Tuesday, June 28, 2016

A Christian Revival

World Youth Day, Rome 2000 AD

Back when I was an Evangelical, I heard about it quite a bit. It seems that for decades now, many churches in America have been seeking a revival of Christianity. Now when I say revival, I'm not talking about the annual tent meetings in the park, held by some local Baptist and Pentecostal churches, with music and preaching. I suppose that could be a small part of it, but that's not the sense of the word "revival" I'm using here. Rather, I'm talking about a resurgence of Christianity in the mainstream of America's population. For three decades now, Christians of all types have been talking about this, hoping for it and praying for it. Yet to date, it has not materialised.

Rather it would appear the opposite has happened. During that same period of time, many young people have fallen away from Christianity, and surveys show that in addition to an increasing secularisation of America's youth, those who have remained in church are showing increasing levels of acceptance of feminism and homosexuality, two ideologies that have historically proved toxic to Christianity.

Back in the 1990s, when I was an Evangelical Christian, I prayed for revival as well, until one day my pastor said something that caused me to think. He told us that if we wanted to pray for revival, this is how we should do it. We should mark out a circle around us, using books, pillows, or whatever is nearby. Then pray that God would start a revival in America, and that he would begin within that circle. In other words, our pastor was telling us that revival must begin with ourselves first. It was a good lesson, and one I took to heart.

In the years that followed, our Lord repeatedly brought me back to this passage of Scripture...

"I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me." 
-- John 17:20-23 RSV-CE

This is a passage often glossed over. What does it actually mean? Jesus is praying something big here. This is one of his last requests he makes of his Father, before going to the cross. He prayed that we (his disciples) who would believe the word of the apostles, would be united as one. He didn't ask that we would give a general, uncommitted and vague nod toward Christian unity, but rather he prayed for real visible unity. He did something more than this though. He taught us something very big. He said that with real visible Christian unity, "the world may believe." In other words, Jesus tied the effectiveness of our evangelism to the degree of our unity. If we were not in unity with our Christian brethren, then our evangelistic efforts would be ineffective. I knew as an Evangelical that revival without evangelism is impossible, and now after understanding this passage, I knew the evangelism without real Christian unity is ineffective.

This might help explain why the revival we have all been praying for is not happening. In order to have revival, we must have evangelism, and in order for our evangelism to be effective, we must have real visible unity with our fellow Christians. Without unity there is no effective evangelism, and without effective evangelism, there can be no revival in America, or anywhere else for that matter.

I didn't say that, Jesus Christ did (see above). If you have a problem with that, take it up with him.

So in obedience to Christ, and in an attempt to allow that revival to happen within my own circle, I began looking for ways to find unity with as many Christian brothers and sisters as possible. The word "ecumenism," from the Greek word "oikoumene," means "the principle or aim of promoting unity among the world's Christian churches." Now as an Evangelical, this was somewhat of a scary word to me, because I had seen what the 20th century Ecumenical Movement had produced with the World Council of Church. It was an extremely liberal body of Christians who had sacrificed most of what the Christian faith teaches, for a general feeling of unity, without any real substance to it. I knew this wasn't for me, and so I dismissed what many referred to as "ecumenical discussions." Rather, I new that what I needed was something more personal. The revival needed to begin with me, within my circle, and I couldn't wait for others to do it for me. So I began looking for ways I could personally be united with as many Christians as possible. Saying "I'm in unity with others" is simply not enough. It doesn't mean anything. We have to define exactly what that unity means.

As an Evangelical I knew that I had some unity with other Christians, but not necessarily with others. As to why, however, that remained a little vague. The common excuse was that some other Christians don't follow the Bible, therefore we didn't recognise them. What does that mean? Does it really mean that other Christians don't follow the Bible, or does it mean that other Christians have a different interpretation of the Bible? More importantly, who's interpretation is right? And how much does that matter? So I began looking at the biggest group I could find that had a different interpretation of the Bible. That of course was the Catholic Church.

Of the 2.2 billion Christians in the world, about half (1.2 billion) are Catholic. Another 300 million are Eastern Orthodox, which is basically Catholic too, as far as Evangelical Christians are concerned. So that means that of the 2.2 billion Christians in the world, about 2/3 (or 1.5 billion) are either Catholic, or Orthodox (which is essentially Catholic), while only the remaining 700 million are Protestant. Of those 700 million, only a fraction of those are Evangelical. Meanwhile, here in the United States, the nation's largest denomination is the Roman Catholic Church, with nearly 60 million members. Baptists make up a distant 2nd place, with 34 million members divided between various Baptist denominations. Methodist trail in third with 14 million members. I considered myself an Evangelical. Which was a broad term that include many different denominations and affiliations, including the Baptists and the Methodists. When we use such a broad term, with no denominational boundaries, we could say that Evangelicals make up about 94 million Americans. Like I said, however, you have to erase the denominational lines to do this. This is what most Evangelicals consider to be "Christian" and that is a very narrow view.

Immediately upon learning this, I understood why revival is not coming to American Christianity. By in large, American Evangelicals (those who have been praying for revival so earnestly), remain divided with the largest Christian Church. Catholics are considered a questionable group. Some Evangelicals consider Catholics to be Christian, some Evangelicals do not, but nearly all Evangelicals do not consider Catholics as being "in unity" with the rest of Christianity in the United States. Therein lies the biggest problem.

It was at this time I realised that I personally needed to find a way to be in full unity with Catholic Christians, because in doing so, I would be in full unity with the maximum number of Christians. What I found out however, is that there is no Protestant church that recognises the Catholic Church as fully Christian. They all find some kind of questionable problem with it. Some Protestant churches don't even recognise Catholics as Christians at all. So then I asked, how do Catholics look at ecumenism? It was at this point I was a little surprised.

The Catholic Church teaches that it is the one single Church founded by Jesus Christ. So to be a member of the Catholic Church, is to be a member of the largest Christian body in the world, consisting of 1.2 billion people, which is half of all Christians worldwide. However, in addition to this, the Catholic Church recognises all the sacraments of the Eastern Orthodox churches as well. So even while there is still yet a political divide between Catholics and Orthodox, the Catholic Church still maintains a high degree of sacramental unity with the Orthodox churches. So simply by being Catholic, one is in full communion with 1.2 billion Christians within the Catholic Church, and near communion with another 300 million Christians in the Orthodox churches. Finally, the Catholic Church recognises the Trinitarian baptisms of all Protestant churches as well, acknowledging at least a partial communion with all 700 million Protestants worldwide.

So as a Catholic, I would be in...
  1. full-unity with 1.2 billion Catholic Christians,
  2. near-unity with 300 million Orthodox Christians, and
  3. partial-unity with 700 million Protestants.
There is no need to wait on any ecumenical agreements. Some form of unity is obtained, automatically and visibly, with every Christian in the world, at the very instant one becomes Catholic. Even better, this unity is official. It is officially stated in Church teaching. It's not some vague general statement either. It is quantified precisely, and explained fully, in the teachings of the Catholic Church.

So in other words, this whole "unity and oneness" thing, that Jesus spoke of, has already been well thought out by the Catholic Church. I have never seen such a position so clearly spelled out by any Protestant church. Most of the time, Protestant positions go either one of two ways...
  1. The Evangelical position is one of unity without definition. Evangelical Christians often just say they are "one" with other Christians, but cannot in any way define what that means, or who specifically they are talking about.
  2. The Protestant position is one of real visible unity marked by ecumenical agreements and organisations, which are often vague and sacrifice doctrinal clarity for the sake of claiming unity on paper. 
So the next question is, with the Catholic definition of unity, are we seeing any signs of improved evangelism and Christian revival anywhere in the world? The answer is yes, particularly in Africa right now. However, even in the secularised Western continents of Europe and North America, Catholicism is experiencing some modest growth while other Christian traditions are seeing declines. 

You see, when perspective new Christians ask a Catholic if he thinks Protestants are Christians too, it helps to be able to say: "Yes, they are Christians, and they have part of the truth, now let me tell you the rest." However, if this same perspective new Christian asks a Protestant if he thinks Catholics are Christians too, the answer may be something like: "Well, maybe, provided they're not too deep into that Mary stuff, it's possible anyway." Of course that's the best possible scenario. In some places the answer may be something like: "No, they are impostors and members of a false-Christian cult." If I were a non-Christian, considering Christianity, the Catholic answer to that question would seem the most reasonable.

Which answer sounds like a more effective evangelistic tool? I say the Catholic answer is. Catholics acknowledge all Trinitarian-baptised persons as fellow Christians. That is real quantified unity. This of course also provides a very effective response to anti-Catholics within Evangelicalism. In that it is something I frequently tell them, much to their shock and bewilderment. I tell them: "The Catechism of the Catholic Church requires me to acknowledge you as a brother Christian if you've received a Trinitarian baptism, even if you will not acknowledge me as one." This moral high ground often deflates even the most obnoxious Protestant anti-Catholics, and even if they never see the light, I promise you that everyone else in the room, who hears you say it, will.



Shane Schaetzel is an author of Catholic books, and columnist for Christian print magazines and online publications. He is a freelance writer and the creator of 'FullyChristian.Com -- The random musings of a Catholic in the Ozarks.'

Catholicism for Protestants

Please share this story. Social media links provided below for your convenience... 

Monday, June 27, 2016

The Brexit

When I wrote my last blog entry on this a few weeks ago, most Americans couldn't even tell you what the Brexit was. Now it's a household word. Last Thursday something amazing and historic happened. About 52% of the British voters decided to leave the European Union and reclaim their independence and sovereignty. Contrary to popular reports in the news media right now, this is a very good thing. It's a victory for the Catholic social principle of Subsidiarity. It's a victory for the sovereignty of Britain. It's a victory for the will of the people, and it's a victory for democratic reform. The Brexit proved that when big centralised bureaucratic governments over-reach their boundaries, and impose laws upon people that they never asked for, they can through peaceful democratic means regain their independence. At the risk of raising a few British eyebrows, and I ask that my British readers will forgive my overtly Amerocentric view, the occasion of the Brexit brings to mind another important event in world history...

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. 
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. 
-- Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

The Brexit was not identical to the independence of the United States from the British Empire, but there were some parallels. As an American, I would be a hypocrite if I denied the British people's right to secede from the European Union, and I would be negligent if I failed to congratulate them for actually doing it. I understand that 48% of Britons chose to stay within the European Union, and this is not an attempt patronise them. I have no desire to "rub it in their faces" as some might presume. I know they have been defeated in a very bitter political fight, and I offer them a gentleman's handshake for a battle well fought. I agree with their desire to be part of a larger economic union, I just disagree with what direction that should be in. We Anglophone people are family. We belong together as such, and we need each other. We need each other a lot more than Europe needs Britain or Britain needs Europe. For far too long Britons have been drawn deeper into a European political union that is flawed at its very foundations, is currently unstable, and is destined to go shipwreck if serious reforms are not soon made to those foundations upon which it is built. The Brexit did not cause those fissures to open. It only revealed that they were already there, and much deeper than anyone expected. For decades now, the popes of Rome have begged the European Union to return to its Christian roots and organise itself accordingly on the principle of Subsidiarity. Those pleads have fallen on deaf ears in Brussels, and across Europe in general. The European Union is now a sinking ship, and Britons will soon thank God that they got off when they did. Perhaps a miracle will happen as a result of the Brexit. Maybe Europeans will now see the deep fissures in the Euro's foundation, and do something to mend them, thus saving the Union and building something more stable for the future. Or, God forbid, they might turn to desperation and attempt to prevent other member-states from leaving by methods of coercion, which once again Britons will thank God for getting out when they did.

