McBrien: B16 doesn't really understand Vatican II

Fr. Richard McBrien, former consultant to The Da Vinci Code movie and former head of the theology department at Notre Dame, has it on good authority—his own!—that Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI doesn't really understand Vatican II or how to correctly interpret it. At least that's how I understand his recent column, titled "Interpreting Vatican II," (Feb 2, 2007) which states:

In his Christmas address to members of the Roman Curia later that same year, Pope Benedict XVI reaffirmed the position that he had taken previously when he was still known as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. In his earlier life, Cardinal Ratzinger had referred to the hermeneutics of discontinuity as a hermeneutics of "rupture."

The truth, however, lies somewhere in between: neither continuity alone nor discontinuity. A third, both/and approach has been, for the past 40 years, the consensus position embraced by the great majority of Catholic scholars who have devoted themselves to conciliar research. More significantly, it was also the understanding of the great majority of council Fathers.

The turn away from this both/and approach came about after most of the Vatican II bishops died and a new type of bishop, with no personal experience of the council, was appointed in their place during the pontificate of John Paul II.

Unfortunately, the either/or approach which has emerged ignores the fact that centrist interpreters of the council readily agree that the council retracted nothing in the doctrines articulated by previous councils. But the either/or approach also has failed to understand that the bishops of Vatican II, despite their commitment to continuity, offered a fresh look at various pre-conciliar teachings.

Consider this, from the afore-mentioned talk by Benedict to the Curia, given on December 22, 2005, in addressing the implementation of the Second Vatican Council:

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.

Be sure to read the entire document; it's worth it. Then consider that Benedict, of course, played a not-so-insignificant role at the Council as chief theological advisor for the Archbishop of Cologne, Cardinal Joseph Frings, and has written quite a bit about what transpired at the Council, notably in Theological Highlights of Vatican II (Paulist, 1966). So, who really has the better bead on interpreting the Council and its documents? And whose comments, quoted above, make better sense of what most Catholics have seen and experienced over the past forty years? Rhetorical questions? Sure, but still fun to ask.

Comments

[Rich Leonardi]

The truth, however, lies somewhere in between: neither continuity alone nor discontinuity. A third, both/and approach has been, for the past 40 years, the consensus position embraced by the great majority of Catholic scholars who have devoted themselves to conciliar research. More significantly, it was also the understanding of the great majority of council Fathers.

c.f.: conciliarism, entry for.

[Christopher Malloy]

This is absolutely hilarious. I mean – McBrien’s notions.

Holy Father Benedict (and, formerly, His Eminence J. Cardinal Ratzinger) holds to the hermeneutics of continuity PRECISELY to retain the “both / and.” McBrien professes to cling to this “both / and.” How now?

McBrien’s position is simply hilarious. The reason? His own position is so obviously either an “or” or an “either.” In any case, I’d rather be in the boat that Christ oars through Peter the Rock than sit on the foundering skiff of a scoffer leading the little ones astray.

More on the reason for hilarity: It is the extreme traditionalists (I say extreme here with exactly schismatics in mind; I in no way intend to target those who justly love the tradition and its liturgies!) and the extreme progressivists (again, specific target: Those who reject the past) who espouse rupture, wittingly or no. These are the EXACT two groups who hold either an “or” or an “either.”

In contrast, the “continuity” position – which is that of the Church – is precisely “dynamic orthodoxy” in the best sense of the term. Total fidelity, yet development of articulation and appreciation, etc.

On what basis on earth, then, does McBrien equate “continuity” with “stasis”? Thanks for the post, Ignatius!

Christopher Malloy
University of Dallas

[Augustine]

Was Fr. McBrien even in Rome when the council was taking place to dismiss what a first-hand witness, now Pope, says? Inquiring minds want to know...

[Dale Price]

Do not--NOT--ever play the "Fr. Richard McBrien Column Drinking Game." This dangerous contest requires you to page through a year's worth of his columns and down a shot of bourbon each time he uses the term "mainstream" or "centrist."

Only do this in the presence of trained medical professionals.

[padraighh]

I once heard a story (possible apocryphal) of a fellow who was awfully fond of
Fr. McBrien's rhetorical style and so thought he could make use of it to defend
himself on the charge of reckless driving.

He first reminded the judge that driving down the centre of the road
was better than the alternatives, though he had actually been accused of
driving on the left hand side. He apparently paid the fine and barely escaped
jail time for contempt of court.

[Brian John Schuettler]

Coming soon to your local bookstores: "Truth Can Be A Dirty Word" the Catechism For Cafeteria Catholics...by Richard McBrien with a Forward by the late Robert Drinan