Again HUGE news: Pope Francis explicitly endorses Benedict XVI’s “hermeneutic of continuity”

The 450th anniversary of the closing of the Council of Trent is coming up on 4 December. We like to celebrate these great milestones in salvation history. So, there are great doings in Trent, in the northern area of Italy which is part of the (also) German-speaking Tirol. As is customary, Pope Francis will send a Cardinal as his personal representative. Who better than His Eminence Walter Card. Brandmüller?

When the Pope sends a Cardinal off on one of these missions, he sends him a formal letter, charging him with his task and indicating something of his own hopes for the occasion. The anniversary of the closing of the Council of Trent is no exception.

In his letter to Card. Brandmüller, Pope Francis explicitly cites Pope Benedict XVI pontificate-defining address in 2005 to the Roman Curia in which he spoke about the “hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture” (e.g., the Karl Rahner crowd and their descendants, still active today) and the “hermeneutic of reform”, or “hermeneutic of continuity”.

In this explicit reference Francis is aligning himself with Benedict and that key moment and concept underlying Benedict’s pontificate.

This comes in the wake of Francis writing to Archbishop Marchetto (refresh your memory HERE), a critic of one of the powerhouses of the ”hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture”, the so-called “Bologna School” of interpretation of the Council. Francis surely broke a lot of liberal hearts when he referred to Marchetto (who in this matter is completely aligned with Benedict) as one of the best interpreters of the Council that he knows.

The letter of Francis to Card. Brandmüller is available in the Latin original in the Bollettino. Here is my rapid translation of the first part of the letter, which is the important part. I scaled down some of the flowery stuff. The second part is the usual boilerplate and of less interest.

First, it affirms that we can indeed, and rightly, Read Francis Through Benedict.

Second, it affirms that Francis is, and rightly, reading Francis Through Benedict.

Third, it strikes me that Pope Francis is making some course corrections. He may have perceived that some in “the world” (e.g., liberals, the MSM) are not reading him accurately. His experience with the “interview” by Scalfari ought to have made that evident. In addition to liberal misperceptions and distorted interpretations, he has also been misjudged by many on the more conservative side of the spectrum.

As I have said all along, Pope Francis – like every Pope – has to learn how to be Pope. He had less of an advantage coming to the See of Peter because he had not been in or around the Roman Curia. But he is adjusting, learning, transforming. Francis, as you can see everyday, is not static in his job. He isn’t simply on cruise control.

Continue to pay close attention to Pope Francis, not just in sound-bites, but in the larger arcs of his talks and speeches and written documents.

This is not a bone thrown to conservatives. This is the real deal. This is Francis.

What has stood out in the discussion here, in my own view, is that all this talk of continuity/discontinuity of "hermeneutic" was only about scripture itself on a secondary basis (at best), if it is as at all to stay cogent with the lead article written by Zuhlsdorf.

Mr. Z speaks of his own prior discussion concerning the Bologna School [*], as wiki entry there for that "school" notes; "...specializing in the history of the Second Vatican Council".

Zuhlsdorf, at a link to one of his his own blog pages, put there capital letter heading "READING FRANCIS THROUGH BENEDICT" which shows this is not much at all directly concerning itself with biblical hermeneutic, but that of "other texts", written words, teachings, etc., making it hermeneutic of hermeneutic, of yet another more primary layer of the same --- in regards to hermeneutic of "Tradition" among and amid the Latin Church.

They sure do talk about...themselves...a whole lot. It's like "inside baseball" both before and after that sort of talkety-talk was cool.

[*] here consider too: wiki has open editing. Roman Catholic subject matter, as many other, have history @ wiki of there having been struggles behind the scenes concerning entries, as the various wars of "perception control" play out on those pages--not all is neutral, with TradCats & RadTrads having been able to win rule of the roost in some wiki page areas concerning RCC-centric information (due as much for any other reasons, their own levels of interest of those things, including their own interest in how those things will be classified in the mind, then hence discussed) somewhat similar as to how ongoing struggles for how information is allowed to be framed, have long played out on these very pages (FR religion" forum).

