Just adding to the discussion without comment (because I am yet to read it). This is how he sees this work (and as a long time reader of his works) how he actually sees the Church:
For my further suggestion is that Evangelical Catholicism is not some 50-yard line between Catholic left and Catholic right, but a vision of Church far beyond those polarities. If that’s “idiosyncratic” or “odd,” then so were John Paul II and Benedict XVI, and so is Francis, the evangelical pope from the far end of the earth.
Review it in its original form here.
|
and the sentence preceding it:
This is Weigel’s biggest mistake. He seems to want to lump everyone who still sees value in the 500 years preceding V2 into the same endzone – as if his vision is the only one that transcends the stereotypes. And he is overt about dismissing “devotional-catechetical (counter-reformational)” Catholicism as no longer necessary. An authentic hermeneutic of continuity (as opposed to Weigel’s) views organic development in light of tradition.
To Dom or anyone else who has read EC, is it mostly descriptive or prescriptive?
It would be one thing to talk about an empirical description of how Catholic culture is changing, his theories as to the main players/forces of such changes (Pope Leo… etc), and a statement to the effect that these changes could be tumultuous, especially for those not in the forefront of standard bearing for them.
But it would be altogether different for him to advocate for such a change.
One of the features (bugs?) of Weigel’s writing is his descriptive writing can sound subtly prescriptive, in particular when he approves of the things he is writing about. I wonder if this might be the case. Comments?
I would extend Ben’s gridiron analogy further. If GW was being too advocatory, too much hermeneutic of rupture, he wouldn’t have counter-reformational types into either endzone, he’d have them cut from the team and watching from the bar. But if he was being merely descriptive, he would have them instead in the Hall of Fame, giants to lend shoulders to for today’s stars.
I note a first for myself: I used the phrase “hermeneutic of rupture” as a possible modifier for George Weigel. Interesting times.
(Full Disclosure: have not read EC, nor do I intend to)
Much more time and thought than
I have right now should be given this
discussion.
Some points can be made quickly
so I will offer the following:
A) while there is development of doctrine,
truth has been revealed and discovered
and does not change.
B) yet, different historical periods called for
and demanded different emphases.
C) Weigel has analyzed Church history and
offers what movements have brought us to this
point in time and what our current culture demands
for the glory of God and faithfulness to the
Church’s truth and mission.
Got to go,
Peace and Joy.
To Thinkling – EC is descriptive, but principally prescriptive.
To Ben – hermeneutics of continuity vs. rupture apply to doctrine / dogma. This is not what Weigel is addressing. What he is addressing is the place of the Church in the world and it’s raison d’etre.
For the first four hundred years after Trent, Weigel argues (and annonymouse paraphrases), the Church existed in a defensive mode against Protestantism. It was a time in which the civilized world was predominantly Christian. Since Leo XIII, and more so with the last three Pontificates, there is a sea change going on. The civilized world is now primarily secularized and no longer predominantly Christian. As such, the raison d’etre must change to an “offensive mode” rather than a defensive mode (again, annonymouse paraphrasing). The reason the Church exists is to carry out the mission of Jesus Christ. Souls are being lost – there simply isn’t time to engaged in Christian navel-gazing (and ecclesial squabbling) when our mission is the evangelization of the world.
Thinkling – read EC. It’s a brilliant work. Absolutely brilliant. And it nails exactly where our current pope is coming from and appears to intend to lead.
Annonymouse, great comment.
Is Weigel concocting a mode of Catholicism
and then name dropping popes to promote
his creation through pope ‘celebrity’ advertising?
Or does he have a grip on history and use those
popes to demonstrate the Holy Spirit’s movement
in today’s Church?
What does Weigel mean by counter reformation
in contrast to evangelical Catholicism?
Second Vatican Council has no problem with
catechesis or devotions. So what does Weigel
mean by ‘catechetical-devotional? Perhaps it
indicates a mode of Catholicism that does not
emphasize Scripture reading, study and memorization
that helps cultivate friendship with Jesus.
Is Weigel saying nothing of the past 500 years
is of any value? He better not be saying that
because he’d be wasting the Church’s time
and he’d be wrong.
So what is he saying?
Re-read annonymouse’s comment!
“Catechetical-devotional” comes perilously close to works-righteousness. The concept begs the question “when have I done enough to merit heaven?” Which of course is a mixed-up thing to ask and betrays a lack of understanding of the gratuitous gift of Christ’s salvation, to which all devotion and works should be a response.
“Catechetical-devotional” comes perilously close to works-righteousness. The concept begs the question “when have I done enough to merit heaven?”
Huh? Annonymouse, did you make that up?
