You will want to read this carefully and put it in your “IMPORTANT” file.Posted on 11/23/2013 11:39:06 AM PST by markomalley
You will want to read this carefully and put it in your “IMPORTANT” file.
This is, again, HUGE news.
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.
To our Venerable Brother
Walter Cardinal (of the Holy Roman Church) Brandmüller
Deacon of St. Julian of the FlemishSince the 450th anniversary of the day on which the Council of Trent drew to its favorable end, it is fitting that the Church recall with readier and more attentive eagerness the most rich doctrine which came out of that Council held in the Tyrol. It is certainly not without good reason that the Church has for a long time given such great care to that Council’s decrees and canons which are to be recalled and heeded, seeing that, since extremely grave matters and questions sprang up in that period, the Council Fathers employed all their diligence so that the Catholic faith should come into clearer view and be better understood. Without a doubt as the Holy Spirit inspired and prompted them, it was the Fathers’ greatest concern not only that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine be defended, but also that mankind be more brightly illuminated, in order that the saving work of the Lord could be diffused throughout the entire globe and the Gospel be spread through the whole world.
Harking closely to the same Spirit, Holy Church in this age renews and meditates on the most abundant doctrine of the Council of Trent. In fact, the “hermeneutic of renewal” [interpretatio renovationis] which Our Predecessor Benedict XVI explained in 2005 before the Roman Curia, refers in no way less to the Council of Trent than to the Vatican Council. To be sure, this mode of interpretation places under a brighter light a beautiful characteristic of the Church which is taught by the Lord Himself: “She is a ‘subject’ which increases in time and develops, yet always remaining the same, the one subject of the journeying People of God” (Address of His Holiness Benedict XVI to the Roman Curia offering them his Christmas greetings – 22 December 2005).
[...]
This is a significant letter.
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.
The argument, one can see, if one bothers to look, was that Catholics are too wordy
What do you mean by "no"? Where and how did you intend that to apply?
Post no. 4 started the discussion.
Oh, I mean, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blabbity blah blah bla bla bla...
Your view seems to be rather astute, for differences in interpretive methods will certainly bring disagreements. The problem is, what interpretive rules are to be followed, going forward; and is it the Scripture alone that is to be used to interpret Scripture, or is it to be a combination of Scripture plus some other authority (tradition, reasonings nd/or post-Apostolic experiences) that is to define the hermeneutic?
It's my feeling that a literal/grammatical/historical/cultural approach alone cannot produce the platform that will support the catechism of the Roman Church. So what is the hermeneutical model for the RCC going to be?
What do you think? I'm really interested in the points that both of you have brought out here.
That is not the question being asked here.
If it’s your local pastor rather than the Catholic Church, go ahead.
This is not the topic being discussed.
Bit you might want to keep the Church out of it.
They’ll leave you alone, I can guarantee.
I can't grasp how this fits in with my suggestion to look up eisegesis as well as exegesis. That is, if you are not quite familiar with both terms.
If you’re bothered, check you r own presupposition and prejudices. But the Church certainly is not upset by your insults.
You've gratuitously suggested that my neutral suggestion was insulting. Why is that? You've baffled me.
And look up eisegesis
Oh. OK. Just an innocent suggestion. Nothing anti Catholic meant by this at all
It must make people cringe when they see that the Catholic Church thrives on Biblical teaching.
mountainlion:
In readers digest or plain English, “hermeneutic of continuity” means a principle of interpretation that is in continuity with prior Doctrine and Sacred Tradition. In other words, lets go back the Council of Nicea in 325, lets to the Council of Chalcedon in 451, Council of Trent which closed in 1563, and Vatican Council II which closed in 1965.
