The Diabolical Hermeneutic: A refutation of karl rahner’s theological interpretation of vatican ii

The Diabolical Hermeneutic: A Refutation of Karl Rahner’s Theological Interpretation of Vatican II

Michael Lofton

Consolamini Publications

Š 2014, Christopher Michael Lofton All Scripture selections are quoted from the Douay Rheims Bible, 1899 edition and were retrieved electronically from The Douay-Rheims Bible Project http://www.cybercomm.net/~dcon/ Cover image attributed to "Karl Rahner by Letizia Mancino Cremer" by Andy Nestl - Own work. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Karl _Rahner_by_Letizia_Mancino_Cremer.jpg#medi aviewer/File:Karl_Rahner_by_Letizia_Mancino _Cremer.jpg Image of the Blessed Virgin Mary attributed to Francesco Melanzio (1465-1530), Madonna del Soccorso.

If any copyrighted materials have been inadvertently used without credit being given, please notify me at cmichaellofton@gmail.com for an immediate correction of the violation.

Dedicated to the Blessed Virgin Mary, Exterminatrix of All Heresies

Introduction The Jesuit priest, theologian and expert advisor at the Second Vatican Council, Karl Rahner (1908-1984), is considered by some to be one of the greatest theologians of the 20th century. His influence in Catholic circles, especially in interpreting the Second Vatican Council, is still alive today.

Consequently, it is necessary to examine his theological interpretation of Vatican II in order to determine if it is fundamentally sound or flawed.

Karl Rahner explained his theological interpretation of the Second Vatican Council in an academic address in Cambridge, Massachusetts, on April 8, 1979. In this address he explained that he intended to: “discuss here a fundamental theological interpretation of the Second Vatican Council‌one

that is not imposed on the Council from outside but is rather suggested by the Council itself”.1 In this publication, I will demonstrate, based upon his address, that his theological interpretation of the Second Vatican Council is not suggested by the council, but is in fact in opposition to it, as well as the Catholic faith as a whole.

I will do this by first introducing the reader to an overview of Rahner’s Theological Interpretation of Vatican II in the first chapter and then by debating his interpretation and assertions in subsequent chapters, while drawing out a few implications of Rahner’s

1

Karl Rahner, Towards a Fundamental Theological Interpretation of Vatican II. The complete text of this address may be retrieved from the following web address: <www.jonathantan.org/handouts/Xtianity/R ahner.pdf>

interpretation of the Second Vatican Council in the last chapter.

Chapter One: Understanding Rahner’s Theological Interpretation of Vatican II The Second Vatican Council as a World Church One of the keys to understand Rahner’s view of Vatican II is in his “world Church” assertion, found in his academic address entitled, Towards a Fundamental Theological Interpretation of Vatican II. His assertion is that the Second Vatican Council was the first time the Church actually became a “world Church”. With this claim, he begins to set the stage for dissent against the Church’s teachings on matters of faith and morals, by implicitly arguing that before the Church actually became the “world Church”, she was not able to

make decisions for the entire world of Christians. He begins by saying: “I say: the Second Vatican Council is, in a rudimentary form still groping for identity, the Church’s first official selfactualization as a world Church.

This thesis may seem exaggerated; surely it needs further precision and clarification to sound acceptable. It is, of course, already open to misunderstanding inasmuch as the Church was always a world Church ‘in potency’…”2 Rahner believed the Church began to actually be a world Church with the Second Vatican Council because it was 2

Karl Rahner, Towards a Fundamental Theological Interpretation of Vatican II, p.

717.

at this council that an indigenous episcopate, from all over the world, was present. He says: â&#x20AC;&#x153;First, the Council was for the first time formally a Council precisely of the world Church.

One need only compare it with Vatican I to see that this Council was a new event in a formally juridical way. Of course, there were representatives of Asian or African episcopal sees at Vatican I. But they were missionary bishops of European or North American origin. At that time there was not yet an indigenous episcopate throughout the world. But this is what appeared at Vatican II.â&#x20AC;?

3

3

Ibid, p. 718.

His purpose in stating that the Church began to be a world Church with Vatican II was to imply the faith of the Church before Vatican II were somehow deficient or no longer applicable, since they did not derive from a world episcopate. This intention is revealed by the following statement from Rahner: “Do not the Roman Congregations still have the mentality of a centralized bureaucracy which thinks it knows best what serves the kingdom of God and the salvation of souls throughout the world…?”4 In other words, Rahner asserted that the decisions made by the Roman Church, on “the salvation of souls”, prior to the

4

Karl Rahner, Towards a Fundamental Theological Interpretation of Vatican II, p.

717.

Second Vatican Council, were flawed because they did not derive from the “world Church” but merely from the Roman Church. This strictly Western Church, for Rahner, ceased to exist with the coming of the Second Vatican Council, as he states: “…at the Council a Church appeared and became active that was no longer the Church of the West with its American spheres of influence and its export to Asia and Africa.”5 For Rahner, the Second Vatican Council not only began to be a “world Church” for the first time, but she even acknowledged the inadequacy of Christian revelation as a whole. He says: “…the documents on the Church, on the missions, and on 5

Ibid, p. 719.

the Church in the modern world proclaim a universal and effective salvific will of God which is limited only by the evil decision of human conscience, and nothing else. This implies the possibility of a properly salvific revelation-faith even beyond the Christian revelatory word.”6 Three Great Epochs of Church History Moving beyond his “world Church” argument to justify dissent from the Church’s faith, Rahner creates a novel interpretation of Church history to further justify dissent, called the “three great epochs”. What are the three great epochs according to Rahner? They are the three main divisions of Church

6

Ibid, p. 720.

history for Rahner. He describes these epochs as follows: “I say: theologically speaking, there are three great epochs in Church history, of which the third has only just begun and made itself observable officially at Vatican II. First the short period of Jewish Christianity.

Second the period of the Church in a distince cultural region, namely, that of Hellenism and of European culture and civilization. Third, the period in which the sphere of the Church’s life is in fact the entire world.”7 The Break of the Third Great Epoch

7

Karl Rahner, Towards a Fundamental Theological Interpretation of Vatican II, p.

721.

