Sunday, September 01, 2013
FROM THE BLOG 'UNAM SANCTAM CATHOLICAM'
What is the hermeneutic of continuity?
as descriptive of an interpretation of the Second Vatican Council that stresses continuity between
pre and post-Conciliar teachings. This "hermeneutic of continuity" is generally opposed to a
"hermeneutic of rupture", which sees Vatican II in terms of a break or rupture with tradition.
Progressive are generally "rupturists", while conservative, orthodox Catholics favor
the hermeneutic of continuity proposed by Benedict XVI and enthusiastically embraced by
those advocating a reform of the reform.
But what exactly is the hermeneutic of continuity? Is it as self-evident as the simple definition
I gave above would lead us to believe? In fact it is not, and while I support the concept of
the hermeneutic of continuity, I must firmly insist that we begin by understanding what
the hermeneutic of continuity is exactly - and what it implies.
To say that the hermeneutic of continuity stresses continuity between pre and
post-Conciliar teaching is not sufficient, because there is two ways one can interpret
what this means, and as we shall see, much is riding on which approach one prefers.
Two ways of interpreting "hermeneutic of continuity":
1) The teaching of the Second Vatican Council is already in perfect continuity
with Tradition, and in proposing a hermeneutic of continuity, we are being
asking to realize and appropriate this truth. The hermeneutic of continuity is
simply recognizing what the Council "really taught" as opposed to what liberals
drew out of it. In this interpretation, discontinuity is a myth that must be dispelled
by proper catechesis.
2) The teaching of the Second Vatican Council presents a departure from
Catholic Tradition, and in proposing for a hermeneutic of continuity,
we are being asked to look for a way to reconcile Conciliar teaching with
pre-Conciliar teaching. The hermeneutic of continuity consists in new statements
or actions on the part of the Magisterium, bishops and priests to bring the
Vatican II documents into synthesis with prior Magisterial
teaching. In this interpretation, discontinuity is a fact that must be rectified.
Catholic Tradition, and in proposing for a hermeneutic of continuity,
we are being asked to look for a way to reconcile Conciliar teaching with
pre-Conciliar teaching. The hermeneutic of continuity consists in new statements
or actions on the part of the Magisterium, bishops and priests to bring the
Vatican II documents into synthesis with prior Magisterial
teaching. In this interpretation, discontinuity is a fact that must be rectified.
Look at these for a moment and notice how different the two approaches are. While both
call for an interpretive schema that stresses continuity, the former denies the existence of
objective discontinuity while the latter actually takes it for granted. It might be
objected that the latter interpretation actually puts one in the camp of the rupturists, since
it presumes that there is a true divergence between Conciliar teaching and
Catholic tradition - an objective rupture. But it is important to point out that a
true rupturist interpretation not only acknowledges the rupture, but celebrates it
and works to further it. We, on the other hand, acknowledge the fact of a rupture,
but work to rectify it, to close the gap, to bring all things into harmony inasmuch
as is possible.
It is in the second sense that I, too, believe a hermeneutic of continuity is vitally
important for restoration. But this does not consist of simply returning to
the documents, uncovering the "riches" of the Council, or stressing what
the Council "actually taught" as opposed to how it was "implemented."
I have written elsewhere on how the Council Fathers noted many problems
with the Conciliar documents from the outset; I have alsodemonstrated that
the theory of a council "hijacked" by the media and other outside interests is
not tenable. We need, desperately need, a hermeneutic of continuity,
but it does not simply consist in rediscovering the documents or returning
to what the Council "really taught." These are dead ends.
It would be worth asking: if there really is an objective discontinuity,
a real rupture of sorts, what's the use in trying to "bring it into harmony"
with tradition? Discontinuity, by definition, means there is no continuity,
and if so, how can we speak of "reconciling" or synthesizing it?
In acknowledging an objective discontinuity, I do not mean to say that the break
is so grave, the chasm so wide, that it cannot be crossed. The majority of
the Council Fathers, even men of unimpeachable orthodoxy like Marcel Lefebvre,
ultimately signed off on the Council documents, which indicates that they must
have believed that the documents were compatible with Tradition in some sense,
even if only "with great difficulty." Vocabulary was novel, the manner of
speech was different from prior Councils, different angles or aspects
of questions were explored which previously had not been, the ends
of the Council were pastoral rather than dogmatic, and the very "mood"
of the Council was profoundly different from previous Councils.
All of these things taken together signify an objective "change of direction"
in the Church's understanding of itself - but, as Vatican II itself and Paul VI
himself noted, this orientation was fundamentally pastoral, which ultimately
means discretionary. If the Church wanted to, they could go back to its
pre-Conciliar orientation or even adopt a new one without any change in teaching.
