A New Take on Modern Catholic History
Feb 13, 2013
George Weigel
When did modern Catholicism begin? The conventional wisdom says, “at Vatican II.” A sophisticated version of the conventional wisdom says, “with the mid-twentieth-century Catholic reform movements that shaped Vatican II.” In Evangelical Catholicism: Deep Reform in the 21st-Century Church, I suggest that even the sophisticated form of the conventional wisdom doesn’t open the lens widely enough.
The gestation of the Church being born today—the Church of the New Evangelization—began in 1878, when Pope Leo XIII was elected. Leo quietly interred Pope Pius IX’s rejectionist strategy toward all aspects of modernity and began to explore the possibility of a new Catholic engagement with modern intellectual, cultural and political life. Leo XIII only planted the seeds. But the seeds he sowed—in Catholic biblical studies, in the renewal of Catholic philosophy and theology studies, in creating the social doctrine of the Church, and opening the Church to modern historical studies—eventually bore fruit.
It wasn’t easy. There was considerable resistance to the Leonine reform and its development. But the mid-twentieth-century renaissance of Catholic theology that produced giants like Joseph Ratzinger and that shaped the deliberations of Vatican II was made possible in part by Leo XIII. If John XXIII was the father of Vatican II and Pius XII its grandfather, then Leo XIII (in whose pontificate John XXIII was born) was a kind of great-grandfather of the most important Catholic event since the sixteenth-century Council of Trent.
Which brings us to another point: From the vantage point of the twenty-first century, and the call of both John Paul II and Benedict XVI for the Church to embrace the New Evangelization, we can see more clearly that what Leo XIII set in motion was the end of Counter-Reformation Catholicism—the Catholicism defined by the Council of Trent; the Catholicism that anyone over fifty today grew up in.
Counter-Reformation Catholicism had many accomplishments. It energized great missionary endeavors, notably in the newly discovered Western Hemisphere. It successfully resisted the bloody-minded French Revolution and the radical secularism that struck nineteenth-century Europe like a tsunami, driving half the German episcopate to prison during Bismarck’s Kulturkampf and destroying the Papal States in the Italian Risorgimento (the latter, in hindsight, a blessing in disguise). It was the Catholicism that began the evangelization of sub-Saharan Africa, and the Catholicism that refused to truckle to communism, the greatest persecutor of the Church in history. It set the institutional framework for the reform movements that were the foundation of Vatican II.
But its time has now passed. As the New Testament Church gave way to the Church of the Fathers, and that Church gave way to medieval Catholicism, which in turn gave way to Counter-Reformation Catholicism, so the Church shaped by Trent is now giving way to the Church of the third millennium—Evangelical Catholicism. And just in time.
Counter-Reformation Catholicism “worked,” as recently as the 1950s in America, because the ambient public culture helped transmit the faith, especially in intensely Catholic environments like Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit, St. Louis, Milwaukee and so forth. But those days are long gone. The twenty-first-century cultural air is toxic, anti-biblical, Christophobic. It teaches the soul-withering notion that to do things “my way” is the summit of human aspiration and the very definition of maturity. And it regards those who hold firm to biblical religion and its moral teachings as idiots at best, irrational bigots at worst.
In this atmosphere, which is the air we breathe, Counter-Reformation Catholicism doesn’t work. What is needed—to live the faith, to pass on the faith, and to convert the world—is a robustly Evangelical Catholicism: a Catholicism of radical conversion to friendship with Jesus Christ, which is understood to confer a missionary vocation on everyone. And so John Paul II concluded the Great Jubilee of 2000 by challenging the entire Church to leave the shallow waters of institutional maintenance (Counter-Reformation Catholicism) and, like the disciples on the Sea of Galilee, to put out “into the deep” and convert the world.
That’s Evangelical Catholicism.
George Weigel is Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C. His previous “On the Square” articles can be found here.
