Treasures Old and New: Vatican II is to be Understood and Interpreted within a Hermeneutic of Continuity

12/5/2012

(Page 2 of 2)

taught by the Church from its beginnings? Clearly, on many issues related to this hermeneutic the speaker and I hold very different positions. It was clear as specific" hot button" issues began to be discussed in that forum.

There is one final word which came up in this encounter. This one a French word, ressourcement. It means a return to the sources. I told my colleague that I believed that the Second Vatican Council, as properly understood, should also be seen as a return to the sources - the Scriptures, the Patristic writings and past Councils - in order to update the trajectory of truth.

I offered an opinion that the task of a contemporary Catholic theologian is beautifully explained in a passage from Matthew's Gospel, "Therefore every scribe who has been trained for the kingdom of heaven is like a householder who brings out of his treasure what is new and what is old." (Matt. 13:52)

Well, my colleague and I had a punchy discussion. He views himself as a "progressive" and apparently viewed me, his interlocutor, as what he called a "traditionalist". I told him I prefer the noun "Catholic" without any descriptive labels. I am not a "traditionalist" though I do love the Tradition. I added that if he wanted to use adjectives, he could just call me a "dynamically orthodox", happy to be Catholic, Catholic.

I thought of the speaker recently when I read comments given by Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig M�ller, the current Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. He was appointed by Pope Benedict XVI to this important post, to the chagrin of some "traditionalists" and the disappointment of some "progressivists". His appointment is proving to be one more confirmation of the wisdom of this Pope.

The Archbishop gave some insightful remarks recently upon the presentation of Volume VII of the German edition of Joseph Ratzinger's "Opera Omnia", a systematic theological collection of the works the now Pope Benedict XVI has written on the meaning of the Second Vatican Council. I hope my colleague read this address. The Prefect suggested an interesting connection between some "progressivists" and some "traditionalists".

Rather than give my own interpretation of his remarks, I offer a lengthy quote from Gianna Valente's article on the presentation in the November 30, 2012 edition of La Stampa entitled "The custodian of faith on the "heretical interpretations" of the Council"

*****
The custodian of faith on the "heretical interpretations" of the Council

Gianna Valente

Those who consider the Second Vatican Council, or Vatican II, to be a break from Church Tradition, offer a "heretical interpretation" of this great ecclesiastical event. And this doctrinal error is not made only by modernist innovators: it is also committed by neo-traditionalists who believe that Vatican II supposedly turned its back on the "traditional Church".

The suggestion that the traditionalist position may have "heretical" elements was made yesterday evening by Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig M�ller, current Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

His remarks came during the presentation of volume VII of the German edition of Joseph Ratzinger's "Opera Omnia", a systematic collection of all the works which the theologian-turned-Pope dedicated to the Council and the documents that came out of it.

The presentation took place in a very evocative place: the Teutonic College of Santa Maria dell'Anima which was expert-theologian Joseph Ratzinger's logistical base during the Council sessions.

During his presentation, the head of the doctrinal dicastery, clearly stated that the only orthodox interpretation of the Second Vatican Council is that which sees it as an opportunity for reform and renewal, in continuity with the one subject-Church which the Lord has given us.

M�ller sees this as the only hermeneutic that respects "the indissoluble unity between the Holy Scriptures, the complete and integral Tradition and the Magisterium, which finds its highest expression in the Council, presided over by St. Peter's Successor, as visible head of the Church."

Archbishop M�ller contrasted this "singular orthodox interpretation" with a "heretical interpretation" which he identified with "the hermeneutics of a split, both on the progressivist front and the traditionalist front." According to M�ller, what they both share in common is a rejection of the Council:

"progressivists want to leave it behind them, as if it were just a phase that should be abandoned in order to move towards a different Church; traditionalists do not want to move towards such a Church, as if it represented the winter of the Catholica."

In his speech, the former bishop of Regensburg described the contribution of Joseph Ratzinger, first as a theologian during the actual Council meetings (as a theological advisor to Cardinal Joseph Frings also) and then during the long and turbulent reception phase of the conciliar teachings. "It was a time of great expectation. Something big had to happen," Benedict XVI wrote in the preface to the German volume presented by M�ller.

- - -

Pope Benedict XVI's Prayer Intentions for January 2013
General Intention: The Faith of Christians. That in this Year of Faith Christians may deepen their knowledge of the mystery of Christ and witness joyfully to the gift of faith in him.
Missionary Intention: Middle Eastern Christians. That the Christian communities of the Middle East, often discriminated against, may receive from the Holy Spirit the strength of fidelity and perseverance.