Rahner believed the third epoch began with Vatican II and is radically different than what the Church has known since the first century. In fact, this “third epoch” is so radically different that it constitutes a “break” in the Church’s faith. He says: “And yet I would still venture the thesis that today we are experiencing a break such as occurred only once before, that is, in the transition from Jewish to Gentile Christianity.”8 “I tried to make clear with a few problematic considerations that the coming-to-be of a world Church precisely as such does not mean just a quantitative increase in the previous Church, 8

Karl Rahner, Towards a Fundamental Theological Interpretation of Vatican II, p.

723.

but rather contains a theological break in Church history that still lacks conceptual clarity and can scarcely be compared with anything except the transition from Jewish to gentile Christianity.”9 Note Rahner says this was a “theological break” not just one in practice. In other words, the Second Vatican Council ushered in a new epoch in Church history with a clear break in doctrine, just as the first century Church broke with the Old Testament Church on doctrines such as circumcision, the Sabbath, unclean foods, etc. He states: “He [Paul] proclaims abolition of circumcision for Gentile Christianity, an abolition which 9

Karl Rahner, Towards a Fundamental Theological Interpretation of Vatican II, p.

727.

Jesus certainly did not anticipate and which can scarcely be cogently derived from Jesus’ own explicit preaching or from the preaching about the salvific meaning of his death and resurrection…This transition, for him, constitutes a genuine caesura or break. We must furthermore consider that many other abolitions and interruptions of continuity in the history of salvation were connected with this change: abolishing the Sabbath, moving the Church’s center from Jerusalem to Rome, far-reaching modifications in moral doctrine, the rise and acceptance of new canonical writings, and so forth.”10 10

Karl Rahner, Towards a Fundamental Theological Interpretation of Vatican II, p.

722.

This means that Rahner believed just as Paul and the Council of Jerusalem abolished the teachings of the Old Testament, so too the Second Vatican Council, at the very least, implicitly introduced such a break into the life of the Church. For Rahner, a failure to embrace this change in the faith is a failure to embrace Vatican II, as he states: â&#x20AC;&#x153;This, then, is the issue: either the Church sees and recognizes these essential differences of other cultures for which she should become a world Church and with a Pauline boldness draws the necessary consequences form this recognition, or she remains a Western Church and so in the

final analysis betrays the meaning of Vatican II.” 11 This view is known as the “heremeneutic of discontinuity.” So that we may better understand this approach to the Second Vatican Council, Pope Benedict XVI offers the following description of this hermeneutic: “The hermeneutic of discontinuity risks ending in a split between the pre-conciliar Church and the post-conciliar Church. It asserts that the texts of the Council as such do not yet express the true spirit of the Council. It claims that they are the result of compromises in which, to reach unanimity, it was found necessary to keep 11

Karl Rahner, Towards a Fundamental Theological Interpretation of Vatican II, p.

724.

and reconfirm many old things that are now pointless.

However, the true spirit of the Council is not to be found in these compromises but instead in the impulses toward the new that are contained in the texts.

These innovations alone were supposed to represent the true spirit of the Council, and starting from and in conformity with them, it would be possible to move ahead. Precisely because the texts would only imperfectly reflect the true spirit of the Council and its newness, it would be necessary to go courageously beyond the texts and make room for the newness in which the Council's deepest intention would be expressed, even if it were still vague. In a word: it would be necessary not to follow the texts of the Council but its spirit. In this

way, obviously, a vast margin was left open for the question on how this spirit should subsequently be defined and room was consequently made for every whim.”12 In the mind of Rahner, discontinuity with the past was the right approach to the Council since he believed the Church had gone astray from the fundamental Christian message, as he states: “…it will be necessary to appeal to the hierarchy of truths of which the Council spoke and to return to the final and 12

Address to the Roman Curia, Thursday, 22 December 2005. Appendix I in this publication includes a longer excerpt from this address. The text in its entirety may be found here: <http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedic t_xvi/speeches/2005/december/documents/h f_ben_xvi_spe_20051222_romancuria_en.html>

fundamental substance of the Christian message, in order to formulate from it anew the whole of ecclesial faith with the natural creativity that corresponds to the actual historical situation.â&#x20AC;?13 Now that we have a basic understanding of Rahnerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s theological interpretation of Vatican II, we will provide a refutation to it, along with refutations to the other assertions made by Rahner in his address.

13

Karl Rahner, Towards a Fundamental Theological Interpretation of Vatican II, p.

725. <http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedic t_xvi/speeches/2005/december/documents/h f_ben_xvi_spe_20051222_romancuria_en.html>

Chapter Two: Did the Church Become a World Church with Vatican II? Rahner asserted that the Church wasn’t actually a “world Church” prior to the Second Vatican Council. He believed this was the case because it was the first time indigenous bishops from all over the world participated in an ecumenical council, as he stated: “First, the Council was for the first time formally a Council precisely of the world Church.

One need only compare it with Vatican I to see that this Council was a new event in a formally juridical way. Of course, there were representatives of Asian or

African episcopal sees at Vatican I. But they were missionary bishops of European or North American origin. At that time there was not yet an indigenous episcopate throughout the world. But this is what appeared at Vatican II.” 14

His purpose in stating this claim was to imply that the Church’s faith had to change because it previously did not account for what the rest of the world episcopate believed. One would like to be able to offer Rahner the judgment of charity and say this was not what he was asserting, but it seems nearly impossible to do so since he explicitly states “at least in a rudimentary way the Church at this Council began doctrinally to act precisely

14

Ibid, p. 718.

as a world Church”.15 The only inference one may draw from such a claim is that the Church’s doctrine before the Second Vatican Council was not entirely accurate because it was not derived from a “world Church”.

The Authority of the Pope The problem with this argument is that regardless of whether indigenous bishops from all over the world participated in previous councils of the Church, the decisions made by the Bishop of Rome, and those bishops in communion with him, on matters of faith and morals, apply to the Church worldwide, even without the consultation of bishops from the rest of the world. When Jesus gave St. Peter, and his successors, the keys of the Kingdom, He said: 15

Karl Rahner, Towards a Fundamental Theological Interpretation of Vatican II,, p.

720.

“And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.”16 Notice that He said what St. Peter, and his successors, bound on “earth”, will be bound in heaven, not what he merely binds in Europe or the Western world, will be bound in heaven. Jesus gave St. Peter, and his successors, authority over the entire earth and the Second Vatican Council confirms this when it says:

16

Matthew 16:18-19.

â&#x20AC;&#x153;In this Church of Christ the Roman pontiff, as the successor of Peter, to whom Christ entrusted the feeding of His sheep and lambs, enjoys supreme, full, immediate, and universal authority over the care of souls by divine institution. Therefore, as pastor of all the faithful, he is sent to provide for the common good of the universal Church and for the good of the individual churches. Hence, he holds a primacy of ordinary power over all the churches.â&#x20AC;?17 This is why St. Irenaeus, could ascribe universal authority to the Bishop of Rome when he said:

17

Christus Dominus, 2.

“For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, [the Church of Rome] on account of its preeminent authority…”18 For this reason, the Catholic Church has always been a “world Church” in the that the authority of the Bishop of Rome has always been over the Churches of the entire world, regardless of whether the rest of the episcopate throughout the world participated in his decisions or not.

Consequently, Rahner’s implicit assertion that the decisions the Church made before the Second Vatican Council, on matters of faith and morals, are not applicable to the entire world of Christians, is simply false.

However, for Rahner, the Bishop of Rome did not have the authority to determine what was truly part of faith and morals of 18

Against Heresies, 3.3.2.

the Church, without the consultation of a world episcopate, as he states: “Do not the Roman Congregations still have the mentality of a centralized bureaucracy which thinks it knows best what serves the kingdom of God and the salvation of souls throughout the world…?”19 This question is presented in order to undermine the decisions the Church has made before she became a “world Church”. The Second Vatican Council itself denied Rahner’s implicit assertion when it declared: “And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer 19

Karl Rahner, Towards a Fundamental Theological Interpretation of Vatican II, p.

717.

willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith, by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals. And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do

they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.â&#x20AC;? 20 The Second Vatican Council also stated: â&#x20AC;&#x153;In this Church of Christ the Roman pontiff, as the successor of Peter, to whom Christ entrusted the feeding of His sheep and lambs, enjoys supreme, full, immediate, and universal authority over the

20

Lumen Gentium, 25.

care of souls by divine institution. Therefore, as pastor of all the faithful, he is sent to provide for the common good of the universal Church and for the good of the individual churches. Hence, he holds a primacy of ordinary power over all the churches.â&#x20AC;?21 The Apostles and the Nations Rahner seemed to believe the Church could change her faith now that she became a â&#x20AC;&#x153;world Churchâ&#x20AC;?. However, the Apostles preached the Gospel to practically the entire known world in their lifetime, but they did not change the message when they left Israel, but saw their message as applicable to the entire world. St. Justin Martyr says:

21

Christus Dominus, 2.

“For from Jerusalem there went out into the world, men, twelve in number, and these illiterate, of no ability in speaking: but by the power of God they proclaimed to every race of men that they were sent by Christ to teach to all the word of God.”22 St. Ireneaus too confirms that the same message received from Christ was preached to all nations, when he said: “the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same

22

Justin Martyr, First Apology, 39.

heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same.

For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world. But as the sun, that creature of God, is one and the same throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shines everywhere, and enlightens all men that are willing to come to a knowledge of the truth. Nor will any one of the rulers in the

Churches, however highly gifted he may be in point of eloquence, teach doctrines different from these (for no one is greater than the Master)”.23 Thus, one cannot make the argument that the faith of the Church should now be changed since the Church was not previously a “world Church”.

23

St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1, 2.

Chapter Three: Confusing the Faith with Traditions that May Change One of the problems with Rahnerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Theological Interpretation of Vatican II is that he seems to confuse the faith of the Catholic Church with traditions that are not part of the deposit of faith and are subject to change. For example, Rahner asks: â&#x20AC;&#x153;Must the marital morality of the Masais in East Africa simply reproduce the morality of Western Christianity, or could a chieftain there, even if he is a

Christian, live in the style of the patriarch Abraham?â&#x20AC;? 24 Implicit in this question is the assumption that monogamy, a part of the Churchâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s morals, is merely cultural and not part of the Catholic faith which cannot be changed. Here Rahner fails to distinguish between Sacred Tradition (matters of faith and morals such as the Trinity or monogamy) which has its origin in divine revelation, and traditions which are subject to change (such as whether or not to use leavened or unleavened bread for the Eucharist, whether or not to use Latin in the liturgy or the vernacular, etc.) which are not divinely revealed truths.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church clarifies this distinction as follows:

24

Karl Rahner, Towards a Fundamental Theological Interpretation of Vatican II, p.

718.

â&#x20AC;&#x153;The Tradition [Sacred Tradition] here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus' teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.

Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time.

These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned

under the guidance of the Church's Magisterium.”25 It would seem that Rahner failed to distinguish between Sacred Tradition and traditions that are subject to change because he didn’t believe Sacred Tradition was immutable. Rahner states: “…it is an open and unclarified question whether and to what extent the Church in the postapostolic age still has the creative powers and authority that she had in the period of her first becoming, the apostolic age. At that time, in making irreversible or seemingly irreversible basic decisions which first concretely constituted her essence, she claimed such authority over and above what came to her directly

25

Catechism of the Catholic Church, 83.

from Jesus, now the Risen One.â&#x20AC;?26 In opposition to Rahner, the Second Vatican Council affirms the immutability of the faith, or Sacred Tradition, which was handed down from the Lord Jesus, to his Apostles and to their successors: â&#x20AC;&#x153;In His gracious goodness, God has seen to it that what He had revealed for the salvation of all nations would abide perpetually in its full integrity and be handed on to all generations. Therefore Christ the Lord in whom the full revelation of the supreme God is brought to completion (see Cor. 1:20; 3:13; 4:6), commissioned the Apostles to preach to all men that Gospel which is the source of all saving 26

Karl Rahner, Towards a Fundamental Theological Interpretation of Vatican II, p.

724.

truth and moral teaching, and to impart to them heavenly gifts.