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
2.13.2013 | 7:54am
Jim says:
This article truly hits the mark. However, if we are to reorient our church such that it is a mission church we need to stop yielding to the devil and stop fighting from within. When we spend reams of paper; or more likely billions of bytes on arguing the merits of "and also with you," while the church (those Baptized in Christ) is languishing; we have a problem. Only, with a condition of peace within the church will we be able get on with the call, which has always been the call of the church to evangelize the Word.
2.13.2013 | 11:01am
The revolution in Catholic biblical studies supposedly inaugurated by Leo XIII is hardly that. Quite the opposite, it represents the beginnings of a continuous period of endorsement by popes of apostate views of the Bible - for that is what "Higher Criticism" and "Historical-Critical" approaches to the bible amount to. (To call these fundamentally antisupernatural interpretational frameworks mere "heresy" is in fact too mild a designation.)
The lone exception to this bitterly regrettable trend among recent popes of tolerating and even endorsing apostate views of the very wellsprings of the Christian faith was Pius X, which is one of many reasons I hold him in high personal esteem.
However, as a teaching ministry whose purpose is to safeguard the apostolic deposit of the faith, the papal office has clearly failed monumentally in holding error at bay in its promotion of a fundamentally atheistic view of the origins and meanings of scripture. To me, this failure is more than sufficient to disprove papal claims to divine institution as a supremely authoritative teaching office.
Simple modus tollens logic applies here: If the papacy truly were of divine origin, there can be no question of popes' having consistently held a firm, uncompromising line against any of the apostate encroachments of modern biblical "scholarship." The recent popes' almost uniformly consistent epic failure in this regard over the past 140 years makes abundantly clear that this institution is in fact merely human, and all-too-human at that.
The lone exception to this bitterly regrettable trend among recent popes of tolerating and even endorsing apostate views of the very wellsprings of the Christian faith was Pius X, which is one of many reasons I hold him in high personal esteem.
However, as a teaching ministry whose purpose is to safeguard the apostolic deposit of the faith, the papal office has clearly failed monumentally in holding error at bay in its promotion of a fundamentally atheistic view of the origins and meanings of scripture. To me, this failure is more than sufficient to disprove papal claims to divine institution as a supremely authoritative teaching office.
Simple modus tollens logic applies here: If the papacy truly were of divine origin, there can be no question of popes' having consistently held a firm, uncompromising line against any of the apostate encroachments of modern biblical "scholarship." The recent popes' almost uniformly consistent epic failure in this regard over the past 140 years makes abundantly clear that this institution is in fact merely human, and all-too-human at that.
2.13.2013 | 12:08pm
Patrick says:
I agree with Mr. Weigle's assessment and will totally subscribe to the new strategy - the world desperately needs a reinvigorated church to serve as moral teacher and example of Christ's love on Earth.
But before we can have that kind of impact, we need to address in the strongest, most conclusive, and most transparent way possible the lingering questions and doubts about the sex abuse scandals. The sins of commission belonged to the violator-priests, the sins of omission belong to the church hiearchy.
While the church appears to be hiding the truth, lashing out at critics, attacking instead of healing, her moral credibility is compromised, her power to teach is diminished. We're too weak to fight against the forces of secularism and relativism. The church's great mission to change the world for Christ is in jeopardy.
Benedict's resignation is regrettable - he was a great theologian and pastor (if only a mediocre administrator). But his departure represents an opportunity to clean the slate with bold actions - worldwide conferences, sweeping reforms, definitive pronouncements, organizational restructuring - whatever it takes to convince the world that the catholic church is not deaf to their cries for justice, not blind to the sins it has committed.
We must do great public penance that brings us closer to God for all the world to see and recognize. In doing this, the church can become an example for the world of an institution that was lost, but now is found. Let our church be the lifted lamp showing the world the saving power of God's grace and forgiveness.
But before we can have that kind of impact, we need to address in the strongest, most conclusive, and most transparent way possible the lingering questions and doubts about the sex abuse scandals. The sins of commission belonged to the violator-priests, the sins of omission belong to the church hiearchy.