Something else has been happening for far too long, and I say this as an American who loves my country. The United States of America has seen itself as something set apart from the rest of the English-speaking world, and this is unacceptable. It is prideful, arrogant, and snobbish. The Brexit will inevitably force many Americans to re-think this attitude. We have come to the aid of Britain in two world wars, and there is a reason for that. We are Anglophone people, part of a global Anglosphere, and we cannot deny that. While America is made up primarily of former Germans (of which I myself am descended), our language and culture is overtly Anglo-Celtic (i.e. British)! I speak very little German, but I am fluent in English. I know almost nothing of my Scandinavian ancestry, of which I am only third-generation Scandinavian-American, but I could speak for hours about British history, law, culture and politics. There is a reason for this. Racial pedigree is not important in America. What matters in America is language and culture, and that my readers is a distinctively British value. The United States of America needs to seriously look into establishing deeper economic and political ties with the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. This doesn't mean exporting our Amerocentric vision to them, but rather re-embracing that part of their culture that made us so great in the first place. The Anglophone people have really matured in the last 200+ years, and it's something Americans could really take a lesson from. For starters, they're not afraid of letting the people's will be heard. In 2014 the British people undertook a referendum in Scotland, which would have determined if Scotland itself could leave the UK and become its own independent nation. The Scottish people chose to stay within the UK by a margin of 55% to 45%, but stop and think about that. What does that say of the British government? Westminster was willing to part with nearly a third of Britain's entire land mass, all in the name of giving their own people independence if that's what they wanted. This is a far cry from where they were 240 years ago, when they went to war to stop the American colonies from breaking away. The United States just isn't there yet. It's doubtful Washington DC would allow a single state to hold an independence referendum today, and it waged a bloody Civil War 150 years ago to stop a number of states from seceding. Another example is healthcare. Every English-speaking country in the world invests in their citizens through a universal healthcare system of some kind, except the United States of America. This is because investing in the health of our own people is a British value, echoed in all Anglophone countries around the world, except the United States. That needs to change. It's a family value and it's a Christian value. America needs to wake up to that. Likewise, Britain is not afraid to admit that it is a Christian nation, founded on Christian principles, and retains a Christian government. That by no means implies that it's a perfect government, and history is replete with examples of failures. Nevertheless, the fact that any government would be willing to admit its Christian character, in this day and age of militant Secularism, is refreshing to say the least. Our own American government could learn a thing or two from this, as well as a number of our American people. Christian values are not Shariah values. Christians are tolerant and compassionate people, who leave non-Christians alone, and let them live in peace. As Britain has proved in the last century, being a Christian nation, with a Christian government, does not mean forbidding atheists bring expressing their views, or making non-religious people go to Church. The atheist and non-religious person is no safer than in a Christian nation with a Christian government. That is just a matter of historical fact now. America needs to remember these things, and now more than ever, America needs to remember that it is an Anglophone nation, with an Anglo-Celtic culture, brought into this world by the colonisation efforts of the British nation. Yes, we are an independent people now, and we won that independence in the American Revolution, but then Canada, Australia and New Zealand are also independent nations as well, having won their independence without firing a shot. We are all independent nations now, and Britain has returned to us as one since the Brexit. Each and every one of us, has now won its own independence, each in different ways, and we all have that in common now. The time has come to draw closer together as separate but equal nations, into united confederacy where each of us helps each other, without telling the other what to do. We can, as a Christian people, learn from the mistakes of the European Union, and build on a more solid foundation that is made with a common language, common Christian principles, and a common Anglo-Celtic culture. That time has come, and we would be foolish to let it slip by.