So, when we speak of harmonizing or bridging the gap, we mean not the
attempt to put a square peg into a round hole, but rather effecting a true metanoia,
a change of direction, within the Church, such that her fundamental orientation
is realigned with Tradition.
But this means we must confess that the orientation is currently not aligned.
In calling for a hermeneutic, we are implicitly acknowledging that there
is a discontinuity that needs to be addressed. Or, as Chris Ferrara put it recently,
"What kind of Council needs a 'hermeneutic' just to understand Catholic teaching?"
If the hermeneutic of continuity is more than just "rediscovering the riches"
of the Council, then it is in fact something extrinsic that needs to be applied.
It is something akin to a syllabus, or an explanatory note followed up by
a rigorous campaign of implementation - a dedicated, intentional effort on the
part of the Magisterium to impose continuityon the Council by stating
definitively how the documents are to be interpreted and bringing them
into harmony with Tradition.
Can this be done? A recent statement of the SSPX opined that the Council could
only be brought into harmony "with great difficulty." But to counter that with
Cardinal Newman, "ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt."
So, yes, we need a hermeneutic of continuity, but paradoxically, this hermeneutic
of continuity must begin from the premise of acknowledging an
objective discontinuity. Only if you acknowledge where you are can you
even begin to think about where you ought to be going.
call for an interpretive schema that stresses continuity, the former denies the existence of
objective discontinuity while the latter actually takes it for granted. It might be
objected that the latter interpretation actually puts one in the camp of the rupturists, since
it presumes that there is a true divergence between Conciliar teaching and
Catholic tradition - an objective rupture. But it is important to point out that a
true rupturist interpretation not only acknowledges the rupture, but celebrates it
and works to further it. We, on the other hand, acknowledge the fact of a rupture,
but work to rectify it, to close the gap, to bring all things into harmony inasmuch
as is possible.
It is in the second sense that I, too, believe a hermeneutic of continuity is vitally
important for restoration. But this does not consist of simply returning to
the documents, uncovering the "riches" of the Council, or stressing what
the Council "actually taught" as opposed to how it was "implemented."
I have written elsewhere on how the Council Fathers noted many problems
with the Conciliar documents from the outset; I have alsodemonstrated that
the theory of a council "hijacked" by the media and other outside interests is
not tenable. We need, desperately need, a hermeneutic of continuity,
but it does not simply consist in rediscovering the documents or returning
to what the Council "really taught." These are dead ends.
It would be worth asking: if there really is an objective discontinuity,
a real rupture of sorts, what's the use in trying to "bring it into harmony"
with tradition? Discontinuity, by definition, means there is no continuity,
and if so, how can we speak of "reconciling" or synthesizing it?
In acknowledging an objective discontinuity, I do not mean to say that the break
is so grave, the chasm so wide, that it cannot be crossed. The majority of
the Council Fathers, even men of unimpeachable orthodoxy like Marcel Lefebvre,
ultimately signed off on the Council documents, which indicates that they must
have believed that the documents were compatible with Tradition in some sense,
even if only "with great difficulty." Vocabulary was novel, the manner of
speech was different from prior Councils, different angles or aspects
of questions were explored which previously had not been, the ends
of the Council were pastoral rather than dogmatic, and the very "mood"
of the Council was profoundly different from previous Councils.
All of these things taken together signify an objective "change of direction"
in the Church's understanding of itself - but, as Vatican II itself and Paul VI
himself noted, this orientation was fundamentally pastoral, which ultimately
means discretionary. If the Church wanted to, they could go back to its
pre-Conciliar orientation or even adopt a new one without any change in teaching.
So, when we speak of harmonizing or bridging the gap, we mean not the
attempt to put a square peg into a round hole, but rather effecting a true metanoia,
a change of direction, within the Church, such that her fundamental orientation
is realigned with Tradition.
But this means we must confess that the orientation is currently not aligned.
In calling for a hermeneutic, we are implicitly acknowledging that there
is a discontinuity that needs to be addressed. Or, as Chris Ferrara put it recently,
"What kind of Council needs a 'hermeneutic' just to understand Catholic teaching?"
If the hermeneutic of continuity is more than just "rediscovering the riches"
of the Council, then it is in fact something extrinsic that needs to be applied.
It is something akin to a syllabus, or an explanatory note followed up by
a rigorous campaign of implementation - a dedicated, intentional effort on the
part of the Magisterium to impose continuityon the Council by stating
definitively how the documents are to be interpreted and bringing them
into harmony with Tradition.
Can this be done? A recent statement of the SSPX opined that the Council could
only be brought into harmony "with great difficulty." But to counter that with
Cardinal Newman, "ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt."
So, yes, we need a hermeneutic of continuity, but paradoxically, this hermeneutic
of continuity must begin from the premise of acknowledging an
objective discontinuity. Only if you acknowledge where you are can you
even begin to think about where you ought to be going.
No comments:
Post a Comment