Is it basically a rationalization of the reforms (really rupture) of the Church stemming from Vat II which are claimed to be "connected" to the teachings of the early Church Fathers?

It is trying to have the faithful believe Tradition can be reconciled with novelty through the use of sophistry, word games, and color of authority.

The "hermeneutic of continuity" means to interpret Vatican II as being implicit in Church tradition.

To extend the concept: - the masonic neo-modernists propose that "Catholic teachings" (as they define them)  "reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men" , and are part of building up to the grand liberal/modernist/masonic synthesis in which the "brotherhood of man" becomes "the Church" transcending itself in a "cosmic Christ."

So of course someone like Father Ratzinger said St. Paul really didn't mean that physical bodies are raised from the dead.  That's the "hermeneutic of continuity" - denying that the Church ever really taught what it has taught.  Denying that "Catholic Tradition" has any independent coherent meaning at all - that it is necessarily dependent on Vatican II being the correct continuation of Church Tradition.

Actually, that is a misrepresentation, or at least a misunderstanding, of the Pope's statement. There is no positivism inherent in the concept, he merely reiterated in that address what he had often said earlier, that is, that the SVC was not a superdogma and should not be treated as such. It did not intend to correct earlier doctrine and cannot be taken as an excuse to reject the earlier teaching of the Church. Such is the simple and obvious meaning of the hermeneutic of continuity.

No, it isn't a misrepresentation of what the Pope believes.

If Benedict XVI really regards Vatican II, (which contains what he calls a "counter-syllabus") as being in "continuity" with Church Tradition, then it's because he has a totally unorthodox concept of Church Tradition, which would necessarily be the case, given his writings, which show he has a totally unorthodox concept of Catholic theology.

"The criteria and guide for the understanding of the teachings of the Second Vatican Council are to be the whole Tradition of the Catholic Faith, which on its part makes clear certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church, which are not yet formulated, but implicitly present in it. The affirmations of the Second Vatican Council and of the Pontifical Magisterium of the past relative to the relationship between the Catholic Church and the non-Catholic christian confessions are to be understood in light of all of Tradition."

According to Benedict XVI, St. Paul didn't really mean that physical bodies are raised.

In his mind, that's the true Tradition of the Church.  The "light" of all tradition shows us that the ideas of Nostra Aetate are implicit in Catholic teaching.  

Big words liked by Continental theologians. Mechanism. Also, remember the Capitulants who attended the SSPX General Chapter? This ridiculous word was then parroted by all. It should have simply been Delegates.

Instead of talking about the Resurrection and all, which no one is really denying

Benedict XVI is a modernist  Cut the crap!  

Finally, and in order to keep this study within limits, Ratzinger the Prefect presented the press with an "Instruction on the Theologian's Ecclesiastical Vocation," wherein he underscores the fact that this docuмent "affirms - maybe for the first time ever with such clarity - that there are decisions [which have been made in the past] of the Magisterium which are not to be considered as the final word on a given subject as such, but serve rather as a mooring in the problem, and above all, also as an expression of pastoral prudence, a kind of temporary disposition" (L'Osservatore Romano, June 27, 1990. p.6). And Ratzinger provided several examples of such temporary dispositions, which are now considered "outdated in the particularities of their determinations":

1. those "Papal declarations of the last century on religious liberty,"

2. "the anti-modernist decisions of the Pope at the beginning of this century,"

3. "the [papally approved] decisions of the Biblical Commission of that same time period."

 

In short, those three very same ramparts which the Sovereign Pontiff had set up against Modernism in the social, doctrinal, and exegetical domains.

. . .

There follow numerous quotations from Teilhard's writings. It will be sufficient to cite the last one as an example, which also serves as a conclusion: "The cosmic drift is moving 'in the direction of an incredible near mono-molecular state...where each ego is destined to reach its paroxysm in some mysterious super-ego.' True, man in as much as he is an ego, does represent an end, but the direction of the being's movement, of his own existence, reveals him to be an organism destined or intended for a super-ego which incorporates him without dissolving him; only through the integration will the form of the future be able to become a reality in which man will have finally attained the goal and summit of his being [the perfect "humanization," incorrectly called "deification" or supernatural]" (p.162).

This monistic-pantheistic delirium seems to constitute for Ratzinger - incredible as it may sound, but nevertheless true - the essence of...St. Paul's Christology!

