“The best hermeneutics of the Second Vatican Council” has been done by Archbishop Agostino Marchetto, Pope Francis said in a letter dated October 7 and released November 12.The Pontiff …
Pope Rejects “Hermeneutic of Rupture” Approach to Vatican II in Letter
Pope Francis has written a warm letter of commendation to the author of a book on the Second Vatican Council which criticizes the “Bologna School” – an approach that considers the Council to be a “hermeneutic of rupture.”
You may also enjoy Father Z’s take on this:
My take on this: facts never stop liberals (repeat a lie long enough…), so I don’t see it as optimistically as Fr. Z, but it is good news for the rest of us, nonetheless.
I thought we were going to stop using the terms liberals and conservatives and call everyone Catholics? That may have only been for one forum, but I think it would be nice to express love and acceptance, by not subdividing the church any more than the reformation already has.
I don’t think this is bad news for anyone. Pope Francis is not as liberals as some believe, but then Benedict is not as conservative as many think.
This is great news
I had not heard about such a rule certainly in the Liturgy & Sacraments forum. Can you cite where this rule was proclaimed by the mods?
I take a different view from yours, I see no reason to criticize members or others who use perfectly proper terminology to describe various political differences within the Church. I think describing people or groups of people acurately expresses exactly the fraternal love and acceptance of others in the Church that you advocate.
As to the OP, I’ll have to read up on the hermeneutic of rupture. I previously assumed that phrase and idea corresponded to those who reject Vatican II as a complete break with capital “T” Tradition, like the SSPV.
I am just a catholic, trying as best I can to follow the teachings of the church and respecting the teachings of the Pope. I strongly believe that labelling people is the first step to seperating ourselves into groups. Please explain the criterion by which one is labelled a liberal, a conservative, or a traditionalist.
I never said that it was an official moderator sanctioned rule that we not label each other, it was extensively and well discussed in one of the other forums. Furthermore, I was not criticizing anyone,I was asking a question.
Let’s not lose sight of the point of this article, it’s very important and very good. For those that don’t know the history of this, there are basically two schools of thought on how to interpret Vatican II, the “hermeneutic of continuity” and the “hermeneutic of rupture”.
The hermeneutic of continuity says that Vat II must be understood in light of the rest of Church teaching, Councils etc, in other words, Vat II is in continuity with the rest of Church Tradition. This is the school of thought proposed by all of the post-Vat II Popes (including now Francis).
The hermeneutic of rupture says that Vat II was a rupture in the Church, meaning that it fundamentally contradicted previous doctrine. Schismatic traditionalists believe this happened in a bad sense, so they don’t like Vat II, and progressivists believe this happened in a good sense, so they say Vat II was a “copernican revolution” in that it broke with Tradition and formed a “new” Catholicism. So, although there are a few schismatic traditionalists that believe there was a rupture, the vast majority of the rupture crowd is progressivist/liberal.
A few years ago, Archbp. Marchetto wrote a well known book in which he critisizes the hermeneutic of rupture school, and supports the hermeneutic of continuity. In fact, Marchetto has become somewhat of a figure head for the continuity school (along with Card Ratzinger/Pope Benedict)
In this recent letter Pope Francis praises Marchetto as the best interpreter of Vat II, and this means that Francis supports the hermeneutic of continuity as well. This is very important because it means that Francis has publically stated that he believes Vat II should be seen in light of Tradition. Although I suppose it shouldn’t actually be too surprising, it is very good, encouraging news for those of us on the side of Tradition.
I completely agree that we should discourage divisive labels. On the other hand, it’s impossible to completely throw them away, because sometimes there isn’t a more easily understood way to describe certain conflicting ideas.
I think the solution is to keep explaining the merits (or lack thereof) of the ideas themselves, and make people realize that focusing on the broad categories of people is not only unproductive, but disassociates/dehumanizes ones brethren with which one disagrees.
Perhaps that’s not what the poster meant by liberalism. But I suppose it could be as well. :shrug:
Why do I even bother posting. I bring nothing insightful to the discussion.
Lol, rough day?
Insightfulness is not always one of my talents either:shrug:
Insightfulness is over-rated anyway.
One of the most insightful comments I’ve heard all day!
Yet when it comes to labeling we are so quick to accept diversity? Diversity is made up of different groups all of them labeling each other by race, nationality, gender,orientation, religious groups, and so on? No need to be too sensitive, it’s a forum where people should feel free to share their opinion and views.
Of course Pope Francis supports the hermeneutic of continuity. To do otherwise would be to preach heresy! The faith doesn’t change. The hermeneutic of rapture suggests that the faith can change if we want it to. Another way of saying that is that there’s no such thing as absolute truth or that the church is not infallible, or worse, that the church is God…can decide truth for itself. Any pope who would lean that way would be supporting blatant heresy and not just heresy but the mother of all heresies.
That’s a good point. Meanings change, especially in the English.