The hermeneutic of Continuity would interpret each successive council in continuity with the previous ones. So, the only true orthodox interpretation of Vatican II is to ensure that all interpretations are consistent or not in-consistent with previous councils. The hermeneutic of dis-continuity is a principle of interpretation that viewed the Vatican Council II as a “break with prior Councils”. This of course is theological nonsense. Unfortunately, many of the Catholic Universities embraced the hermeneutic of dis-continuity, which while in no way has Catholic Doctrine and Tradition been compromised at the Institutional level, Church practice in terms of catechesis [what Protestants would view as Sunday School to teach the faith], Liturgy [what Protestants would call worship service], Catholic prayers and devotions [I think Protestants would refer to those the same way] was in many areas of the world interpreted with the said “hermeneutic of discontinuity” which caused lets say much confusion in the local Catholic Church in certain Dioceses and parishes.
Francis, who was appointed a Cardinal by John Paul II is clearly indicating what his view of the Vatican Council II is and it is in line with John Paul II and Benedict.
What I find interesting is the fact that the Jesuit’s main role in their beginning was to put the rules of the Council of Trent into action. Now we have a Pope who will be finishing the details.
I was on a retreat in September that was given by Fr. Jim Kubicki, SJ, who is the National Director for the Apostleship of Prayer. He told us that he and another Jesuit were talking to each other shortly after Francis was installed as Pope. They agreed with each other that they finally have a Pope they can understand.
When engaging papists, beware those of The Most Holy Church of the Perpetual Easily Offended sect. They are both baffling and annoying. Just saying.
Having Francis I as Pope just seems right.
Oh, darn. Look at this from today’s sermon:
POPE FRANCIS
“God is faithful with His people, even though His people are not faithful. With a spirit of children, may the Church pray to the Lord, so that through His goodness and His faithfulness, He will save us from this worldly spirit that negotiates everything. May He protect us and help us to move forward, just as His people did in the desert, as He took them by the hand, just like a father with a son. With the Lord’s hand, we will walk safely.”
“And look up eisegesis”
Oh. OK. Just an innocent suggestion. Nothing anti Catholic meant by this at all
It must make people cringe when they see that the Catholic Church thrives on Biblical teaching.
For a really good exposition on the matter, I would recommend Bl. John Henry Newman's, An Essay on the Development of Doctrine.
The Reader's Digest version is that Christ communicated all the essential truths needed for salvation to His apostles. Most of the essential components of that communication were contained in Holy Writ; however, as the Scriptures, themselves, testify (Jn 21:25), not all of Christ's words nor all of His actions were written therein. However, Christ promised His apostles (Jn 14:26) that the Father would send them the Holy Spirit to guide them.
As different situations came up over time, we can see that the Apostles applied their understanding of the teaching of Christ to that situation, even if they did not have His exact words dealing with that situation itself. At times, the apostles might not agree on these subjects and, on those occasions, they would call a council to deal with it. You can see an example of this in Acts 15:6-29 ("the Council of Jerusalem").
There have been many councils over the intervening 2,000 years. For example, the First Council of Nicea (in AD 325) dealt with the Arian heresy.
Over time, doctrine is developed and refined in this fashion. There may be a controversy and then something that was in Tradition is defined, which should, by rights, settle matters. Or there might be an issue that had never come up before and understanding HOW to interpret it is key: for example, the issue of embryonic stem cell research (there was no knowledge of cells, much less stem cells, 2,000 years ago). The point is that, as Cardinal Newman pointed out in the work cited above, you should see a logical progression of how the doctrine developed over time.
The big thing is that you don't just see doctrines pop out of nowhere. And you don't see them erupt on the scene just at random.
Hopefully that answers your question.
Thx I’ll watch this
I think the conundrum many FRoman Catholics face here with those of us who claim the Christian faith but who do not - will not - bow the knee to the Roman Pontiff, is that they must try to rationalize the disparity of what previous papal bulls (i.e., Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus) "infallibly" state and the later development of equally "infallible" statements that inarguably contradict past "infallible" decrees (i.e., Lumen Gentium). That it is not at all dissimilar to the childish defense mechanism known as "quibbling" isn't missed here.