This Gospel had been promised in former times through the prophets, and Christ Himself had fulfilled it and promulgated it with His lips. This commission was faithfully fulfilled by the Apostles who, by their oral preaching, by example, and by observances handed on what they had received from the lips of Christ, from living with Him, and from what He did, or what they had learned through the prompting of the Holy Spirit. The commission was fulfilled, too, by those Apostles and apostolic men who under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit committed the message of salvation to writing. But in order to keep the Gospel forever whole and alive within the Church, the

Apostles left bishops as their successors, ‘handing over’ to them ‘the authority to teach in their own place.’ This sacred tradition, therefore, and Sacred Scripture of both the Old and New Testaments are like a mirror in which the pilgrim Church on earth looks at God, from whom she has received everything, until she is brought finally to see Him as He is, face to face (see 1 John 3:2).”27 The council also states the faith of the Apostles was not “over and above what came to her directly from Jesus”, but was the message He delivered unto them.

The council says: “This commission was faithfully fulfilled by the Apostles who, by their oral preaching, by

27

Dei Verbum, 7. Italics added.

example, and by observances handed on what they had received from the lips of Christ, from living with Him, and from what He did, or what they had learned through the prompting of the Holy Spirit.”28 Furthermore, it is not an open ended question to what extent “the postapostolic age still has the creative powers and authority that she had in the period of her first becoming, the apostolic age.” As we have seen, the Church in the postapostolic age cannot change was she has been given, she can only preserve, clarify and grow in her understanding of the message she has been given, as the council states: “And so the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired

28

Dei Verbum, 7.

books, was to be preserved by an unending succession of preachers until the end of time.

Therefore the Apostles, handing on what they themselves had received, warn the faithful to hold fast to the traditions which they have learned either by word of mouth or by letter (see 2 Thess. 2:15), and to fight in defense of the faith handed on once and for all (see Jude 1:3) (4) Now what was handed on by the Apostles includes everything which contributes toward the holiness of life and increase in faith of the peoples of God; and so the Church, in her teaching, life and worship, perpetuates and hands on to all generations all that she herself is, all that she believes. This tradition which comes from the Apostles develop in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit.

For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts (see Luke, 2:19, 51) through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through Episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her.â&#x20AC;?29

29

Dei Verbum, 8.

Now that we have established there is a distinction between the faith divinely revealed and traditions that are subject to change, we are prepared to answer Rahner’s question. The man in East Africa may not live in polygamy even though it is part of his culture, because this aspect of his culture is sinful and must be corrected by the Church’s morals which have been divinely revealed. As to Rahner’s appeal to the patriarch Abraham, the Lord also permitted the people of God in the Old Testament to have slaves; does this mean Rahner would be in favor of slavery as well?

God allowed things such as polygamy and slavery among the people of God in the Old Testament, not because they were morally good in themselves, but because of the hardness of their hearts.30 After Rahner asks the question about polygamy, he states:

30

See Matthew 19:8.

â&#x20AC;&#x153;â&#x20AC;Śthe Church must be inculturated throughout the world if it is to be a world Church.â&#x20AC;? 31 Rahner appears to suggest that morals may change in order to inculturate the Gospel throughout the world. This too demonstrates that he failed to distinguish between the faith of the Church divinely revealed, which cannot be changed, and traditions that may change based upon various cultures. Furthermore, it demonstrates Rahner had a distorted understanding of inculturation. While it may be necessary to communicate the message of the Gospel differently based upon different cultures, the message itself cannot change since it is revealed by God. For example, when St. Paul preached the 31

Karl Rahner, Towards a Fundamental Theological Interpretation of Vatican II, p.

718.

Gospel before the Greeks in Acts seventeen, though he delivered the message of the Gospel differently than he would have if he were preaching to Jews, he did not change the message of the Gospel, even though he knew it would seem foolish to the Greeks. In other words, the faith of the Church cannot be changed in the name of “inculturation”, what may change is the way the faith is delivered, in order to effectively communicate to different cultures.

Rahner’s distortion of inculturation is common today and it may be helpful to consider an excerpt from an article by Dr. Peter Dr. Kwasniewski on inculturation: “In recent decades there has been a great and deep confusion about the concept of inculturation. It has been taken to mean that the Catholic faith and its practice should be changed to conform to an indigenous culture, and should

assimilate that culture’s own religious beliefs and practices.

In other words, Catholicism is seen as raw material and the alien culture as an agent of transformation. This is a false view. In reality, the culture to which the Catholic faith comes is in need of conversion and elevation, so whatever elements are taken from it, once duly purged of sin and error, stand as material to the ‘form’ imparted by the life-giving Catholic faith. It is the Church that is the agent, form, and goal in any true inculturation, while the culture is the matter that receives the form from the agent for the sake of salvation in Christ…Inculturation as it has been understood and practiced by liturgical revolutionaries is one more ploy of Satan to destabilize and denature the

Church of God, to water down her distinctiveness, to poison and pollute her divine cultus and human culture. This is not what the great Jesuit, Dominican, and Franciscan missionaries did; they brought forward the Catholic faith in all the splendor of its abiding truth, and by that light, they converted nations and baptized all that was noble and good in their people.â&#x20AC;?32 Rahnerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s understanding of the faith was one that could change based upon

32

Dr. Peter Dr. Kwasniewski, Confusions about Inculturation. Quoted with permission from the author. For the entire article visit: <http://www.ccwatershed.org/blog/2014/sep /25/confusions-about-inculturation/ >

cultures. However, Sacred Scripture teaches otherwise, as it states: “And be not conformed to this world; but be reformed in the newness of your mind, that you may prove what is the good, and the acceptable, and the perfect will of God.” 33

Chapter Four: Critique of the Third Epoch Theory The Hermeneutic of Discontinuity We’ve arrived at the crux of Rahner’s theological interpretation of Vatican II, which is that the Church changed with the Second Vatican Council as radically 33

Romans 12:2

as it did in the first century, when the Church threw off the yoke of the Law of Moses. This change for Rahner was not merely in the way the faith is to be presented, but was theological in nature.

Rahner states: â&#x20AC;&#x153;I tried to make clear with a few problematic considerations that the coming-to-be of a world Church precisely as such does not mean just a quantitative increase in the previous Church, but rather contains a theological break in Church history that still lacks conceptual clarity and can scarcely be compared with anything except the transition from Jewish to gentile Christianity.â&#x20AC;?34

34

Karl Rahner, Towards a Fundamental Theological Interpretation of Vatican II, p.

