✚ḲʑŁྙ: Memoria et Spes $POUJOVJUZ *OOPWBUJPO BOE %JTDPOUJOVJUZ JO UIF 4FDPOE 7BUJDBO $PVODJM ,MBVT 4DIBU[ 4+ (FSNBOZ 4BOLU (FPSHFO Does the Second Vatican Council mean a clear rupture with the ecclesiastical past - or does it stand, despite all undeniable and fundamental changements, in an organic connexion with it presenting its more or less organic development? The question is not a theoretical one; it touches the very legitimacy of the Council and at the same time the fundamental principle of Catholic tradition and of the identity of the Catholic Church. And it is linked intimately with the authentic interpretation of the Council and with the question of the fidelity to its decisions, ideas and options. Since 2005 in some Vatican circles the so-called ‘hermeneutic of continuity’ is emphasized, whose most prominent and outstanding representative is the Curial Archbishop Marchetto.2) Marchetto is criticizing especially the Bologna 1) A great part of the expositions of this article is already published under the title: “Konzil der Moderne oder der Tradition? Kontinuität und Diskontinuität im 2. Vatikanum”, in Katholische Kirche und Moderne, ed., O.J. Wiertz, (Aschendorff 2015, Frankfurter Theologische Studien 73), 91-110. 2) A. Marchetto, Il Concilio Ecumenico Vaticano II. Contrapunto per la sua storia, (Città del Vaticano, 2005). $POUJOVJUZ *OOPWBUJPOBOE%JTDPOUJOVJUZJOUIF4FDPOE7BUJDBO$PVODJM school of Giuseppe Alberigo and his history of the Second Vatican Council in 5 volumes, which emphasizes the innovative elements.3) The ‘hermeneutic of continuity’, a bridge offered especially to the Pius brothers - but not accepted by them - understands Vatican II exclusively as organic continuation and further development of the lines of former Councils, especially Trent and Vatican I, denying any radical rupture with the earlier tradition. - The hermeneutic of rupture or ‘discontinuity’ on the other hand is defended by two opposite parties: on the one hand by the Alberigo school already mentioned, and on the other the adversaries of the Council, namely the St. Pius X Fraternity and - as its welcomed underpinning - the history of the Council by the Italian historian Roberto de Mattei ‘The Second Vatican Council. A still unwritten history.’4) I would stress only that two other questions regarding the Council and its interpretation are intimately connected with the question of continuity or discontinuity. The first is the view of the Council primarily as event or as text5). The representatives of the discontinuity thesis emphasize the Council as ‘event’, that is they stress the historical context, the struggles and conflicts, the epoch-making newness, the fact that the prepared texts, which were totally in the line of the magisterium of Pius XII, were by the Conciliar majority, in brief: the whole atmosphere, called the ‘spirit of the Council’. And they emphasize that the new aspects were expressed only imperfectly in the texts, 3) G. Alberigo - A. Melloni, hg., Storia del Concilio Vaticano II, 5 vol., (Bologna, 1995-2001). 4) R. de Mattei, Il Concilio Vaticano II. Una storia mai scritta, (Torino, 2010). - A critical recension from the author of this article: “Ein kirchliches 1789? Zu einer traditionalistischen Sicht auf das Zweite Vatikanum”, Theologie und Philosophie, 88 (2013), 47-71. 5) A little selection of the literature of this topic: O.H. Pesch, Das Zweite Vatikanische Konzil. Vorgeschichte - Verlauf - Ergebnisse �G Nachgeschichte, (Würzburg, 1993), 351-384; J.W. O’Malley, Vatican II - Did anything happen?, (New York, 2008); G. Wassilowsky, “Kontinuum-Reform-(Symbol)Ereignis? Konzilsgeschichtsschreibung nach Alberigo” in F.X. Bischof, Das Zweite Vatikanische Konzil (1962-1965). Stand und Perspektiven der kirchenhistorischen Forschung im deutschsprachigen Raum, (Stuttgart, 2012), 27-44. ᝁ⦺ŝ ℁⦺ ᱽ⪙ and that the ‘Council event’ contains a surplus over the text. In contrast the other party argues that only what has entered the texts counts and that the so-called ‘spirit of the Council’ would be, in ultimate instance, a very subjective criterion, or that this principle, applied to former Councils, e.d. Vatican I, would lead to very problematic and exaggerated interpretations. - This problem is connected, regarding the further interpretation of the Council and its realization in the life of the Church, with the understanding of the Council as final point or as way. For those who stress the event character of the Council, Vatican II is only the beginning of a way, but of a way which will continue in the same direction begun by the Council. The other party emphasizes the letter of its decrees; for them the affirmations of the Council are not the first timid beginnings, to which must follow more courageous and less limited positions, but the utmost which could be said without falling into heresy. - I have sketched here only the ideal positions; certainly the reality is more complex, and there are many differentiated positions between the extremes. But I will show that the problem of continuity and discontinuity is of a vital practical relevance for the realization of the Council in the reality of the Church. To return to the initial problem of ‘continuity’ and ‘discontinuity’: I would first say, as a historian, that these alternatives are too simple and sweeping to be applicable to the reality of Church history. Because the question is: continuity or discontinuity with which time, with the 19th century or - what is not the same - with the time of Pius XII? And with which tradition, with the immediate past (and this means: with the post-Tridentine, post-revolutionary or anti-modernistic tradition), with the early Church, the patristic age or the tradition ‘of all times’. (But which in fact does not exist in the critical and controversial questions of Vatican II)? $POUJOVJUZ *OOPWBUJPOBOE%JTDPOUJOVJUZJOUIF4FDPOE7BUJDBO$PVODJM Certainly Vatican II has been very anxious to stress, if at all possible, the continuity with the former doctrinal tradition and to avoid the impression of a rupture; the frequent citations of former popes, not least of Pius XII, the most cited authority of Vatican II, are a sufficient proof. And the interventions of Paul VI to satisfy the conciliar minority were motivated especially by this concern. But on the other hand the historian knows that the frequent and emphatic imploration of past authorities can be also a strategy to conceal real paradigm changes. And here it can be said with certainty: Vatican II meant a change of direction in relation to the post-Tridentine, anti-liberal und anti-modernistic periods and their prevalent tendencies. And therefore, if one starts only from Trent and Vatican I, from the papal doctrinal texts down to Pius XII, and from the consensus of the contemporary theologians, who were in the line of Roman orthodoxy without limitations, as the unique criterion, without placing them in the wider context of the whole tradition as well as of the Holy Scripture, then the consequence will be inevitable, that Vatican II was in certain essential decisions against the tradition. That makes the discussions with the Pius Brothers unfruitful; on this base they have the stronger arguments. Therefore I will now sketch some elements of discontinuity: 1) The first is the peculiar character of Vatican II and of its documents. This peculiarity does not consist simply, as is often said, in the fact that is has defined nothing. Also previous councils have not only defined; the definitions in Trent and Vatican I (where it is said: whoever rejects or asserts a certain statement, is anatema) form only the appendix of their doctrinal documents, while the main part is the positive presentation of the doctrine in the Corpus Doctrinae - and one can say certainly: at least the two dogmatic Constitutions of Vatican II, namely the Constitution Lumen Gentium about the ᝁ⦺ŝ ℁⦺ ᱽ⪙ Church, and the Constitution Dei Verbum about the revelation, have the same doctrinal authority as the Corpus Doctrinae in Trent and Vatican I. The decisive novelty is another: previous councils have intervened only partially in areas under threat, reforming, putting in order or clarifying doctrinally. Understandably that was done largely in a negative and condemning manner, It was a tradition which considered the task and purpose of the council on the one hand doctrinally in the condemnation of ‘heresies’, on the other hand, regarding discipline, in the reform by juridical regulations. The party represented at the beginning of Vatican II by Cardinal Ottaviani and his theologian, the Dutch Jesuit Sebastian Tromp, intended to continue this line; and the fascinating drama of the first session consisted in the fact, that another understanding of council prevailed, not yet clearly articulated and named ‘pastoral council’. Its essence can be outlined in this manner, that it does not understand the task of the Council in a negative and partial way (as condemnation of ‘heresies’ and fighting against ‘abuses’), but rather as a theological and spiritual response from the word of God to the call of the times, which is not conceived merely and prevalently as danger and threat, but more as a positive challenge. 2) What is new is the concept of reform as aggiornamento. Nearly all councils have dealt in some way with the reform of the Church. But they understood this reform in conservative manner: as restoration of a previous state, as suggests the term ‘re-form’, that is abolishing later ‘deformations’ and restoring an ideal state conceived as out of change. In reality nearly always a new reality has been created by these reforms and not a former ecclesiastical state has been restored; and naturally it was known that many ecclesiastical laws were new. But in principle reform was considered as abolition of temporary ‘abuses’; the concept of reform was static, not dynamic. Reform as ‘aggiornamento’, as positioning in a new time, as $POUJOVJUZ *OOPWBUJPOBOE%JTDPOUJOVJUZJOUIF4FDPOE7BUJDBO$PVODJM opening oneself to its challenges, to the ‘signs of the times’, with the conviction that these challenges cannot be considered only as dangers, but also or prevalently as a chance, is a specific note of Vatican II and historically new.