as Habermas the great secularist suggests keep moving toward a post secular post hegelian demur toward a transcendent faith steeped in tradition which does not define rigidity…pg 182 dictatorship of relativism
A confusing analysis. As I read the constitutional documents I could find nothing to take exception to but then "the devil is in the details" as always, is it not? What came after is more telling.
My reaction to the changes brought about in the name of Vatican II is that they seem to have been unnecessary. It addressed a problem some have described -convincingly- as nonexistent. However it seems to have provided an opportunity to 'modernize' (read secularize) the church. The year it ended,1965, ushered in the moral decay of the West especially of the USA. Moral decay of the most depraved sort became rampant reaching into the church itself. At this point we seem to actually be heading rapidly for the end of civilization itself.
Not an event to celebrate but to overcome.
The biggest issues with Vatican II seem to have been church leaders and church scholars reading the Vatican II documents in the "spirit of the age" (which remember, was the '60s) rather than what the documents actually said.
For example, devotees of the traditional pre-Vatican II Mass will complain that the post-sVatican II liturgy went well beyond the directives of "Sacrosanctum concilium" which called for much more gradual reforms. I tend to think they have a point.