The schism known as the Protestant Reformation has been underway for 500 years. It will take longer than 50 years to heal that over. I think Pope Benedict's establishment of Anglican Ordinariates to welcome Anglican Protestants back into the Catholic Church, will have long term impacts in that area.
But one place where Nostra Aetate really shines, is in our relations with our Jewish brethren, the "elder brothers in the Faith." That started a healing that badly needed to happen, after centuries of anti-Semitism within the Church.
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.
Proponents of the traditional Mass will often argue along the lines of “if a Catholic from 1955 were to time-travel to 1975, they would find the Mass unrecognisable”. That is undeniably the case, but as a Catholic who was born in 1965 and started attending Mass regularly in 1970 - just as the “new Mass” was in also in its infancy - I can attest that the Mass of 2021 is barely recognisable compared to the Mass of 1971. My late parents told me that a lot of people stopped going to Mass almost overnight in those days, the typical argument being that if it could change so drastically, it couldn’t be of much value or even what it purported to be. For those that stuck around, the decades-long rollout of innovations that I was witness to - from communion in the hand to the rise of the “extraordinary minister“ to “Hooray For Everything” - sorry, “Go Make A Difference” - seemed to reinforce the diminishment of value, ever-so-gradually transforming not only the look and feel of the Mass but also the practise and understanding of the faith. To me now, the Mass is like a suburban street where I grew up - still somewhat familiar all these years later, but only just.
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
And instead of working to bring our separated brethren back to the fold, we seem to become more Protestant year after year.
The schism known as the Protestant Reformation has been underway for 500 years. It will take longer than 50 years to heal that over. I think Pope Benedict's establishment of Anglican Ordinariates to welcome Anglican Protestants back into the Catholic Church, will have long term impacts in that area.
But one place where Nostra Aetate really shines, is in our relations with our Jewish brethren, the "elder brothers in the Faith." That started a healing that badly needed to happen, after centuries of anti-Semitism within the Church.
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.
Proponents of the traditional Mass will often argue along the lines of “if a Catholic from 1955 were to time-travel to 1975, they would find the Mass unrecognisable”. That is undeniably the case, but as a Catholic who was born in 1965 and started attending Mass regularly in 1970 - just as the “new Mass” was in also in its infancy - I can attest that the Mass of 2021 is barely recognisable compared to the Mass of 1971. My late parents told me that a lot of people stopped going to Mass almost overnight in those days, the typical argument being that if it could change so drastically, it couldn’t be of much value or even what it purported to be. For those that stuck around, the decades-long rollout of innovations that I was witness to - from communion in the hand to the rise of the “extraordinary minister“ to “Hooray For Everything” - sorry, “Go Make A Difference” - seemed to reinforce the diminishment of value, ever-so-gradually transforming not only the look and feel of the Mass but also the practise and understanding of the faith. To me now, the Mass is like a suburban street where I grew up - still somewhat familiar all these years later, but only just.