It can be as much or more about "control" as to how people will perceive the RCC, and various aspects of that "community", as it is about objective realities of same.

What is not discussed on those (wiki) pages, nor much touched upon by Mr. Z, is precisely, exactly what the so-called "Bologna School" is speaking of when they point towards what is claimed (by Mr. Z, a critic of that "school") to be a "discontinuity".

To my own eyes...I cannot help but to consider all of this sort of thing which Z speaks of, being composed of many parts, including but not limited to; denial that the RCC was ever in need of correction or "adjustment" as to past outlooks & practice, as those once held major sway and influence (hence the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, etc.), and the ongoing struggle for interpretation of Vatican II documents, in regards to earlier such as Vatican I and the Council of Trent.

To further complicate the issue, those who have been labeled "modernist" are as likely as not to hold some extent of view, that yes, during the late Middle Ages, not all was so actual right & proper within the confines of [Roman] Catholicism, if it BUT have been only more along line of just exactly how some otherwise "true" doctrine or principle was expressed, then applied, affecting viewpoints of many during those times in practice to various extents at odds with said-to-be "true" expressions, thus at those places, producing results possibly not in keeping with grander of the grand imaginings of identity, charter and purpose of the Latin Church.

And among these "modernists" are those who when rightfully and honestly enough make mention that such things as requirement for priestly celibacy not having been at all times historical, these same then tend towards making mention that there could be or should be female "priest"-(esses?) and the like -- which elicits torrents of objection from a great many, from the hard-core RadTrad "Opus Dei" to the more moderate of traditionalist (I could offer some agreement with them on this score...but we'd have to back further the truck to the original loading dock, as it were, and reexamine the original cargo that was so long ago loaded, along with careful review of bills of lading, and how those were originally read among the gathered many to mean, etc.) with most of those (traditionalists) uniting in yet another round of "I told you so", and blaming it all ultimately, on the Protestant Reformation, whichever twists and turns must be "declared truth" unvarnished, to get there.

My own views and opinions otherwise aside, I don't *quite* see how anyone can not see, that there was in the very least "change of tone" coming from Vatican II -- and boy howdy(!) what that council produced sure has stirred up long simmering disputations, to say the least!

But what is plain enough to see, is how some try (or are even somewhat by default, compelled to?) using application of difficult to at first master cognitive dissonance, first; to identify conflicting/contradictory elements from withing the greater bulk of teaching "magersterium" (it can happen with little notice, for it can be of some theological subtly) then, to precisely frame and define, separating or quarantining as it were, those aspects from all else...which should remain...before then -- recombining those elements once again in some manner which can express cogent & consistent framework (of thought), if at all possible...

What I mean by usage here of the term cognitive dissonance is effort to reconcile all the various and sundry meanings and "thoughts" as it were, expressed within statements, and declaratory paragraphs (which is how the catechism of the RCC, and much other "document" and text other than scriptures themselves found there, much read --- one declaratory paragraph after another, for better & worse, and if not any "worse" at all -- then certainly at increase of complexity in having to reconcile seeming contradictory/conflicting information of theological consideration, between various portion and paragraph). It can be tough going, trying to sort it all out -- or there possibly ---arguably--- wouldn't have been such things as the "Bologna School" and all the various hissings at "Vatican II's" general direction (over the last few generations) from a great many [Roman] Catholics, themselves. It's either that --- or a great many are at fundamentally serious odds with their own church, even at the same moment they claim that to be in some manner, infallible.

Along these lines, theological development as it has unfolded over centuries (within Roman Catholicism) has as times produced the very seeming (or the setting up of actual) contradiction of theological thought, as it can be logically held in one's mind at any one moment, such as the older understandings, as sought to apply to Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus along with ideas as "all must be subject to the Roman Pontiff" while argument being put forth and sought to apply simultaneously as towards there being a "visible church" (with the Romanists of course, declaring themselves to be the one and only, no other need apply-- just SUBMIT to THEM) while at the very same time, otherwise from within "Romanism", much from Vatican II documents comes 'thoughts' expressed, in recognition that there are actual Christians beyond the more narrowly defined confines of their own ecclesiastical community, all those visibly outside of that same (yet Christian --even with presence of the Holy Spirit be acknowledged can be there) are in some way invisibly in union (albeit imperfect) with "Rome", with the visible/invisible switch as it were, being turned off/on at will, depending upon which Romanist is doing the talking, and perhaps how more "Catholic" than the pope himself, they may be. Subject to further interpretation, of course...

Now that that sort of discussion on my own part may have a few here 'round these parts reaching yet again for their pitchforks and torches, to better poke & prod myself (and others) upon what is in fork-bearer's own view(s), the way (by torchlight) towards fuller agreement with themselves, again I must reply, "thank you, but no thanks, though I think I do understand what you mean..."

If that be not sufficient, and if at this juncture there still be misunderstandings of irreconcilable differences (see cognitive dissonance again, if that be any possible aid), then upon request, I would be more than happy [enough] to fetch or retrieve some on-line image of a box of grits. One could download that same to their own home computer, and if they had a printer also, produce physical facsimile of that image, put my name upon it in bold letters, and keep it close nearby and handy, so those persons be better able in tangible & visible manner, cover that same with the tenderest of kisses, if/and/when call for such does again(?) arise.

grits

>>“hermeneutic of continuity”, What is that supposed to mean?

If I read this right, "hermeneutics" is the science of interpretation; and "continuity" would refer to interpretation of the Scriptures leading to a smooth transition of doctrines of the past into the future without abandoning understood and accepted dogmas.

You're as close as it could be to being correct without a good understanding of modern Catholic history...and the latter is not your fault at all (not being Catholic).

Essentially, there was a school of thought in a lot of Catholic circles that stated that the Second Vatican Council completely redefined what the Church was. This school of thought (the "Bologna School") believed in what was called a "hermeneutic of rupture" -- that is, any belief or any practice that was said or done prior to Vatican II was no longer valid and that there was a compelling need to re-define everything.

Pope John Paul II and, more strenously, Pope Benedict XVI rejected that hermeneutic, stating, instead that Vatican II must be interpreted in light of and in cooperation with all prior Church councils (this "hermeneutic of continuity").

The difference between the two camps certainly impacts how Scripture is interpreted, but it also impacts EVERYTHING...from fundamental theology and dogma to sexuality to social doctrine to liturgy even to church architecture.

A Greek Orthodox iconostasis

I hesitate to do so, but one example of this is that after Vatican II, in many parishes (including my own), altar rails were removed separating the sanctuary from the nave. Believe it or not, there is a theological reason for those altar rails to exist (in the Churches of the east, they have something called an iconostasis that serves the same theological purpose...going back several hundred years in the west, we used to have something called a "rood screen"...which was subsequently supplanted by the altar rail)
The traditional liturgies are formed around the book of Revelation, particularly Revelation 5 & 6. If you look at that, I think the purpose of the iconostasis / rood screen / altar rail becomes pretty apparent. (We are, as St John did, looking upon those events with adoration)
By ripping out the altar rails from churches (because they wanted a "rupture" from the past), they have removed a visible reminder of the theology behind the liturgy. Then, in conjunction with many of the radical changes that they made with the structure of the liturgy itself (many of which went radically farther than what was actually authorized by the Church), it starts to transform how people think.
And then this change in thought starts to spill over into how people think in other areas as well.
Not being Catholic, you may or may not understand what I'm trying to get at...nor will you likely agree...but that is FWIW

Why this is a big deal is that the secular (and left-wing Catholic) media were trying to paint Francis as being on the side of the "hermeneutic of rupture" -- this was something that was causing no small amount of consternation among the more conservative / traditionalist people within the Church. Rather than reading and listening to the actual words of Francis, they were paying more attention to the media spin about Francis (I have been saying for months that they are trying to "create a Francis in their own image").

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.