Last Thursday, something else happened too. Secular Globalism got its first good belt to the mouth, and it's not taking it well. This is why Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton look like somebody just shot their family dog. This is why European leaders are angry and rude. This is why global markets are in a tizzy. Something big has just happened, and it's upset the global trajectory of their New World Order, a global regime run by milti-national corporations, that divide the world into tidy continental trading blocks based on geography, erasing borders, language and culture. The EU was on the trajectory of becoming a tyranny, telling member-states what laws they could keep, and what they had to eliminate. Most notably, in Catholic countries, the EU has been attempting to force them to adopt abortion-on-demand and same-sex "marriage." This in addition to drastic changes to their economic policies, which have left Britain (and many other nations) more impoverished because of them. The Brexit has caused a reset for Britain, giving the British people a fresh new chance to build something better in the long run. For Europe it has brought soul-searching, and hopefully reform eventually. For the globalists, they just lost a lot of money and power, so naturally they're a little upset.

I think the most important thing that could be said right now is to assure everything that everything is going to be okay. The fluctuations in the stock markets are typical. This sort of thing happens every time there's a change in international politics. In a word, it's normal. If there is a recession coming, it won't be because of the Brexit. It will be because of the very instability of European markets Britons sought to escape with the Brexit. If there is a recession coming, it would have come anyway, with or without the Brexit. There is no need to worry about the devaluation of the British pound. That will stabilise in a few years on its own. Besides, the economic apocalypse that globalists were predicting (as a scare tactic) hasn't materialised. If it were going to happen, it would have happened within the first 48 hours of the Brexit. We are well beyond that window now. Fears of a Brexit-induced global economic catastrophe have been greatly exaggerated. It's time for all of us to handle this like the British; chin up and soldier on, brighter days are coming.



Shane Schaetzel is an author of Catholic books, and columnist for Christian print magazines and online publications. He is a freelance writer and the creator of 'FullyChristian.Com -- The random musings of a Catholic in the Ozarks.'

Catholicism for Protestants

Please share this story. Social media links provided below for your convenience... 

Friday, June 10, 2016

Anglosphere Rising?

The Anglosphere Challenge, James C. Bennett.In Bennett's "The Anglosphere Challenge"
Click Here for More Details

I am a proponent of the Anglosphere. What is it? Well, in a world of increasing globalisation, I believe agreements on trade, migration and defence should be more carefully rooted in our own culture and heritage, rather than artificial trading blocks such as NAFTA, TPP and the EU. In recent years we have witnessed the absolute havoc these treaties have wrought on the United States (US) and the United Kingdom (UK). In the US, American business has suffered immeasurably by NAFTA and soon the TPP, which have allowed corporations to move their manufacturing base off shore, to third-world nations, where products can be made at the fraction of the cost under near slave-labour conditions, with no significant penalty in selling these products back to the United States. Americans have also watched helplessly as items marked "Made in the USA" disappeared off the market shelves. Today, most of our groceries are imported from South America, and even many of our American flags are "Made in China." The industrial base of the United States has eroded to nothing. The blue-collar worker is fading away, and along with him, the American middle class. Then of course we have our illegal alien problem in the United States, which is not directly the result of trade agreements, but does play a role in them. Meanwhile, across the pond, the UK is now in the midst of the worse migration crisis since the Viking invasions over a thousand years ago. The UK's membership in the EU has forced Britons to accept millions of Muslim immigrants, and refugees, who are radically changing the very character of the nation. Now with the growing threat of the EU raising its own army, drafting UK citizens to serve in it, and taking over UK sovereignty on many more issues, many Britons are watching in horror as the nation they fought two world wars to protect, becomes absorbed into a pan-European superstate, run primarily by Germany.