If, as the official party line claims, the Catholic Church teaches what has "always and everywhere been believed", then there has to be some sort of rationalization and/or justification to explain why it happens that doctrines proclaimed as de fide now either were not known or held by the early Christians or changed at one time or another to what is held today. This, I think, was at the crux of the Reformation founders' assertions and provided the impetus for the reverting BACK to the ancient faith they knew existed. That the Divine origin and authority of sacred Scripture had always been upheld by the Apostles and the early leaders of the faith is undeniable and, seeing as the word of God has not changed, it must continue to be our guiding authority with the Holy Spirit as the one who would lead us into all truth.
Also, I find it hard to believe that Christ's words or actions not recorded in Scripture can be adequately transmitted either by fallible men or their surrogates.
What I do believe is that the words and actions which the Holy Ghost has caused to be inscripturated are sufficient and completed for His use to guide (a/the) Spirit-filled human(s) throughout the interval until Christ Himself returns.
Perhaps reading the essay will illuminate an accepted view, as you indicate. I will do my best to scrutinize it.
Respectfully --
I don't know that there is "one official method" of exegesis that has officially been blessed. Don't get me wrong, flaky methods like "liberation theological" and "feminist" interpretations of the Scripture are not taken seriously outside of their own little circles. But I can't think of any document that says "Thou shalt use the historical-critical method" or the like.
At this time, the "historical-critical" method and the "canonical" method are very popular. Having said that, there has not been a papal mandate specifying those methods as being officially sanctioned. In fact, Benedict XVI, in his three-part work, Jesus of Nazareth, presented a rather scathing response to excesses in the "historical-critical" method to find the "historical" Jesus as opposed to the "theological" Jesus. [NB: Ratzinger wrote this as a theological work and explicitly stated that the trilogy should not be considered as having Magisterial force]
In times past, a far more literal interpretation has been used...and I, personally, see great merit in that technique.
Also, I find it hard to believe that Christ's words or actions not recorded in Scripture can be adequately transmitted either by fallible men or their surrogates.
I can actually appreciate that position. Seriously.
I would ask you to consider the words of John 14:26.
What I do believe is that the words and actions which the Holy Ghost has caused to be inscripturated are sufficient and completed for His use to guide (a/the) Spirit-filled human(s) throughout the interval until Christ Himself returns.
I would also ask you to seriously and as objectively as possible ponder the diversity of Protestant theologies that are out there. You have everything from the Amish & Mennonites to Joel Osteen to Paul and Jan Crouch. Each, if you were to ask them, believe that their beliefs are formed upon Scripture alone. Even the Jehovah's Witnesses believe that they are following Scripture alone. How can all of these people be right?
I'm not trying to attack anybody's beliefs with the above; rather, when I look at it, that, in all honesty, is what I see.
Anyway, for how Catholics regard the Scriptures...and for guidance on how they are interpreted, I would suggest the following:
Also one other thing you might find interesting is the tool, Biblia Clerus. This tool maps the Scriptures with various other writings. While I wouldn't imagine that the teachings of the Popes on various Scriptures would be of any more than passing interest to you, you might be interested in reading what some of the early Church Fathers (people like Augustine, Basil, Cyril, and so on) wrote about various passages of Scripture. Not to say that they would be authoritative on the subject, but it would be interesting to see what was thought back in the first few centuries of Christianity...as compared to today.
There's even Bologna made out of hemeneutic of the eisigesis. But's it's all my fault, yeah, I know...
Well then, your previous reply was addressed to the wrong freeper(s), other than how I may have steered things away from an understanding of this "hermeneutic" spoken of, was as applied to scripture directly, but instead, more about what is said about the same, even on somewhat second-hand basis, there.
The rest of the blabbering line which you offer, makes no sense whatsoever.
Stow it.
Thank you for your kind remark.
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.