A friend wrote this to me on Facebook, and had me a bit puzzled how to respond:
A law does not exist in order to be understood historically, but to be concretized in its legal validity by being interpreted. Similarly, the Gospel does not exist in order to be understood as a merely historical document, but to be taken in such a way that it exercises its saving effect. This implies that the text, whether law or Gospel, if it is to be understood properly—i.e., according to the claim it makes—must be understood at every moment, in every concrete situation, in a new and different way. Understanding here is always application.
—Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method, 307-308.
I don't know much about this particular German philosopher, but I've read enough Chesterton to be skeptical. It seems to me that he's saying that the saving part, so at least the moral and anagogical (if not the allegorical) senses of scripture are fluid.
Is his theological axiom, which I summarize as:
Things that can be true and good according to an application of the spiritual truths revealed in the Gospel are true and good now, but, given that same application, weren't true or good in a different place or time consistent with Catholic teaching?