The problems facing the US and UK are not entirely identical, but they are remarkably similar, and increasingly, the people of both unions are finding out that the only reasonable solution left is to take matters into our own hands, pull out of these artificial trade pacts, and work together to compete in a world of increasing globalisation. The people of the US have a lot more in common with the people of the UK than we do with the people of Mexico or South America and Southeast Asia. Likewise, the people of the UK have a lot more in common with the people of the US than they do with the people of Germany or Europe and the Middle East. There is an organic union between us, because we speak the same language, have a shared history, and a common worldview on law, religion and politics. Americans cannot deny their British heritage, anymore than Britons can deny their American offspring. There is an organic connection between us, and together we are stronger, while divided we fall.

Some Americans like to get a little overly-sentimental at this point, pulling up the events of 1776 - 1783, and yes, we are all familiar with that. However, nobody is talking about ceding American sovereignty back to the British crown. Granted, there are a few people who would like to see that, but for the most part, that is not something that most Americans (or Britons) take seriously. Working together as partners in trade, defence and migration is not the same as undoing the American Revolution. The United States is an independent nation now, with no subordination to the British crown or parliament. That's an established historical fact that is not likely to change. However, the US has already been working to defend the UK from German and Soviet aggressors for a century now, so there is nothing new about that. Expanding that role to include trade and migration, while pulling out of artificial treaties like NAFTA and the TPP, will only rebuild America's industrial might, giving the UK, as well as Australia and New Zealand, greater economic and military security.

Look, as it stands right now, The US and UK are taking a beating on the international scene. That's because other nations are taking advantage of us, and we've been letting them do it for decades. This has got to stop! As of the date of this essay (June 10, 2016), the British people are contemplating the most important decision they could make in 500 years. It's called the "Brexit," scheduled for a national vote on June 23, 2016 and it relates to Britain pulling out of the European Union (EU). This needs to happen, because if the British people are serious about remaining a sovereign nation, and the master of their own destiny, than they must wrestle control of their country away from the hands of their EU masters in Germany. Meanwhile, in the United States, the American people are contemplating a similar decision, playing out in a different way. The shocking success of Donald J. Trump's campaign for President of the United States is built upon the very same idea that it's time to take control of America's destiny out of the hands of artificial trade deals that benefit only the super-wealthy and international corporations. If both the Trump campaign and the Brexit are successful, what we will be witnessing is a rebirth of the Anglosphere. Unlike the old British Empire of days gone by, the Anglosphere will not be controlled by a central monarch in the UK. Rather, it will be a product of mutual cooperation between a mother country (UK) and her adult daughters (US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand), with that partnership extending out peripherally, in smaller ways, to other English-speaking (Anglophone) nations. The industrial powerhouse of this grand confederacy will be the United States and Canada of course, simply because of population and resources, while the UK, Australia and New Zealand become the chief beneficiaries of this both economically and militarily. Migration issues can be dealt with together among all these partner nations, according to rules set up that benefit the Anglosphere, not everyone else. All and all, it's a better way, a better path forward, and one in which we can strengthen our cultural ties, and rebuild our Anglo-Celtic identity.

In regards to culture and identity, I'm going to say something here that is probably going to irritate some of my readers, but it must be said. The Anglosphere, at least its core members, (consisting of the UK, Ireland, US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand), is an Anglo-Celtic confederacy of peoples. Now what does this mean? I am not speaking of race. So let's not go there. Yes, Anglo-Celtic people are those who originate from the British Isles, so race does play a small role in the origin of Anglo-Celtic culture, but culture and heritage are much bigger than race. Culture and heritage have to do with what native language you speak, what things you have in common with others who speak the same language, and the political/social worldview of those who speak the same language. The Anglo culture comes from the Anglo-Saxon people of Southern Britain (primarily England and Wales), while the Celtic culture comes primarily from Scotland, Northern Ireland, and the Republic of Ireland. In the United States, our language and culture derive primarily from these regions. While people of other parts of the world have always immigrated to the United States, they were historically expected to adopt the Anglo-Celtic ways (especially the English language) of the American people. Recently, that hasn't been the case so much, and that needs to change. We need to go back to the way we used to handle immigration.

