Talmudical hermeneutics (Hebrew: מידות שהתורה נדרשת בהן) defines the rules and methods for the investigation and exact determination of the meaning of the Scriptures, within the framework of Rabbinic Judaism. This includes, among others, the rules by which the requirements of the Oral Law and the Halakha are derived from and established by the written law. These rules relate to:I would actually expect a bishop of the Roman Catholic Church, who must certainly be aware of this context, to use the word "hermeneutic" with something akin to this meaning, an ongoing but structured and circumscribed discussion on interpretation conducted according to a long-established consensus on rules. This is certainly the strong implication of the Wikipedia entry.
- grammar and exegesis
- the interpretation of certain words and letters and apparently superfluous and/or missing words or letters, and prefixes and suffixes
- the interpretation of those letters which, in certain words, are provided with points
- the interpretation of the letters in a word according to their numerical value (see Gematria)
- the interpretation of a word by dividing it into two or more words (see Notarikon)
- the interpretation of a word according to its consonantal form or according to its vocalization
- the interpretation of a word by transposing its letters or by changing its vowels
- the logical deduction of a halakhah from a Scriptural text or from another law
On one hand, I never heard Uncle Fred use the term "hermeneutic" in connection with Sunday's game, nor Aunt Matilda use it in connection with the weather. It is not a term in ordinary conversational use. On the other hand, Bp Lopes, when he refers to a "dual hermeneutic of reform", doesn't seem to be using the term in a context where we might expect it. A hermeneutic on how to interpret William Wordsworth, for instance, would basically be conducted via peer-reviewed articles and in the letters pages of certain specified academic journals. It might nowadays be supplemented on blogs or web discussion groups, and it would always have been conducted less formally in the question sessions and cocktail hours at academic conferences.
Where is the "dual hermeneutic of reform" that is somehow reaching important conclusions about Anglicanism vis-a-vis the Council of Trent and Vatican II being conducted? ARCIC, the Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission, while it exists, is at minimum not cited by Bp Lopes as any part of this hermeneutic -- if he feels it is, I hope he can clarify his opaque reference.
If it's taking place only in Vatican dicasteries like the CDF or the CDW, it seems to me that at minimum it isn't dual. And it encounters the problem that on one hand, Catholics can point to the Catechism, but Anglicans don't have an equivalent, and in fact, for much of Anglicanism's life, its doctrines have never been enforceable. Even if ARCIC makes some very general statements about Mary, Anglicans aren't constrained to assent to them, though it's plain that Anglicans aren't in practice required to ascribe even to the Creeds. Was the TAC's 2007 Portsmouth Petition part of this hermeneutic? Certanly not in any formal sense; the TAC in effect renounced it, while Rome never directly acknowledged it.
However, the formal definition of "hermeneutic" I've raised here is probably no longer current in any case. A 2004 discussion of TEC's impending consecration of Eugene Robinson as a bishop relates an exchange with Douglas Theuner, Robinson's predecessor as Bishop of New Hampshire:
Theuner was advocating a post-liberal hermeneutic, which understands the Bible as conveying neither cognitive propositions nor expressive experiences but truths determined by a culture's linguistic conventions. Post-liberal hermeneutics cut very close to the destructive reader-response theory of some post-modern deconstructionists. In a recent letter to other Anglican primates, defending ECUSA's support for Robinson, the presiding bishop, Frank Griswold, argued similarly. According to Griswold, "the Holy Scriptures are the Word of God and contain all things necessary to salvation."As far as I can see, Bp Lopes is referring to a "dual hermeneutic" that, as we saw yesterday, is self-contradictory, although it might be better to say it would be self-contradictory if it existed. He seems to be offering his own interpretation of certain Catholic councils -- though he's nowhere specific in this -- and his own interpretation of Anglican "reform", although Anglicans themselves would probably be unable to come up with a consensus on what this implies. This is not a hermeneutic, single or dual, as the term was understood until a couple of decades ago. (In fact, I wonder if the idea of a "dual hermeneutic" is meaningless.). . . . Theuner and Griswold believe that the Bible has different meanings in different cultural contexts. . . . This hermeneutical tactic may give lip service to oneness in Christ, but it effectively leaves the churches without a common grounding in the inspiration and illumination of the Bible by the one Spirit of God. Under this view the Bible no longer possesses an overarching authority; rather, it is contextually subject to various conflicting authorities. Moreover, the Holy Spirit Who inspired the Bible appears impotent at best and self-contradictory at worst.
Where is Bp Lopes taking this?
