How to Learn Like a Catholic (part 2)

Picking up on the topic of my previous post (well over a week ago now--sorry, I've been busy), I need to point out one of the greatest problems that occurs whenever people try to learn more about their faith (which, as I said before, is always a good thing--in principle). We are warned in Sacred Scripture, many times and in various ways, that knowledge can make us become prideful. St. Paul says it this way:

“Knowledge” puffs up, but love builds up. If any one imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know (1 Cor 8:1-2).

In other words, frequently when people get a bit of knowledge in their heads (especially those who are immature in their faith) it makes them think they know a whole lot more than they actually do (and then leads to pride). Thinking that you are really smart, proves that you are not!

As I mentioned in the previous post, we can practice wrong methods of learning without even knowing it. This creates a problematic situation for those who have a (good!) passion to learn. They begin with the wrong methodology, and then end up applying it to their continued practice of learning. Being prideful about one's knowledge does not go away when further knowledge is gained. The pride just taints that knowledge as well.

I recall once seeing a Dad explain to his 5 year son something about how a car worked. The boy then proceeded to run to all his friends explaining what he had just learned. By the look on his face you would imagine that he had just figured out quantum physics on his own! New converts to Catholicism can easily get puffed up in the exact same way because they read a few books about the faith and then think they are so brilliant they deserve an honorary doctoral degree. People who are more mature in their faith will always be humble about their knowledge. This does not mean that they do not speak about it, but that when they do, they are always aware that they do not know "as they ought to know" (and their humility is evident).

It is a common example of immaturity in the faith when someone presumes that since he knows one detail about a situation or subject that he knows all that he needs to know. This causes these immature "puffed up" Catholics to make quick accusations against others, to be fast to declare every error a "heresy" and to think it right to examine every comment of a theological nature with a fine tooth comb. I often refer to those who are struggling with this issue as being in the "cage stage". The cage stage is when someone is on fire for the faith (which is a good thing) and that fire gets out of control because they do not have enough spiritual formation to know what to do with what they have learned. This state is so dangerous that they should probably be locked up in a cage for the next five years (metaphorically speaking); thus, the "cage stage".

There are many ways to spot when someone is in the cage stage (but is roaming around freely!) and each of us should examine our own hearts in this regard. One is that they constantly want to talk about theology, but have no genuine depth; their topics are often limited to the same few subjects without variation. Another sign of the cage stage is when someone is so excited about their new found faith, that they presume that they should be everyone's teacher (especially on the internet). A third sign is when they portray themselves as being well read (because they have an opinion on everything), but they constantly pronounce technical terms incorrectly (this is because they have no formal training, and have not spent the time to verify what they are reading, they just rush through a few things without any mature guidance).

It is occasionally the case that people with a little bit of "dangerous knowledge" can be calmed down by a friend, parent, or priest, but if their personal pride is at stake, then they usually will not listen to anyone other than those who agree completely with them. It can be frustrating when you meet someone struggling with this type of error because you want to help them, but the error itself is the very thing that will make them doubt your sincerity. When criticized, they usually respond with a claim that the critic is "deceived" or "compromised" because he does not see it their way; they just have a few bits and pieces of knowledge without the genuine depth of the truth (that takes years to grasp fully) so they have gotten "puffed up" as St. Paul said.

Those who are in the cage stage, if left unchecked, will often become satisfied with their limited knowledge and presume that they cannot trust anyone with true spiritual wisdom because the others do not agree with their perspective on things. One of the saddest things about this is that those who could learn more--because they are genuinely hungry for knowledge--end up stagnating because they presume on their own brilliance and refuse to listen to the wise counsel of others.

There are a number of evidences that the Catholic Church recognizes this problem and has worked to overcome it. For example, this "cage stage" experience is the reason why engaged couples need to wait six months between the betrothal and the wedding; it takes time to learn the things necessary to receive the sacrament of matrimony rightly. Another example is the standard RCIA process of catechesis. Most often classes last at least eight months. This is so that they can take time to let things sink in and not presume that what they know on day one is sufficient to understand the Catholic faith. Bad decisions are always made when someone does not have enough information. With formal training we can grow in our faith, with "I taught myself" we can get stuck in a prideful rut of distrust.