727.

Such an assertion contradicts Pope St. John XXIII’s opening speech for the Second Vatican Council, which says: “The greatest concern of the Ecumenical Council is this: that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be guarded and taught more efficaciously…In order, however, that this doctrine may influence the numerous fields of human activity, with reference to individuals, to families, and to social life, it is necessary first of all that the Church should never depart from the sacred patrimony of truth received from the Fathers.

But at the same time she must ever look to the present, to the new conditions and new forms of life introduced into the modern world, which have

opened new avenues to the Catholic apostolate.”35 For Rahner, the council was a “theological break” but for the Pope who called the council, it was not a break with the past but was in continuity with it.

Pope St. John XXIII further stated: “The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a Magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character.”36 Pope St. John XXIII, “Opening Address to the Second Vatican Council” (October 11, 1962). Italics added.

36 Ibid.

35

In other words, for Pope St. John XXIII, the council was not to change its theology, since this would be impossible, but was to change the way it communicated its theology. This was not only Pope St. John XXIII’s view of the council, but also that of Pope St. John Paul II, when he stated: “The principal task entrusted to the Council by Pope John XXIII was to guard and present better the precious deposit of Christian doctrine in order to make it more accessible to the Christian faithful and to all people of good will.”37 Likewise, Pope Benedict XVI defends this hermeneutic, as he states:

37

Fidei Depositum, Introduction.

“The hermeneutic of discontinuity [Rahner’s way of approaching Vatican II] is countered by the hermeneutic of reform, as it was presented first

by Pope John XXIII in his Speech inaugurating the Council on 11 October 1962 and later by Pope Paul VI in his Discourse for the Council's conclusion on 7 December 1965.

Here I shall cite only John XXIII's well-known words, which unequivocally express this hermeneutic when he says that the Council wishes ‘to transmit the doctrine, pure and integral, without any attenuation or distortion’. And he continues: ‘Our duty is not only to guard this precious treasure, as if we were concerned only with antiquity, but to dedicate ourselves with an earnest will and without fear

to that work which our era demands of us...’. It is necessary that ‘adherence to all the teaching of the Church in its entirety and preciseness...’ be presented in ‘faithful and perfect conformity to the authentic doctrine, which, however, should be studied and expounded through the methods of research and through the literary forms of modern thought. The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another...’, retaining the same meaning and message (The Documents of Vatican II, Walter M. Abbott, S.J., p. 715).”38 First Century Christianity as Precedent for a New Theology 38

Address of His Holiness Benedict XVI to the Roman Curia on December 22nd, 2005.

We must address Rahner’s assertion that the Church changed theologically with the Second Vatican Council as radically as it did in the first century, when the Church broke away from the laws of Moses in the Old Testament. His assertion is stated as follows: “He [Paul] proclaims abolition of circumcision for Gentile Christianity, an abolition which Jesus certainly did not anticipate and which can scarcely be cogently derived from Jesus’ own explicit preaching or from the preaching about the salvific meaning of his death and resurrection…This transition, for him, constitutes a genuine caesura or break. We must furthermore consider that many other abolitions and interruptions of continuity in the history of salvation were

connected with this change: abolishing the Sabbath, moving the Church’s center from Jerusalem to Rome, far-reaching modifications in moral doctrine, the rise and acceptance of new canonical writings, and so forth.”39 Elsewhere Rahner says: “I venture to affirm that the difference between the historical situation of Jewish Christianity and the situation into which Paul transplanted Christianity as a radically new creation is not greater than the difference between Western culture and the contemporary cultures of all Asia and Africa into which

39

Karl Rahner, Towards a Fundamental Theological Interpretation of Vatican II, p.

722.

Christianly must inulturate itself if it is now to be, as it has begun to be, genuinely a world Church.”40 “This means that in the history of Christianity the transition of Christianity from one historical and theological situation to an essentially new one did happen once, and that now in the transition from a Christian of Europe (with its American annexes) to a fully world religion it is starting to happen for a second time.”41 From these quotes by Rahner, it is clear Rahner believed the Second Vatican 40

41

Ibid, p. 723.

Karl Rahner, Towards a Fundamental Theological Interpretation of Vatican II, p.

722.

Council abolished the faith of the “second epoch” and began to install a new faith suitable for the entire world in the “third epoch”.

Before demonstrating the fundamental difference between the situation in the first century and the Second Vatican Council, it should be noted that Rahner asserted that the changes brought about in the first century were from Paul. He suggests that Jesus did not anticipate Paul’s message that the Law of Moses was abolished with the ministry of Christ, as he said: “He [Paul] proclaims abolition of circumcision for Gentile Christianity, an abolition which Jesus certainly did not anticipate and which can scarcely be cogently derived from Jesus’ own explicit preaching or from the preaching

about the salvific meaning of his death and resurrectionâ&#x20AC;?

This is completely false. Jesus anticipated the ministry of Paul when he declared all foods clean: â&#x20AC;&#x153;And when he was come into the house from the multitude, his disciples asked him the parable. And he saith to them: So are you also without knowledge? understand you not that every thing from without, entering into a man cannot defile him: Because it entereth not into his heart, but goeth into the belly, and goeth out into the privy, purging all meats? But he said that the things which come out from a man, they defile a man. For from within out of the heart of men proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts,

covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and defile a man.”42 Jesus was able to abolish the Law of Moses since His ministry fulfilled it. As He states: “Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets.

I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.”43 In other words, Jesus was saying that He did not come to simply do away with the Law of Moses, as if it were something 42

Karl Rahner, Towards a Fundamental Theological Interpretation of Vatican II, p.

723.

43

Matthew 5:17.

false, but to fulfill the Law of Moses.

Once it was fulfilled, He could rightly do away with it because the fulfillment of the law had already come.

Additionally, Rahner’s assertion that the second epoch was merely a Christianity of “Europe (with its American annexes)” which now must become a Christianity of the world is refuted by Cardinal Ratzinger, before he became Pope Benedict XVI, as he states: “In the discussions about the history of Christian missions, it has become commonplace to say nowadays that through the missions Europe (the West) tried to force its religion on the rest of the world: it was just a matter of religious colonialism, as part of the colonial system as a whole. The renunciation of Eurocentrism must therefore include renunciation of

missions. This theory can first of all be criticized historically.

