In Defense of Pope Benedict XVI’s ‘Hermeneutic of Continuity’

[Michie]

COMMENTARY: Because the Church is the living Body of Christ, not a museum, its teaching develops and must develop. How do we determine whether that development is legitimate or not?

“Hermeneutics” is a fancy word that means one’s “principle for interpretation,” i.e., how you interpret what you’re looking at.

Most phenomena are not self-explanatory. They have to be interpreted. “Hermeneutics” is the key to interpretation. Now, the keychain in my pocket holds 10 keys, which open locks from 20 feet to 214 miles away from me. But only one will open my front door.

So, using the right key — the right “hermeneutic” — is not a “power grab.” It’s essential.

“Hermeneutic” isn’t one of those words typically bandied about. I suspect it’s even infrequent on standardized tests (except, maybe, in philosophy). The Merriam-Webster Dictionary, which includes sections on the history of words, lists the first usage of “hermeneutic” in 1737, but it seems Pope Benedict XVI put the word into broader circulation with his contrast of the “hermeneutic of continuity” versus the “hermeneutic of rupture” as competing ways of interpreting the Second Vatican Council.

In the wake of his death, I want to make something very clear: While Benedict may have breathed new life into a rare word and shone its light on a contemporary problem roiling the Church, he did not invent the concept. Although the phrase “hermeneutic of continuity” might come from Benedict, the idea behind the concept goes back much further, arguably to the Bible.

Because the Church is the living Body of Christ, not a museum, its teaching develops and must develop. The hermeneutical question is: How do we determine whether that development is legitimate or not?

Continued below.

In Defense of Pope Benedict XVI’s ‘Hermeneutic of Continuity’

COMMENTARY: Because the Church is the living Body of Christ, not a museum, its teaching develops and must develop. How do we determine whether that development is legitimate or not?

www.ncregister.com

 

[chevyontheriver]

COMMENTARY: Because the Church is the living Body of Christ, not a museum, its teaching develops and must develop. How do we determine whether that development is legitimate or not?

“Hermeneutics” is a fancy word that means one’s “principle for interpretation,” i.e., how you interpret what you’re looking at.

Most phenomena are not self-explanatory. They have to be interpreted. “Hermeneutics” is the key to interpretation. Now, the keychain in my pocket holds 10 keys, which open locks from 20 feet to 214 miles away from me. But only one will open my front door.

So, using the right key — the right “hermeneutic” — is not a “power grab.” It’s essential.

“Hermeneutic” isn’t one of those words typically bandied about. I suspect it’s even infrequent on standardized tests (except, maybe, in philosophy). The Merriam-Webster Dictionary, which includes sections on the history of words, lists the first usage of “hermeneutic” in 1737, but it seems Pope Benedict XVI put the word into broader circulation with his contrast of the “hermeneutic of continuity” versus the “hermeneutic of rupture” as competing ways of interpreting the Second Vatican Council.

In the wake of his death, I want to make something very clear: While Benedict may have breathed new life into a rare word and shone its light on a contemporary problem roiling the Church, he did not invent the concept. Although the phrase “hermeneutic of continuity” might come from Benedict, the idea behind the concept goes back much further, arguably to the Bible.

Because the Church is the living Body of Christ, not a museum, its teaching develops and must develop. The hermeneutical question is: How do we determine whether that development is legitimate or not?

Continued below.

In Defense of Pope Benedict XVI’s ‘Hermeneutic of Continuity’

COMMENTARY: Because the Church is the living Body of Christ, not a museum, its teaching develops and must develop. How do we determine whether that development is legitimate or not?

www.ncregister.com

We have two different groups pushing the hermeneutic of discontinuity. The hermeneutic of rupture.

The main one occupies the Vatican and is represented in many newly appointed bishops and cardinals. For them, anything prior to Vatican II doesn't exist. For them even some of the words of Vatican II don't exist because they came about before the 'spirit' of Vatican II was fully formed. This group desires to reform the Church finally into what the 'spirit' of Vatican II channels. Something different from what ever was before.

The other occupies a trad chapel here and head space in a blogger there. More than that though. These are the people who agree that Vatican II was a revolution. But these guys are the counter-revolutionaries. They reject almost all normal Catholics as dupes of the 'spirit' of Vatican II. Of course these people say they preserve the old Church while having nothing to do with the new monstrosity. They buy the rupture just as much as those fancy new cardinals do.

Neither want anything to do with the other. And both of them are wrong. Dangerously and deadly wrong. Wrong in the exact way heresy is wrong. Both of them actually schismatically wrong. But that's what we have now. A shrinking constituency for the hermeneutic of continuity and two radically opposed sides pushing the narrative of rupture. In this silly season I expect the hermeneutic of discontinuity to become more and more popular. But I'm not going there.