Abbey-Roads2

Athanasius has a wonderful post (albeit lengthy) on Gaudium et Spes, the pastoral constitution on the Church in the the modern world.  If you thought I was crazy with my previous post and the ambiguity that was the result of Vatican II, read his post.  Here is a snippet:

“… the constitution (Gaudium et Spes) is called “pastoral” because, while resting on doctrinal principles, it seeks to express the relation of the Church to the world and modern mankind … in part two the subject matter which is viewed in the light of doctrinal principles is made up of diverse elements. Some elements have a permanent value; others, only a transitory one. … Interpreters must bear in mind - especially in part two - the changeable circumstances which the subject matter, by its very nature, involves. (GS, fn. 1)”- A Traditional Catholic Reading of Gaudium et Spes, By Jacob A Michael

.
And we wonder why the confusion after Vatican II - with or without John Paul II.  Yes, I believe the critique from a Traditionalist’s point of view is necessary for some Novus Ordo Catholics who have lost touch with tradition in many respects.

Another snip from the post on Athanasius:

“Opinions on this pastoral constitution were and are varied, to say the least. The language of the document is weak, rambling, confused, and saturated with an element of time-bound optimism that, while probably understandable in its original context of the heady days of 1965, makes little sense in today’s world. Theologians at the council - and not just the Traditionalist theologians - were critical of the document. It is related that:

Karl Rahner found the text uncritical in its analyses, confusing in its attempts to relate the natural and the supernatural, moralising in its interpretation of contemporary movements. It lacked, he said, an adequate theology of sin and its ineradicable depths, as well as of the Cross and its implications. (Komonchak)” - Athanasius