While the church appears to be hiding the truth, lashing out at critics, attacking instead of healing, her moral credibility is compromised, her power to teach is diminished. We're too weak to fight against the forces of secularism and relativism. The church's great mission to change the world for Christ is in jeopardy.
Benedict's resignation is regrettable - he was a great theologian and pastor (if only a mediocre administrator). But his departure represents an opportunity to clean the slate with bold actions - worldwide conferences, sweeping reforms, definitive pronouncements, organizational restructuring - whatever it takes to convince the world that the catholic church is not deaf to their cries for justice, not blind to the sins it has committed.
We must do great public penance that brings us closer to God for all the world to see and recognize. In doing this, the church can become an example for the world of an institution that was lost, but now is found. Let our church be the lifted lamp showing the world the saving power of God's grace and forgiveness.
2.13.2013 | 12:18pm
Philokalos says:
My Eastern friend,
"The recent popes' almost uniformly consistent epic failure in this regard over the past 140 years makes abundantly clear that this institution is in fact merely human, and all-too-human at that."
You mean Alexander VI hadn't already done that?
The key word here is "failure", sc. to hold a firm line. I'd like to see a specific error taught positively before I accept the consequens.
A blessed Lent to you, .
"The recent popes' almost uniformly consistent epic failure in this regard over the past 140 years makes abundantly clear that this institution is in fact merely human, and all-too-human at that."
You mean Alexander VI hadn't already done that?
The key word here is "failure", sc. to hold a firm line. I'd like to see a specific error taught positively before I accept the consequens.
A blessed Lent to you, .
2.13.2013 | 12:26pm
Bibbit says:
"The recent popes' almost uniformly consistent epic failure in this regard over the past 140 years makes abundantly clear that this institution is in fact merely human, and all-too-human at that."
Right, and I suppose we can say the institution of the apostles was likewise of human origins since it had a 1/12 failure rate. God would never create something that would go wrong, now would He?
Right, and I suppose we can say the institution of the apostles was likewise of human origins since it had a 1/12 failure rate. God would never create something that would go wrong, now would He?
2.13.2013 | 1:03pm
harry says:
Hello, Church of the East member,
I agree that much of modern Scripture scholarship is a disaster. I must say though that the papal encyclicals of the modern popes do not condone that which is disastrous in it. Read Leo XII's *Providentissimus Deus*, Benedict XV's *Spiritus Paraclitus* and even Pius XII's *Divino Afflante Spiritu*, which does not in any way make the assertions many modern Scripture scholars attribute to it.
In *Humani Generis*, Pius XII insisted that the first eleven chapters of Genesis, while not conforming to the methods used by historians of later times or by contemporary authors, "must in no way be considered on a par with myths or other such things," as they "do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense." This was in 1950, seven years after the publication of *Divino Afflante Spiritu* and just does not sound like the thought of a pope who intended to give a blank check to modern Scripture scholars in terms of abandoning the unanimous consent of the Fathers regarding the interpretation of Scripture. He couldn't have meant to do that in *Divino Afflante Spiritu* because the unanimous consent of the Fathers on the Scriptures is binding according to the dogmatic statements of Trent and Vatican I. Not only that, Pius XII stated in *Divino Afflante Spiritu* that *Providentissimus Deus*, which cites Trent and Vatican I in that regard, is considered "the supreme guide in biblical studies."
Benedict XVI, in *Verbum Domini*, condemns a hermeneutic that “denies the possibility that the Divine can enter and be present within history. The adoption of this hermeneutic within theological studies inevitably introduces a sharp dichotomy between an exegesis limited solely to the first level and a theology tending towards a spiritualization of the meaning of the Scriptures, one which would fail to respect the historical character of revelation.”
I agree that much of modern Scripture scholarship is a disaster. I must say though that the papal encyclicals of the modern popes do not condone that which is disastrous in it. Read Leo XII's *Providentissimus Deus*, Benedict XV's *Spiritus Paraclitus* and even Pius XII's *Divino Afflante Spiritu*, which does not in any way make the assertions many modern Scripture scholars attribute to it.
