What do you think?
Rate this book
Still Interpreting Vatican II: Some Hermeneutical Principles
In this original book, Ormond Rush makes a significant contribution to the growing body of scholarship on Vatican II. He proposes that a comprehensive interpretation of Vatican II requires that the interpreter not only attempt a reconstruction of the "spirit" of the council emerging during the conciliar debates, but also take into account the various linguistic dimensions of the "letter" of the documents. Attention to genre, structure, rhetoric, intratextuality and intertextuality are all significant in reconstructing the "letter" of the council. In addition, he states that reconstruction of the "spirit" and "letter" must be supplemented by attention to another the post-conciliar reception of the council from different contexts throughout the world over the last forty years. All three of these phases of interpretation must be kept in correlation. The book ends with a proposal for a reception pneumatology that calls for greater recognition of the work of reception as the work of the Holy Spirit of the council. ―fills a significant gap in the debate regarding Vatican clarity in the discussion regarding hermeneutical principles ―no book in any language focuses specifically on the principles for interpreting Vatican II ―calls for a more comprehensive approach that includes not only attention to the process of original formulation, but also to the texts in themselves ―suggests a way through the current impasse in the interpretation of Vatican II †
- GenresHistory
144 pages, Paperback
First published November 1, 2004
17 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
February 19, 2026
Once upon a time, interpreting documents was relatively straight forward. They meant, what they meant, and if there was confusion about meaning, then they meant what their authors meant them to mean, as far as we could work out what the intentions of the authors actually were.
But nowadays matters are nowhere near as simple. The book provides four hermeneutics, with one per chapter, which effectively give us different ways of extracting meaning and thus interpreting Vatican II.
Chapter 1 is the traditional model of working out the meaning by looking at the intentions of the authors. In that context, the question arises about how traditional the bishops intended to be, or were they trying to deliberately and intentionally break with traditional theology? The author answers that question by asserting that the Council intended to avoid macro-ruptures with tradition, but it was nevertheless committed to micro-ruptures. But ultimately this model is unsatisfactory for the author because ‘there is no such thing as ‘the’ meaning of a text’ (p34). Er… what? That surprising opinion imposes a very controversial postmodernist philosophy upon the texts, but on what basis? Where is the argument to justify it?
Chapter 2 moves on assuming that a key element of working out a meaning of a text is combining intratextuality (the meaning within a single text) and intertextuality (the meaning across all the texts of the council). Yes, that makes sense. As far as I can tell it is just the traditional idea of not reading a text inconsistently with other texts produced by the author. But isn’t that obvious? And isn’t it actually a principle that is already included in the issues of chapter 1, as it is just a slightly expanded version of authorial intent? It really wasn’t clear to me what Chapter 2 added to the principles of interpreting the council.
Chapter 3 moves on to the idea that the receiver interpreting the text contributes to the meaning of the text. Er… Really? Once again that is a postmodernist opinion, but where is the argument to justify it? Surely there is a difference between what a text says and what people hope or wish for it to say? Surely it is possible for people to misinterpret a text? If that is so, then how can receivers be contributing to the meaning of the original text? (And if later receivers do contribute to an earlier original meaning, then isn't that a highly controversial claim of backwards causation?). There are serious philosophical problems with the author’s assumptions in chapter 3, but they weren’t addressed or resolved.
Chapter 4 focused on the idea that people can be inspired by the Holy Spirit to interpret the texts of the council. Er… isn’t this just a variant of chapter 3? It’s the idea that there may be another factor causing the receivers to interpret in a specific way. But that is still making an assumption that the later readers are somehow causing the meaning in the text which was written earlier. And doesn’t it still raise all the same issues of how do we tell the difference between wishful thinking and mistaken interpretations, if the receivers are part of establishing the original meaning of the text?
Overall, I was very disappointed with the book. I couldn’t understand how the theories were meant to be valid ways of interpreting any text, leave alone the texts of Vatican II. Perhaps most disappointingly of all, the book didn’t explore the idea of ‘wrong’ interpretations. Surely there are in fact ‘wrong’ interpretations? If so, then how is that possible and how can we tell what is wrong, given the authors core insight that a text has no meaning in itself.
But nowadays matters are nowhere near as simple. The book provides four hermeneutics, with one per chapter, which effectively give us different ways of extracting meaning and thus interpreting Vatican II.
Chapter 1 is the traditional model of working out the meaning by looking at the intentions of the authors. In that context, the question arises about how traditional the bishops intended to be, or were they trying to deliberately and intentionally break with traditional theology? The author answers that question by asserting that the Council intended to avoid macro-ruptures with tradition, but it was nevertheless committed to micro-ruptures. But ultimately this model is unsatisfactory for the author because ‘there is no such thing as ‘the’ meaning of a text’ (p34). Er… what? That surprising opinion imposes a very controversial postmodernist philosophy upon the texts, but on what basis? Where is the argument to justify it?
Chapter 2 moves on assuming that a key element of working out a meaning of a text is combining intratextuality (the meaning within a single text) and intertextuality (the meaning across all the texts of the council). Yes, that makes sense. As far as I can tell it is just the traditional idea of not reading a text inconsistently with other texts produced by the author. But isn’t that obvious? And isn’t it actually a principle that is already included in the issues of chapter 1, as it is just a slightly expanded version of authorial intent? It really wasn’t clear to me what Chapter 2 added to the principles of interpreting the council.
Chapter 3 moves on to the idea that the receiver interpreting the text contributes to the meaning of the text. Er… Really? Once again that is a postmodernist opinion, but where is the argument to justify it? Surely there is a difference between what a text says and what people hope or wish for it to say? Surely it is possible for people to misinterpret a text? If that is so, then how can receivers be contributing to the meaning of the original text? (And if later receivers do contribute to an earlier original meaning, then isn't that a highly controversial claim of backwards causation?). There are serious philosophical problems with the author’s assumptions in chapter 3, but they weren’t addressed or resolved.
Chapter 4 focused on the idea that people can be inspired by the Holy Spirit to interpret the texts of the council. Er… isn’t this just a variant of chapter 3? It’s the idea that there may be another factor causing the receivers to interpret in a specific way. But that is still making an assumption that the later readers are somehow causing the meaning in the text which was written earlier. And doesn’t it still raise all the same issues of how do we tell the difference between wishful thinking and mistaken interpretations, if the receivers are part of establishing the original meaning of the text?
Overall, I was very disappointed with the book. I couldn’t understand how the theories were meant to be valid ways of interpreting any text, leave alone the texts of Vatican II. Perhaps most disappointingly of all, the book didn’t explore the idea of ‘wrong’ interpretations. Surely there are in fact ‘wrong’ interpretations? If so, then how is that possible and how can we tell what is wrong, given the authors core insight that a text has no meaning in itself.
January 30, 2013
"Still Interpreting Vatican II: Some Hermeneutical Principles" provides a creative and faithful presentation of an hermenutical (i.e., understanding, interpretion & application) approach to Vatican II that highlights and quickens (i.e., brings to life) the concept of "reception" in a way that I found very helpful and encouraging.
This isn't easy reading, but then an authentic and integrated reception of scripture, tradition, sensus fidelium, comtemporary theological scholarship and the magisterium, isn't ever easy, but definitely worth serious "receptive" reflection and action.
This isn't easy reading, but then an authentic and integrated reception of scripture, tradition, sensus fidelium, comtemporary theological scholarship and the magisterium, isn't ever easy, but definitely worth serious "receptive" reflection and action.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews