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

© 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 [email protected]

for an immediate correction of the violation.

http://www.cybercomm.net/~dcon/

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 Council…one

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 self-

actualization 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


Theological Interpretation of Vatican II, p.

717.

at this council that an indigenous

episcopate, from all over the world, was

present. He says:

“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.”

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



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



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,



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



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



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:

“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



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_roman-

curia_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.”13

Now that we have a basic understanding

of Rahner’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.



725.




curia_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:


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.

“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.”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.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm


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



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.” 20

The Second Vatican Council also stated:

“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.”21

The Apostles and the Nations

Rahner seemed to believe the Church

could change her faith now that she

became a “world Church”. 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.


http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm


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

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02408b.htm









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 Rahner’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:

“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?” 24

Implicit in this question is the assumption

that monogamy, a part of the Church’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:



718.

“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.”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:

“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



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



27 Dei Verbum, 7. Italics added.







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.”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.

“…the Church must be

inculturated throughout the

world if it is to be a world

Church.” 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



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.”32

Rahner’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:

“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.”34



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

35 Pope St. John XXIII, “Opening Address

to the Second Vatican Council” (October 11,

1962). Italics added. 36 Ibid.

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:










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



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 Ibid, p. 723.



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:










death and resurrection”

This is completely false. Jesus anticipated

the ministry of Paul when he declared all

foods clean:

“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



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,

‘interculturality’ 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.”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:

“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,

‘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 Contra Faustum, 19, 9. 46 Ibid, 19, 8.


http://www.newadvent.org/bible/mat011.htm#verse28






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.









http://www.newadvent.org/bible/jer031.htm#verse31

http://www.newadvent.org/bible/jer031.htm#verse31



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.”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).”50

Not only will the New Covenant never

cease, unlike the Old Covenant, but it is

for all of the nations.




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



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









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

“the faith once delivered to the saints.”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

Rahner’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://rorate-

caeli.blogspot.com/2014/08/rahners-un-

roman-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://rorate-

caeli.blogspot.com/2014/08/rahners-un-

roman-epoch-of-church.html> 58 Ephesians 4:22-24.

Chapter Six:

Implications of Rahner’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



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:

“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.”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,


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:

“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. 62 “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.)

“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




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



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


Appendix I

Pope Benedict XVI’s

Christmas Address to the

Roman Curia

“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

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/index.htm

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/index.htm

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 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 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 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

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/speeches/1965/documents/hf_p-vi_spe_19651207_epilogo-concilio_en.html



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.”66

66 Address to the Roman Curia, Thursday,

22 December 2005. The text in its entirety

may be found here:




curia_en.html>