In *Humani Generis*, Pius XII insisted that the first eleven chapters of Genesis, while not conforming to the methods used by historians of later times or by contemporary authors, "must in no way be considered on a par with myths or other such things," as they "do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense." This was in 1950, seven years after the publication of *Divino Afflante Spiritu* and just does not sound like the thought of a pope who intended to give a blank check to modern Scripture scholars in terms of abandoning the unanimous consent of the Fathers regarding the interpretation of Scripture. He couldn't have meant to do that in *Divino Afflante Spiritu* because the unanimous consent of the Fathers on the Scriptures is binding according to the dogmatic statements of Trent and Vatican I. Not only that, Pius XII stated in *Divino Afflante Spiritu* that *Providentissimus Deus*, which cites Trent and Vatican I in that regard, is considered "the supreme guide in biblical studies."
Benedict XVI, in *Verbum Domini*, condemns a hermeneutic that “denies the possibility that the Divine can enter and be present within history. The adoption of this hermeneutic within theological studies inevitably introduces a sharp dichotomy between an exegesis limited solely to the first level and a theology tending towards a spiritualization of the meaning of the Scriptures, one which would fail to respect the historical character of revelation.”
2.13.2013 | 1:08pm
BHG says:
12 in 12 failure rate. ALL the apostles abandoned Christ though John found it in himself to return...
2.13.2013 | 1:25pm
Michael McHale says:
George, you and the other concilar syncophants never cease to amaze. Let me begin by noting that the concepts of religious liberty, eccemenism {whatever that means}, salvation outside the Church, episcopal collegiality, and the rest of the liberal claptrap which Vatican II championed would have sent each and every one of John XXIII's predecessors into a state of theolgical apoplexy. To suggest that Leo XIII and Pius XII are grandfathers to this heterodoxy is insulting, if not blasphemous. You aver, in a somewhat Kantian/Hagelian manner, that "counter reformation catholicism"no longer "works" because our 21st century culture is toxic and Christophobic. Our culture is toxic and Christophobic precisely because the post concilar popes are, by and large, unrepentant modernists whose reigns were singulary devoted to promulgating not the "most important"event since Trent, but the most disasterous. An event which left us with empty pews,convents, and confessionals; Mass {1965 and 1969 rites}ad populum and in the vernacular, altar girls {but no altar rails},"extraordinary echurastic ministers" dispensing Holy Communion in the hand to immodestly dressed Catholics who very likely don't even believe in transsubstantiation We don't need a "new evangelization", we need the Baltimore Catechism. We don't need a "friendship with Christ", we need to recognize him as our King. We don't need an "Evangelical Catholicism", we need to toss Vatican II--along with the novus ordo Mass-- into the dustbin of history.
2.13.2013 | 1:32pm
Richard M says:
Hello CotE,
"The lone exception to this bitterly regrettable trend among recent popes of tolerating and even endorsing apostate views of the very wellsprings of the Christian faith was Pius X, which is one of many reasons I hold him in high personal esteem."
One of the difficulties I still have with Weigel's formulation is that I am still not quite clear on what distinguishes the Church of Trent from the Evangelical Catholic Church he pains, beyond the sociological circumstances in which the Church finds itself in each period. If the emphasis truly is on evangelism, I would say that the Church before the Council had a much more vigorous sense of this, on balance, notwithstanding John Paul II's relentless efforts to the contrary. Too many in the Church seem to have read Nostra Aetate as a blueprint for universalism, or something close to it, probably because they had been reading Rahner at the same time.
And when we think of popes in this vein - pastoral popes, ones on fire for the faith - it is hard to think of a better model than St. Pius X, the holiest Pope that the Church has seen since the days of Trent.
"The lone exception to this bitterly regrettable trend among recent popes of tolerating and even endorsing apostate views of the very wellsprings of the Christian faith was Pius X, which is one of many reasons I hold him in high personal esteem."
