Rorate Caeli

New Motu Proprio out on Tuesday

Vatican Radio reports that on Tuesday, October 12, there will be a press conference to present the Motu Proprio Ubicumque et Semper regarding the newly established Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization. The document will be presented by Archbishop Salvatore "Rino" Fisichella, who was recently appointed as the first President of the new Council.


Almost said...

Real question: What is the definition of "New Evangelization?" What's new about it?

Jason said...

Re-evangelization of formerly Catholic countries in western Europe.

Anonymous said...

I think the concept of ''new evangelization'' comes from Pope Paul VI in the 1975 apostolic exhortation Evangelii Nuntiandi.

Towards the final years of his pontificate, Pope Paul became acutely aware that the Church had ''lost power'' in many of its former bastions, and he became a strong proponent for the project of re-evangelizing the ''lost sheep'' of the 1968 revolution.

While I typically share these ecclesial concerns, I am also a bit preoccupied by the ''vagueness'' and the ''newness'' of this type of evangelization.

For example, the blessed apostle Paul warns in his epistles against those who would go to great lenghts in order to spread ''another Gospel'' which differs from the purity of the original Gospel, one that ends up sowing more confusion than actual Gospel clarity.

These concerns about the fullness and integrity of the Gospel are entirely legitimate when one glosses over the numerous crises that the Church has gone through since the time of the Second Vatican Council.

Anonymous said...

The definition of the "New Evangelisation" was laid out by the Servant of God Pope John Paul II in his Apostolic Letter NOVO MILLENNIO INEUNTE in 2001. I suggest you read it.

M. G. Hysell, M.A., M.Th.

Prof. Basto said...


"New Evangelization" is the effort to re-convert to Christ and to His Church:

- Those who are already Catholics, but Catholics in name only (they are baptized and are canonically members of the Church but are not evangelized and do not live out the Gospel values). They need to be called to a life of holiness and to learn and submit to the Church's doctrine (a re-catechesis, one that actually works). This is the new evangelization of individuals;

- There is also the new evangelization of whole societies. On that scale, the effort of new evangelization aims at stopping and reversing the current spread of secularism. It aims to rebuild a Christian Civilization in places that were once Catholic, in places that were part of Christiandom and are now infiltrated by a relativistic, liberal culture that sidenlines the Christian roots of those societies. So, new evangelization is the effort to stop de-Christianization and to produce re-Christianization in places such as Europe.

While te Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples (Propagation of the Faith) deals with mission territories, that were not traditionally Christian lands and have no solid Catholic roots, the new body will coordinate the "new missionary activity", of a different kind, that needs to take place in societies that have Christian roots but that are infected by secularism, so that they convert back to Christ.

Anonymous said...

New Evangelization is a term used to describe efforts to revive the waning Christianity in countries that had already been evangelized, i.e. Europe.

Suburbanbanshee said...

When Pope John-Paul II went to the Shrine of the Holy Cross in Nowa Huta in Poland, he recalled how Catholics, deprived of the public display of the Cross by Communism, had set up a new cross there. The Cross has to be wherever people are, just as Christ is wherever people are. So we need to put up the Cross again and evangelize our once-Catholic countries again. That's where the phrase "the New Evangelization" comes from.

There's also a tie to evangelization using new media that often comes in; but basically it's a mission to evangelize ex-Catholics, non-practicing Catholics, badly formed Catholics, et al.

Suburbanbanshee said...

B16, in a homily on the feast of SS Peter and Paul this year, said this about the New Evangelization:

"Pope John Paul II represented the Church's missionary nature "in the flesh" with his Apostolic Journeys and with the insistence of his Magisterium on the urgent need for a "new evangelization": "new" not in its content but in its inner thrust, open to the grace of the Holy Spirit which constitutes the force of the new law of the Gospel that always renews the Church; "new" in ways that correspond with the power of the Holy Spirit and which are suited to the times and situations; "new" because of being necessary even in countries that have already received the proclamation of the Gospel...

"The Church is an immense force for renewal in the world. This is not, of course, because of her own strength but because of the power of the Gospel in which the Holy Spirit of God breathes, God, Creator and Redeemer of the world. The challenges of the present time, the historical and social and, especially, the spiritual challenges, are certainly beyond the human capacity. It sometimes seems to us Pastors of the Church that we are reliving the experience of the Apostles when thousands of needy people followed Jesus and he asked them: what can we do for all these people? They were then aware of their powerlessness. Yet Jesus himself had shown them that with faith in God nothing is impossible and that a few loaves and fish, blessed and shared, could satisfy the hunger of all. However, there was not and there is not hunger solely for material food: there is a deeper hunger that only God can satisfy...