Christianity, as we know, originated, not in Europe, but in the Near East, in the geographical point at which the thee continents of Asia, Africa, and Europe come into contact.

This was never merely geographical contact; rather, it was a contact between the spiritual traditions of the three continents. In that sense, â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;interculturalityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; is part of the original shape of Christianity.

And in the first centuries the missions, too, reached out just as much to the east as to the west. The heart of Christianity lay in Asia Minor, in the Near East, but Christianity soon pressed on to India; the Nestorian mission reached as far as China, and in terms of numbers Asiatic Christianity

was more or less equal to European. Only the spread of Islam robbed Christianity in the Near East of much of its life and strength and, at the same time, cut off the Christian communities in India and Asia from the centers in Syria, Palestine, and Asia Minor, and, thus, to a great extent brought about their disappearance.â&#x20AC;?44 At this point, we are able to see the fundamental difference between the changes in the first century and the Second Vatican Council. The difference is that the observance of the Law of Moses was temporary, and only to be observed until the fulfillment of that law came.

Furthermore, the Law of Moses was prophesied to cease, upon its fulfillment, 44

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Truth and Tolerance, San Francisco, Ignatius Press, 2004, p. 85.

in the Old Testament itself, whereas the doctrines of the New Covenant are immutable.

This is confirmed by St. Augustine, who says: â&#x20AC;&#x153;Accordingly, when you ask why a Christian is not circumcised if Christ came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it, my reply is, that a Christian is not circumcised precisely for this reason, that what was prefigured by circumcision is fulfilled in Christ. Circumcision was the type of the removal of our fleshly nature, which was fulfilled in the resurrection of Christ, and which the sacrament of baptism teaches us to look forward to in our own resurrection. The sacrament of the new life is not wholly discontinued, for our

resurrection from the dead is still to come; but this sacrament has been improved by the substitution of baptism for circumcision, because now a pattern of the eternal life which is to come is afforded us in the resurrection of Christ, whereas formerly there was nothing of the kind. So, when you ask why a Christian does not keep the Sabbath, if Christ came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it, my reply is, that a Christian does not keep the Sabbath precisely because what was prefigured in the Sabbath is fulfilled in Christ. For we have our Sabbath in Him who said, â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Come unto me, all you that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart, and you shall find rest

unto your souls.

(Matthew 11:28-29)’ ”45 “Those things in the Old Testament which we do not observe we hold to have been suitable appointments for the time and the people of that dispensation, besides being symbolic to us of truths in which they have still a spiritual use, though the outward observance is abolished; and this opinion is proved to be the doctrine of the apostolic writings.”46 “If we are asked why we do not worship God as the Hebrew fathers of the Old Testament worshipped Him, we reply that God has taught us differently by

45 46

Contra Faustum, 19, 9.

Ibid, 19, 8.

the New Testament fathers, and yet in no opposition to the Old Testament, but as that Testament itself predicted. For it is thus foretold by the prophet: ‘Behold, the days come, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah; not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt.’ (Jeremiah 31:31-32) Thus it was foretold that that covenant would not continue, but that there would be a new one.”47 “So, when we read anything in the books of the Old Testament which we are not required to observe in the New Testament, 47

Ibid 19, 9.

or which is even forbidden, instead of finding fault with it, we should ask what it means; for the very discontinuance of the observance proves it to be, not condemned, but fulfilled.â&#x20AC;?48 The Law of Moses was abolished because it was merely a shadow of things to come in the New Covenant. Now that the substance which the reality of the types has come, there is no longer any need for the shadow, as Tertullian, an ecclesiastical writer in the third century notes: "We do not now treat of the Law, further than (to remark) that the apostle here teaches clearly how it has been abolished, even by passing from shadow to substance - that is,

48

Ibid.

from figurative types to reality, which is Christ."49 Now that the reality of the types has come, there will never be another change like there was in the first century because the reality of the shadows is perfect and is not in need of being abolished. In other words, unlike the Law of Moses, which was prophesied to cease upon its fulfillment, the faith espoused by the Church prior to the Second Vatican Council is immutable. Vatican II states: “Then, after speaking in many and varied ways through the prophets, ‘now at last in these days God has spoken to us in His Son’ (Heb. 1:1-2). For He sent His Son, the eternal Word, who enlightens all men, so that He might dwell among men and tell them of the innermost

49

Tertullian, Against Marcion, 5, 19.

being of God (see John 1:1-18).

Jesus Christ, therefore, the Word made flesh, was sent as ‘a man to men.’ He ’speaks the words of God’ (John 3;34), and completes the work of salvation which His Father gave Him to do (see John 5:36; John 17:4). To see Jesus is to see His Father (John 14:9). For this reason Jesus perfected revelation by fulfilling it through his whole work of making Himself present and manifesting Himself: through His words and deeds, His signs and wonders, but especially through His death and glorious resurrection from the dead and final sending of the Spirit of truth. Moreover He confirmed with divine testimony what revelation proclaimed, that God is with us to free us from the darkness of sin and death, and to raise us up to life eternal. The

Christian dispensation, therefore, as the new and definitive covenant, will never pass away and we now await no further new public revelation before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ (see 1 Tim. 6:14 and Tit. 2:13).â&#x20AC;?50 Not only will the New Covenant never cease, unlike the Old Covenant, but it is for all of the nations. â&#x20AC;&#x153;In His gracious goodness, God has seen to it that what He had revealed for the salvation of all nations would abide perpetually in its full integrity and be handed on to all generations.

Therefore Christ the Lord in whom the full revelation of the supreme God is brought to completion (see Cor. 1:20; 3:13; 4:6), commissioned the Apostles 50

Dei Verbum, 4. Italics added.

to preach to all men that Gospel which is the source of all saving truth and moral teaching, and to impart to them heavenly gifts.

This Gospel had been promised in former times through the prophets, and Christ Himself had fulfilled it and promulgated it with His lips. This commission was faithfully fulfilled by the Apostles who, by their oral preaching, by example, and by observances handed on what they had received from the lips of Christ, from living with Him, and from what He did, or what they had learned through the prompting of the Holy Spirit. The commission was fulfilled, too, by those Apostles and apostolic men who under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit committed the message of salvation to writing. But in

order to keep the Gospel forever whole and alive within the Church, the Apostles left bishops as their successors, ‘handing over’ to them ‘the authority to teach in their own place.’ This sacred tradition, therefore, and Sacred Scripture of both the Old and New Testaments are like a mirror in which the pilgrim Church on earth looks at God, from whom she has received everything, until she is brought finally to see Him as He is, face to face (see 1 John 3:2).”51 Clearly, the Second Vatican Council taught that the faith that will never change, which is applicable for all nations, was faithfully handed down from Jesus, to the Apostles and to their successors. For this reason it is absurd to

51

Dei Verbum, 7.

assert that the faith previously held by the church prior to the Second Vatican Council, is not open to change because the Church has just now become a true “world Church”. Though Rahner may have wanted the Church to change her faith in order to accommodate the cultures that are contrary to the faith, the Second Vatican Council holds fast to the faith, as it proclaims: “And so the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved by an unending succession of preachers until the end of time.”52 As we have seen, the first century cannot be used as precedent to assert that the Second Vatican Council ushered in a change in the faith because the changes in

52

Dei Verbum, 8.

the first century were the result of Christ fulfilling the Law of Moses, and were also prophesied in Sacred Scripture.

However, as we have noted, the faith handed on by the Apostles is eternal and not subject to change so one must interpret Vatican II in continuity with the past, rather than in discontinuity with â&#x20AC;&#x153;the faith once delivered to the saints.â&#x20AC;?53

Chapter Five: The New Theology of the Third Epoch for Rahner Rahner does not state what new theology he believed the Second Vatican Council began, but one can have a good idea what 53

Jude 1:3.

he believed that theology was based upon the rest of his writings. Perhaps, it will be helpful to briefly explore this theology he believed began with the “third epoch” and offer a brief refutation of this theology.

According to Joseph Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict XVI, Karl Rahner believed: “to be a Christian is to accept one’s existence in its unconditionality. Ultimately, therefore, it is but the explicit reflection of what it means to be human. In the last analysis, this means ‘that the Christian is not so much an exception among men as simply man as he is.’ ”54

54

J. Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology: Building Stones for a Fundamental Theology, trans. Mary Frances McCarthy, San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1987, 165–166.

Quote retrieved from an article entitled

Rahnerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s view did contain a cornel of truth, in that the work of Jesus allows man to reach his full potential as a human. However, Rahner fails to note that this is only done by man ceasing to be as he is and becoming a partaker of the divine nature.55 In other words, Jesus did not become man for man to simply be man, but Jesus became man so that man might become God,56 that is, that he might become like God in all things except those attributes which are incommunicable. Ratzinger notes:

Rahner's Un-Roman Epoch of the Church found here: <http://roratecaeli.blogspot.com/2014/08/rahners-unroman-epoch-of-church.html> I am highly indebted to this article as a source of material for this chapter.

55 See 2 Peter:1:4.

56 See Catechism of the Catholic Church, 460.

“The main point of the faith of both Testaments [is] that man is what he ought to be only by conversion, that is, when he ceases to be what he is.”57 We will conclude with the worlds of St. Paul, as he states: “put off, according to former conversation, the old man, who is corrupted according to the desire of error. And be renewed in the spirit of your mind: And put on the new man, who according to God is created in justice and holiness of truth.”58 57

Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, 166. Quote retrieved from: <http://roratecaeli.blogspot.com/2014/08/rahners-unroman-epoch-of-church.html> 58 Ephesians 4:22-24.

Chapter Six: Implications of Rahnerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Interpretation of Vatican II Revelation Beyond Christianity?

Rahner’s interpretation of Vatican II leads to many serious problems, one of which is that it opens the door for a new faith, as if the Christian faith until the Second Vatican Council was incomplete, inaccurate or insufficient for the entire world. Rahner even acknowledges as much when he states: “…the documents on the Church, on the missions, and on the Church in the modern world proclaim a universal and effective salvific will of God which is limited only by the evil decision of human conscience, and nothing else. This implies the possibility of a properly salvific revelation-faith even beyond the Christian revelatory word.”59

59

Karl Rahner, Towards a Fundamental Theological Interpretation of Vatican II, p.

720.

It would seem that for Rahner, the Second Vatican Council acknowledged a salvific faith revealed by God that goes beyond Christianity. Before addressing this assertion directly, it should be noted that his claim that Vatican II limits salvation merely to an evil decision of the human conscience is completely false.

Vatican II itself stated: â&#x20AC;&#x153;But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator.â&#x20AC;?60 In other words, some fail to attain salvation because they have embraced the lies of Satan; this point goes completely unmentioned by Rahner. Furthermore,

60

Lumen Gentium, 16.

the council never said that salvation is apart from Christ, as is implied by Rahner in the previous quotation. The council affirms the necessity of the Christ for salvation, as it says: â&#x20AC;&#x153;This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church.

Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was

made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.”61 For this reason, one may not assert the council taught that people can be saved apart from Christ. Those who are invincibly ignorant of Christ, who seek God and obey their conscience may be saved,62 but only due to the work of Christ as the “one Mediator and the unique way of salvation.”

It should also be noted that the council explicitly denied the possibility of a

61

Lumen Gentium, 14. Italics added.

“Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.” (Lumen Gentium, 16.)

62

“salvific revelation-faith even beyond the Christian revelatory word”, as it stated: “The Christian dispensation, therefore, as the new and definitive covenant, will never pass away and we now await no further new public revelation before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ (see 1 Tim. 6:14 and Tit. 2:13).”63 “In His gracious goodness, God has seen to it that what He had revealed for the salvation of all nations would abide perpetually in its full integrity and be handed on to all generations. Therefore Christ the Lord in whom the full revelation of the supreme God is brought to completion (see 63

Dei Verbum, 4.