One of the difficulties I still have with Weigel's formulation is that I am still not quite clear on what distinguishes the Church of Trent from the Evangelical Catholic Church he pains, beyond the sociological circumstances in which the Church finds itself in each period. If the emphasis truly is on evangelism, I would say that the Church before the Council had a much more vigorous sense of this, on balance, notwithstanding John Paul II's relentless efforts to the contrary. Too many in the Church seem to have read Nostra Aetate as a blueprint for universalism, or something close to it, probably because they had been reading Rahner at the same time.
And when we think of popes in this vein - pastoral popes, ones on fire for the faith - it is hard to think of a better model than St. Pius X, the holiest Pope that the Church has seen since the days of Trent.
2.13.2013 | 1:35pm
Scaevola says:
@Church of the East member You realize that pitting one's private understanding against the Church's authority is the reason that we had the Reformation, right? To make yourself the judge of orthodoxy and Papal legitimacy is to make yourself Pope, a position you have even less of a claim to than the ostensible pretenders to the throne do.
2.13.2013 | 1:46pm
The geeky Deek says:
I think the above article misses the mark or at least half of the mark. Yes the church in the 21st century needs to be a church that re-evangelizes the word. The western word is in greatest need. However of equal import is the unity that needs to be regained between the Orthodox word and the Catholic world. If the goal of the church is to set the world on fire for christ there has to be the merging of the Catholic academic tradition and the Orthodox spiritual tradition. May God allow us to be one as He is one.
2.13.2013 | 2:27pm
TomS says:
While I rarely agree with George Weigel, this article is right on target in many ways.
As one having been concerned about the place of God and the Church in this secular pluralistic world, I think it's high time we Catholics stopped being apologetic or even ashamed or embarrassed about our faith. No, we Catholics aren't perfect (far from it) and we make big mistakes - far too many. But being the sinners we are doesn't call for us to reject our faith, only to strive harder and harder to be proclaimers of the Gospel which is ultimately what we're called to do.
Two caveats, however. First, Evangelical Catholicism doesn't mean a return to a pre-Vatican II Church, at least the one that exists in our memory. Gaudium et spes turned the Church in a new direction; we cannot turn back. Secondly, we have to face the fact that the sexual abuse crisis, among other things, has seriously damaged the Church's authority to speak on moral and ethical issues. We, beginning with the American bishops, must make every effort to build the trust and integrity the world needs. But in the meantime, let's stop apologizing for being Catholic.
As one having been concerned about the place of God and the Church in this secular pluralistic world, I think it's high time we Catholics stopped being apologetic or even ashamed or embarrassed about our faith. No, we Catholics aren't perfect (far from it) and we make big mistakes - far too many. But being the sinners we are doesn't call for us to reject our faith, only to strive harder and harder to be proclaimers of the Gospel which is ultimately what we're called to do.
Two caveats, however. First, Evangelical Catholicism doesn't mean a return to a pre-Vatican II Church, at least the one that exists in our memory. Gaudium et spes turned the Church in a new direction; we cannot turn back. Secondly, we have to face the fact that the sexual abuse crisis, among other things, has seriously damaged the Church's authority to speak on moral and ethical issues. We, beginning with the American bishops, must make every effort to build the trust and integrity the world needs. But in the meantime, let's stop apologizing for being Catholic.
2.13.2013 | 3:30pm
Gregory DiPippo says:
Mr. Weigel's persistent denial of the existence of Pope Paul VI, aka the Architect of Pandemonium, never fails to amuse. "If John XXIII was the father of Vatican II." He ought to write "If ONLY John XXIII were the father of Vatican II..."
2.13.2013 | 4:21pm
D. Morgan says:
If the Catholic Church becomes anymore "evangelical", it will cease to exist. Period. The protestantization of The Catholic Church is directly responsible for the sad state She is in now. If one really wants to Evangilize the world, and save Souls, return to the true tenents of The Faith which produced Saints and Martyrs for over 1,962 years. Return to The Mass which fed and nourished Souls for centuries. Return to homilies that warn of the destruction of mortal sin and the need for penance. And return to the Traditions which bolstered the Faithful much more than the bare walls we now have. Bare walls, and barren Faith.
