First impressions

At a recent vicariate meeting on the new translation of the Mass, which will be implemented on the First Sunday of Advent, 2011, one of my brother priests kept asking, “So what we’ve been doing has been wrong?” Although I wanted to jump in and say, “Since it’s what you want to hear, yes, Father, what you’ve been doing is wrong,” the director of liturgy wisely didn’t address his question but continued with her presentation. In retrospect, I think that her approach was more pastoral, but hasn’t helped settle the question. If I had to answer that question today, I think I would say, “In some ways yes, and some ways no.”

Behind that question is a far deeper issue than just doing things right or wrong. This priest was ordained within period following the Second Vatican Council when much was changing, and people were still trying to wrap their minds around the documents of the Council. Understandably, there was much confusion as to the purpose of the Council and what it means for the Church moving forward.

Out of this confusion, an approach to the Council’s role within Church history began to coalesce that viewed the Council as an agent for completely restarting the Church. This view of the Council, commonly known today as the “hermeneutic of rupture,” sees the Council as bringing about a complete break from the baggage of the past and invoking a new Church influenced by and open to the movements and philosophies of the Twentieth Century. According to this view, anything from the past which was retained or recovered from antiquity would have to fit within the image of this modern, rebuilt Church, and anything that is viewed as medieval or obsolete would be discarded.

Although it is not universal, much of modern theology during the last 40+ years has operated under this first impression of the Council teachings. In recent years, a new understanding of the Council has begun to exert itself, especially in the 5 years since the election of Pope Benedict XVI. In fact, this renewed understanding of the Council has gained traction in large part to Pope Benedict’s writings as professor, bishop, cardinal, and now Pope.

Pope Benedict and those who follow his thoughts on the Council have proposed a “hermeneutic of continuity.” This alternative view sees the Council not as a break with the past, but in line with what has come before. The purpose of the Council, in this perspective, is to take the 1900+ years of Church teachings and traditions, and present them in ways understandable to Twentieth Century people. The Council did not seek to discard the past in exchange with modern philosophies and movements, but rather to influence these modern philosophies with the Tradition of the Church, passed down from Our Lord through the Church from generation to generation.

Understandably, many who were influenced by the hermeneutic of rupture are upset by the increasing influence of the newer hermeneutic of continuity towards the Council. Much of what they learned and believed is being disregarded and seen as going against the Council instead of acting in the spirit of the Council. Likewise, they see those of us who follow this hermeneutic of continuity as trying to reverse what the Council accomplished through their actions.

While their feelings are completely understandable, they are also regrettable. I purposely used the term “first impressions” in referring to the hermeneutic of rupture. Like many first impressions, they can often turn out to be in error. This is something well understood by anyone who has ever entered into a relationship with another person that ended badly due to a mistaken first impression. This person who might seem to be Mister or Miss Perfect at first glance ends up being Mister or Miss Wrong.

We can prejudge someone mistakenly off of first impressions, and many of us sadly do. Likewise, I propose that the first impression of the Council that became widely taught unjustly judged the Council as seeking to “reboot” the Church and rebuild Her from the ground up. Just like the gradual realization that the first impression of another person can be wrong, the 40 years since the Council has been more than enough time to realize that the first impression of the Council that led to the hermeneutic of rupture was wrong.

Sadly, much time, energy, sweat, and tears have been expended under the hermeneutic of rupture, and those influenced by this hermeneutic may be reluctant to let go of it. All of us, regardless of where we fall in this debate, need to pray for humility and true openness to the Holy Spirit, that we may hear and follow God’s will for the Church and not our own. In the end, all that matters for the Church is to follow God’s will for the salvation of humanity.