Hermeneutic of continuity
Here's a brief quote from State of Religious Parties that reminded me of the so-called "hermeneutic of continuity" proposed by Pope Benedict, i.e. that changes and reforms legitimately happen, but must be seen in the light of Tradition:
It is a great characteristic in fact of the true system, that it can afford to be thus free and spontaneous, to vary its aspect, to modify, enlarge, and accommodate itself to times and places without loss of principle. Why should not the different ages of the Church, with their different characters, make up a whole, just as the Church itself in every age is, as St. Paul says, "many members, yet but one body"?
We mention this, because some persons are apt to think when Antiquity is talked about, that it implies an actual return to the exact forms of opinion and modes of feeling which are known to have prevailed in those earlier times; and they forthwith begin to talk about the nineteenth century, and the impossibility of our retrograding, and the folly and disadvantage of too narrow a standard, and the fallacy of thinking that whatever is ancient is, as such, an object of imitation.
http://www.newmanreader.org/works/essays/volume1/prospects.html
To see what I mean, just replace "nineteenth century" with "Vatican II" and off we go :-)
For a more serious comparison, have a look at the Pope's 2005 Address to the Roman Curia and read the bit abut the Council...
[RJS]
It is a great characteristic in fact of the true system, that it can afford to be thus free and spontaneous, to vary its aspect, to modify, enlarge, and accommodate itself to times and places without loss of principle. Why should not the different ages of the Church, with their different characters, make up a whole, just as the Church itself in every age is, as St. Paul says, "many members, yet but one body"?
We mention this, because some persons are apt to think when Antiquity is talked about, that it implies an actual return to the exact forms of opinion and modes of feeling which are known to have prevailed in those earlier times; and they forthwith begin to talk about the nineteenth century, and the impossibility of our retrograding, and the folly and disadvantage of too narrow a standard, and the fallacy of thinking that whatever is ancient is, as such, an object of imitation.
http://www.newmanreader.org/works/essays/volume1/prospects.html
To see what I mean, just replace "nineteenth century" with "Vatican II" and off we go :-)
For a more serious comparison, have a look at the Pope's 2005 Address to the Roman Curia and read the bit abut the Council...
[RJS]