"There are regions of the world that are still awaiting a first evangelization; others that have received it, but need a deeper intervention; yet others in which the Gospel put down roots a long time ago, giving rise to a true Christian tradition but in which... the secularization process has produced a serious crisis of the meaning of the Christian faith and of belonging to the Church.

"From this perspective, I have decided to create a new body in the form of a Pontifical Council, whose principal task will be to promote a renewed evangelization in the countries where the first proclamation of the faith has already resonated and where Churches with an ancient foundation exist but are experiencing the progressive secularization of society and a sort of "eclipse of the sense of God", which pose a challenge to finding appropriate to propose anew the perennial truth of Christ's Gospel."

Anonymous said...

Wake me up when it's all over.

In the mean time, we can say that there was a large improvement in the provison of Traditional Latim Masses for the first twelve months of the implementation of S.P. For the two years following that, we've been treading water.

Where is the clarification of S.P. that His Emiencce Darío Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos promised about two years ago? What happened to it?


Anonymous said...

"The definition of the "New Evangelisation" was laid out by the Servant of God Pope John Paul II in his Apostolic Letter NOVO MILLENNIO INEUNTE in 2001. I suggest you read it."

If this so-called "New Evangelization" means to rely only on the teachings of John Paul II's "Millennio Ineunte", or the esxample of John Paul II, or worse, concentrates only on developments in the Catholic Church since Vatican II....then it will be a disaster and a failure from day one. It will be a monumental waste of time, and an extreme example of a violation of valid judgement....from the Pope on down.

If this new venture attempts to restore, ressurrect, and foster true, authentic Catholicism and Catholic traditions (much as it was before Vatican II), including even more freedom for the Tridentine Latin Mass and expressions of Catholicity, then it will be a magnificent work which will flower almost did the reforms of the Council of TRENT.

But if it is uses only as an instrument to solidify and perpetuate the VATICAN II version of the Roman Catholic Church, it will be a gross injustice that will be doomed to failure, and a missed opportunity to re=Evangelize Europe which has been destroyed by the initiatives, gestures, and experimentations and liturgical deviations of Vatican II,(not to mention the tremendous corruption of religious life, Catholic morals, and traditions).

Only a new Vatican Office dedicated to Catholic traditions will succeed.

(Is Archbishop Fischiella another one of Cardinal Bertone's gang of Salesians?"

Brian said...

Re-evangelization of formerly Catholic countries in western Europe.

In that case, here is a suggestion for a brief moto proprio:

The TLM and The Catechism of the Council of Trent

Anonymous said...

I'm with Mr. Perkins. Pardon me if I can't get excited about a new "New Evangelization", especially one founded under an archbishop who really made international celebrity by caving to political pressure and not standing up for Church teaching -- on a subject which is one of the easiest for the Church to defend, no less.

I did find it somewhat entertaining that people are posting definitions and papal pronouncements to clarify what "New Evangelization" means. What is new about evangelization? Why does everything have to get a catchy "new" title now? In the old evangelization people worked for conversions and the establishment of a Catholic society. And the new?

This is especially surprising for the "pope of continuity". I can't see why he sees a need to reinforce the notion of rupture with all that came before, which rupture is necessarily implied in the title "New". This evangelization's is new only in relation to everything that happened before. 100 years from now this congregation will still be called "New", and its only claim to that title is that it is new compared to everything that happened prior. There is a definitive split: "old" and "new". How can one not get the impression that the Church was recreated at Vatican II? And looking around, how can one not get the impression that said creation is more like Frankenstein's monster than a natural human being.

therese rita said...

With friends like you & "Mr Perkins" why does the RCC need enemies???

Jesus told the apostles, "He who sees you, sees me." & "What you bind on earth is bound in heaven.." & "He who is not with me is against me."

I could go on. The point is get on-board with B16 & stop sitting beside the road throwing rocks. This is important bc God's going to ask you about it someday.

New Catholic said...

Good luck with the "new evangelization" under the leadership of this despicable person who cannot even defend the eternal Catholic truth about life and death...


Father Anthony Cekada said...