Keywords: Vatican II, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig M�ller, hermeneutic of continuity, hermeneutic of rupture, New Evangelization, missionary, Deacon Keith Fournier

NEWSLETTERS »

Previous Page 1 | 2

Rate This Article

Was this helpful to you? Very Helpful Somewhat Helpful Not Helpful at All

Would you be interested in more articles like this? Yes, I am Interested No, I am not Interested

Rate Article

1 - 8 of 8 Comments

Celia
4 months ago
The Vatican Council II was an adieu to the past & Hello to the present . I read somewhere that the churches before V.C II were full of the faithful then & now they're mostly empty. Why?? I certainly don't see much progress with V C II only chaos. Much as I'm proud & happy to be a Catholic it pains me to see people take their faith so lightly today. I've attended masses at various Catholic churches around the world & there seems to be a slight difference in how the mass is being said. I thought we were one Holy, Catholic & Apostolic church, why the difference? V C II made too many compromises in order to bring back our lost brothers & sisters who split from the Catholic church. We are here to please Christ not them. Our churches are too Protestant these days. I agree with Mrs Jacobs & Mr Cooney.
I enjoy reading your article Deacon keep up the good work. God Bless
Spiritus Gladius
5 months ago
I second the words of michael and David. Let it be heard, Catholic Church.
vance
5 months ago
This article points out well that the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing when it comes to Vatican II. I accepted the newest changes to the Catholic Mass. I was told that this latest change is what was suppose to happen in the first place after Vatican II. But who knew any different? I have no idea because nothing is said from the pulpit. The faithful are ignorant of what we are suppose to believe because the priests aren't saying anything. For the most part, our church is drifting aimlessly while the anti-church is rolling up victories against Christ because the church leaders offer no opposition or leadership.
Mrs. Julie Jacob
5 months ago
The problem here is that there are no "New" treasures in the Catholic Church. St. Paul says to the Galatians, 1:8-9, "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel to you other that that which we HAVE preached to you, let him be anathema! As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone preach a gospel to you other than that which you have received, let him be anathema!"
If it is NEW it is not Catholic. The only continuity in Vatican II is that which echoes what the Church has always taught.
"Tables" instead of Altars is a complete rupture with the 2000 + year Tradition of the Church. Never, until The Revolt of Luther have there been tables instead of Altars, thanks to Kramner....the Catholic Church is imitating the protestants on this one...
I will not elaborate on all the rest. I am tired of it.
David W. Cooney
5 months ago
I am very happy to see a requirement to interpret the Council in continuity with the past. For that requirement can only make sense if it means what the Church has always taught - that the truths of the Faith are unchangeable and that they must be past on unchanged, including the understanding of that teaching, from what was believed and how it was understood in the past.

Any "development" must comply with this requirement as well. We can reach a deeper understanding of the truths which have been past on to us, but that deeper understanding can only be consistent with those truths; they cannot be understood to mean something that contradicts what was previously taught. To argue otherwise is to say that there is no "continuity."

The problem I have is that the only way to ensure that the Council is being interpreted in continuity with what was always taught by the Church is by including references to the teachings as presented before the Council. Unfortunately, I don't see very much of this in the documents promulgated since the Council. There are copious references going back to the Council, but it is almost as if the Church before the Council did not exist for the authors of these new documents. Is it any wonder that the sedevacantists and the extreme progressives have reached their conclusions?

I am also disturbed by the fact that the Council is treated as though it enjoyed the same level of divine protection (infallibility) from error as the previous councils. However, by its own proclamation, Vatican II was a pastoral council and did not infallibly define anything that had not already been defined in the past. Now, to be consistent with what was taught in the past - that is, to maintain a hermenutic of continuity - we have no choice to to understand the teaching of the Council to be an exercise of the Church's ordinary magisterium, and that its infallibility is limited specifically to those points where it restates what has already been declared by the past. In other words, none of the pastoral directives enjoyed the protection of infallibility, which means that we are free to evaluate their effectiveness and raise issues with the Church where we find them lacking. So, the introduction of significant changes in the mass, the implementing of so many legitimate options and variations in the liturgy, even the changing the names of the parts of the mass, has resulted in a situation where Catholics in the pews can't reasonably know when priests and their "liturgical committees" were actually introducing abuses. The Council said that Latin must be maintained, that was ignored and parishes were allowed to completely eliminate it. Those who wished to maintain the traditional rites were ridiculed and truly persecuted in the Church and by the Church, bishops ignored John Paul II's instructions to generously "allow" the traditional rites, only to have Benedict XVI say that they were always allowed and that no priest needed a bishops permission to offer the rites that were, in the past, declared to be for all time. Even today, it has to suffer the ignomious label "extraordinary." I don't think that is consistent with a "hermenutic of continuity," where the teaching of the Council can only be understood as consistent with the past.
Tom McGuire
5 months ago
In the quoted remarks it is reported: "During his presentation, the head of the doctrinal dicastery, clearly stated that the only orthodox interpretation of the Second Vatican Council is that which sees it as an opportunity for reform and renewal, in continuity with the one subject-Church which the Lord has given us."

I agree with Archbishop Muller there are extremists on both ends of the spectrum, but most are somewhere in between. It seems to me the real problem is with "reform and renewal". The resistance to reform of the way authority is exercised and the constant need for renewal in Christ remains a great need in the Church. (I was present at a Baptism with one hundred people. There was no catechesis. The event was an important ceremony to the families, but my impression was that few understood what Baptism is. Sad!)