"It will be readily admitted that this synthesis, elaborated as it has been, based on today's view of the world and couched in terms doubtlessly overly biological, is nevertheless faithful to Pauline Christology whose profound meaning is now well-perceived and brought to a higher level of intelligibility: faith sees in the man Jesus in whom has been realized in some way - biologically speaking - the following mutation of the process of evolution ...from that point, faith sees in Christ the beginning of a movement which integrates more and more that humanity previously divided in the being of a single Adam, of a single 'body,' into the being of future man. It [this Faith] will see in Christ the movement towards this future of man wherein he is to be totally 'socialized,' incorporated into the Unique" (pp.162-163).

http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/1994_June/They_Think_Theyve_Won_PartVI.htm

According to Benedict XVI, the Teilhardian, modernist view is what is faithful to Pauline Christology.  That is the real meaning of the hermeneutic of continuity.  Vatican II is regarded as being continuous with Church tradition by a blank assertion: "We, the modernists, are the ones who really understand what St. Paul was talking about.  He agreed with us!"

Rubbish.

You're non-responsive.  And you're dishonest.  In fact I think I recognize the style of dishonesty.

I'm talking about what Benedict XVI believes.  What he means by "hermeneutic of continuity"  His own writings, quoted by the SSPX and others in the SSPX. (like Bishop Tissier, who discusses Benedict's denial of the atonement in the same book)

So why didn't the SSPX theologians bring up the matter of the Resurrection of the body in their doctrinal discussions with the Vatican?

Maybe you should ask them?  Why did Father Ratzinger deny that there is a restoration of physical bodies?  Why did he say that St. Paul was not referring to the physical restoration of bodies?  

Benedict XVI remains a Teilhardian.  And his "hermeneutic of continuity" is of exactly the same as his "interpretation" of St. Paul's Christology.  Discussed in the article posted in Si Si No No.

They have not criticized the new Catechism's (which are Pope Benedict XVI's as well) description of this matter, the resurrection of the body.

Quote from: New Catechism on Resurrection of the body

How do the dead rise?

997 What is "rising"? In death, the separation of the soul from the body, the human body decays and the soul goes to meet God, while awaiting its reunion with its glorified body. God, in his almighty power, will definitively grant incorruptible life to our bodies by reuniting them with our souls, through the power of Jesus' Resurrection.

998 Who will rise? All the dead will rise, "those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment."550

999 How? Christ is raised with his own body: "See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself";551 but he did not return to an earthly life. So, in him, "all of them will rise again with their own bodies which they now bear," but Christ "will change our lowly body to be like his glorious body," into a "spiritual body":552

But someone will ask, "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?" You foolish man! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. and what you sow is not the body which is to be, but a bare kernel ....What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable.... the dead will be raised imperishable.... For this perishable nature must put on the imperishable, and this mortal nature must put on immortality.553

1000 This "how" exceeds our imagination and understanding; it is accessible only to faith. Yet our participation in the Eucharist already gives us a foretaste of Christ's transfiguration of our bodies:

Just as bread that comes from the earth, after God's blessing has been invoked upon it, is no longer ordinary bread, but Eucharist, formed of two things, the one earthly and the other heavenly: so too our bodies, which partake of the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, but possess the hope of resurrection.554

1001 When? Definitively "at the last day," "at the end of the world."555 Indeed, the resurrection of the dead is closely associated with Christ's Parousia:

For the Lord himself will descend from heaven, with a cry of command, with the archangel's call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. and the dead in Christ will rise first.556

549 St. Augustine, En. in Ps. 88, 5: PL 37, 1134.


550 ⇒ Jn 5:29; cf. ⇒ Dan 12:2.


551 ⇒ Lk 24:39.


552 Lateran Council IV (1215): DS 801; ⇒ Phil 3:21; 2 Cor 15:44.


553 ⇒ 1 Cor 15:35-37, ⇒ 42, ⇒ 52, ⇒ 53.


554 St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 4, 18, 4-5: PG 7/1, 1028-1029.


555 ⇒ Jn 6: 39-40, ⇒ 44, ⇒ 54; ⇒ 11:24; LG 48 # 3.


556 ⇒ 1 Thess 4:16.

And yet according to Father Ratzinger St. Paul does not mean that there will be a restoration of the physical body.  So it's apparent in his mind all these things in his mind are merely metaphorical descriptions - and that his view is St. Paul's, that is, traditional!

Modernists will often say they agree with everything the Church has previously taught.  That is of course a lie.  Their dishonest apologists will find excuses for them when they spill the beans about what they really think, and then will quote their claims of agreement with traditional doctrine to bolster those excuses, but those claims of agreement are false pretenses.

The role of the priesthood is to consecrate the world so that it may become a living host, a liturgy: so that the liturgy may not be something alongside the reality of the world, but that the world itself shall become a living host, a liturgy. This is also the great vision of Teilhard de Chardin: in the end we shall achieve a true cosmic liturgy, where the cosmos becomes a living host.

"the great vision of Teilhard de Chardin" - that in his mind is the authentic continuation of Catholic Tradition.  That IS his "hermeneutic of continuity."

Of course the rorate modernists know that, but they are interested in fooling people (with their own hermeneutic of dishonesty) into thinking their neo-traditionalism is not modernist.