The touchy feely type of Faith that came out of Vatican Council II has shown it's fruit. And it is found to be most lacking.
The touchy feely type of Faith that came out of Vatican Council II has shown it's fruit. And it is found to be most lacking.
2.13.2013 | 6:00pm
I am not Spartacus says:
Mr. Weigel swallowed the Neo-Con Con Game that, putatively, justified American's invasion of Iraq in direct opposition to Pope Blessed John Paul II and Just War Doctrine and yet he is the one we are to trust when he recommends a certain new direction for the Catholic Church and, along with it a new name for the Church.
Please...
He should stick with his speciality - denigrating Catholic Social Teaching in the area of economics - and as for the idea that Pope Leo XII was the one who began engaging the world around him, that is an ahistorical error befitting a Neo-Con.
Pope Leo, just read his encyclicals, engaged the world to CORRECT its malign and manifest errors.
Really, this is a very poor effort.
Please...
He should stick with his speciality - denigrating Catholic Social Teaching in the area of economics - and as for the idea that Pope Leo XII was the one who began engaging the world around him, that is an ahistorical error befitting a Neo-Con.
Pope Leo, just read his encyclicals, engaged the world to CORRECT its malign and manifest errors.
Really, this is a very poor effort.
2.13.2013 | 6:29pm
David Naas says:
The sundry comments, sundering the Church of 2013, are good evidence that the Church cannot please everyone, and especially that the Protestant Principle of Private Judgment set over and against the Teaching Authority of the Church is rampant among those who believe themselves to be "more Catholic than the Pope." Kudos to "Lefty" for pointing this out. (I presume in the case of the carping ones that your faux Traditionalism includes Latin?)
2.13.2013 | 7:14pm
John Lamont says:
The idea that Leo XIII had the right ideas and should be followed is correct, but George Weigel's picture of that pontiff's views is totally unconnected to reality. Read his encyclicals Inscrutabili Dei Consilio, Aeterni Patris, Diuturnum, Humanum Genus, Exeunte Iam Anno, Au Milieu Des Sollicitudes, Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, Rerum Novarum, and Arcanum divinae sapientia if you really want to know how the Church should respond to contemporary society - and want to see what the thought of a truly great pope is like; vastly different from John Paul II or Benedict XVI.
2.13.2013 | 7:54pm
Jack says:
Pius XII the "grandfather" of Vatican II? Ha. That is a good one, made me chuckle. Please don't try and drag him into it; he had nothing to do with it.
2.13.2013 | 11:28pm
John Burford says:
I'm so tired of these Society of St. Pius X trolls. These people need to realize that when they reject Vatican II (a completely valid council) just because they don't like some of it, they are cutting their own feet out from under themselves and succumbing to the same "Cafeteria Catholicism" tendency that many liberal Catholics do.
I'm all for solid catechesis, theological orthodoxy, traditional Masses, religious wearing habits, etc. But it's time these people started choosing loyalty over aesthetics. To cut yourself off from the One True Church because you prefer the Latin Mass to the Novus Ordo is nuts, especially when you can still go to that type of Mass anyway.
I'm all for solid catechesis, theological orthodoxy, traditional Masses, religious wearing habits, etc. But it's time these people started choosing loyalty over aesthetics. To cut yourself off from the One True Church because you prefer the Latin Mass to the Novus Ordo is nuts, especially when you can still go to that type of Mass anyway.
2.14.2013 | 12:49am
Dan says:
I don't know where I fall in the spectrum of "counter-reformation Catholicism" and "evangelical Catholicism", but I was converted in part by two SSPX parishioners and baptized by a Lefebvrite priest in 2008. To me it seems the past is the future. Traditionalist groups are small in number relative to the whole but are incredibly vital. That seems like a winning strategy.
