Thread by @S_Coughlin_DC

A friend undertook the translated subtitles. I've been planning to put something together on this and will soon. Habermas is second generation Frankfurt School. There is reason to think that this concept was first tried in prototype at Vatican II -

https://twitter.com/THOMASWGRIFFIN1/status/1445215417304236033

2) I know what you’re thinking: “Vatican II, WT*, that’s a reach, even for you. But consider, it was well known at Vatican II that microphones were turned off for those who opposed the periti and there were other events as well that map with Habermas’ DT.

3) Then, consider that in 2005, Habermas coauthored a book with Cardinal Ratzinger titled THE DIALECTICS OF SECULARIZATION: ON REASON AND RELIGION. In the US, the Jesuit Ignatius Press published it never once suggesting that Habermas was a Marxist.

4) Ratzinger, a Nouvelle théologie peritus agrees with the dialectical nature of the relation of church and state in Hegelian terms. The dialectic exists to negate. On p 45, Habermas uses “deflation and exhaustion”; i.e., dialectical negation, of an Judeo-Christian concept:

5) “Philosophy had indeed transformed the original religious meaning of these terms, but without emptying them of them through a process of deflation and exhaustion. One such translation of the of the concept of ‘man in the image of God’ into that of the identical dignity . . .

6) . . . of all men that deserves unconditional respect. This goes beyond the borders of one particular religious fellowship and makes the substance of biblical concepts accessible to a general public that also includes those who have other faiths and those who have none.”

7) Later, Ratzinger agrees with Habermas, including with his dialectical construction. On page 77:

“I am in broad agreement with Jurgen Habermas’ remarks about a postsecular society, about the willingness to learn from each other, and about self-limitation on both sides . . .

8) . . . We have seen that there exists pathologies in religion that are extremely dangerous and that make it necessary to see the divine light of reason as a ‘controlling organ’. Religion must continually allow itself to be purified and structured by reason.”

9) To understand what Ratzinger said, it’s important to recognize that it emanates from a common Hegelian dialectical form around which he and Habermas agree to dance. Note the role of Hegel’s notion of spirit that makes today’s “Zeitgeist” (the spirit of today) truer . . .

10) . . . than yesterday’s spirit precisely because history moves forward. This is the formula of negation. Isn’t this precisely (EXACTLY) what Francis is executing today? Now ponder what I’ve said before. Vatican II was formally declared non-dogmatic but rather “pastoral”.

11) If Church TRADITION (cap “T” Tradition) is THESIS, then Vatican II, the pastoral, was antithesis. For initiates informed in the binary language of Vatican II, isn’t “We accept Tradition but must be pastoral” code for a negation event?

12) Didn’t Ratzinger say certain Vatican II documents negated certain pre-Vatican II encyclicals on modernism? (Yes!) Didn’t he say his job was to “raise the bastions” of the Church? (Yes!)

Just saying!

13) CORRECTION - I sent a link to the original un-subtitled Polish version of DISCOURSE THEORY. Below is the link to the English subtitled version. Apologies!

3speak.tv/watch?v=vladte…