Look deeply into your own heart to see if you suffer from the "cage stage" in any way (realize some people can get stuck in this stage for many years!). Humility is hard, but it is always worth the effort. Take to heart St. Paul's admonition that none of us "knows as we ought" to know. We all have room for growth. Next, if you know someone in the cage stage, then pray for them. Pray that they will find humility and pray that they will realize the need to "learn like a Catholic" and be in full submission to the Church and the deposit of the faith (all of it). Let us work to restore the faith of our fathers, but let us do it in a godly manner.

How to Learn Like a Catholic

I have heard more stories about bad religious formation in Catholic Churches during the 70's, 80's and 90's than I can count. Before I was received into the Church, a Catholic tried to warn me about this situation; he did not have to do so. The overwhelming testimony from unrelated individuals made it perfectly clear: catechesis in those decades was a disaster. Numerous Catholics today are ignorant of large portions of their faith, and many of them that do know what the Church teaches openly express that they do not believe it. Every one of us knows that we need to learn our faith better, no matter how much we know currently, but this problem is much bigger than that.

Thankfully we can see that a good number of Catholics are seeking to remedy this problem. Some are working to develop better catechetical programs in their local parishes, and a good deal of parents are doing the same in their own homes. There are basically two ways that we can grow in our knowledge of the teachings of the Church and they are not morally equivalent. First, learning can be done the way Catholics have largely done it for 2000 years: in submission to the doctrines of the Church and under the guidance of the clergy that God has placed over them. Second, it can be done as protestants have done it for all 500 years of their splintering existence: in self-determined authority, distrusting any and all of the authorities over them.

Now, to be perfectly clear, I have never heard any Catholic come to me and say that he chose to "learn like a protestant", but I have met a number of Catholics who are doing so without realizing what they are doing. I truly believe that if most of them knew what they were doing that they would stop and seek to do things properly. This more protestant methodology has infected many more areas than you may think. It is largely what is taught in public schools and is the reason why there is so much rebellion seen there. If the most common place where Americans are educated takes on this self-focused manner of learning, it is bound to further taint the rest of society.

Here we arrive at the big issue: how you learn will determine how you grow. I know many people who went to public school and never really learned how to read a book. Yes, they know how to read, but they do not know how to dig deeper into a book than the mere surface subject matter. Thus, when they are adults they continue to struggle with how to learn because they were never really taught how to think and examine a subject properly. How you learn, determines how you grow.

In other words, the manner of education determines more than just "what" you learn, it also determines "how" you will think, and that determines much of your future growth. Many "cradle" Catholics were sent to public school for their education, and they learned a very anti-catholic method of learning. These same Catholics now are influencing much of the Church and perpetuating this error without realizing it even is an error. Furthermore, many of those who convert to Catholicism were not only sent to the public schools, but had this selfish methodology ingrained into them in their years as protestants (double whammy!).

Rarely are converts to the Church taught that they need to change their method of education. I try my best to get this point across in every RCIA catechesis class that I teach, but I know that it is not the norm. What I try to teach them is what is stated in 1 Corinthians chapter 2. St. Paul says there that there is a "wisdom" that is different than the world's wisdom. This wisdom can only be understood by those who have the help of the Holy Spirit of God. The very manner of thinking that the Church endorses will look "foolish" by those who have only the world's wisdom, and are ignorant of God's wisdom.

It should be obvious to the most casual observer that this is a crucial aspect of spiritual formation, and yet most people take their manner of thinking for granted. I know that I did for years. This is most especially the case for those who are spiritually immature. They believe that learning is nothing more than stuffing some facts into their heads, so they keep themselves on the throne of their personal knowledge, and everything they learn is done in this way. Because they are seeking to learn about our Lord, they presume that it is all good and holy; all the while unaware that they are opening themselves up for contention and quarrels whenever anyone disagrees with them (not Catholic practice at all).

This is a serious concern, and it is hard to overcome because few realize they are "learning wrong". Usually when you confront someone who is thinking as an independent non-catholic, they process what you have said as an independent non-catholic (the dilemma is obvious). Their very rejection of the truth is because they have brought their errant thinking with them when they converted and became Catholic. Let us each look deeply to see if we have fallen to this same error. In my next post, I will expand on this problem.