I love our Catholic tradition but evangelization starts and ends in the loving encounter with Christ. In the final judgment, how well one lives out the encounter with Christ will be based on what is done for the poor. The understanding of tradition and doctrine follows conversion. I pray we stop fighting one another over our degree of orthodoxy and begin to tell the story of Jesus in word and deed. Proof of successful evangelization will be when people say: "See how they love one another."
michael
5 months ago
Dear Deacon Keith...Good for you for standing for the Holy Faith at that above mentioned event for deacons. I would add just two things. First, the phrase used by our Holy Father was not a "hermeneutic of continuity," which every traditional Catholic would embrace, but rather the term was a "hermeneutic of reform in continuity with the one subject Church," There is always a problem when one has to struggle with a phrase, which is completely new, and is very difficult to understand. What does this mean - a "hermeneutic of reform in continuity with the one subject Church?"
According to Cardinals who have commented on this novel phrase, the hermeneutic of continuity is rejected as a traditionalist position as if doctrines and orientations are the same as they were before. There has been a break, at least with past orientations. Ecumenism and religious liberty questions have been radically changed from past positions of the Church. And in regards to the liturgy, even Cardinal Ratzinger was well aware of there being at least some rupture. As his favorite liturgist, Msgr. Klaus Gamber, once said: the "Roman Rite was destroyed" in 1969.
The interpretive lens, then, is not continuity so much as REFORM in connection with a Church which is still the same. But this makes no sense since continuity must apply to the Revelation we have received from the Son of God not just to the Church herself. As you well know, the council and its aftermath has been filled with confusion and ambiguity. To this day, the Holy See must provide clarifications on terms like subsists and collegiality 50 years later. Also, the once settled issue of the complete and utter inerrancy of Sacred Scripture is now open for discussion because of some prelates using a line in Dei Verbum #11, the document on Divine Revelation.
Let's face it...the council tried to reconcile with the revolutionary tendencies that have been present since the Protestant Revolt and especially since the French Revolution. But Christ and Baal do not mix. The council itself is very good in some parts, in fact, the SSPX accepts 85% to 90% of the council. But sees error in other parts. And there can be error in councils! Did not the council of Florence state that the matter for Holy Orders was the handing over of the vessels to the priest? Of course, the council of Florence was not defining here and so there could be error. Pope Pius XII stated definitively that the matter was the laying on of hands. Long story short, councils are not perfect. They are only protected in very narrow ways when they are actually defining doctrine or retelling the Faith that has always been told.
Archbishop Mueller suggestion that somehow Traditional Catholics have a heretical interpretation of the council is offensive. The Church has already admitted that the council has problems. The Fraternity of St. Peter, an order in union with Rome and founded by B. JPII, is allowed to have reservations about the council according to the agreement they signed with Rome. The Holy See has also been in doctrinal discussions with the SSPX for two full years with some of the unsound things in the council being freely discussed. In addition, what is heretical about my rejecting ecumenism as it is presently carried out? Ecumenism is not a doctrine but a policy. Cardinal Ratzinger stated that VII was a council that "defined no dogma at all and remained at a very modest level....it was a pastoral council."
Secondly, the term ressourcement was coined by French Jesuits like de Lubac who hated St. Thomas Aquinas, the scholastics, and the way the council of Trent presented the Holy Faith. They wanted not just to go back to the Fathers, but also to skip the scholastics like Anselm, Aquinas, Albert, and Bonaventure in the process of returning. This ressourcement movement has proven to be a disaster. Without our main theologian being St. Thomas, we are in confusion.
abey
5 months ago
The word "Catholic Faith " is to mean the belief in Christ to His words & works in letter & In Spirit, Preaching the kingdom of God but too often ending up preaching social gospels called to "itching ears" to Appeasings to know that gathering large crowds but becoming complacent to compromising on the Faith by not preaching the Gospel in its fulness called selected preachings or Convenient preachings are to the falling way into the days of Noe. Let not the Church preach what the world preaches, for Degrees & Doctorates do not make the faith reflecting those learned Pharisees but to the Synagogues of satan. Even though the intention of the second Vatican council was to strengthen the faith so it seems, its effects have not been achieved, for the Church to beware not to fall the way of the Anglicans & its like episcopals embedded in Legalisms, Leavens & Hypocrisy to immorality.

Comments submitted must be civil, remain on-topic and not violate any laws including copyright. We reserve the right to delete any comments which are abusive, inappropriate or not constructive to the discussion.

Though we invite robust discussion, we reserve the right to not publish any comment which denigrates the human person, undermines marriage and the family, or advocates for positions which openly oppose the teaching of the Catholic Church.

This is a supervised forum and the Editors of Catholic Online retain the right to direct it.

We also reserve the right to block any commenter for repeated violations. Your email address is required to post, but it will not be published on the site.

We ask that you NOT post your comment more than once. Catholic Online is growing and our ability to review all comments sometimes results in a delay in their publication.

Name *

Email *

Comment *

Send me important information from Catholic Online and it's partners. See Sample

Post Comment