Where in your reading of Weigel’s book did you find that interpretation?
‘Works-righteousness’ is a caricature of things Catholic that some adherents of the ‘reformed faith’ mistakenly accused the Church.
GRACE. The Church has always believed and taught our relationship with God and right standing is based on HIS GRACE.
Sometimes popular piety was based on misunderstandings.
Catechetical-devotional as used by Weigel probably refers to memorizing catechism answers without an encounter of Christ whose face emerges from the Gospel whose foundation is historically sound. Evangelical Catholicism is all about knowing Jesus personally; not just knowing about him. The devotional aspect of that counter reformation mode of being Catholic which Weigel asserts will not be fruitful in this 21st century is devotion without knowing the why or how that devotion either flows from the Gospel or points to the saving message and Divine Savior.
Catechetical-devotional is not bad, just insufficient if it does not bring those who practice it to the Scriptures from which the face of Christ himself emerges.
catechetical-devotional – so basically we’re just playing games with words. Catechetical-devotional is hollow and doesn’t lead to friendship with Christ if it’s not… catechetical and devotional?
DAZ said:
What if we use the same sentence but with different words?
Evangelical Catholicism is not bad, just insufficient if it does not bring those who practice it to the Scriptures from which the face of Christ himself emerges.
Evangelical Catholicism is “a vision of Church far beyond those polarities” of Catholic left and Catholic right.
I think that Weigel believes that ‘Evangelical Catholicism’ is going forward while the liberal left dissidents and the right reactionary traditionalists are left behind stuck in their counter reformation mode of Catholicism.
While I can understand how radical traditionalists might be counter reformation Catholics, I just don’t understand why Weigel thinks the liberal left progressives are counter reformation Catholics. Don’t the progressives accept much that is classical protestant Christianity?
Yes, Thinkling, Weigel in “Evangelical Catholicism Deep Reform in the 21st Century Church” advocates and prescribes on behalf of what he describes. In fact the description is clarified by his blueprint for the reform which he prescribes in detail.
Yes, Thinklinbg, Weigel approves of the mode of Catholicism of which he is convinced Popes JP II, Benedict XVI and Francis promote, live, and proclaim.
“catechetical-devotional – so basically we’re just playing games with words. Catechetical-devotional is hollow and doesn’t lead to friendship with Christ if it’s not… catechetical and devotional?”
“What if we use the same sentence but with different words? Evangelical Catholicism is not bad, just insufficient if it does not bring those who practice it to the Scriptures from which the face of Christ himself emerges.”
Hi Ben,
I have to admit my original interest and current interest in Weigel’s Evangelical Catholicism is in his emphasis on friendship with Jesus, discipleship, truth, mission and how the Scriptures and the Sacraments help give life to each. Long before I read his book I knew what evangelical catholicism was; I have been experiencing it and trying to share it for years. Finding it so well described and prescribed is energizing for me.
Personally I am not at war with anyone’s appreciation of counter reformation Catholicism. It detracts from Weigel’s thesis to give the impression he devalues what has preceded and led up to where the Church is today.
It does seem, to me at least, that Evangelical Catholicism is what the Church needs to reform herself and bring Christ to the world which doesn’t even realize how desperately the world needs the Savior.
If it seems that I am playing with words, please accept my apology. Honestly, I was trying to make sense of what Weigel wrote. And yes, if evangelical catholicism doesn’t bring us to faith, hope and love through a vital encounter with Christ, it is not only insufficient and without fruit, it’s a waste of time.
To Thinkling’s question:
I don’t find myself disagreeing with his prescriptive or his descriptive regarding Rad Trads and liberals. In fact, he attacks both quite well. But he completely whiffs to think that there aren’t good traditionalists who embrace reform and that only his neo-Catholic vision is what “transcends above”. So, I think he’s wrong with the descriptive and because of that fails to bring into the prescriptive much of what has been lost/forgotten in the last few decades that will only be revived by dusting off the CR books.
sorry, I didn’t mean to charge you especially, but more directed at Weigel.
agreed… and I’d say the CR Saints did as well. Which generation of Saints did disagree with Weigel’s prescriptive?
bingo! If 90% of what Weigel says is true and good for wading the Catholic waters, then maybe it’s not so bad… but to fan the flames that pre-conciliar Catholicism was off-kilter does a huge disservice.
oh, I forgot that Weigel has redrawn the lines in his attempt to transcend… I should have said “Catholicism starting backwards with Pope Pius IX”.
Ben, address Weigel’s contention that it is with Pope Leo XIII that the reform began in terms of the Church engaging the world to bring it Christ in contrast to the pastoral strategy of defensive entrenchment.
Weigel’s historical framework was paraphrased by annonymouse in this way:
“For the first four hundred years after Trent, Weigel argues the Church existed in a defensive mode against Protestantism. It was a time in which the civilized world was predominantly Christian. Since Leo XIII, and more so with the last three Pontificates, there is a sea change going on. The civilized world is now primarily secularized and no longer predominantly Christian. As such, the raison d’etre must change to an “offensive mode” rather than a defensive mode.”
What think you, Ben?
Dominick,
I’ll claim ignorance as I am nowhere near educated enough to offer an opinion on the historicity of the progression of thought. And it’s really hard to talk in analogies on points like this. But since you asked, I’ll give you my hunch. It seems to me that Weigel is redrawing the lines because it makes for a nice story, makes his narrative seem more plausible, and is a new idea. It requires those who wish to dismiss him out of hand to do a little research and they can’t just spout their team’s typical response (whatever that may be). I think it’s human nature that when we hear a new idea, sometimes our first reaction is, “I never thought of that before or never heard someone say that before, therefore you must be correct.” or we often go the other way and dismiss it out of hand. Like I said, I don’t know for sure, but I’d say the Church should always be on the offensive and the defensive.
I will say that from reading St. Pius X’s PASCENDI DOMINICI GREGIS and a few writings of Pope Pius XII (eg on the large family ), I don’t see Popes that are drastically offensive or defensive, but both. Same thing for JP2 and BXVI. I don’t read them as being drastically different from what I’ve read prior to Leo XIII (which, again, isn’t really enough to put much weight into my opinion). Certainly tactics change with the times, but the overall strategies ought to remain. We must constantly be on guard against Satan, the world, and our own evil inclinations if we wish to live with God forever. Certainly God calls us to go on the offensive as well by loving others (which includes sharing truth), but I’m also on the defensive regarding my own salvation and the salvation of my family (including threats from all areas – Protestantism, liberalism, worldliness, etc – all of which are constantly attacking us).
Weigel could have written his book without
having whispered a negative word about
anyone or any spirituality that is Catholic.
Rather than simply say Come and See,
he insisted on us dumping what blessed and
helped countless souls.
He didn’t need to tear down to build.
If an historical framework was even necessary,
he could have shown the evangelical Catholicism
of numerous saints.
N.B. in my four part review I made passing
reference to what Weigel said was not evangelical
Catholicism. It’s what it is that helps.
While I thank you for your criticism, Ben,
I still exhort acceptance of the meat and potatoes
of his book.
Here is an example exhortation coming from an evangelical
Catholic Pope:
“do not be afraid to become holy missionaries
like Saint Francis Xavier who travelled through
the Far East proclaiming the Good News until
every ounce of his strength was used up, or
like Saint Therese of the Child Jesus who was
a missionary even though she never left the
Carmelite convent. Both of these are “Patrons
Of the Missions.” Be prepared to put your life on
the line in order to enlighten the world with the
Truth of Christ; to respond with love to hatred
and disregard for life; to proclaim the hope of
the risen Christ in every corner of the earth.”
Pope Benedict XVI, Papal Message for World
Youth Day 2008, #7
as opposed to the bad pre-Leo XIII non-evangelical popes? Dominick, I know that’s not what you’re getting at at all, but I think Weigel really sets it up like this.
A particular critical review of Weigel’s “Evangelical Catholicism” asserts that the author took on too much in one book to adequately establish or substantiate all of it. I am willing to agree especially regarding his criticism of ‘counter reformation catholicism’ in his attempt to set the historical framework for the reform called evangelical catholicism.
Perhaps it’s because my own knowledge of Church history is so limited and my interest in pursuing it even less, that I continue to wonder if it was even necessary for George Weigel to attempt to set an historical framework in order to prescribe and describe his blueprint for reform?
Because I suspect CF readers will not even bother reading Weigel’s book perhaps due to his apparent negative attitude toward what is dear to many , or worst yet dismiss evangelical catholicism all together without further inquiry, I offer a different article to read and ponder.
In 1991, Dr. Marcellino D’Ambrosio wrote an article for COMMUNIO that does not use the term ‘evangelical catholicism’. Yet, it might be pertinent for us who are encountering and assessing radical changes in thinking based on new theologies.
Enjoy D’Ambrosio’s “Ressourcement theology, aggiornamento, and the hermeneutics of tradition” at http://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/54/Ressourcement_Theology__Aggiornamento_and_the_Hermeneutics_of_Tradition.html
How interesting that Dr. Marcellino includes statements like:
“the key to theology’s relevance to the present lay in the creative recovery of its past”
“The ultimate goal of the renewal is…..a recentering in the person of Christ and in his paschal mystery”
“there is no contradiction between fidelity to tradition and creative freedom”
“The Christian tradition is a vital and dynamic force that is not retrograde”
Dominick,
Again, I’ll have to disagree w/ Dr. D’Ambrosio’s stance.
I’m still navigating the waters of the issues we’re discussing, but my initial take is that I see “la nouvelle théologie” to be one of the main problems in the Church today – at least as far as it involves rejecting the existing system. It was a radical break from the existing philosophical and theological thought process. Most Catholics have no idea that the very foundations of Catholic thought of the time were rejected and replaced. Again, I am not a V2 hater or a hater of the Novus Ordo (I fully embrace both), but just as liberals erroneously claimed victory with the “spirit of V2”, I think it’s premature (and goes against the short historical evidence thus far) for those who embrace “la nouvelle théologie” to claim victory over neo-scholasticism. One of the biggest problems in the Church is that our thinking has lost its philosophical underpinnings. Anyway, I haven’t read enough yet to be able to articulate much more than that at this point. And I realize an overwhelming % of professional Catholics (from academia to the radio) think it’s a forgone conclusion that neo-scholasticism was a problem and that it is gone forever. And again, here’s the link to Feser, who unlike me, actually has a good grasp on all of this and articulates it much better than I
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2008/11/neo-scholastic-revival.html
There’s just so many other good books to read – why should this be a concern? I’m not seeing anything extraordinarily good for orthodox Catholics that they can’t get from other sources (and w/out the errors)… other than the fact that he does a good job of handing it to liberalism.
As far as extra-cirricular reading goes, after I finish up Feser’s “The Last Superstition”, I’ll be moving onto his book on Aquinas, and then maybe onto some of these books:
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/07/scholastics-bookshelf-part-i.html
RR Reno’s article provide some pretty good insight:
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/04/100-theology-after-the-revolution-10
Maybe I’m dismissing Dr. D’Ambrosio too quickly. I will re-read. Anyway, there’s a lot to learn… and it does matter.
Dominick,
I want to continue to emphasize that you drew out the best in Weigel and that I love and admire your evangelistic zeal and your passion for the faith. I love having you as my Christian brother.
My reason for reading a book and then sharing it with others is because the book helps convey the Gospel of the Grace of God in Jesus Christ. If a book, or an article, or an apostolic exhortation is evangelical and Catholic (about Jesus and the Good News of Jesus, his Messianic reign and Kingdom, His Church, discipleship, growth in personal holiness, and zeal for the mission Christ commissioned his Church), it is good for me and good for others.
George Weigel’s book “Evangelical Catholicism” is such a book and helpful and encouraging for Orthodox Catholics. Father McCloskey thought so highly of the book that he would have smuggled a copy to each of the Cardinal electors at the conclave that elected Pope Francis
http://allhands-ondeck.blogspot.com/2013/03/book-review-evangelical-catholicism-by.html
In an article by Ralph Martin, WHAT IS THE NEW EVANGELIZATION?,one reads some very pertinent quotes from Father Avery Dulles, who later was made a cardinal, about the shift in the Church back toward the Gospel and evangelization. None of his quotes amounted to a condemnation of what preceded. His quotes emphasize the work of the Holy Spirit in today’s Church. Access Dr. Martin’s article here: http://www.ccr.org.uk/archive/gn1205/g12.htm
In an article recommended by Ben (http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2008/11/neo-scholastic-revival.html) I can’t find the Gospel, the Name Jesus, or the Mission of the Church. Again, I am not saying that neo-scholasticism is bad. I don’t even know for sure what it means. But if it conveys the Gospel and brings sinners into a sanctifying relationship with the Lord Jesus I am ready to say Amen to it.
In my head and heart, if ‘Catholicism’ isn’t evangelical, it isn’t CATHOLICISM . If Neo-Scholasticism or Counter Reformation Catholicism conveys the evangel, I say Amen to them.
Those who know these schools of thought must help us see Jesus therein.
Weigel has done the same by writing “Evangelical Catholicism Deep Reform in the 21st Century Church” To Weigel’s book I offer a hearty AMEN.
Saint Paul taught the Thessalonians to hold onto what is good.
In the very first inspired epistle which found its way into the New Testament at
1 Thessalonians 5:19-22 one reads:
“Do not quench the Spirit. Do not treat prophecies with contempt but test them all; hold on to what is good, reject every kind of evil.”
At this point, I believe it is time for me to move forward praying, supporting and helping implement the deep reform which Weigel advocates; the reform called evangelical catholicism.