Cor. 1:20; 3:13; 4:6), commissioned the Apostles to preach to all men that Gospel which is the source of all saving truth and moral teaching, and to impart to them heavenly gifts.”64 The Destruction of the Credibility of the Church Rahner’s false assertion that the council acknowledged a “salvific revelation-faith even beyond the Christian revelatory word”, if true, destroys the credibility of the Church. If the Church were to state that she alone possesses the fullness of the faith, and no new revelation is to be revealed after the revelation she has received from the Lord Jesus and His apostles, then assert that there may be salvific revelation beyond Christian

64

Ibid, 7.

revelation, her integrity would be lost since she would have contradicted herself on a matter of faith. For this reason, Rahner’s interpretation of Vatican II, if embraced, leads one away from the Church, which may result in damnation, as the council stated: “Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.”65

65

Lumen Gentium, 14.

Appendix I Pope Benedict XVIâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Christmas Address to the Roman Curia â&#x20AC;&#x153;The last event of this year on which I wish to reflect here is the celebration of the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council 40 years ago. This memory prompts the question: What has been the result of the Council? Was it well received? What, in the acceptance of the Council, was good and what was inadequate or mistaken? What still remains to be done? No one can deny that in vast areas of the Church the implementation of the Council has been somewhat difficult, even without wishing to apply to what occurred in

these years the description that St Basil, the great Doctor of the Church, made of the Church's situation after the Council of Nicea: he compares her situation to a naval battle in the darkness of the storm, saying among other things: "The raucous shouting of those who through disagreement rise up against one another, the incomprehensible chatter, the confused din of uninterrupted clamouring, has now filled almost the whole of the Church, falsifying through excess or failure the right doctrine of the faith..." (De Spiritu Sancto, XXX, 77; PG 32, 213 A; SCh 17 ff., p. 524).

We do not want to apply precisely this dramatic description to the situation of the post-conciliar period, yet something from all that occurred is nevertheless reflected in it. The question arises: Why has the implementation of the Council, in large parts of the Church, thus far been so difficult?

Well, it all depends on the correct interpretation of the Council or - as we would say today - on its proper hermeneutics, the correct key to its interpretation and application. The problems in its implementation arose from the fact that two contrary hermeneutics came face to face and quarrelled with each other. One caused confusion, the other, silently but more and more visibly, bore and is bearing fruit.

On the one hand, there is an interpretation that I would call "a hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture"; it has frequently availed itself of the sympathies of the mass media, and also one trend of modern theology.

On the other, there is the "hermeneutic of reform", of renewal in the continuity of the one subject-Church which the Lord has given to us. She is a subject which increases in time and develops,

yet always remaining the same, the one subject of the journeying People of God. The hermeneutic of discontinuity risks ending in a split between the preconciliar Church and the post-conciliar Church. It asserts that the texts of the Council as such do not yet express the true spirit of the Council. It claims that they are the result of compromises in which, to reach unanimity, it was found necessary to keep and reconfirm many old things that are now pointless.

However, the true spirit of the Council is not to be found in these compromises but instead in the impulses toward the new that are contained in the texts.

These innovations alone were supposed to represent the true spirit of the Council, and starting from and in conformity with them, it would be possible to move ahead. Precisely because the texts would only imperfectly reflect the true spirit of the

Council and its newness, it would be necessary to go courageously beyond the texts and make room for the newness in which the Council's deepest intention would be expressed, even if it were still vague.

In a word: it would be necessary not to follow the texts of the Council but its spirit. In this way, obviously, a vast margin was left open for the question on how this spirit should subsequently be defined and room was consequently made for every whim.

The nature of a Council as such is therefore basically misunderstood. In this way, it is considered as a sort of constituent that eliminates an old constitution and creates a new one.

However, the Constituent Assembly needs a mandator and then confirmation by the mandator, in other words, the people the constitution must serve. The Fathers had no such mandate

and no one had ever given them one; nor could anyone have given them one because the essential constitution of the Church comes from the Lord and was given to us so that we might attain eternal life and, starting from this perspective, be able to illuminate life in time and time itself.

Through the Sacrament they have received, Bishops are stewards of the Lord's gift. They are "stewards of the mysteries of God" (I Cor 4: 1); as such, they must be found to be "faithful" and "wise" (cf. Lk 12: 41-48). This requires them to administer the Lord's gift in the right way, so that it is not left concealed in some hiding place but bears fruit, and the Lord may end by saying to the administrator: "Since you were dependable in a small matter I will put you in charge of larger affairs" (cf. Mt 25: 14-30; Lk 19: 11-27).

These Gospel parables express the dynamic of fidelity required in the Lord's service; and through them it becomes clear that, as in a Council, the dynamic and fidelity must converge.

The hermeneutic of discontinuity is countered by the hermeneutic of reform, as it was presented first by Pope John XXIII in his Speech inaugurating the Council on 11 October 1962 and later by Pope Paul VI in his Discourse for the Council's conclusion on 7 December 1965.

Here I shall cite only John XXIII's wellknown words, which unequivocally express this hermeneutic when he says that the Council wishes "to transmit the doctrine, pure and integral, without any attenuation or distortion". And he continues: "Our duty is not only to guard this precious treasure, as if we were concerned only with antiquity, but to dedicate ourselves with an earnest

will and without fear to that work which our era demands of us...". It is necessary that "adherence to all the teaching of the Church in its entirety and preciseness..." be presented in "faithful and perfect conformity to the authentic doctrine, which, however, should be studied and expounded through the methods of research and through the literary forms of modern thought. The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another...", retaining the same meaning and message (The Documents of Vatican II, Walter M. Abbott, S.J., p. 715).

It is clear that this commitment to expressing a specific truth in a new way demands new thinking on this truth and a new and vital relationship with it; it is also clear that new words can only develop if they come from an informed understanding of the truth expressed,

and on the other hand, that a reflection on faith also requires that this faith be lived. In this regard, the programme that Pope John XXIII proposed was extremely demanding, indeed, just as the synthesis of fidelity and dynamic is demanding.

However, wherever this interpretation guided the implementation of the Council, new life developed and new fruit ripened. Forty years after the Council, we can show that the positive is far greater and livelier than it appeared to be in the turbulent years around 1968. Today, we see that although the good seed developed slowly, it is nonetheless growing; and our deep gratitude for the work done by the Council is likewise growing.â&#x20AC;?66

66

Address to the Roman Curia, Thursday, 22 December 2005. The text in its entirety may be found here:

<http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedic t_xvi/speeches/2005/december/documents/h f_ben_xvi_spe_20051222_romancuria_en.html>