A similar thing can be said of Canada, Australia and New Zealand. We are all Anglo-Celtic people, and this is what it means to be part of the Anglosphere. For those of you who would like to misconstrue what I've written here as some kind of racist rant, it will behove you to know that I consider people of African, Hispanic, and Asian racial heritage to be Anglo-Celtic as well, so long as they primarily speak English and identify as a committed citizen of one of the Anglosphere nations. Skin colour and racial pedigree mean nothing to me. What matters is language and culture.

On the subject of culture, I would like to elaborate. The word "culture" is derived from the Latin word cultus, which means "religion." I am a Roman Catholic, but I am also a supporter of the Anglican Patrimony within the Catholic Church. We are living in a very interesting time. At the beginning of this decade, Pope Benedict XVI signed an apostolic constitution called Anglicanorum Coetibus, meaning "Groups of Anglicans." This document created a provision within the Catholic Church, wherein Anglican and Methodist converts could be organised within the Catholic Church under their own episcopal jurisdiction. They must accept the full teachings of the Catholic Church of course, but once that is done, they are allowed to govern themselves according to their own Anglican Patrimony, heritage and pastoral custom. While the original Anglican Communion, the Protestant affiliation of churches that make up Anglicanism, continues to fall apart due to endless flirtation with moral relativism, it would appear that the Anglican Patrimony has found its new home in the Catholic Church, and it is within the Catholic Church it will thrive and flourish. As part of this flourishing, Catholics of the Anglican Patrimony are drawing upon religious texts and devotions from Medieval Britain, from before the Reformation, and in doing so are rebuilding a religious heritage that has slowly been fading away for the last half millennium. I find it providential that such a spiritual treasure, sure to strengthen and rebuild our Anglo-Celtic culture, has come into existence at this critical period of history, just before the re-emergence of the Anglosphere.

Of course, there is always the possibility that things could be delayed. The Brexit may fail, and Britain may fall into decades of subservience to its EU masters. Such a scenario can only end in violence for the people of the UK, who will eventually have to take back their country by force or lose it forever. It may take a few decades to reach that point, but the trajectory is unavoidable. Likewise, Donald J. Trump may lose his bid for the presidency, and Hillary Clinton may become the next President of the United States. If that happens, America will continue down a path of globalism that will benefit other nations, the ultra-wealthy, and international corporations more than the people of the United States. Such a trajectory can only end in prolonged economic depression, the loss of the middle class, and perhaps even violence someday. This wouldn't be the first time the UK and the US have chosen to go about history the hard way.

Even if this is the case, however, the provision Pope Benedict XVI made with Anglicanorum Coetibus still holds within it a glimmer of hope, albeit a smaller hope for a smaller Anglo-Celtic people, much further down the road. So by the end of this month, we shall see if the people of the UK are ready to control their own destiny again, and by the beginning of November, we shall know if the people of the US are ready to join them in this. 2016 may very well go down in history as the most pivotal year in the 21st century for English-speaking (Anglophone) people.

There are those who are forecasting an economic disaster if the Brexit succeeds and Donald J. Trump is elected president. I believe they are right, but what they intend to be scare tactics, to frighten voters into compliance with the globalists, is really just a subtle admission of how fragile their economic house of cards really is. Artificial economic/political unions, based entirely on geography and ideology, are weak and inherently unstable. They trend toward inequity and are prone to collapse. If the withdraw of one single member-state could produce a global recession, than we know the whole system was dangerously unreliable to begin with. Again, if the election of one candidate over another to the Whitehouse could produce similar results, we have ridiculously flimsy economic trade agreements. All the more reason to do the right thing and get out now, before its too late. So time will tell, and we may have half of our answer before my next blog entry.



Shane Schaetzel is an author of Catholic books, and columnist for Christian print magazines and online publications. He is a freelance writer and the creator of 'FullyChristian.Com -- The random musings of a Catholic in the Ozarks.'

Catholicism for Protestants

Please share this story. Social media links provided below for your convenience...