SI SI NO NO

The following is excerpted from the SI SI NO NO article:
Benedict XVI's pontificate has been marked by
a few defining moments that have provoked some
neither entirely foreseeable nor easily controlled
reactions: one need only think of the polemics

that ensued after the release of the motu proprio
Summorum Pontificum. This act, which occasioned
an openly hostile, widespread reaction, was also
an opportunity for some to discover the Church's
genuine liturgical patrimony and, through it, they
were spurred on to discover an ecclesiology and
theological system not only different from, but also
incompatible with, that forged. over the Last 50 YEARS _
and peremptorily imposed on "the People of God."

Among the choices characterizing Benedict
XVI's pontificate it seems to me that we can include
the principle of the "hermeneutic of continuity,"!
which was articulated in his famous speech to the
Roman Curia of December 22, 2005. The speech
was not followed by the explosive reactions that have
occurred in other instances, but it did give rise to a
current of thought, and to its opposition, that is still
with us and merits our attention.
In the following reflections we intend to scrutinize
what the principle of the hermeneutic of continuity
asserts, and we shall try to situate it in the historical
context of the Church today so as to deduce all of its
implications.

A True Principle and an
Unproven Presupposition

Forty years after the close of the Second Vatican
Council, Benedict XVI recognizes the fact that
situations creating a deep malaise arose after this
historic event. He immediately frames the difficulty
as a problem in the acceptance of the Council linked
to a problem of the interpretation(hermeneutic) of
the texts of the Council itself: too often, the Council
was interpreted and thus applied in discontinuity
with the perennial teaching of the Church, contrary
to the objective meaning of its texts and contrary
to the intentions of the Council Fathers themselves.
The hermeneutic of continuity thus is presented as
the proper approach to interpreting the Council
authentically, according to its true intention and
especially in perfect harmony with Tradition.
Benedict XVI's intervention has the merit of
highlighting a basic principle, namely, that in the
Church's magisterial teaching," there cannot be a break
with previous teaching, but only continuity: what the
Church has always taught can neither be surpassed
nor set aside; rather, it constitutes the Church's
patrimony, which can neither be repudiated nor
substantially altered.
We should remark that this truth recalled by
Benedict XVI is in one sense quite simple; it pertains
to the rudiments of the Faith and to the foundational
principles that define the very nature of the Church.
Consequently, the fact that he deemed it necessary
to outline his papal program in light of this truth
constitutes a first significant acknowledgement of the
doctrinal crisis in which the Church finds itself. By
solemnly reiterating such a simple, elementary truth,
which had been set aside in practice and in common
teaching, the Pope inevitably provided an objective
indicator of the gravity of the current situation.
The usual commemorative orations about

the council were replaced in this speech by a
reminder of elementary principles: it constituted
an initial acknowledgment that something has not
worked. Moreover, it should be recognized that the
fact of recalling that there can be no break in the
Church's teaching prompted in some individuals
especially priests, a desire to valorize things past'
and the Tradition of the Church. In many cases this
re-evaluation led to the progressive discovery of an
absolutely new patrimony, which these priests felt had
been denied them. This is certainly the most positive
effect of the hermeneutic of continuity.
However, the hermeneutic of continuity stands
out, not so much for its intrinsic, abstract value as
in the concrete application made of it, as a two-
edged sword: it affirms, in effect, that the documents
of the Council are in perfect continuity with the
Church's perennial Tradition, and when it brings
to light an .objectively serious problem of a break,
It systematically reduces it to a question of the
interpretation of the Council itself, to a deviation that
occurred in the post-conciliar period. The absolute
fidelity of the Council to the previous authoritative
teaching of the Church seems to remain as an
indisputable postulate. In this way, the "blame" falls
upon a heterodox current of thought incompatible
with Catholic doctrine and foreign to the Council, but
which paradoxically succeeded in steering in large
part the application and the concrete results."
As we now get to the crux of our considerations,
we plan to situate the hermeneutic of continuity
historically by seeking to grasp every aspect: without
entering in detail into specific conciliar teachings,
which have been discussed over and over, we realize
that it postulates a series of elements which, instead of
saving the Council, indirectly demonstrate its failure.

From what I have read from this, the VTII council was not explicit in its determination, and leeway given to the Priests. It had no intention of changing what has been the tradition of the Church for over 2000 years. What has happened, Bishops,
Pastors, and Priests have read into what was determined, to mean what they wanted it to mean. That was not the intent of the VTII Council. Therefore Pope
Benedict XVI must give an interpretation, whereby, none of the traditions of the Church have been supplanted, nor to have changed. And any conflict with the traditional teachings, should automatically, negate those changes to the traditional teachings of the church from 1962 on.
It is my sincere hope, that the Pope will return our church to the prior teachings, and traditions that were practiced prior to VTII.
I am in no way an expert, but only go with the direction of what my spirit leads me to go, and Just my Humble Opinions.