For my money, "evangelization" (like "People of God," "partial/full communion," and "discernment") is one of those Vatican II weasel-words that modernists invented to "surpass" or blur some Catholic doctrine.

In this case, "evangelizing" (preaching the Gospel) is substituted for the notion of actually converting (1) heretics, schismatics, pagans and Jews from the darkness of their vile errors to the truth, and (2) sinners to the state of sanctifying grace in order to save them from hell.

In the modernist system, the means (preaching the Gospel) became an end -- because the real end of missionary activity (rescue from death-dealing errors and from hell) would be too "militant," too black-and-white, for modern man and fuzzy modernist theology to stomach.

Anthony S. "Tony" Layne said...

As much respect as I have for individual traditionalists, and as many concerns as I share with others for the preservation and spread of the orthodox (small "o") faith, I'm starting to get very tired of seeing people whine about Vatican II. It seems to me that the V2 detractors confirm the "hermeneutics of rupture" for the "spirit of Vatican II" crowd almost intentionally. It's a done deal; it's not gonna go away, nor is anyone gonna pretend it didn't happen. Time to get over it.

Getting back on topic: I'm not certain how a new dicastery is going to help re-evangelize the First World. But I suppose it's better than just waiting for a St. Dominic or St. Bernard to pop up somewhere in order to ride the wave. The local ordinaries can help the process along by taking steps to recapture the Catholic "brand", if you will, emphasizing our difference as a point of attraction and sign of contradiction, as well as forcing a decision on the crypto-Protestants in the ranks. I think we also need to get a lay organization going which will bring together the various grass roots movements and encourage the flourishing new orthodoxy among the new generation. But I don't see why this would require another office in the Vatican, given the principle of subsidiarity.

Jordanes said...

I suspect I'm not alone in seeing this new dicastery as a kind way to get the scandalous Fisichella out his old job after he had publicly undermined the Church's teaching on the sanctity of unborn life.

Instead of being shuffled off to a different post, he should have firmly been shown the door . . . but I know this is, sadly, normal practice at the Vatican.

Anonymous said...

Therese -

I am willing to get on board, I am just waiting for the train to show up -- not flashy advertising, complete with hip and catchy slogans, but an actual train. If BXVI is going to lead the charge for the re-conversion of the world to the Catholic faith, count me in. My problem is with the name of this congregation. It is lamentable at best, and if it reflects the interior conviction of the hierarchy (i.e. it actually sees itself as something new) it is bound to fail. Substantial and clear elucidation of the Catholic faith (which is quite old, not new) is the only way out of this mess. We have had enough of the hip slogans and PR campaigns.

Anonymous said...

I don't like the rock throwing either--frankly, it's too easy.

Look, I would like the restoration of the EF too; the improper feminization of the Church is a major part of the crisis.

Let's realize that some of the divisive comments on this blog are more of the flesh than the spirit, even as there are reasons to lament the implementation of V2.

For those who like to bash favorites of JPII, such as Opus Dei, do you realize what the "new Evangelization" means to the Work?--getting people to frequent Confession! Daily Mass! Mental prayer! Reading the saints!

It's not all bad.


Prof. Basto said...

Jordannes wrote:

"I suspect I'm not alone in seeing this new dicastery as a kind way to get the scandalous Fisichella out his old job after he had publicly undermined the Church's teaching on the sanctity of unborn life."

I'm sorry, but I don't think the Pope would create a new Dicastery in the Roman Curia, one with the rank of a pontifical council, just to create a place for an archbishop he needed to remove from the Pontifical Academy for Life.

We all know that the Pope is battling against the trend of secularization of formerly Christian societies. That is what his visit to the United Kingdom was all about.

The Pope seems to have reached the conclusion that the creation of a new department of the Curia was necessary in order to coordinate the eforts against the on-going secularization.

Right or wrong about the best strategy to administer the Church's efforts in this field, the Pope is the Pope, and it is up to decide how best to organize the Holy See. If he thinks a new bureocracy is needed to focus solely on the coordination of new evangelization efforts, so be it.

As for the strange name of the dicastery ("new evangelization"), the name of the dicastery will probably change in the future. There was once a dicastery for the implementation of the new code of canon law; and that was later changed into the PC for legislative texts; there was once a Congregation "of the Council" because its aim was to implement and interpret the dictates of the Tridentine Council. That congregation later became the Congregation for the Clergy.

Finally, regarding the leadership of the new dicastery, that's where the big mistake is being made. A man who cannot even defend the Church's doctrine and canon law in a field as precious as that of the defense of the life of the innocent unborn cannot be placed as the new "czar" of the new evangelization effort.

Picard said...

I think, Jordanes, you are right (in all points).

Anonymous said...

A very kind supporter of mine here on this list wrote this:

"This is especially surprising for the "pope of continuity". I can't see why he sees a need to reinforce the notion of rupture with all that came before, which rupture is necessarily implied in the title "New"."

I'd like to suggest that any call for a new evangelisation is diplomatic and political, not religious. There is indeed a strategy but the strategy is to keep unity in the existing Church, not to bring lost sheep back into the fold.

This Pope has shown concern for restoring tradition to the Church, and he has also gone to great lengths to bring Anglican traditioanlists into the fold, figuring (rightly, if they can ever stop dithering) that they will make good Catholics. Neither of these projects have endeared him to the liberals in the Church, who are starting to feel more and more alienated. Now the Pope retires the last of their darlings in the curia, Cardinals Re and Hummes, and replaces them with neo-conservatives. Meanwhile, another liberal darling, Cardinal Daneels, and also another one, Cardinal Mahony, have been disgraced and are being forced to retreat from the scene.

So the Pope needs something to restore loyalty in the leftist 'Catholics'. How can he do this? The only policy the left likes is the socialism the Church has adopted from the time of the error in Rerum Novarum, the nonsnese about the 'just wage'. However, the Pope can't do much more about that. It's all been done before. He needs some new initiative that can receive some applause from all sectors of the Church but the left especially.

Now nobody can deny that we are facing a terrible crisis in areas of the world which are traditionally Catholic. Catholic Europe is fast going pagan, as is Canada. Of course, conciliar and postconciliar error was a major contributing cause of this but we needn't actually admit that! We can promote a new project of 'reaching out' to the pagans and atheists of Europe and Northern America. Good luck on that.

A real new evangelisation would have to be a concerted campaign to denounce the entire Vatican Two package, replacing the Gospel of Karl Marx, which is the gospel of Hummes, with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.


Anonymous said...

"preaching the Gospel" although a biblical term, is widely used by protestant evangelicals to indicate they preach a bible based doctrine as opposed to the Catholic Faith. The "Evangelize" word is the same.
I would prefer the church use stronger and clearer words: preach the Truth, saving souls, call people to the Truth from Heresies and error. But this is too much for the modernist V2 folks.
I don't see any train coming from the Vatican 2 station, or anything to "hop-in". Rather, empty words, empty hermeneutic, and same old same old "new" stuff that is actually hiding the real problem.

Anonymous said...

"Wake me up when it's all over."

Give me a wake up call as well, if you would be so kind.


Anonymous said...

Anon 15:34

I'm with you.

Is "evangelization" supposed to be a replacement of the word "conversion"?


Anonymous said...

I'm sorry to say I think this New Evangelization is an act of futility-with so many apostates in power in the church. The faith is already distorted beyond belief. Lucifer has deceived so many in the church and they don't even have a clue.

Anonymous said...

Prof. Basto wrote:

A man who cannot even defend the Church's doctrine and canon law in a field as precious as that of the defense of the life of the innocent unborn cannot be placed as the new "czar" of the new evangelization effort."

Well, he'd be the ideal candidate if the purpose of the new dicastery is to spread more Vatican II error.

I suggest a new dicastry. The title: Pontifical Council for Proselytism. It could start by trying to convert the Eastern Orthodox schismatics and heretics back to the one True Church, which they abandoned in 1054.


Suburbanbanshee said...

You can complain and make stuff up about the word "evangelize", or you can do the traditional thing -- consult the dictionary -- and find out that it came into English back in the 14th century. From Old French. From "evangeliser", which means "to spread or preach the Gospel". Which came from Latin "evangelizare", which came from Greek "evangelizesthai".

Anonymous said...

To Therese Rita :
"The point is get on-board with B16 & stop sitting beside the road throwing rocks. This is important bc God's going to ask you about it someday."

I'm happy to see one person who knows where that "boat" is going : can you explain please where this boat is heading with "Rino" Fisichella, Abp Ravasi, cardinal Danneels, Bp de Kezel and the like ?

Oh have you seen in the Osservatore Romano the reform of NOM ? If so give us more details ...Rorate readers are eager to learn these news nobody is talking about yet.
My pink glasses are probably not pink enough for me to find these good news.

nb. there is no doubt that the hierarchy is accountable before God and honestly I won't like to be in some bishops, cardinals' shoes when He is to question them about what they've done... or just for being "tepid"...


Suburbanbanshee said...

Oh, and "evangelizesthai" is the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew word "bsr", to bear good tidings; and so it was a word used in the New Testament, also.

just stopping by said...

"I would prefer the church use stronger and clearer words: preach the Truth, saving souls, call people to the Truth from Heresies and error. But this is too much for the modernist V2 folks."

Well, the situation is different from the time when the Germanic tribes, for exampled, were to be brought into Christendom, isn't it? I mean, now you have, at bottom, a civilization shaped by Grace, where almost all people are baptized into Holy Mother church.

So, what is needed is not conversion in the sense of converting from pagasism, but rather a re-awakening and a re-kindling of something which is already there (though less and less so, unfortunately).

Without a reawoken Body of Christ, living in the fulless of Faith, the non-Christians won't be converted either.

Cody said...

To be perfectly honest, I like the EF of the Mass and I am not fond of a lot of the Vatican II stuff.

However, I dislike the disrespect in these comments. Vatican II was a Council, with a capital C, of the Roman Catholic Church and, if you have any faith in the mission of the Church, you will have trust that, despite any apparent errors, everything has worked out exactly as the Holy Spirit intended. May I point out the medieval Popes, not the best bunch in history, but they still deserve respect because of their position, and their power as Pope was not entirely nullified. In fact, the Council of Nice drew only a fraction of the total Christians of the time and many many other strange occurrences have passed in the development of the Church.

Does it matter? A Catholic says no, because it is the Holy Spirit that directs the ducking and the weaving, the perpetual change of the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

LeonG said...

Frankly speaking, when one hears this regime talk about "New", we can predict what is implicated. The post-conciliar evangelisation bandwagon is a tragic litany of failure with the ill-fated "renewal movement"; the moribund Renew; the hijacked decade of evangelisation of the 1990s; yet another "New Dawn" which has never lived up to its utopianised billing and so forth.

What about a Traditional Evangelisation? Archbishop Lefebvre made it frutiful when he was an active missionary in western Africa. When we contemplate what the post-conciliar church has needlessly squandered for its novelty-ridden mess of potage one is left entirley cynical at yet another announcement of "newness".

John said...

*shakes head*
Y'all simply canNOT believe that Vatican II actually happened or that the Pope might actually want to save souls that aren't yet Catholic, huh?

I don't see how criticizing our Holy Father and/or the setup of the Church are helping anything.
Don't you know that your "opponents", the "modernists", want to change Rome too?

Neither of your sides really gives anyone many useful options.

Anonymous said...

Nothing will come of this venture.

Especially of they kepp clinging to Vatican II, the Novus Ordo, and the memory and image of John Paul II.

Anonymous said...

The title of the Motu Proprio is reminiscent of the famous canon of St. Vincent of Lerins. Interesting...

Anonymous said...

Another "new" fiasco with v2 paraphernalia.
The fruits of that council alive and well.
In the mean time, clergy condescending with the world and befriending other religions. Obviously, every action has a consequence.

Anonymous said...


I, and propbably others, don't have a problem with the word "evangelization". The problem is with it's modifier: new.
In so far as evangelization means what the dictionary says, and what we would mean when we say it, it is something quite traditional and as old as the Church herself.
So why the term new? One answer, and I suspect that this is where people have a problem, is that evangelization here does not mean precisely what it used to. We have had all sorts of words redefined in the past 50 years: ecumenism, ministry, social justice, etc. etc. etc. These things are perfectly fine in their traditional context, but have been used to support all sorts of crazy projects of late. So seeing this just brings up the same sentiment that we have been conditioned to have at least since the JPII days (I was not alive before): here we go, another "new" dicastry to come up with catchy slogans and issue "important" documents (does anyone remember the 10 commandments of driving some Vatican dicastry put out a few years ago?) but which really doesn't do the one thing that would achieve its purpose -- preach the faith clearly as it was handed down without all of the fuzzy talk, and return to a thoroughly Catholic liturgy. These are old ideas from the old evangelization, but it seemed to work pretty well the first time.

thomas tucker said...

I agree with Anthony Lane.
The complaints about Vatican II are tiresome, to say the least.
And the denigration of JPII by people who probably aren't half the man that he was would be amusing if it weren't so pathetic.

Paul Haley said...

This motu proprio is not what we were expecting. Is someone in Rome perpetrating a cruel hoax?

Picard said...


It does not matter if Vat II was a council or Council -- it was the first and only ecumenical Council that declared itselfe as pastoral and did not want to condemn and define solemnly - it did not want to bind defenitely at all!

So, I repeat what I have said again and again: Therefore of course it is NOT infallible and therefore it could contain errors and it can be totaly justified to criticize it.

And more, if you know only a little bit the context and facts then it is a duty to critizize it!

Picard said...


From the fact that the modernists want to change Rome (too) it does not follow that nobody should ever want to change Rome. That´s a non-sequitur.

And it does not follow that every such attempt is evil per se.

Otherwise it would have been evil for St. Paul to resist Rome (St. Peter) - as he did (cf. Gal 2).

So if the modernists want to change Rome in a wrong way you can not conclude that me or others are not allowed to change Rome in a good way.
Not the attempt of changing or reforming is evil per se. You must look on/at the direction of the suggested changes and reforms. St. Francis or Sta. Catharina did also want to change and reform Rome... in(to) a better way....!!!

craig said...

C.S. Lewis, I think, noted the difference between the anticipatory nature of ancient paganism and the oppositional nature of modern paganism. Once Christ has come, the relationship is altered for all time. The exact quote goes something like, "Paganism before Christ was a virgin, after Christ it was a divorcee".

This is at the heart of the new evangelization. To rekindle the old love, one must appeal to the things that led to love in the first place, and avoid the things that led to the falling-out. The Catholic Church's reputation in secular society is, rightly or wrongly, one of social control for the masses and perquisites for the clergy. Advocating a return to the pre-WWII model of Catholicism comes across like a man wooing his estranged wife by promising how much happier they'll be when he finally has properly ironed shirts and home cooked meals again. She will wonder where his real interests lie. Humility and service will woo a lot faster than insisting upon one's "rights".

None of this is to say, "avoid the EF or Trent"; it is to say, "avoid weighting down evangelism with the accretions of politics and a romanticized view of the past". If the Church would act as if she were not the automatic choice of Europeans -- if she had to work for it, in other words -- maybe her successes would be greater.

Anonymous said...


You're kidding, right?


Guy Fakwes said...

I really don't get it.
If the re-evangelisation of the West is such a priority, why do they continue to appoint modernist bishops to the most important European dioceses?

sjgmore said...

I don't understand why everyone has to be so negative about something that we don't know anything about yet, except for the name, but if they insist on being cynical, why not be cynical in a sort of upbeat way?

The way I see it, if this "New Evangelization" is just some rehashing of tired liberal "reform" crap that gave us Vatican II, and the LCWR, and kissing Korans, and all that, maybe it's best that the Holy Father give all those people their own dicastery where they can dither around and clap each other on the back and "dialogue" until the biological solution presents itself, during which time the rest of the Curia can actually get something accomplished. Kind of like Jordanes hinted at, considering the selection of Fisichella.

Or maybe we should give the Holy Father the benefit of the doubt and trust that he's actually going to do something valuable and productive with this. He's surprised us before, frankly, with great things, and I think those with faith in him have already had their faith rewarded more than once.

John said...

I think you missed my point. Whether willfully or accidentally, I don't know.

Point is, so far as I'm aware, both traditionalist AND modernist have been howling at Rome for 50 years over what Rome allows or not. Oddly, no matter what Rome actually DOES or REQUIRES, both sides insist that Rome got it wrong and that the Pope and his curia ought to do it THIS way instead.

I've rather quit caring about what either modernist or traditionalist thinks ought be done. ROME--the Vatican--is the See of Peter. Not bishop so-and-so from this group or that society.
Therefore, I take angry insistence from both sides with a thick grain of salt. Rome tells us what the Church truly believes can or will be done.

BTW, I've understood that the Pope is infallible:
1. When teaching as Pope
2. To the world
3. On matters of faith and morals

Vatican II wrote 16 documents. Each has the Pope's name at the top. Each one appears to be addressed to Catholics in particular, but the world certainly is allowed to pay attention. If these documents don't address matters and faith and/or morals, I'm hard pressed to state what they DO address?