Hah. That's a laugh and a half. When I answer in some depth, I get a trite (and crude!) three word response. A more brief reply is called "non-responsive".

Listen, Guest, you bring up such a multitude of different matters, Christology, Resurrection, even the Atonement, then historical veracity, and make all sorts of claims, am I supposed to reply to them all, especially when you seem more interested in a personal bout than in a reasoned theological discussion?

I gave you the answer about the Resurrection already. Like the Church Fathers, even the greatest of them, when they are treating of a pagan and heretical view with the intention of trying to refute it, it is quite possible and has often happened that they themselves mis-speak, or describe the matter inaccurately, sometimes it even happened in the early Church with such doctrines as the Trinity and the Incarnation. The Church does not regard this as serious, though, because it is clear they were well intentioned but mistaken. I think it is quite possible the Holy Father made a similar mistake in speaking somewhat imprecisely.

Pope Benedict XVI is attempting to confute several different views in his book, some pagan and some heretical, one which held that the soul sleeps after death, another which opined that the body would not be transformed and glorified, and finally one more which only admits the eternality of the soul separate from the body. Against these views, he writes,

Over against the theories sketched out in the opening section of this chapter, we were able to show that the idea of a resurrection taking place in the moment of death is not well-founded, either in logic or in the Bible.  We saw that the Church's own form of the doctrine of immortality was developed in a consistent manner from the resources of the biblical heritage, and is indispensible on grounds of both tradition and philosophy. But that leaves the other side of the question still unanswered: what, then, about the resurrection of the dead?  [...] Such questions make us realize that, despite their contrary starting points, the modern theories we have met seek to avoid not so much the immortality of the soul as the resurrection, now as always the real scandal to the intellectuals.  To this extent, modern theology is closer to the Greeks than it cares to recognize.

...

Immortality as conceived by the Bible proceeds, not from the intrinsic power of what is in itself indestructible, but from being drawn into the dialogue with the Creator; that is why it must be called awakening.  Because the Creator intends, not just the soul, but the man physically existing in the midst of history and gives him immortality, it must be called “awakening of the dead” = “of men”.  It should be noted here that even in the formula of the Creed, which speaks of the “resurrection of the body”, the word “body” means in effect “the world of man” (in the sense of bibilical expressions like “all flesh will see God's salvation”, and so on); even here the word is not meant in the sense of a corporality isolated from the soul.

He says the body is glorified before the soul is reunited with it, as St.Paul says it is "raised a spiritual body" with imperishability as Christ's was, so it must not be conceived that the body returns merely to its natural life untransformed which is what he means about restoration as such. I admit some terms are impreciseand awkardly used here and there, unlike in the Catechism which quotes various sources from Scripture and Tradition, and is more easily understandable.

If Pope Benedict XVI really denied the resurrection, either the Catechism he approved or the doctrinal discussions would have brought it up. I doubt from your tone you are as much interested in having a serious examination of the problems from the last Council as much as in having a go at "neotrads", Rorate caeli, me or whoever else it is. Do spare me from that game if that is your intention.

Pope Pius XII's Encyclical established some parameters for Biblical studies after the Commission and it is this that Pope Benedict XVI refers to. As for the veracity of the Gospels and similar matters, it is well known Dei Verbum says, "The Church has always and everywhere held and continues to hold that the four Gospels are of apostolic origin. For what the Apostles preached in fulfillment of the commission of Christ, afterwards they themselves and apostolic men, under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, handed on to us in writing: the foundation of faith, namely, the fourfold Gospel, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.  Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day"

On the 100th anniversary of the Commission you mention, Pope Benedict XVI once more reiterated,

The opinion that faith as such knows absolutely nothing of historical facts and must leave all of this to historians is Gnosticism: this opinion disembodies the faith and reduces it to pure idea. The reality of events is necessary precisely because the faith is founded on the Bible. A God who cannot intervene in history and reveal Himself in it is not the God of the Bible. In this way the reality of the birth of Jesus by the Virgin Mary, the effective institution of the Eucharist by Jesus at the Last Supper, his bodily resurrection from the dead - this is the meaning of the empty tomb - are elements of the faith as such, which it can and must defend against an only presumably superior historical knowledge.

That Jesus - in all that is essential - was effectively who the Gospels reveal him to be to us is not mere historical conjecture, but a fact of faith. Objections which seek to convince us to the contrary are not the expression of an effective scientific knowledge, but are an arbitrary over-evaluation of the method.

To understand Chrstology, you must understand a doctrine called theosis. This is a traditional Christian doctrine, described by St.Athanasius, St.Thomas Aquinas, the Roman liturgy and even in Scripture by St.Paul, St.Peter and Our Lord Himself but not very widely known among Catholics. Do you? If so, you will see the meaning of what Pope Benedict XVI said in that respect.