"Let your Yes, be Yes, and your No, be No, anything
other than this is from the Evil one"
Benedict XVI's pontificate has been marked by
a few defining moments that have provoked some
neither entirely foreseeable nor easily controlled
reactions: one need only think of the polemics
that ensued after the release of the motu proprio
Summorum Pontificum. This act, which occasioned
an openly hostile, widespread reaction, was also
an opportunity for some to discover the Church's
genuine liturgical patrimony and, through it, they
were spurred on to discover an ecclesiology and
theological system not only different from, but also incompatible with, that forged. over the Last 50 YEARS _ and peremptorily imposed on "the People of God."
Among the choices characterizing Benedict
XVI's pontificate it seems to me that we can include the principle of the "hermeneutic of continuity,"! which was articulated in his famous speech to the Roman Curia of December 22, 2005. The speech was not followed by the explosive reactions that have occurred in other instances, but it did give rise to a current of thought, and to its opposition, that is still with us and merits our attention.
In the following reflections we intend to scrutinize what the principle of the hermeneutic of continuity asserts, and we shall try to situate it in the historical context of the Church today so as to deduce all of its implications.
A True Principle and an
Unproven Presupposition
Forty years after the close of the Second Vatican
Council, Benedict XVI recognizes the fact that
situations creating a deep malaise arose after this historic event. He immediately frames the difficulty as a problem in the acceptance of the Council linked to a problem of the interpretation(hermeneutic) of the texts of the Council itself: too often, the Council was interpreted and thus applied in discontinuity with the perennial teaching of the Church, contrary to the objective meaning of its texts and contrary to the intentions of the Council Fathers themselves.
The hermeneutic of continuity thus is presented as
the proper approach to interpreting the Council
authentically, according to its true intention and
especially in perfect harmony with Tradition.
Benedict XVI's intervention has the merit of
highlighting a basic principle,namely,that in the
Church's magisterial teaching," there cannot be a break with previous teaching, but only continuity: what the Church has always taught can neither be surpassed, nor set aside; rather, it constitutes the Church's patrimony, which can neither be repudiated, nor substantially altered.
We should remark that this truth recalled by
Benedict XVI is in one sense quite simple; it pertains to the rudiments of the Faith and to the foundational principles that define the very nature of the Church. Consequently, the fact that he deemed it necessary to outline his papal program in light of this truth constitutes a first significant acknowledgement of the doctrinal crisis in which the Church finds itself. By
solemnly reiterating such a simple, elementary truth, which had been set aside in practice and in common teaching, the Pope inevitably provided an objective indicator of the gravity of the current situation. The usual commemorative orations about
the council were replaced in this speech by a
reminder of elementary principles: it constituted
an initial acknowledgment that something has not
worked. Moreover, it should be recognized that the
fact of recalling that there can be no break in the Church's teaching prompted in some individuals
especially priests, a desire to valorize things past and the Tradition of the Church. In many cases this re-evaluation led to the progressive discovery of an absolutely new patrimony, which these priests felt had been denied them. This is certainly the most positive effect of the hermeneutic of continuity. However, the hermeneutic of continuity stands out, not so much for its intrinsic, abstract value as in the concrete application made of it, as a two-edged sword: it affirms, in effect, that the documents
of the Council are in perfect continuity with the
Church's perennial Tradition, and when it brings
to light an .objectively serious problem of a break, it systematically reduces it to a question of the interpretation of the Council itself, to a deviation that occurred in the post-conciliar period. The absolute fidelity of the Council to the previous authoritative teaching of the Church seems to remain as an indisputable postulate. In this way, the "blame" falls upon a heterodox current of thought incompatible with Catholic doctrine and foreign to the Council, but
which paradoxically succeeded in steering in large
part the application and the concrete results."
As we now get to the crux of our considerations,
we plan to situate the hermeneutic of continuity
historically by seeking to grasp every aspect without entering in detail into specific conciliar teachings, which have been discussed over and over, we realize that it postulates a series of elements which, instead of saving the Council, indirectly demonstrate its failure.
(I would say then, based on the above, that the VCII created this failure without intending to break with the traditions, that have been followed for over 2000 years. The corrective measures that Pope Benedict VXI
is attempting to do, is just, and needed then, but is being opposed by those in the Catholic church,who have read in to the VCII actions, those changes ,that were not the intention of the Council, and should then be extracted, as having no validity. JMHO)