Perhaps some person has discerned a reasonable way around this, but it appears to me that Vatican II fulfills the requirements of the pope's being infallible, per the declaration of Vatican I.

Whether Vatican II issued dogmatic beliefs or not strikes me as being irrelevant.

I think the Council has to be recognized as the infallible voice of the Holy Spirit (or Ghost, if you prefer) speaking through His bishops.

LeonG said...

"so far as I'm aware, both traditionalist AND modernist have been howling at Rome for 50 years over what Rome allows or not."

This is a misunderstanding of the state of affairs. The traditionalists have had almost no voice in Rome at all until this pontificate. The modernists have dominated ecclesiastical processes for the last 50 years and are still determined to do so at any cost. This time, however, there are traditionalists who have the ear of the papacy to a limited but growing extent.

John said...

Traditionalists haven't had much voice in the Vatican in 50 years, but then, have they truthfully been willing to give themselves a just voice?
Put differently:
Is it possible that our late pope, John Paul II, waited a very LOOONG time to excommunicate Bishop Lefebvre et al PRECISELY because he wished for their return to the formal Church, preferably bringing their passionate desire for tradition with them?

I've long felt it telling that JP II himself formally admitted FSSP the same year he was forced to remove SSPX.

I think the traditional view has been lacking in Rome precisely because the die-hard traditionalists themselves wouldn't follow their own rules RE obeying Rome's directives. Had they been more humble, tolerant, accepting, whatever, I think it possible that the Novus Ordo might've been healed by the mid-80's because the tradition-minded folks would've had greater say in Rome.

If the traditionalists wish to howl at Rome, they need to review their own doctrine, then take a REAL close look in the mirror.

Picard said...


no, I got your point perfectly -

but seems you did not get mine?!?

I argued

1. that the Vat.II and post-Vat.II teachings (and acts) are NOT infallible.

Argument: In your list (1.-3.) you supressed the most important point (4.): the intention to bind [all the faithfull] definitely.

Because of lack of this intention of binding we do not have cases/instances of infallibility.

2. I argued that you can NOT compare the critique of the modernists with the one of the traditionalists. The analagy is not appropriate.

(Argument:) Because the modernists are in favor of liberal and anti-Catholic ideas and want the Vatican to move in this direction -- what is condemnable from a Catholic point of few.

But the traditionalists are in favor of the Catholic teaching and orhtodoxy and criticize the liberal and anti-Catholic tendencies. That´s not condemnable.

Picard said...

John (et al.),
to develop and strengthen my argument some examples:

The modernists are in favor of

* a wrong translation of the Consecratory Words [that is - and BECAUSE it is (!) - promoting the heresy of "Allerlösung")
* the 1970-Good-Friday-prayer for the Jews [that is undoublty promoting heresy, especially in it´s German vernacular form!]
* etc. etc.

These points and acts are all condemnable (from a Catholic point of fiew, of course).

On the other hand the traditionalists condemn and criticize exactly this condemnable points and acts, f.e.

* the wrong translation (and approbation of it) of the Consecratory Words
* the approbation of the 1970-prayer for the Jews on Good Friday [that is heretic or very next to heresy and undoubtly promotes heresy, as said above]
* the kissing of the Qu´ran
* the Assisi-meeting and -prayer 1986
* the Balamaand-agreement [not to try to convert the so called "Orthodox" any longer!]

Because the aforementioned acts are (i) clearly counter-Catholic acts/tendencies but (ii) NOT infallible,
it is totaly justified - from a Catholic point of fiew - to critisize them (and others!!); it can even get/become a duty and meritfull/deserving!!

Whilst the critique of the modernists (again from a Catholic point of fiew) - as I said above - is NOT, so therefore not comparable!

Picard said...

And John,

JPII did not wait long to excomm. Msgr. Lef. - but did it immediately after the act that deserves excommunication according to canon law.

[I am not arguing here if the excomm. were ok. or not -- but only want to stress the fact that that there was no long waiting.

The assertion of the reverse is just wrong, it was very fast in deed. But again: Just to state a fact: I do not want to evalute this fact here, so it is NOT meant as a critique of the excomm. or the promtitude!]

Picard said...

Sorry, for my mistakes, so
of course: "point of view" etc.

I´m German and was posting (too) fast ;-)