2.14.2013 | 2:15am
David Ulmer says:
G. DiPippo needs to read Humanae Vitae, the most significant document of the 20th Cent. D. Morgan needs to read the documents of Vat. II. The Mass still feeds and nourishes souls and you are worse than a heretic if you deny such a truth. M. McHale is like a Calvinist. When they are right they are very very right and when they are wrong they are very very wrong. For instance, you reject irreverence (right on) but you reject Vat. II (very wrong). You have your own little circle of reason in which you live. Pray to St. Frances de Sales. He can help you. He has helped me to love Calvinists and that's a miracle. God bless you all.
What a wonderful time to be Catholic!
What a wonderful time to be Catholic!
2.14.2013 | 2:55am
Bret Lythgoe says:
Although I'm not a Catholic, I have great respect for the Catholic Church (and may one day convert), and for her intellectually confident approach to the "modern world.'' Mr. Weigel mentions that the modern history of Catholicism began with Pope Leo XIII. This is fitting since the latter was responsible for bringing the great medieval philosopher Thomas Aquinas on the front burner. This was a wise move. The only unfortunate aspect of this, in my opinion, was the decline that Thomism went through subsequent to Vatican II.
2.15.2013 | 1:17am
yan says:
The article is actually quite vague as to the content of 'Evangelical Catholicism.'
"Evangelical Catholicism: a Catholicism of radical conversion to friendship with Jesus Christ, which is understood to confer a missionary vocation on everyone. And so John Paul II concluded the Great Jubilee of 2000 by challenging the entire Church to leave the shallow waters of institutional maintenance (Counter-Reformation Catholicism) and, like the disciples on the Sea of Galilee, to put out “into the deep” and convert the world.
That’s Evangelical Catholicism."
How is any of that different than what we have been doing for 2000 years? Yet we are supposed to put aside what we have been doing since Trent or so? I guess we will have to get the book.
Since we are entering a new time of Kulturkampf, why is the model [arguendo. I am not convinced that there was a separate model] that is praised as successfully countering it, no longer good for today? Only a few years ago we stood up to communism, we evangelized the world--this is all good, but, 'not for us'? I don't get it. Haven't we always known we are all missionaries? Called to radical friendship with Christ? Isn't that why people dedicated their lives to the Church as priests and religious? And evangelized the world?
???
"Evangelical Catholicism: a Catholicism of radical conversion to friendship with Jesus Christ, which is understood to confer a missionary vocation on everyone. And so John Paul II concluded the Great Jubilee of 2000 by challenging the entire Church to leave the shallow waters of institutional maintenance (Counter-Reformation Catholicism) and, like the disciples on the Sea of Galilee, to put out “into the deep” and convert the world.
That’s Evangelical Catholicism."
How is any of that different than what we have been doing for 2000 years? Yet we are supposed to put aside what we have been doing since Trent or so? I guess we will have to get the book.
Since we are entering a new time of Kulturkampf, why is the model [arguendo. I am not convinced that there was a separate model] that is praised as successfully countering it, no longer good for today? Only a few years ago we stood up to communism, we evangelized the world--this is all good, but, 'not for us'? I don't get it. Haven't we always known we are all missionaries? Called to radical friendship with Christ? Isn't that why people dedicated their lives to the Church as priests and religious? And evangelized the world?
???
2.16.2013 | 2:42am
Gregory DiPippo says:
Thank you for the suggestion, Mr. Ulmer, I have read Humanae Vitae more than once. It is certainly important, although light years from being the most significant document of the 20th century. Such a pity that Pope Paul chose to lie down and die when the theologians rebelled against it, doing nothing at all to defend the Church and its teachings against the sexual revolution. The "silly season", as Mr. Weigel has called it on other occasions, in the Catholic Church has nothing silly about it - it was a time of incredible spiritual devastation, and we live with the consequences of it right up to this very minute. And yet, once again, Pope Paul is completely passed over when describing the history of modern Catholicism. "If John XXIII was the father of Vatican II " - he was not. Not a single one of its documents was issued while John XXIII was alive.
