January 9

Marcellino D’Ambrosio: What’s New About the New Evangelization?

Evangelization

4  comments

There’s been a lot written about the New Evangelization in the last year or so.

I’ve even written some of it.

But I just read an article by Dr. Marcellino D’Ambrosio that takes a different perspective and really makes it understandable.

He looks at what’s new from the viewpoint of what’s old. The contrast between the way the Church thought about evangelization in the 50’s and 60’s with how we’re looking at it today is enlightening.

For instance, I didn’t know about this surprising difference in terminology:

“The first Vatican Council in 1870 used the term “gospel” only once and never used the verb “evangelize” or noun “evangelization.” The documents of Vatican II, by contrast, use gospel 157 times, “evan­gelize” 18 times, and “evangelization” 31 times!”


D’Ambrosio says no one ever talked about evangelization, they talked about “the missions.” The recipients “were in far off countries where Catholicism was the new kid on the block.” However, “Vatican II recognized that our own backyard has become mission territory.” The people we know and live with need to know about Jesus as much as those halfway across the world.

Those who worked the missions were the missionaries. They were “mostly priests and religious of course” who would “carry out the specialized task of bringing the faith to unreached people.” But now we’re all called to evangelize. It’s a duty; excuses aren’t an option.

The other changes mentioned are in:

  • Method: no more silent witnesses, our witness should be in deeds explained by words;
  • Message: it’s not just convincing people about Catholicism but about the person of Jesus, and;
  • Goal: not getting the pagan babies baptized but personal conversion and discipleship

Go right now and read the rest of his article.

It will definitely shed light on what the New Evangelization is and why it’s so different.

Do you remember some of these distinctions between “the missions” and evangelization? How do you think these differences color the Church’s outlook and implementation of future evangelization efforts? Leave a comment and let me know.


Tags


You may also like

What You Ought to Know About Handing on Faith [Video]

5 Simple Strategies to Nurture Your Teen’s Faith [Infographic]

Leave a Repl​​​​​y

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. What I find particularly interesting about D’Ambrosio’s commentary is that he marks the break between the “new” and “old” evangelization as the Second Vatican Council…not the first use of the phrase “new evangelization” by Blessed JPII in “Redemptoris Missio.” This means that the Venerable Paul VI’s “Evangelii Nuntiandi” (as well as other key documents from the Second Vatican Council) are a primer on the new evangelization. This is a different approach than comparisons done on the differences between Redemptoris Missio, Iesus Dominus, etc. and writings of the Second Vatican Council and Paul VI. While some might debate D’Ambrosio’s choice to follow Dulles’ lead and start the “new evangelization” with the Second Vatican Council, one could see Pope Benedict XVI’s choice to emphasize reading of Second Vatican Council documents during the Year of Faith as part of this broader sense of the New Evangelization.

    However, I’m not sure if practically, this is how people see and experience the world in the United States. It has not been how I have seen ministry unfold in my experience, as it seems that priests, ministers, and leaders committed to the New Evangelization in action and pastoral strategy (not just rhetoric) are notable for their exceptionality, rather than the norm. Anecdotally, most Catholics I encounter who are not involved with parish life (aka “the majority,” possibly what one might call “cultural Catholics”) have no idea there is such a thing as the “New Evangelization” and still associate the words evangelization/evangelize with Protestantism.

    A very interesting article published last year, called “Individualism and Community as Contested Rhetorics in the Catholic New Evangelization Movement” talks about differences between so-called “Vatican II” Catholics and so-called “New Evangelization” Catholics. A summary, critiques, and responses are posted here: http://blogs.nd.edu/thecc/2012/11/01/authors-meet-critic-debating-new-evangelization-and-vatican-ii-rhetoric/ — [the full text is available if your local library subscribes to EBSCO: http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/78333304/individualism-community-as-contested-rhetorics-catholic-new-evangelization-movement%5D.

    1. Hi Colleen! Thanks for your great comment!

      I find more and more people referring back to Vatican II as the start of the New Evangelization…or, at least, Paul VI. I think that’s valid if you consider how diligently John Paul II sought to make his pontificate an implementation of the council. And you’re right, Pope Benedict is certainly hinting at that we his emphasis on the Council during the Year of Faith. Clearly the seeds were sown there.

      You’re definitely right about the average person in the pew. They probably have no idea they’re being called to more. It’s not a lived reality right now. And, it probably never will be for the majority but that’s okay. It never was from the very beginning. It’s okay if it’s a minority that picks up the New Evangelization. As Matthew Kelly says, one percent would be enough. I’m really hoping for more though. It might very well take a while too for a large portion of the faithful to catch on to this. As long as these principles are clearly defined and continually done so, we might have a movement on our hands.

{"email":"Email address invalid","url":"Website address invalid","required":"Required field missing"}

Use this Bottom Section to Promote Your Offer

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim