http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1347420?eng=y

ON CONTINUITY

by Francesco Arzillo

The ecclesial uproar connected to the conflict between traditionalists and progressives shows no sign of calming down, and even appears accentuated, given that the papal positions defy – and it could not be otherwise – this kind of contrast. If the progressives do not like the motu proprio "Summorum Pontificuм," the traditionalists remain perplexed by the Assisi initiative, and so on.

It is unfortunate to have to take note that the question of the hermeneutic of continuity remains the subject of considerable misunderstanding, in spite of the fact that this is a magisterial guideline that is authoritative and binding for Catholics, in addition to its being founded on the evident presupposition of the continuity in time of the life of the ecclesial body, with the connected assistance of the Holy Spirit for the pastors.

The ecclesial dialectic tends to take on forms and methods that are more political than theological, and end up reproducing within the Church the right-left dialectic proper to modern politics.

Much has been said and written – and rightly so – against those who persist in seeing in Vatican Council II the new beginning that is claimed to put an end to the period characterized by the "Constantinian form" of the Church.

However, it is also necessary to censure a traditionalism which interprets the very rich heritage of classical theology with a mentality that is more Cartesian than Aristotelian, a priori taking changes of formulas as changes of doctrine, or treating theological concepts as if they were clear and distinct ideas, with a rationalistic approach that in no way resembles that of grand medieval Scholasticism, not to mention the Fathers of the Church.

How can we emerge from of this?

In the first place by trying to adopt a habit of humility, intellectual as well, which should belong – although in different roles – to every Catholic believer, including theologians.

Infallible or irreformable doctrines cannot be discussed. But a particular kind of obedience is also due to the ordinary magisterium. In fact, paragraph 752 of the code of canon law stipulates: "Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it."

It is therefore not possible to unshackle oneself from the established teaching on religious freedom or ecuмenism by saying that these are not infallible doctrines: even if they are not believed to be such, they must be followed all the same.

Nor can one lament the fact that the most recent popes have made the proper implementation of Vatican II a point of reference for their ministry (and what else should they have done?).

The hermeneutic of continuity should be verified and practiced with concrete exercises, which – if carried out properly – would show that it is always possible.

To simplify, let's say that I have a classic dogmatic assertion A and a conciliar doctrine B, which is subject to two interpretations: B1, or an interpretation compatible with A; and B2, or an interpretation not compatible with A (this ambivalence is not rare, because of the "pastoral" language used by the last Council and by part of the recent magisterium).

The hermeneutic of continuity, then, requires that I select interpretation B1. This is not, however, a voluntaristic and positivistic imposition. On the contrary, it presupposes the logical principle of non-contradiction, the non-irrationality of the thing revealed, and the theological and ecclesiological principles distinctive of Catholicism, which are aimed at safeguarding the unity-continuity of the Church in time.

For example, if I read the text of Vatican II in which it says that "by his incarnation the Son of God has united himself in some fashion with every man" ("Gaudium et Spes" 22), I must interpret this in a way that is compatible with the ancient Christological councils, taking into account the implications of the statement "in some fashion."

Therefore, no anthropocentric "pan-Christism" to praise, or against which to raise a scandalized shout. More simply, and more catholically, a greater and ever more penetrating understanding of the thing revealed.

One could reply: but what if I see a contradiction that prevents me from giving assent?

Help in this regard could come from a saying of Ignatius of Loyola, according to which "in order to be certain in everything, we must always hold to this criterion: I will believe that the white I see is black, if the hierarchical Church establishes it to be so. In fact, we believe that the Spirit who governs us and guides our souls to salvation is the same in Christ our Lord, the bridegroom, and in the Church, his bride; because our holy mother Church is guided and governed by our same Spirit and Lord who gave us the ten commandments."

The assent of the intellect, which stems from accepting this position, does not remain without fruit, because it purifies the will and predisposes the reason to a more attentive consideration of the question and permits, in the final analysis, the culling of the motives of perplexity that seemed invincible but in reality were dictated by prejudices.

To this end it is helpful to read theologians who apply this kind of hermeneutic, for example Cardinal Leo Scheffczyk (1920-2005), or Fr. Jean-Hervé Nicolas, or Fr. Giovanni Cavalcoli.

This would result in a reinforcement of ecclesial conscience and the desire to operate – catholically – "cuм Petro et sub Petro," in the extraordinary effort to communicate the Christian message to our contemporaries, children of God and brothers in humanity.

They would like Catholics to "assent" to subjectivist, uncertain, ambiguous notions that are falsifiable?  No one is being "rebellious" in refusing assent, they don't assent because it's impossible to assent.  Uncertain knowledge is no knowledge at all.  Also, if he presses the issue and demands we accept so-called "religious liberty" as a theoretical postulate, he would be contradicting the previous magisterium.  If he then retreats and wishes to assert the matter as merely provisional and convenient, then he as ruled out "assent" by definition and entered into the realm of the practical intellect and prudence.  Juggling probabilities doesn't merit the name "knowledge" nor can it engender certitude even remotely.  Either way he's trapped.      

It is indeed impossible to assent, because these modernist principles are in no shape or form reconcilable with apostolic tradition. The objective reality of the Living God will split the Red Sea of modernist subjectivity, so that His remnant can pass through, into the fruitful lands of orthodox catholicism.