2.19.2013 | 2:12am
Bee says:
"Conservative" religion, was invented around c. 1964-1980. Though it presents itself as traditional, it actually is quite radically new in many of its pronouncements; especially it's adamant opposition to abortion. In that development, Catholics like George Weigel played a major role; Weigel as a new theological, "evangelical" conservative - or "Theocon," as they are known. But the problem has been that these "conservatives" were using "evangelicalism" to empower their own secular, individual ideas, over and above actual Church tradition.
The fact is that though a few papal documents championed "the New Evangelization," overall the Church had always opposed evangelicalism, in its Protestant forms; since it enouraged unreliable individuals to regard themselves as their own Pope, their own priest, authorized to speak to everyone in the name of God.
Chief among those unreliable individuals recently empowering themselves, over all others, is George Weigel. Who ironically used the liberalizing of Vatican rules, from Vatican II, to create a radical new "conservative" Catholicism. One that like evangelical, conservative Protestantism, continually mixed up conservative secular theories, with religion. That mixed up, confused middle-class mores, "values" especially, with relgiion. To create the latest and worst form of what is know as "Babbittry."
With his new book on Evangelical Catholicism, and his recent exposure as NBC "New Vatican" representative commenting on the resignation of Benedict XVI, and his many articles for "First Things," Weigel is a particularly destructive new "conservative."
The fact is that though a few papal documents championed "the New Evangelization," overall the Church had always opposed evangelicalism, in its Protestant forms; since it enouraged unreliable individuals to regard themselves as their own Pope, their own priest, authorized to speak to everyone in the name of God.
Chief among those unreliable individuals recently empowering themselves, over all others, is George Weigel. Who ironically used the liberalizing of Vatican rules, from Vatican II, to create a radical new "conservative" Catholicism. One that like evangelical, conservative Protestantism, continually mixed up conservative secular theories, with religion. That mixed up, confused middle-class mores, "values" especially, with relgiion. To create the latest and worst form of what is know as "Babbittry."
With his new book on Evangelical Catholicism, and his recent exposure as NBC "New Vatican" representative commenting on the resignation of Benedict XVI, and his many articles for "First Things," Weigel is a particularly destructive new "conservative."
2.27.2013 | 8:25am
Sharon Whitlock says:
Hooray!
I believe that it will be under Evangelical Catholicism that Christians will finally be re-united as One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. We're already seeing it happen, as more and more evangelical Protestants, including many pastors, are converting to Catholicism. And like it or not, they're bringing their gifts, talents, abilities, and enthusiasm with them. Whether they get involved with the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, or the Ordinary Form, they bring an attitude of excitement and a desire for action, not just words, to the table.
My and husband I, along with our daughter, converted to Catholicism from Evangelical Protestantism. Isn't that funny? I went from being Evangelical Protestant to Evangelical Catholic! Maybe the Catholic Church needs to do an "I Found It" campaign!
I believe that it will be under Evangelical Catholicism that Christians will finally be re-united as One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. We're already seeing it happen, as more and more evangelical Protestants, including many pastors, are converting to Catholicism. And like it or not, they're bringing their gifts, talents, abilities, and enthusiasm with them. Whether they get involved with the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, or the Ordinary Form, they bring an attitude of excitement and a desire for action, not just words, to the table.
My and husband I, along with our daughter, converted to Catholicism from Evangelical Protestantism. Isn't that funny? I went from being Evangelical Protestant to Evangelical Catholic! Maybe the Catholic Church needs to do an "I Found It" campaign!
It is not unfair to describe the result as one of assiduous mediocrity. Even in Catholic countries, they had the same impact and the same popular appeal, as the average Secretary-General of the United Nations or President of the World Bank. Pio Nono was popular because he was pitied.
Meanwhile, we had the Church riven by the Thirty Years War, the Quietist controversy, the Jansenist heresy, the Gallican controversy, Josephism, the suppression of the Jesuits, the French Revolution and its aftermath, and the Risorgimento, in none of which can the Holy See be said to have distinguished itself.