Rejecting the Sacrament of Confession

Many (if not most) Catholics think of the confessional somewhat akin to a torture chamber. They avoid it with the attitude of "why would anyone intentionally go there to harm themselves?" In truth, it is a place of grace, peace, and (true) empowerment. Yet, I know that many priests have not made it seem to be so. How do I know this? Because more people than I can count have told me that they had "bad experience" in the confessional years ago and have not been back to confession since then (i.e. they are admitting to being in a state of mortal sin). Thankfully, some say this when they are returning to the sacrament for the first time, but not all do (ever).

There is another group of Catholics who think of the confessional more like a dentist's chair: something they will do when they absolutely have to, but will avoid it until the very last minute. Usually those in this category are making this choice because just do not want to deal with their sins, and they are banking on the hope that they will go to confession the day before they die suddenly and unexpectedly (yeah, right!). These people already know that they need to go to confession, but they are hedging their bets. I am not writing to them; they know what they need to do, and they also know that they have no idea when they will be called to meet the Lord.

The first group of people--those who have willingly chosen to reject the one sacrament that grants us the full pardon and remission of our sins--is who I wish to speak to today. First off, let me say, "sorry". I apologize for every one of my brother priests who did anything that drove a child of God away from the forgiveness of God. I do not know their intentions (that is only between them and God), but I suspect that a good portion of them thought they were doing something good and right (regardless of how non-Catholic they were behaving). The liberalism that infected and poisoned many clergy who were ordained between the 70's and 90's caused them to think that it is a good thing to break the rules of the Church.

Secondly, I also want to apologize for those priests who went further than merely breaking some rules. I am speaking about those who committed a horrendous sin against someone in the confessional itself (I have heard a number of these stories as well). What they did was vile. There is no excuse for it (though it can be forgiven if they too repent), and if his Bishop did not properly discipline him, then I apologize for that Bishop as well. They both committed grave sin, and will have to give account for it someday before the judgment seat of Christ.

I will stop with the apologizing. I do not wish to get schmoozy. What you need to hear is that not every priest is like those mentioned above. No, they are not all "great confessors", but there are good priests who know what the rules are in the confessional, and they are willing to obey them. It may take some time to find them, but if you ask around to other Catholics you will find them; then go to them (frequently). Take advantage of the grace available to you in this wonderful sacrament; do not let a bitterness rule your life and keep you from God's grace.

Recognizing the difficulties that go along with searching for a good confessor, let me mention also the boundaries of a good and proper confession. I have people come and ask me, "Father, I just went to confession at St. Waldo's and Fr. Looseygoosey did it different from what I expected, was it a valid confession or do I need to go again?" Something can be "illicit" (rules broken) and still be "valid" (a genuine experience of the sacrament). The priest must actually hear your confession (he cannot be asleep); you must confess all known grave sins in kind and number; you must express genuine penitence; he must give you some kind of a penance; he must say an absolution (which is recognizable as an absolution--"bless you, now go" is not a valid absolution); you must follow through with performing the penance as soon as possible. There is a lot of latitude there, but those are the minimums; if something fell between the cracks, find another priest that will do it right.

Excuses are easy to find if we really do not want to do something, and I know it can be hard to want to go to confession. Leave behind all excuses; now. As times around us get more difficult, you are even less certain that you will have time to go back to confession before you go to meet your maker. Whatever you experienced, do not allow a foolish priest's mistakes (or a wicked priest's sins) to keep you from receiving God's grace. Christ gained it for you, and He wants you to have it. Confession is not optional, and if you really want to go to Heaven, God will provide a good priest for you; ask and you will find.

Reasons to Disobey

Someone once told me that everyone thinks more highly of their own spirituality than they ought to. Taking that as a basic fact (which we all should admit the truth of), there are many ways that each of us will deal with it. Some will "excuse themselves" by various and sundry explanations that make it OK for them to do less than is required. "I'm too busy today" or "my circumstances are special" comes easily at times. Others will look to certain actions (of their own choosing) to prove (to themselves) that they are actually much more holy than others ("it's OK that I skipped Mass on Sunday, because I watched it on TV instead").

Neither of these two behaviors will hold out against the judgment of Almighty God. In yesterday's gospel reading for Mass, Jesus gives us the parable of the King who invited people to a wedding feast for his son. Those who were invited refuse to come for one reason or another, but they are all doing one of these two behaviors listed above. Either they are making excuses not to come, or they respond with an attitude of superiority (even to killing the servants who invite them!).

The symbol that Jesus is displaying for us in this parable is His own invitation to us to come into His Kingdom and enjoy the fruits of it. We could describe it this way: Jesus says "I have a great blessing for you, but you have to do the work of getting here to receive it" and those invited say, "I don't need what you're offering". What do you do to justify your spiritual weaknesses (for we all have some)? Do you tell yourself that are already doing fine and do not need to do anything "extra"? Do you make excuses like "it's not required"? You may call it a "reason", but that does not make it right.

The attitude of spiritual superiority is something of a plague that the devil wants to infect us with. If we think that we are "too good" to need to work on our spirituality, then we will not only stagnate in our faith, but we will eventually fall into total apostasy. It was St. Jerome who said:

Be on your guard when you begin to mortify your body by abstinence and fasting, lest you imagine yourself to be perfect and a saint; for perfection does not consist in this virtue. It is only a help; a disposition; a means though a fitting one, for the attainment of true perfection.

Good words that we should all take to heart, for each of us can be tempted to think too highly of the meagre actions that we perform in our spiritual disciplines.

Alternatively, the other attitude that says, "I know the blessings of Christ's Kingdom are good, but I should be excused from having to do the work because my situation is special", is a horrible cycle that the devil wants us to fall into. Make an excuse one time, and it is easier to make an even more lame excuse next time, ad nauseam. One translation of the gospel reading says that those invited "made light of the invitation". In other words, they went so far as to say "the wedding feast is nice, but it is not all that great". This means that they thought they were fine without it; but who will actually be fine without the grace of God on judgment day?

What is your normal weakness? "I'm doing great so I don't need more spiritual effort" or "I know I need it, but I have an excuse to skip out"? Whichever it is, then you need to begin working to overcome it. If you think you are doing fine, then sincerely ask God to let you see your spirituality as He does (remember the passage "be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect"?). If you are making excuses, then make a determination either to reject all excuses, or (if you really think you have one that is valid) then ask your priest about it--he is there to counsel you on this very type of issue. In this age of spiritual compromise, let us not get caught in the knot of self-justifying pride. The path of humility is the path to Heaven.

Who Can We Blame for All This?

When something goes wrong in your life, what is your first response? Do you ask, "who did this to me?" or "what did I do wrong?" Neither one is the perfect answer, and both can be used in a good way or a bad way. Yet, today, most people seem to opt for the first answer. Because this is the case, let us look first at the second answer to make sure that we understand it.

When someone questions their own error in a situation, that is usually a good thing. This, of course, presumes that the actual question the person is asking is, "how can I learn from my mistake and do better next time?" There are some people (relatively few) who have something of a "guilt complex" and blame themselves for everything. That is an entirely different topic and I do not have time to deal with it here. Let it suffice to say that this attitude of "everything is my fault" is usually caused by poor parenting, and needs serious counseling (spiritual and emotional) to overcome. This type of behavior is not good (it is often a denial of the grace of God) and I do not want anyone to fall into it.

Now for the first, more common, response. "Who did this to me?" is what most people ask today. In other words, they are looking for someone else to lay the blame on, and presume that they were completely innocent in the circumstances. Take for example the parent who sees his teenager falling into grave sin and tries to figure out who it was that caused this. In ignoring the fact that he refused to discipline the teen when he was a toddler, he is showing that he is unwilling to accept responsibility for his own actions.

Yes, as I said above, it is true that we do not want people only to blame themselves for everything that goes wrong around them, but to presume first that someone else is always to blame is an attempt to avoid accountability. Few people today are actually willing to be challenged in their spiritual life. That is one of the reasons why Catholic parishes that seek to make the Mass entertaining, and where the priest preaches only about "nice" things are usually the ones that are the largest. People do not want to be told that they have to repent, so they go where they know that will not occur ("tell me everything will be OK but don't tell me to change to make that happen").

