Rome, Italy, Mar 27, 2017 / 12:02 am (CNA/EWTN News).- A veteran Vatican official praised EWTN foundress Mother Angelica as a pioneer of the New Evangelization, saying the way in which the Church speaks to the men and women of today wouldn’t be the same without her influence.
“I think Mother Angelica was a New Evangelizer ante litterum (before her time),” Monsignor Graham Bell told CNA.
An official of the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization who has spent around three decades in Rome, Msgr. Bell said that while St. John Paul II coined the phrase some 30 years ago, Mother Angelica had been an active player “long before.”
“She just fits into that so well, because why do we have the New Evangelization? Not because the Gospel is new – the Gospel is ever-new, but it’s also unchanging, and the ‘new’ in the New Evangelization is essentially seeking to find new languages with which to communicate the Gospel to the men and women of our time.”
Mother Mary Angelica of the Annunciation founded EWTN in 1981, and it has since become the largest religious media network in the world. She died March 27, 2016 after a lengthy struggle with the aftereffects of a stroke. She was 92 years-old.
Mother Angelica, Msgr. Bell said, was able to talk about even difficult or sensitive topics in a meaningful way that always brought people “back to the center, which is Christ.”
Please see below CNA’s full interview with Msgr. Bell:
One of the reasons I wanted to speak to you about this is because of the frequent remarks you’ve made in the past about Mother Angelica and what she accomplished. Why is she such a striking and important person for you?
I came to Mother Angelica not through her television programs, but maybe at the beginning of the 2000s, there was a craze – maybe it was more popular then, I’m not sure, but there was a kind of podcast craze, and what EWTN did at that time is they would put out Mother Angelica live as a podcast, so I faithfully downloaded this every week. I didn’t know this nun before I started listening to the podcasts, and what immediately became clear is that there’s nothing original in Mother Angelica, she’s not trying to be original, all she’s trying to do is she’s taking the Word of God, she’s taking the teaching of the Church and she’s applying them to people’s lives. And the more I listened to this lady, the more I was reminded of Cardinal Newman’s motto: Cor ad cor loquitur, heart speaks to heart. And she has this phenomenal capability of speaking to your heart, and that comes across. Obviously I was listening to it as a podcast, I couldn’t see how people were reacting in the studio to what she was doing, but this great humanity came out. I think Newman got his motto from Saint Francis de Sales, and I think Francis de Sales said heart speaks to heart, whereas the tongue just hits the ear. You always had the impression with Mother Angelica that her heart was behind what she was saying. It struck people as true because she recognized it as true, and I think this is a phenomenal gift. It’s a gift every preacher should seek to have, but it’s also a gift that every Christian should seek to have. This phenomenal capacity to communicate and to communicate the unchanging truth of the Gospel in a way that’s relevant for men and women today, and that’s an art, it’s a grace.
Do you think this is a reason she’s been so attractive and appealing to so many people?
Yes, I do. Because language changes, and it changes now at a greater pace than it’s ever changed, and Mother Angelica in my opinion was able to bridge the gap. Sometimes the institutional Church isn’t good at speaking to people, but I think Mother Angelica, first of all with her many books, and then when she got the television and radio thing going, she was capable of bridging that gap. I can think of many things she said about people with addictions, you know? Sometimes the Church isn’t good at doing that, but she was good at looking at things which were difficult to talk about, but talking about them in a way that was very, very meaningful and always bringing people back to the center, which is Christ. I listened to all of her podcasts, and I just thought it was phenomenal. It certainly helped me in my preaching, and also helped me in the living of my priesthood.
In view from your position on the Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization, how do you think Mother Angelica has influenced the New Evangelization? Clearly she’s been a huge personality …
I think Mother Angelica was a New Evangelizer ante litterum (before her time). I think John Paul II coined the expression himself in 1979 when he was in Poland, and what Mother Angelica had been doing long before that was certainly New Evangelization, certainly. She just fits into that so well, because why do we have the New Evangelization? Not because the Gospel is new, the Gospel is ever-new, but it’s also unchanging, and the “new” in the New Evangelization is essentially seeking to find new languages – I use the term language in the extended sense – with which to communicate the Gospel to the men and women of our time, who obviously have to hear the Gospel in a language which can understand. But the thing about Mother Angelica is, it was never the case of communicating a content which really didn’t concern her. Her communicating the Gospel was she was really communicating a part of herself, because Christ was so much a part of her and a part of her religious vocation. In communicating Christ through television, through radio, through her many books, she was actually communicating a part of herself, she was so identified with Christ, and I think that’s the heart of the New Evangelization. Obviously another thing I think is very close to the heart of the New Evangelization is the whole question of witness. Because how did Jesus communicate the Gospel to his disciples? He is the Gospel in himself and in his person. It was done through what he said and what he did, and what he said and what did find their center in his very person. So it must be for those who witness to the Gospel. It’s not enough just to speak about Christ, and it’s not enough just to do good works. There has to be a relationship so that what we say is explained by what we do, and what we do is explained by what we say. And I think in Mother Angelica, as in the great saints, this is exemplified, this is exemplified very, very strongly.
A lot of people see the impact she had specifically in the Church in the Unites States and say that she changed the Church in the U.S. during a really critical time, but we also see that this is spreading very internationally. With your experience and in your time following EWTN, how do you see that she’s influenced culture even here in Europe?
Mother Angelica, it must never be forgotten, was a woman religious. And women religious have a very, very, very important role to play in the New Evangelization and in the Church generally, because people react so favorably to them, because they express the maternity of the Church in a way in which priests and men religious really aren’t capable of doing. Mother Angelica, I think, is exemplary in this, and in her clarity of identity. What you see is what you got, there was no mystification there. You saw this nun with her habit, and she was always the same, the message was always the same, and this sense of authenticity I think absolutely captivates people. And I think that’s a big part of her secret and why she’s so popular. It’s this capacity of expressing maternity in an age in which maternity is not very fashionable.
Being here in the Vatican for so long – you’ve been here for about 30 years, right? – have you seen any impact that she’s made here specifically?
I don’t know about that, about what impact she’s made here. I think she’s made a positive impact to the extent that I think women religious always make a positive impact. When women religious are faithful to their vocations and faithful to the Church, they always make an impact, and I think the history of the Church demonstrates this. I wouldn’t be able to say what her impact has been on the various dicasteries. Certainly I do consider her one of the forerunners of the New Evangelization, and it would be difficult to imagine the New Evangelization without figures like her. I think one of the keys to the success of the New Evangelization will be how we can involve women religious in this project. I think the more we involve them, the more the New Evangelization will be successful.
So in your opinion, aside from EWTN, what do you think is the core of the legacy she has left that and that we’re continuing to see grow?
I would say this very, very humble, that I think today in the Church we are very much concerned, I would even say obsessed, by the question of communications, because we want to keep up with the times and we realize that this is very, very important; communications are a very important part of how the modern world works, and it’s important that the Church should be there. But what we must never forget, in my opinion, is that content always has a primacy over the technical aspect. The technical aspect is absolutely wonderful, but if you’ve got nothing to communicate it’s completely useless, and I think Mother Angelica, she wasn’t just the person who founded this fantastic, hotshot television network that was financed completely by the people who listened to it. It wasn’t just that. It was the fact that she always put content first, and I think that’s a great part of her legacy. But I also think another equally important part of her legacy is the eternal truth of our Catholic faith. It always has been and always will be until Christ comes again, it’s a question of a man or a woman who believes in the Resurrection of Christ, looks into the eyes of another man or another woman and says ‘I believe’, and asks you to believe, too. And Mother Angelica exemplifies this; the transmission of the revelation, the transmission of our faith will always be an interpersonal relationship, and all of the hardware and all of the software and all of the gadgetry will never be able to replace that. And she never imagined that EWTN or her various initiatives would ever substitute this interpersonal transmission of the faith. So I think her legacy will be discovered 10, 20 years down the way. I really do.
Would you say that part of the appeal and effectiveness of how she communicated the Gospel and the Resurrection had to do with how she experienced it in her own life?
Yeah. She suffered. I can’t remember all the details of her biography, but I know early on in her life she had a serious medical conditions, and these were overcome and they were overcome through prayer. She might also have been the subject of a miracle, thinking about her very early life before she decided to become a nun. And then all through her life she battled through ill health. One of the things that makes her so authentic is that when you listen to – one of the things I used to love about EWTN was listening to all the podcasts, and you could hear her coughing, and she would put a cough sweet into her mouth, and if you look at the big, sleek media operations like the BBC, you very rarely hear people coughing and at EWTN you could hear all this, and it was so human. With technology, I think a television lens transforms everything, and it really is – if it’s the great observer, it’s also the great betrayer because you look at these television studios and how they come through the lens of the camera, but when you actually go there and you see how they’re built with all the cables everywhere that people never see, and the lighting makes it seem much bigger than it is, it’s smoke and mirrors, it really is from start to finish. You never got that impression with EWTN. You got the impression that here’s a lady in her parlor, speaking to you in your parlor, that’s what it came across as. So she coughed, and she put in a cough sweet and it was wonderful.
Did you ever get to meet her personally?
I didn’t, no. I always used to ask – sometimes we got people coming up from EWTN – I would always ask how is she, and I think the most of the latter half of her life she was bedridden. And sometimes you wonder what did God want from her in that time? What was her vocation in that time? That’s very difficult to discern.
It was striking to me that the culmination of those last few years and then to pass away on Easter after what I understand were very excruciating last days. There was clearly something at work …
Her oneness with Christ … Another chap who greatly influenced me when I was listening to Mother Angelica about 10-12 years ago was Father Benedict Groeschel, because he had Sunday Night Live. That would come out as a podcast and I would download that too. He is another one, I think they’ll both be saints. With Benedict, I know something happened at the end of his life, but that will be forgotten. In fact, it should probably be forgotten right away, because I don’t think he said what he was intending; an old man – and a young man – can make mistakes. But I am convinced that both of them will be beatified, I’m absolutely convinced.
[…]
Cdl Koch offers a balance between extremes, tradition and progressive radicalism. Our challenge is finding that virtuous mean. A mesmerization within the world’s spirit, worldliness, as distinguished from unwillingness to consider any improvement quoting Benedict XVI, who stated “the magisterial authority of the Church cannot be frozen in 1962.”
Most conservative are inclined to play it safe. If there are better approaches to spreading the faith than the theological basics of faith, hope and charity it’s difficult to identify them with comfort when the Church is under weathering a form of progressive information overload. Nevertheless, for the faithful Catholic [a variable concept] there is reason to give careful thought to ideas despite the source however questionable.
An example would be Pope Francis’ emphasis on a more compassionate rather than legalistic approach. Presently, illegal migration and refugee status as laid out by Archbishop Naumann is one, as evident in the inflexible backlash by apparent arch conservations.
An example is Thomas Aquinas’ doctrine of the virtuous mean. For example, a woman being attacked by a man. We’re morally obliged to protect the weak in such instances. We can be cowardly and do nothing. Or we react and take action to defend the woman. That intervention should not be deadly if at all possible, it should be proportional to the defense of the woman. Such a case regarding the coward is called defective. If the man seeking to protect the woman used deadly force when it wasn’t required it’s excessive. The virtuous mean, is taking the appropriate means proportionate to the defense of the woman. The extremes are sinful.
Civil law in trying cases of intervention, as with the former marine in the subway defense killing, found the defendant not guilty, as it should have. If anyone cannot follow the logic of the virtuous mean it’s likely a reflection of an interior disorder. That can be healed with humble acknowledgment and prayer.
For the further benefit of readers, extremes are either morally good or evil when the subject is itself an intrinsic good or evil. For example, marriage. An intrinsic good. We are either faithful and virtuous or unfaithful and sinful. There is no virtuous mean. False witness is an intrinsic evil. Again, there is no virtuous mean. These instances fall under the virtue Justice, which has no mean.
As regards migration and the law requiring legal migration, migration of itself is not an intrinsic evil. The law allows refugee status, political asylum, generally desperate circumstances and other like conditions. Nations may manage the law as they see fit, just application ultimately determined by divine law. It could be argued in the instance of Archbishop Naumann’s views for or against since the subject matter is not intrinsically evil. It becomes a matter of prudential judgment.
I recommend reading The Ratzinger Report. It says it all!
Yes!
What exactly do “traditionalists” allegedly say that is at odds with a virtuous mean? I hear “trads” making these proper distinctions all the time, yet I never hear any virtue “mean” or otherwise in those who pridefully grab the rhetorical middle by pretending to rise above the fray, displaying superiority, by distancing himself from positions that do not exist in what they criticize. I suppose Francis has now inspired a culture of strawman arguments.
I’ve heard the term “legalism” from theologians for decades, a factor that delayed my conversion, with no one providing a coherent definition. It has upset me for years that there could be Catholic anti-Catholic trivializations. The “traditionalists” I’ve read and listened to are very clear in their orthodox descriptions of Catholic principles while recognizing the realities of compromised culpability, which is the way they consistently present the faith to non-believers. Forty years of pro-life work and counseling, mostly among “trads,” doing the dirty work so to speak, tell a different story than what Cardinal Koch prefers to believe with his reductionisms.
Vatican II, with its limited good, did bring much clarity to Catholic witness, but it serves no purpose to deny that there were sentences sprinkled in various documents that implicitly downplayed essential corruptions of the human condition that are permanent. The world might not want to hear it. Catholics might not want to hear it. But truth never changes. Not in the slightest.
Edward. An example of an acceptable compromise between excess and defect regarding two doctrines, the right of a nation to defend its borders couples with legal migration policy, and the moral obligation we have the persons, human persons who are in a situation of want, yet liable for illegal entry. Catholic bishops in the US are faced with two basic options, do they ignore persons in need, or do they assist with means for survival. Not with the intention of supporting illegal entry.
Defect would be strict adherence to the law and refuse illegal migrants any subsistence. Excess would be to meet their physical needs and oppose legal authority [ICE]. The circumstances and conditions are subject to a prudential judgment.
In the instance of bishops and clergy offering the means for survival there’s no abrogation of the law. Although a greater law, charity towards other human beings in dire need is met. This mean or median does not mitigate the law, but meets the needs of the least of our brothers. Who among us would refuse them water and food, a place to lay down and rest? Who would expect Christ at Judgment to bless the strict observance of the Law and condemn the acts of compassion?
Furthermore, what law exists that prohibits the right for bishops to appeal for leniency and provide exceptions for some well disposed migrants to remain? The idea that this median is called heresy is moral lunacy.
What you say is true. Obviously true. But what “traditionalist” has ever said otherwise? Why do you endorse the strawman contention of Cardinal Koch that creates a false dichotomy of opinion? I know some of the more notable “rad trads” personally, and they are all unhappy with a non-descriminating approach to immigration policy, while noting memories of Reagam’s amnesty and a slower process involving a case by case screening between criminals and cases of legitimate desperation however great the cost.
“So then brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth, or by letter from us.” 2 Thessalonians 2:15
This Cardinal’s stance, equating extreme traditionalism to radical
progressivism and advocating for a middle ground or moderation is one of the main problems of today’s Church. And the rot comes from the very top of the Church.
Revelation 3:15-16 in the Bible, where Jesus addresses the church in Laodicea, stating, “I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.”
Actually, the problem is not Vatican II. It is with the various interpretations of it that have caused so much squabble. For example, nowadays the powers that be are saying that the old Mass is not acceptable unless you have a FSSP parish while allowing far too many excesses in the Novus Ordo. The council did not invalidate the old Mass, but the current powers sure seem to want to do so. If only they would show the same zeal in fixing some of the uncalled-for practices in the new Mass, like outlawing kneeling to receive communion.
Yeah, thanks for weighing in, Cardinal Koch. Honestly, I could not care less about Vatican II. I am content to let the Holy Spirit and history sort out what that was all about. In the mean time, I will just go on supporting the SSPX, knowing that at least they will never embrace Pachamama.
The fact that progressives and conservatives point to the same documents of VII to justify their position should be enough for Catholics to push the hierarchy for clarity in the documents.
Yes, the document on the new mass calls for Latin to be preserved along with Gregorian chant, but the same document also calls for more vernacular language and contemporary music. This deliberate ambiguity whether about the mass or ecumenism needs to be cleared up so as to present the faith as it has always been believed.
Where does it “call for” contemporary music? Even the vernacular language is “permitted if useful” rather than actually “called for.”
I agree that the documents of the last Council must be clarified. Unfortunately the Modernist era has inflicted many wounds on the documents – especially on the unsuspecting Communio group after Vatican II (some not so unsuspecting?). We have many theologians to “thank” for the progressive sway- and the sooner we forget about Blondel and Loisy the better! Onward and upward!
I think the biggest rupture is through ecumenism. Is the Catholic Faith the One True Faith or just another logo on a coexist bumper sticker?
Asking that question of the members of the parish here they would all agree that Catholicism is the One True Faith though for some, many to most “God is Love” is the sum total of their faith, hope and trust which is objectively true though just not all of the Truth. John 3:16 is the sum total of what is shared in our weekly homilies to the exclusion of the balance of Scripture that suggests there is more to Scripture than John 3:16. The Year A readings from Sunday’s Year C would have been a shock but readily set aside in favor of some version of John 3:16 being shared from the pulpit Sunday.
We read: “the restoration of a healthy balance in the relationship between the faith and the Church on the one hand and the world on the other.”
A “balance,” meaning what. In 1987, the Anglican convert, Fr. George Rutler, said it this way:
“Even among orthodox Catholics, the fallout from dialecticism abounds: it helps explain the clerical tendency to reduce antithetical concepts to ‘leftist’ and ‘rightist’ labels [“the extreme positions of progressives and traditionalists”?]and then to synthesize them to a middle position, a bland philosophy. The clerical form of dialecticism is called the ‘pastoral’ approach; but there is little that is pastoral about it, if one knows what a shepherd is supposed to do” (George William Rutler, “Beyond Modernity: Reflections of a Post-Modern Catholic,” Ignatius, 1987, p. 176).
So, yes truly, that, “the form of the one Church willed by Christ can become visible again.”
Cardinal Koch has been an agonizing disappointment despite moments when he appeared to offer something of credence. But then, that is the way it is these days for so many in ecclesial positions. Ecumenism has proved over fifty years to work but one way. Its virulent spawn, synodalism, has proved its mirror. Only uncritical supportive voices are provided an ear.
Koch should stick with teaching Jesus Christ, Incarnate Son of God, and dispense with the divisive political analyses. We need more churchmen among the leaders of the Catholic Church and fewer sociologists, psychologists, politicians, climatologists, environmentalists, globalists, economists, etc.
The virtuous mean applies to moral, not theological virtues. Doctrinal truth is not found in the middle of anything. Pope John Paul II presumably was not an extreme progressivist according to Cardinal Kurt Koch, but in the name of Vatican II he kissed Korans, and entered synagogues and mosques. Pope Benedict, also in the name of Vatican II, took part in a Lutheran service to celebrate five centuries since Luther’s birth, and preached that division was “our” fault. This is not a return to the origins of the Church as established by Christ, but a series of actions that can and do encourage indifferentism and relativism. Such actions were sternly denied by the Church before Vatican II, right back to it very origins. The post-Vatican II confusion is not “ressourcement” in the Fathers of the Church, but the entry of very mundane Enlightenment attitudes into the Church. The chaos will end when Vatican II is copiously footnoted so that it can only be interpreted as reaffirming the Church of all time, even as it existed immediately prior to it. The fact that Cardinal Koch has an opinion, every Cardinal has another, and every man and his dog yet another opinion of what this Council meant to do demonstrates that the blame for the present chaos must be laid at its feet.
The problem with the Council is not just contextual (a false “spirit”), but textual. Its texts, as they stand, seem to contradict long-standing Church teaching on the Church’s constitution (with the apparent invention of a separate, autonomous ordinary episcopal jurisdiction independent of the Pope’s), ecumenism, and religious liberty. Like the Council of Constance, which sowed confusion for forty years, till Rome got its act together again, the last one will not be the last word on itself; Rome will restore sanity when it becomes truly Roman again.
Miguel Cervantes: Amen!
Miguel Cervantes. It appears you’re referring to my comment above on the virtuous mean. If I’m mistaken in applying that doctrine I’m certainly prepared to learn and correct that. Although, I fail to see what theological doctrine you’re referring to in which I presumably seek to apply a mean.
Note that I did say above [3rd comment down], “For example, marriage. An intrinsic good. We are either faithful and virtuous or unfaithful and sinful. There is no virtuous mean. False witness is an intrinsic evil. Again, there is no virtuous mean. These instances fall under the virtue Justice, which has no mean”.
Father, I’m not sure if you referred to a mean in doctrine, but the Cardinal certainly does, and I intended to criticise him. The traditional Catholics and the progressivists, and the conservatives (who defend the letter of Vatican II and the new concepts it heavily implies, some of which I mentioned) do have different doctrinal ideas. It doesn’t seem merely a matter of emotions, ignorance, or going to extremes. Many ordinary Catholics subscribe to established schools expressing such tendencies. The only comparison I can think of for this long-term process was the Jansenist infestation in France, which only came to an end with the Revolution’s destruction of the ancien regime, which embodied Jansenist tendencies till its end. Only the end of the “Catholic” (conservative) Enlightened despots allowed Rome to finally end the entry of Enlightenment ideas into the Church, which had been going on during the whole eighteenth century. The current tendencies are oddly similar to Jansenism in many ways. Have a look at the propositions of the Synod of Pistoia condemned by Pius and what appeared after Vatican II. As I see it, Rome will have to restore order again, just as Pius VI and Pius VII did. Thank you for writing.
I see Miguel. Thanks for the well thought, informative response.
All very well, but meanwhile the Church in the west at least is crumbling. The powers that be don’t seem to have noticed.
Here in the UK we couldn’t survive without pinching priests from third world countries who are even shorter of priests than we are.
But worry not, let’s keep synodolising, and seeking to exterminate anyone who reminds us what the Church used to be.
Rather than argue ‘yes’, ‘no’, or ‘maybe’, I’d like to see a high, low or medium churchman write a one-page summary of all the essential advances VII is intended to bring to us. Let it not be the thin gruel of “adjusting to the modern world,” which, to me, always connotes copycatting the antagonist world of discord, violence and unavailing sorrow. Is this asking too much?
I think too much is made of reading VATICAN II documents as a single organized unit that is supposed to yield its particular product; for the most avid with the Holy Spirit supposedly feverishly working to exalt this all the time.
A similar thing happens when the Synod of Bishops comes under under consideration but here the Holy Spirit tends not to behave feverishly all the time.
The Koran and Lutheran things would be defect of rectitude NOT “necessarily caused by VATICAN II”. This defect can catch you out in your own home, not taking care.
Maybe Cardinal Koch could just tell us one thing – one single thing – that Vatican II has improved in our lives as Catholics. I’m sure if we were all reminded of that thing, we would gladly embrace it and stop pining for a different Church than the one he and his friends lead.
For starters, the very Documents of VATICAN II. The witness of the Council Fathers.
It’s not like there’s only ONE positive thing that came from it. What you must do is say what you think came from it and what in your view the nexus is between them.
In addition to many good things, there is an unfolding process from the Council of uncovering evil -and their patterns- that took up residence among the Churches.
So, if there are so many good things that came out of the Council, you should be able to specify ONE, correct? And if there is some “evil” that was remedied by the Council, I would really love to hear about that.
Timothy J. Williams you are the originator of the “specify one”.
A number of them now watching you in the face make you more incredulous of the Council and more credulous for your skepticism/denial.
I know some Catholic families that have the practice -habit- of always deliberately skipping past doctrine but frowning when they are forced to look at it -or mocking when explained nicely; and this was going on a long time before the Council. VATICAN II is the call to them not to keep to their ways.
I have nicknamed some of them Pennsylvania Catholics. But that’s just me. The other ones can have nicknames you wouldn’t know about from over there by you. What they have in common is that the more “mature” or advanced in those ways they are, the more cunning and devious their practice can be.
Pope Francis has mistakenly labelled some trads or “conservative types” as frowning Catholics and gattopardoes -how we mustn’t be that way. He has done this as if these folks I describe are free of taint and wickedness. Here then in this very note I have written for you, is an expression of VATICAN II correction of a Pope and correction of misinterpretation/misappropriation of situation.
Give it another shot.
Once again, you offer a bizarre word salad instead of an answer. Please mention one way in which Vatican II enriched or improved the spiritual life of any Catholics anywhere. If the Council was wonderful, that should be an easy request to fulfill, no?
Without pointing fingers at anybody special – CWR.
1P5.
Ordinariate.
Personal Prelature.
FSSP.
You just want to find out what I think! And there’s more to it than that so that the fault is your own. Heads up.
Mother Angelica.
E.W.T.N.
So now you are giving Vatican II credit for orthodox Catholic publishing, much of which is critical of Vatican II? And even credit for the FSSP, which was born out of rejection of the liturgy foisted upon us by the interpreters of Vatican II! With your ability as an illusionist, you would be a star on America’s Got Talent.
You could be right that I shouldn’t speak for those groups -but then neither should you. Your best contention would be to argue that tradition would produce the good anyway; BUT you’ve not got to it yet. You’re clouding these by falling back to “illusionist”.
Tradition produced VATICAN II that produced those in the grace of Christ.
Those groups will have to attest what I measure out here and when they do they will be more convincing than I can be. Unless Christ shares such grace with me as well. So take it easy.
Should what I indicate about those groups turn out to be prophetic, likely I will not be around at that time to remind everybody, “I told Timothy J. Williams so and he wasn’t listening to me. He thought I was just out looking for big times.” Hopefully by then us both will have gotten to heaven where all the trying details of today would be seen for their merits and their conditioning.
Elias Galey: Do you find anything duplicitous in the actual words of any of the documents of VII?? Forget about what dumb theologians actually did in subsequent years, do you find even any potential harm in language that promotes an optimistic view of humanity overcoming original sin through its own initiatives? Does such language such as that which begins Dignitatis Humanae offend you at all, issued just 20 years after revelation of the death camps? Do you consider what damage such foolishness does to Catholic witness?
“A sense of the dignity of the human person has been impressing itself more and more deeply on the consciousness of contemporary man..” D.H. 1.
This article on Koch had an impressive comment yield.
Edward J. Baker, my approach to DH would go like this. In fact I am not “widely read” on it. I read the Council documents and let them weigh one with the other, Church history and the Catechism; and take them to counsels.
Also I must express an appreciation of your various comments and focus.
DH is not offered as a creed nor as a dogmatic statement but as a magisterial guide. It is dealing with the human condition, civic affairs and common good from the standpoint of the dignity of men and sound society and participation. The aim is a guarantee of goodness and nobility for anyone. It does not mean I have to distribute or sell Hindu pamphlets etc. Things we are all familiar with in our respective national settings. If I were a non-Catholic leader it would be most welcome help; as a Catholic I see it speaking about the cardinal virtues which all can perceive and understand. Some very obvious things could never be dignity or religious inclination, like homosexualism and abortion. At the level of law too, such things are anarchical. But I have the advantage as well, though, as a Catholic, where DH is conditioned in the ending paragraphs especially 13 and 14 in Chapter II –just as it should be. Which is to say we remain subject to grace and responsible for its outflow. It does NOT say, for example, “You may never frown.” It condenses a Catholic and Scriptural genius and is not altogether novel.
Some clergy whose lives are lived maturely at this level do share it with you and give upright leads. Some do it wrong and insist you listen to them. Some clergy will only spoon-feed laity and block up, meddle and hamper their way.
This is going to get filled out over time by the Church in her saints. One can call to mind earlier saints who forged paths, your own Katherine Drexel, for instance.
Without doubt, the charge to “legalize homosexual civil union” is against its meaning and goals. (In addition, that, is heretical and latae sententiae.)
It could well be that if you test the Belgian king who now in the spotlight, on DH, in terms of things he prohibited that he should have facilitated and in terms of things on which he was too silent and added to or, intently and knowingly acquiesced in, “because he didn’t start it himself”, he could fail the test.
See Beaulieu below, February 16, 2025 at 6:58 pm, describing an insightful approach via an acuity, such as he has, that reveals both the timeliness of the Council and that it is like to the guiding stars, the Church holding steady above a sea of sweeping change, un-chartability, storms of temporality and partial immersion/inundation, human and supernatural vicissitude.
I say stars in the plural.
Paul VI is the fellow that led the capture of effectiveness.
I just want the Mass my parents and grandparents had. Not a niche Mass. Not a boutique Mass. Just a reverent Mass for everyone of every income level, social status, and political party.
It’s not much help to decry the extremes and laud the virtuous mean, if you never say what constitutes an extreme. Everyone will simply take their preferred position as the mean, and call those who disagree with them “extremists”.
For Catholics, Christ Is our reference point✝️
“It is necessary to seek a third path in the Catholic faith, beyond secularist conformism and separatist fundamentalism” said Cardinal Koch. The idea of Thucydides that the truth lies betwixt and between hardly applies to Apostasy and Survival Catholicism.
In inadequate response to much of the above, here are not one but five good things given by Vatican II. Embryonic, yes, but good for the long term:
FIRST, if formal apostasy, or maybe even Islam, ever annex Rome and St. Peter’s Basilica (as did Islam in with the 6th-century Hagia Sophia after the conquest of Constantinople in 1453), we have clarity that the perennial Catholic Church persists all over the place. The bishops, dispersed around the world, are successors of the apostles—and not the more brittle delegates of the pope. This is partly how Vatican II completed Vatican I which under military assault was only “suspended” and not adjourned.
SECOND, when the secular heresy of post-Christianity normalizes violations of the 6th and 9th Commandments, even to the extent of denying the reality of binary/complementary/ fecund/sacramental human sexuality and of the family, even the problematic Gaudium et Spes teaches (!): “Christ the Lord…by the revelation of the mystery of the Father and His love, fully reveals man to himself [!] and makes his supreme calling clear.”
That is, just as the first ecumenical council (The Council of Nicaea in 325) defended the revealed nature of the Triune GOD, the most recent Vatican II now defends the revealed nature of MAN–as contained within the singular and stupendous “event” (more than a theological idea) of the Incarnation into universal human history.
THIRD, where much of Catholic history is entangled with Western dynasties and even the post-Reformation nation-state system (the Peace of Westphalia, 1648) , Vatican II now defends the human person against the full menu of possible assaults. The Council speaks generically of personal (and institutional!) freedom from coercion (!) “either in the whole of mankind or in a particular country or in a specific community” (the vastly misconstrued Declaration on Religious Freedom, n. 6). “Specific communities” can certainly apply now to the sharpening and spread of Islam (not so much on the radarscope or in the headlines as back in the years of the Council).
FOURTH, of the four Constitutions of the Church, Dei Verbum centers of the “event” of the Incarnation rather than on the originally proposed and secondary paperwork/preparatory schema from past ecclesial bodies; and Lumen Gentium is most clear about what “collegiality” is and what it is not (Chapter 3 and especially the clarifying and seemingly sidelined Prefatory Note published only at the end of the entire document—both the Abbott and the Flanery versions of the Documents).
FIFTH, we all notice that the aftermath of Vatican II surely reminds us of the imperfectability of Man, including men in red hats. So, the post-Christian and Western ideology of inevitable Progress is fully on the rocks, while the mystery of Salvation is still intact.
YES, many agree across the board that these succinct (and “backwardist”?) germs for the real future escaped deft handling by a Synodality which could have been less distracted by controverted (not controversial) “hot button issues” of governance. And, instead, should have done a better job of both reading the signs of the times and respecting some relevant particulars–from Vatican II.
Why not begin with the fact that this anti Christ Synod denies The Sanctity of the marital act within The Sacrament of Holy Matrimony while denying The Sanctity of human life from conception to natural death, obviously is a rupture that , in its darkness , illuminates The True Church Of Christ, and yet, this counterfeit church, is not being anathema, reveals quite clearly that Vatican II, by doing away with The Charitable Anathema, did, in fact, change a Dogma of The Catholic Faith, making it appear as if The Charitable Anathema is not, in essence, charitable, and thus permitting the growth of a counterfeit magisterium, and now, the invalid election of a counterfeit pope, who denies the Sanctity of the marital act within The Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, while refusing to affirm The Sanctity of human life from the moment of conception to natural death, and celebrating many who concur, making it appear, as if respect for the inherent Dignity of the human person is merely a matter of opinion.
God, Save The Papacy!
Pray that those whose competence it is will anathema the anti-church, and illuminate The True Church Of Christ🙏💕✝️🌹
The begin point or root is the witness and call from Jesus Christ Redeemer to holiness and the stress on truth and purity. Instead we are getting obligations about beauty and joy-socialization and what has the definite feel of a paternalizing inclusivity around scanty reference to Christ often simultaneously contradictory about Him and the Church, sometimes but not always said to be justified “as the means to at least advance our presence” foot-in-the-door etc. etc.
The begin point or root is the call from Jesus Christ Redeemer to holiness and the stress on truth and purity. Instead we are getting obligations about beauty and joy-socialization and what has the definite feel of a paternalizing inclusivity around scanty reference to Christ often simultaneously contradictory about Him, etc. etc.
We do not have the details of the so-called China Provisional Agreement. So I wonder what they are, if they would withstand scrutiny of VATICAN II LG and the other dispensations in the Documents!
According to Koch the Council was “finding a third path” but he says nothing about the Provisional Agreement here. Is the Provisional Agreement being held to privately as a type of the-not-clearl-articulated “the third path”? Does it epitomize “the third path”?
Is it really true that the Council was defining or lating out such “a third path”.
And this phrase, “third path”, this conjunction of a) words and b) ideas and c) generalizations, does it contain connotations only some initiates would fully recognize? Does it mean yet something else and/or something further, in Chinese, too?
In “Xi Jingping Thought”?
Would it have anything to do as well with “Sinicization” and “reform of religion in China”? What part did the Three Self Patriotic Association play in the consolidation of Chinese Protestantism, during the last 60 years?
I think this kind of talking-around-talk-around-talking-around, as appears to be going on presently, in a manner of speaking not being noticeably remiss, is not what VATICAN II intended to bring forth or recognize. And it does not seem to bring any clarity about what to do with China and/or the Provisional Agreement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Represents
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_teachings
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_laughs_at_Tiger_Brook
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinegar_tasters
https://thetricontinental.org/wenhua-zongheng-2023-4-third-wave-of-socialism/
https://www.britannica.com/topic/third-way/The-constraints-of-a-globalized-world
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way
https://www.amazon.com/Third-Way-Economic-Development-Monographs/dp/0674247884
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Self_Patriotic_Movement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-self_formula
**********
‘ Among religious groups where the primacy of that identity is resisted, ‘sinicization’ has even entailed the imprisonment of vast numbers of Uighur, Kazakh, and Hui Muslims as well as intractable Christian leaders. Accordingly, ‘sinicization’ is no mere slogan, but a religious policy to enforce three key priorities of the CCP:
– (camera icon) to streamline the bureaucracy for efficient oversight and control of all non-Party spheres and institutions;
– (hands icon) to revive the sway of Party ideology over all aspects of life in China; and
– (x icon) to remove any ‘contradiction’ that might challenge Party ideology and rule.
…..
In March 2018, the National People’s Congress and the Chinese Peoples’ Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) put in place the necessary ideological, legal, and bureaucratic structure to enforce ‘sinicization’ of religion. It reduced the plethora of official departments that have multiplied with growth of religious followers and affiliated churches, mosques, and temples. For Protestants, the China Christian Council (CCC), the Three-Self Patriotic Association (TSPM), Religious Affairs Bureau (RAB), and the State Administration of Religious Affairs (SARA) have seen their oversight powers transferred to the Party’s United Front Work Department (UFWD).
This has effectively swept clean the differing and overlapping bureaucracy that had diffused and diminished the state’s ability to control Christian growth and influence. Under the new religious policy, the old bureaucracies live on, but now in name only, as their powers over churches and church leaders are now firmly in the hands of the UFWD. ‘
https://lausanne.org/global-analysis/sinicization-religion-china
” ….. we let go of the outcome: a powerful practice in Stoicism. ”
https://mindfulstoic.net/the-three-jewels-of-the-tao-embracing-the-way-of-water/