Hermeneutics was initially applied to the interpretation, or exegesis, of scripture, and has been later broadened to questions of general interpretation. The terms "hermeneutics" and "exegesis" are sometimes used interchangeably. Hermeneutics is a wider discipline which includes written, verbal, and non-verbal communication.The problem is that this is a messy concept. For instance, if I google the words "chomsky hermeneutic", I will get, as of just now, about 103,000 results, and I have a feeling there are visitors who will get a woozy premonition as to what they'll find when they follow those links. Here's an example:
In that essay, [Habermas] also contrasts hermeneutic reflection with the systematic reconstruction of linguistic competence, exemplified by Noam Chomsky's theory of language. Hermeneutic understanding, he insists, can 'lead to the critical ascertainment of truth only to the extent to which it follows the regulative principle: to try to establish universal agreement within the framework of an unlimited community of interpreters'.On one hand, "hermeneutic" describes a a method, principle, or tradition of interpretation, which is fairly neutral as a notion. On the other, "hermeneutic" becomes a form of authority -- Smith's interpretation of Jane Austen departs from the hermeneutic. At that point, it becomes political and a football for postmodernists. I think it's best to avoid the word, and it would probably have been better if Bp Lopes hadn't used it.
But he did use it. On one hand, he refers to the Council of Trent and Vatican II. On that basis, Lumen gentium , one of the principal documents of the Second Vatican Council, and subsequent interpretations of that document, would be one part of the "dual hermeneutic of reform" to which Bp Lopes refers. It sounds as if the various editions of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer containing the XXXIX Articles would be part of the Anglican side of the dual hermeneutic, but Bp Lopes doesn't make this clear. The Articles are called, in any case, "the historically defining statements of doctrines and practices of the Church of England with respect to the controversies of the English Reformation".
But there's a problem here. A good many of the Articles are specifically anti-Catholic. For instance, Article XXII:
THE Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping, and Adoration, as well of Images as of Reliques, and also invocation of Saints, is a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.Or Article XXVIII:
Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.But a hermeneutic, as implied in the discussion above, implies at least a general consensus within a community of interpreters. One might argue that Anglicans have never been completely unanimous on the Articles, and TEC went as far as to reclassify them as just a "historical document" in the 1979 BCP, but mere vagueness isn't really part of a hermeneutic.
But what's the "reform" in the Tudor revolt? While Anglican apologists have offered that the specific cause of Henry VIII's break with Rome, his disagreement with the Pope on annulling his marriage to Catherine of Aragon, was a manifestation of an English tendency toward reformation consistent with other developments in Europe, others attribute Henry's motives to his personality, and if the issue of the annulment hadn't arisen, any in a range of other issues would have sufficed.
The upshot, though, is that the Tudors were in effect early totalitarians, and it's plain that their main motive was political, to bring the Church under State control. "Reform", from this viewpoint, was a politically useful device, not a principle. It's worth pointing out that the break resulted in two major martyrs, St Thomas More and St John Fisher. How do we reconcile a protestant church that, in its founding, martyred numerous Catholics, with the Church's own hermeneutic, which would include the beatifications of More and Fisher?
I do note, via a link on Fr Z's blog,
And there is the matter of the “Ecumenical Mass,” a liturgy designed to unite Catholics and Protestants around the Holy Table. Though never officially announced, a committee reporting directly to Pope Francis has been working on this liturgy for some time.Is Anglicanorum coetibus a precursor of this, or has it been hijacked?