The desire to blame others for our problems (especially the ones that we know we ourselves caused) is an inherent part of our sinful fallen nature. We all do this at one time or another, so I am not pointing a finger at anyone in particular but at all of us. Why do we do this? Because it is also natural for us to desire to feel good about ourselves (which can be done in the right way when it is based on the grace of Christ, as well as the wrong way when it is based on our own selfish pride). This "blame game" is often engaged in by those who have fallen into a Pharisaical piety (i.e. self righteousness). The attitude is "I don't want to admit that I could be at fault, so if I focus on someone else, I won't have to consider my own weaknesses".

We also need to realize that those who quickly say "where did I go wrong?" are not always willing to accept the blame. Sometimes this is used as a cover-up. There are those who will use these words as a falsely humble way of saying "I did nothing wrong, so how could this happen?" This is not genuine humility. The words may sound the same, but if we are only seeking a self-serving justification of our actions, then the words mean nothing in the end.

Therefore, who do you seek to blame? If you consider first your own accountability (for longer than 1.2 seconds!), then you are at least starting out in the right direction. If, on the other hand, you assume that you are in the right and start pointing the finger as quickly as possible, then you might make your own conscience feel good for a while, but you will just continue on the same path. You will keep having things go wrong, and keep blaming everyone else for it. It is easy--especially today--to blame the Pope, the Bishops, the President, the police, the public schools, and the liberals for what is going wrong (and, many of them have done awful things and caused numerous problems), but constantly blaming others and never asking "what can I do to make things better" does not fix anything; it only allows the "blamer" to feel superior.

Do you feel superior right now? If so, what is the root of it? Is it because you found someone else to complain about? Is it because you have successfully taken the focus off your own weaknesses and gotten even those around you to be grumpy about another person? Time for humility. Time for introspection. Time to ask yourself the real question that we are encouraged repeatedly in Scripture to ask: "How do I need to repent?"

English Catholic Tradition (Hiding in Protestant Traditions)

This is the second part of my previous post (Catholicism in Protestantism). Just in case you have not read the first part, please go back and read that before continuing.

Going all the way back to Augustine of Canterbury in the sixth century, who came to England to "clean up" a practical mess, there was a distinct set of practises in the Catholic Churches of England, that he chose to retain. It has to do with a "flavor" of spirituality and a unique manner in celebrating the Mass. Augustine of Canterbury did not feel the need to eliminate everything he found in the Churches that were still in England when he arrived. That which he retained was approved by Pope Gregory, and it remained and continued on through the Sarum Mass of centuries later.

It was that same Sarum Mass that Thomas Cranmer cannibalized and turned into the Book of Common Prayer. Yet, when he did this, he did not remove enough to eliminate that manner of "English Catholicism" that had fostered the Catholic faith of so many of God's people for centuries. Therefore, what is the result? Just as we would expect, the Catholic faith was maintained "in a place of division" such that many in the English Churches were drawn back to the Catholic faith (though Cranmer himself would probably hate the idea!).

Augustine of Canterbury was a Benedictine monk and that (of course) highly influenced his practice of the faith. This means that a Roman Catholic monk, was sent to England by the Pope and told to bring the accurate Catholic faith to the indigenous peoples. When he did so, he incorporated some of what was already there (since there were many Celtic churches already in England at the time) and used it to form something "new" to the British Isles. He essentially developed a Roman/Benedictine/Celtic faith that is the beginning of what we now think of as English Catholicism (this is a very simplified description of what took place -- Augustine actually encountered many challenges, but he clearly planted the seeds for what came later). One of the most obvious testimonies to "English Catholicism" lingering on in the Anglican Churches is the fact that so many Anglicans (especially today) claim that they are already Catholic and do not need to convert (!).

The remaining influence of English Catholicism in the Church of England is what led Cardinal John Henry Newman to leave Anglicanism and join the Catholic Church. It is what led many of those in the Oxford movement to become Catholic. It is what is leading many Anglicans back to it today (it did for me!). These roots of the English practice of the faith that remained influential in the Church of England and her offshoots cannot be ignored. It is as though the Holy Spirit planned all along on using these "spiritual nuggets" to convert numerous Protestants to Catholicism. Is this "English Catholicism" something so different that it is like a different faith? No. It is distinctly western and very similar in some ways to the more common practises of Catholicism. Many who are used to the more general practice of the faith (which largely stems from Rome) found in the Tridentine Latin Mass, and (somewhat) in the Novus Ordo, easily find a home in the English practises.

English Catholicism, however, did something almost no other localized practice of Catholicism did. It survived even after being taken into the protestant denominations (which is remarkable considering that Protestants were working hard to make sure they were not Catholic). It survived in a distinct form that can be recognized and restored. It was the English Catholic tradition that "left" and "came back" (more on this below). It endured and survived, we might say, in "exile" and returned to the faith from which it came. God is always in the work of redemption -- especially when it comes to good and holy traditions.

We must notice that the Catholic Church did just fine for 500 years with little acknowledgement of these ancient English practises; it is not as though the Church cannot make it without the "Anglican" patrimony. Yet, there was no other manner of Catholic practice (i.e. Jesuit, Franciscan, etc.) present in protestantism that God used to bring people to convert to the Catholic faith like He did with this. It is almost as though the distinct English practices that were begun by Augustine were forgotten for centuries except in history books. If this were lost completely it would be a great loss.

Are these English practices found anywhere in the Church today? None of my readers should be surprised if I say that it has been restored and protected in the Ordinariates of England, America, and Australia. Our form of the Mass and of the offices of prayers stem directly from these traditions. As I have said before, the Divine Worship Mass that we have been given might just as easily have been named the "New Sarum Mass", for it flows directly from those old forms from centuries ago. When he established the Ordinariates, Pope Benedict specifically said that they were going to have and protect a spiritual treasure so that it could be safely shared with the Catholic Church forever. He saw that the spirituality of English Catholicism had done something different from all the others, and he knew that it could continue to be used by God to do even more when it was restored to the Church.

This might seem like just an isolated event were it not for the fact that so many other protestant denominations were (and still are) influenced by this English Catholicism. Take for example the fact that both the Methodist and Wesleyan denominations are direct offshoots of the Church of England. In addition, American Episcopalianism is still in communion with the Church of England (at least for the time being). Taking just those three groups and their break-off groups (Evangelicals, Continuing Anglicans, etc.) the numbers who have been influenced by them in protestantism is enormous. Yes, many of those separated groups have lost even more of the English Catholicism than was originally lost under Thomas Cranmer, but Jesus told us that even little "mustard seeds" can grow into trees!

What does this mean for you? It does not mean that you necessarily need to practice "English Catholicism" to be a good Catholic. I am not saying that these English Catholic cultural traditions are necessarily better than other practices of the Catholic faith. This is not a pitch to try to get anyone to join the Ordinariate. What I am seeking to convey is that there is something distinct and unique about English Catholicism that is unlike any other approved practice of Catholicism. It has been used by God (while still present in non-Catholic circles) to draw non-Catholics into full communion with Rome, and that is not a small thing. Many today think of the Ordinariates as just an odd practice that a few traditional Catholics like; that is a gross misunderstanding of the providence of God, and how His grace has worked down through the centuries.

It is important to acknowledge that the Holy Ghost has done a wonderful work of bringing protestants back into communion through these English spiritual exercises. Just as the East retained the rudiments of the Catholic faith and thus when they return to communion are allowed to retain their distinct practice of Catholicism, so also do those who have been influenced by (and drawn in by) the unique manner of English Catholicism have a safe haven for their English Catholicism to be practiced. It is not a necessity for anyone to practice it (I know a number of converts from Anglicanism who are happy with the more well known practices of the Traditional Latin Mass or the Novus Ordo [when done well]); it is a necessity to acknowledge the great work done by God.

If you have never seen the Divine Worship Mass, then I encourage you to go visit an Ordinariate parish sometime. If for nothing else than to see what the Lord has done in spite of the great division of the protestant revolt. And above all, pray. Pray that the Lord will continue to use these remaining aspects of ancient English Catholicism to bring many more back to full communion. Whether those converts join an Ordinariate parish or a diocesan one does not really matter. What matters the most is that they are drawn in, find the grace of Christ and that God is glorified. Remember, one of Jesus' prayers before His death was that we would "all be one".

Catholicism in Protestantism

The Eastern Schism with Rome, which was finalized largely in 1472, happened. It cannot be denied. After a long series of quarrels and bad feelings between eastern and western Catholics, the Bishops of (most of) the Eastern Churches (called Patriarchs) decided to break communion with the See of Rome. The result, which still remains today for most of those who left, is that the (so-called) "Eastern Orthodox" Churches are disconnected with the majority of their brethren in Christ. There are a number of eastern Churches who have returned to full communion with Rome, and they are properly called "Eastern Catholics".

The Protestant departure from the Catholic Church in the 16th century happened; no one can deny that either. Even though it mainly occurred in Europe, the results can be seen today throughout the world. Protestant congregations abound and thousands of protestant denominations have been formed. The Catholic Church has, for the last 500 years, sought to restore the descendants of those original Protestants back into communion with the Roman Catholic Church that Christ founded 2000 years ago. Some have returned, many have not. All of those who descended from this protesting revolt are western in form and manner, which is distinctly different from the "Eastern Orthodox" mentioned above.

It is easy to see what happened to the Eastern Orthodox who returned to full communion and became the Eastern Catholics. They retained the vast majority of the faith, and saw the need for full communion. They rejected the quarrel and realized that it is not right to be separated from the Vicar of Christ on Earth. Their liturgies and practises were retained during the time of their schism, and since these were distinctly Catholic (albeit of an Eastern flavor), the spirituality and grace present in them led them back to the fold. For which, we praise God in His mercy for granting this to them, and pray that He will do the same for those still caught in the schismatic "Orthodox" Churches.

In Protestantism, however, it is a bit less clear to see what happened. This is particularly so because the Protestants broke with Catholic practice to such a degree that they lost the essentials of what makes a Church to be a Church. This is why protestantism is not said to be a Church, but rather a collection of "ecclesial communities". They do not have the fullness of the sacraments (the way that the Eastern Orthodox still do), because they intentionally chose to reject a major portion of the historic Christian faith. In other words, some in the East broke and stayed as valid Churches; the protestants in the west broke and gave up being Churches.

Therefore, we can ask the question of what it is that brings Protestants back into the fold of Catholicism? They do not have valid sacraments (other than baptism and marriage--which is another story), and they have chopped out sections of the Bible; what, therefore, is it that remains to bring them back? Now, we must admit, God can work conversion any way that He wants to do so; He is not bound by our limitations, so I am not speaking at all about His Almighty Power. I am asking the question about protestantism itself: what raw materials are available in the practice of protestantism that God can use to convert the "lost sheep" back into the fullness of the Catholic faith?

One thing that many converts from protestantism will tell you is that they found things in the Bible that pointed them to the Catholic Church (after all, even though Protestants have less than the whole Bible, they still have some of it, and what they have has mostly been translated well enough to see the Catholic faith in it). Another thing that they have--although it is not a part of protestantism per se--is the simple facts of history. It is hard to deny that history supports the Catholic Church's claim to exclusive authority from Christ; once a Protestant sees history for what it is, it is hard to remain a Protestant.

There is something else, though, that has led many a Protestant back into the Catholic Church. It might not be what many would expect, because it is not often spoken of, but its branches extend far and wide, and it has a great impact on a large number of Protestants today. What I am speaking about it English Catholicism. No, "English Catholicism" is not referring to a distinct "branch" of the Catholic Church, nor is it talking about what is currently present in Catholic Churches in England (after the protestant departure, English Catholics mostly tried to be "more like Rome" in their practice of the faith--which was a great idea). It does not even refer specifically to the English language. It is referring, rather, to a set of Catholic cultural practises that found a unique manner in ancient England and remained for centuries after (even when some tried to destroy them!).

It is this fact of English Catholicism surviving the protestant split with Rome that I wish to consider in depth. Some may think it an accident, but God does not use accidents -- He is almighty and sovereign and does things intentionally. Others might say that what I am referring to is just a useless detail of history; that also is a mistake. Still others may not give it much thought. When we look at history and Catholic theology we find that even in the midst of the worst experiences (like the departure of the protestants in the 16th century) God is always working behind the scenes and doing things beyond what we can expect.

[Part 2 Coming Soon]