Jesus told several stories about a father with two sons, maybe because they so clearly illustrate the Two Ways of the spiritual life (cf, Ps 1).

In one such story, a father asks his two sons to help him with farm work—Boy, does this sound familiar! The first son answers, “I will not,” but afterwards, he regrets it and helps. The second son replies, “I will, sir,” but then does not help. Jesus then asked his audience (the chief priests and elders who were challenging his authority to teach), “Which of the two did the will of his father?” (Mt 21:28-32).

The correct answer is the first son, and in many ways this represents most of us who later repent of our earlier rebellions and by grace move back in line with the Father.

But last Saturday I was thinking about that well-meaning second son.

It was a beautiful cool Saturday morning. I was starting a project to which I had been looking forward: trimming the front bushes. This is an annual affair, and there’s just something inexplicably rewarding about the artistic creativity of using hand clippers to sculpture an out-of-control hedge into a pleasing, orderly, large green lozenge.

As I began, a well-meaning neighbor stopped by and offered me the use of his large heavy-duty electric hedge clippers. Pointing to his already completed 50-yards of hedge, he claimed that with his clippers, I could be done in fifteen minutes with hardly any sweat or effort.

For a second I was greatly tempted, but I thanked him and said that I really enjoyed doing this by hand, and besides, I was in no hurry. If I got it done in fifteen minutes, then what would I do? So, I refused his offer, and let him return to his own long list of chores.

I returned to my task, which I had previously been enjoying thoroughly, but now, I noticed that the sun was getting hotter. I began to sweat and weaken; my arms began to ache like trying to hold a bowling ball suspended in the air. So, I took a break, and increasingly my words to my neighbor began to haunt me: “No thanks…I’m in no hurry…I enjoy doing this by hand…besides, if I get it done, quickly, then what will I do?”

A long list of other things, including the first televised college football games of the season (!) began bombarding my mind. But I dutifully dragged myself back out to work, and soon my breaks came quicker and lingered longer. Soon I was needing to use the ladder, and my knees began quivering like a sewing machine, and the noon sun sent sweat dripping down my glasses. Eventually I could stand on the ladder with the clippers raised for only a few minutes at a time before I needed to return to my chair in the shade for a sip of my beverage of choice.

After five hours, give or take, I did it. I had trimmed all the front bushes, and, as I stood back admiring, it looked almost as if the house was smiling—or was it smirking?

The reason I thought of that second son was because many of us begin with high expectations, but as soon as we commit ourselves, express to anyone our high sounding plans and motives, the inner battle begins. The world, the flesh, and the devil all join forces in the attempt to convince us to follow in the footsteps of that second son.

As Jesus warned, whenever we commit ourselves to follow HIm, rather than the world, we are inviting a battle. But the end is worth it. And besides, He never calls us to do it alone.

And another thought: one of the biggest myths of the 20th century is that “time is money.” It isn’t. Time is time. What you judge worthy of your time is your decision, not the voices of the world imposing their values upon you. If your use of time is always measured by how much you think you are worth per hour, or how much you can accomplish, then in the end you may discover that in your use of “time” you have accomplished little of lasting value and enjoyed even less of the beauty of the moment. If you only see work as something to get done and behind you, so you can move on to something else, then you will always miss the message God was intending to tell you in the work, and that message may have involved growing through suffering. The feeling of satisfaction when you sit exhausted in the shade, beverage of choice in hand, studying the progress of your work, is but a blessed foretaste of the joys of heaven.

There is a television commercial, selling a certain satellite service, that uses a tongue-in-cheek form of illogical chain logic. The writers presume we know not to take their logic seriously, but they also presume that the humor of it will leave us with a positive view of their product.

The logic goes something like this:

1. (Not having their product) might leave one feeling empty.
2. Feeling empty makes one want to feel full.
3. Wanting to feel full makes one eat too much.
4. Eating too much makes one burst out of one’s clothing.
5. Bursting out of one’s clothing leaves one naked in the street.
6. Standing naked in the street leads to getting arrested.
7. Getting arrested for standing naked in the street puts one in jail.
8. Being put in jail for standing naked in the street gives one a strange reputation with your cellmates.
9. If you don’t want to have a strange reputation with your cellmates, then you need to buy their product.

It’s easy to follow the humor of this illogical logic, but it’s not always humorous when this kind of logic is used to interpret Scripture. For example, consider the following flow of logic in an article posted online entitled “A Defense of Sola Scriptura” (http://www.equip.org/articles/a-defense-of-sola-scriptura).

The first question the authors address is, “Does the Bible Teach Sola Scriptura?” and here is their logic:

1. Two points must be made concerning whether the Bible teaches sola Scriptura. First, as Catholic scholars themselves recognize, it is not necessary that the Bible explicitly and formally teach sola Scriptura in order for this doctrine to be true.
2. Many Christian teachings are a necessary logical deduction of what is clearly taught in the Bible (e.g., the Trinity).
3. Likewise, it is possible that sola Scriptura could be a necessary logical deduction from what is taught in Scripture.
4. Second, the Bible does teach implicitly and logically, if not formally and explicitly, that the Bible alone is the only infallible basis for faith and practice. This it does in a number of ways.
5. One, the fact that Scripture, without tradition, is said to be “God-breathed” (theopnuestos) and thus by it believers are “competent, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17, emphasis added) supports the doctrine of sola Scriptura.
6. This flies in the face of the Catholic claim that the Bible is formally insufficient without the aid of tradition.
7. St. Paul declares that the God-breathed writings are sufficient.
8. And contrary to some Catholic apologists, limiting this to only the Old Testament will not help the Catholic cause for two reasons: first, the New Testament is also called “Scripture” (2 Pet. 3:15-16; 1 Tim. 5:18; cf. Luke 10:7); second, it is inconsistent to argue that God-breathed writings in the Old Testament are sufficient, but the inspired writings of the New Testament are not.

Though their logic sounds like it works, it’s really more like the illogical logic in that commercial. (I can’t point fingers, because this is the exact logic I used when I was a Presbyterian minister to defend sola Scriptura.) Allow me to respond point by point:

1: “Two points must be made concerning whether the Bible teaches sola Scriptura. First, as Catholic scholars themselves recognize, it is not necessary that the Bible explicitly and formally teach sola Scriptura in order for this doctrine to be true.”

Since no “Catholic scholar” of repute has ever taught sola Scriptura or said exactly what the authors claim, then they give an assumption that totally sidesteps the very question they are trying to prove. What does sola Scriptura mean except that the Bible alone is the one trustworthy foundation for what is true? If this is true, why shouldn’t it necessarily be found in Scripture? Their argument begins by claiming that some un-named Catholic scholars (who do not believe in sola Scriptura) say that sola Scriptura doesn’t have to be in Scripture. How does this prove anything? As in the logic of the commercial, the entire flow of the argument stalls where it starts.

2: “Many Christian teachings are a necessary logical deduction of what is clearly taught in the Bible (e.g., the Trinity).”

The authors believe they are providing evidence for their previous step, but it only shows their dependence upon the very assumption they are trying to prove. Belief in the Trinity is not merely a “necessary logical deduction of what is clearly taught in the Bible”—this, rather, is the presumption of sola Scriptura folk who have no other foundation upon which to base their belief in the Trinity. The foundation for Christian belief in the Trinity has more to do with the authority of Sacred Tradition, as the bishops of the Church gathered at the Council of Nicea to discern what was the true Tradition as passed down from the churches of the Apostles. The Scriptural witness was a portion of that Sacred Tradition, but the very heretics the Council Fathers were fighting against were the sola Sciptura representatives of their day, who were using the logic of self-interpretation from the proof-texting of Scripture to propose a wide variety of heretical understandings of the relationship between God the Father, Jesus our Lord, and the Holy Spirit—precisely because the Trinity is not so “clearly taught in the Bible.” To understand the conclusion of the Trinity as a “necessary logical deduction” betrays a presupposition of sola Scriptura as the grid for interpreting the early church, which is a form of circular logic, rather than examining the actual facts of doctrinal history.

3: “Likewise, it is possible that sola Scriptura could be a necessary logical deduction from what is taught in Scripture.”

Since the logic of step 2 was flawed, then the “likewise” of step 3 is unfounded. Interestingly, notice that the authors sheepishly did not claim that sola Scriptura is a “necessary logical deduction from what is taught in Scripture.” Rather, they said “it is possible that [it] could be.” Why so hesitant to make their case?

4: “Second, the Bible does teach implicitly and logically, if not formally and explicitly, that the Bible alone is the only infallible basis for faith and practice. This it does in a number of ways.”

The authors now press forward, presuming they have sufficiently demonstrated that the belief that  “the Bible alone is the only infallible basis for faith and practice” does not have to be “explicitly and formally taught” within this “only infallible” source of truth. Without suggesting an alternate authority for this belief, they quickly move to prove that the Bible does in fact teach this! I learned, from having lived for nearly 40 years in the sola Scriptura camp, how dangerously easy it is to conclude almost anything “implicitly and logically, if not formally and explicitly” from Scripture. One can put together almost any three verses and make the Bible say whatever you want it to say. Why are there more than 30,000 separate Christian traditions/denominations in America, all teaching different theologies that they each believe are taught “implicitly and logically, if not formally and explicitly” in Scripture? Because the Bible alone, apart from Sacred Tradition and the teaching authority of the Church, was never intended to be the one “pillar and bulwark of the truth.” Rather, Scripture says that the Church is that (see 1Tim 3:15).

5: “One, the fact that Scripture, without tradition, is said to be “God-breathed” (theopnuestos) and thus by it believers are “competent, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17, emphasis added) supports the doctrine of sola Scriptura.”

In essence, the authors are assuming as true the very thing they are trying to prove. Let me begin by actually quoting the Scripture passage: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (NKJV). Note first that the apostle Paul does not say that ONLY Scripture is “God-breathed,” let alone does he clarify what he means by “God-breathed.” Nor does he say that the term “Scripture” that he uses is equivalent to what we mean 2000 years later by the term “Bible,” a collection of books written over a thousand year span by several dozen different authors, and which were not canonically defined until late in the 4th century by a group of Catholic bishops gathered in council. What Paul meant by “Scripture” he explains in the preceding verse, the “sacred writings” with which Timothy had “been acquainted … from childhood … which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 3:15). This could only have been what we have come to call the Old Testament, since most, if not all, of the New Testament books had not been written when Timothy was a child, especially given that Paul was in the very process of writing one of them.

6: “This flies in the face of the Catholic claim that the Bible is formally insufficient without the aid of tradition.”

To say that this argument consequently “flies in the face of the Catholic claim …” is quite a leap, because it is, essentially, an illogical conclusion from a previously insufficiently proven conclusion based upon a series of unproven assumptions. Once again, it rings of the illogical logic of the commercial.

7: “St. Paul declares that the God-breathed writings are sufficient.”

Here the authors impose their own conclusions upon St. Paul. If St. Paul was implying that the books Timothy had known since childhood (i.e., the OT) were sufficient (i.e., OT only) “for salvation,” then why was the NT needed, or why was the Ethiopian eunuch unable to understand the truth of the Gospel from reading the OT alone (Acts 8:27f)? My argument here is hardly sufficient, of course, to address all the authors’ assumptions, except to say that their proof-texting of inadequately defined terms does not necessarily “support the doctrine of sola Scriptura”, as they claim in Step 5—unless one first presumes this doctrine and then interprets the Scriptures based upon this presumption.

Interestingly, these authors are of the theology that claims “good works” are no longer necessary, since we have been saved “by grace through faith” alone, yet the very verse they use to defend sola Scriptura states that the reason God inspired “all Scripture” was so that believers are “competent, equipped for every good work.” Ironically, here is another example of how a Protestant “tradition” can trump the clear teaching of Scripture.

8: “And contrary to some Catholic apologists, limiting this to only the Old Testament will not help the Catholic cause for two reasons: first, the New Testament is also called “Scripture” (2 Pet. 3:15-16; 1 Tim. 5:18; cf. Luke 10:7); second, it is inconsistent to argue that God-breathed writings in the Old Testament are sufficient, but the inspired writings of the New Testament are not.”

First, the author’s bold assertion that “the New Testament is also called ‘Scripture’”, backed by their two proof-texts, is about as clearly proven as the last statement in the commercial’s logic: “If you don’t want to have a strange reputation with your cellmates, then you need to buy their product.” The majority of all faithful Protestant and Catholic theologians do not make the reverse extrapolation that what St. Peter said in 2 Peter 3:15-16 and what St. Paul said in 1 Timothy 5:18 proves, therefore, that the entire New Testament is called “Scripture.” It may be that St. Peter was viewing St. Paul’s “letters” as somehow equivalent to “the rest of the Scriptures,” but this involves reading a lot into this nebulous statement. What did St. Peter mean by “the rest of the Scriptures”? Since most Protestant and Catholic scholars agree that the early church writers read and quoted from the Septuagint Greek version of the Old Testament, and since this included those “Apocryphal books” which Catholics include in the Bible, but Protestants don’t, does this imply that the authors also include these “Apocryphal books” in “the rest of Scripture”?

Second, why is it “inconsistent to argue that God-breathed writings in the OT are sufficient, but the inspired writings of the NT are not”? That is the point: Who has the authority to determine and declare that the NT writings are inspired, or that the entire Bible collection of books is inspired? I believe they are inspired based upon the authority of the Church who, guided by the Holy Spirit, defined the canon of Scripture to include the NT books. The canon of Scripture was not a part of the books themselves, but essentially a part of Sacred Tradition. The only reason the statement might seem “inconsistent” is because there is no necessary direct connect between the inspiration of the OT and/or the NT. We believe they are “inspired” because of the authority of the Church.

I trust that the authors of this article are good, faithful, Bible-believing, Christian brothers, and for that I rejoice and pray for their continual conversion in union with Christ. Unfortunately, however, their conclusions are based too much upon circular logic, beginning with the very assumption they are trying to prove. Why? Because, like the commercial, dare I say it: they want the people who trust in their authority to buy their product. Such is the danger of illogical logic.

Do you see Him in the picture?

I was just sitting down to relax on our back porch, after splitting a cord of firewood for the winter, with beverage of choice in hand, when I noticed a face of someone looking at me from the trees! I took a double take and then a third, a couple gulps of my beverage of choice, and, sure enough, the face was still there!

I called my son Richard to come out of the basement, away from his computerized war game, and see. At first he didn’t, but then, in time, he saw, and said, matter-a-factly, “Wow”, and returned downstairs to his game.

I called my wife Marilyn to come out and see! She looked, saw nothing. Then when I more carefully directed her attention, she saw, but said, “Jesus? Looks more like the Jolly Green Giant,” and went inside to finish cooking dinner.

I sent the picture to some friends and most couldn’t see him, but my middle son, Peter (who’s discerning priesthood), replied, “Whoa!”

Do you see Him yet?

I remember once, driving in my car listening to the radio, and hearing about a man who was storing his George Foreman grill in his refrigerator because he clearly saw the face of Jesus in the congealed grease! We’ve all had people show us pictures of Jesus in cloud formations or heard of people seeing the face of Jesus or Mary in the rocks of a hillside or the dented side of an oil storage tank. What do we do with this stuff?

Once Jesus healed a man who was deaf and couldn’t speak. Afterwards, He charged the man “to tell no one” (Mk 6:36). Of course, the now hearing and speaking man was beside himself with joy, and “the more [Jesus] charged them, the more zealously they proclaimed it.” Biblical scholars have called this the Messianic Secret, or, as the footnotes in the RSVCE explain, “Knowing their nationalistic views about the Messiah to come, Jesus wished to avoid a tumult” (note for Mark 5:43).

This certainly is plausible, but I have always understood this differently: the healing of the man was primarily for him and his personal spiritual benefit, and not really for anyone else, for the purpose and power of the miracle too often loses its meaning in the telling. Certainly the man’s friends and family were probably impressed by what happened, but did they too quickly see everything in political Messianic terms, and miss the point of it: God, through this man, Jesus, had touched this deaf and speechless man because God loved him! God wanted this otherwise discouraged and lost man to know that the distant Creator of the Universe loved him personally! On the days that followed, were they all caught up in proclaiming Jesus as their long awaited political savior, or did the miracle cause them to fall to their knees in recognition of the proof of the reality and love of God?

Do you see Him yet? Maybe the picture to the right will help. Now, I don’t want a stream of buses descending upon the peacefulness of our farm! Because, frankly, I think this “miracle” was intended only for me. I had lately been feeling a bit of discouragement, particularly about whether there was any altruistic purpose to focusing so much time and effort into this farm! And as I sat, sweating, grumbling, close to swearing, there He was.

He has done this many times in my life, in a myriad of different ways, “miraculously appearing,” giving a glimpse of His love and nearness, just to remind me that He is here and very, very real.

Once years ago I was skiing, and poised on the pinnacle of the tallest slope, ready to descend through a freezing low-visibility fog, and as I reached up to lower my goggles, I accidentally bumped my eyes and both contacts popped out onto the snow!! I CANNOT SEE WITHOUT EITHER GLASSES OR CONTACTS! How was I ever to get down? So I dropped to my knees, uttered a quick desperate prayer, “Please, please Jesus, help me!” And wouldn’t you know it? I immediately found both contacts in the snow!! This was nothing short of a miracle! No one else was all that impressed—it lost its power and meaning in the telling—but I knew: it was Jesus reminding me just how close He is to all of us. And I thanked and praised Him! It was no coincidence; it was not because of my skills at finding needles in haystacks; it was the gentle nudge of His love.

If these miracles, like the face of Jesus in our trees—and, yes, Marilyn was right, in this particular instance, He does seem to have come in the image of the Jolly Green Giant—if these miracles are meant primarily as private, personal reminders of God’s intimacy, then why am I proclaiming this to the world in my blog? Because I believe God is doing this to every one of us all the time. The question is are we looking for Him, and do we recognize Him, and His miraculous interventions, or just writing everything off as coincidences or figments of our imagination?

A good friend, Brother Rex (a diocesan hermit) sent me this wonderful quote in response to the picture:

Earth’s crammed with heaven,
And every common bush afire with God,
But only he who sees takes off his shoes;
The rest sit round and pluck blackberries.
                      – Elizabeth Barrett Browning

That’s it! Are we just plucking berries, or recognizing and enjoying the intimacy of God?

Oh, and one more thing, do you see the angel hovering over our farm?

Every morning of every day all around the world every Catholic bishop, priest, deacon, and religious is required to pray the Liturgy of the Hours, for their own spiritual enrichment as well as in union with the entire Church. This daily ritual begins with the praying of the Invitatory.

The following is a one-act play in which we experience the meditation of a local bishop wishing only the best for the men who serve beside him.

 ***************

 The Set:      Mostly bare stage except:

1)    To the far stage right: a simple bed with a tall head board toward the audience—the bed canted slightly so that a person getting out on the side away from the audience is blocked from view by the head board; a night stand with a clock and lamp on the audience side of the bed; next to the bed towards center stage within arms reach is a self-standing clothes rack with a bishops clericals and cross.

2)    At Center stage: an altar with candles, a tabernacle, a suspended crucifix, and a Prie Dieu, situated so that when bishop knees, is positioned in silhouette to the audience.

 Actors:  Thirteen men, one as a bishop, and the other twelve as priests. The priests are dressed in clericals in an array of tidiness, some respectful, others slovenly, etc.

Initial staging: Curtains closed; stage completely dark; the twelve priests are standing behind curtain far stage left each holding an article that represents a distraction to their calling to the priesthood; the bishop is in bed in nightclothes (out of sight of audience, hidden by bed headboard).

Beginning of play: House lights go completely dark, curtain opens to a dark stage.

 Clock alarm sounds and resounds.

Eventually the bishop turns night stand light on. All that the audience sees is the bishop’s hand. Light should be only bright enough to barely illumine the far right of stage.

Bishop then stops alarm and slowly sits up on side of bed away from audience. Audience should only see his back. He reaches over to clothes rack for clerical shirt and puts it on. He then stands up out of view of audience, reaches for pants and puts them on. He reaches for pectoral cross and puts it on. Then crosses to night stand and turns off lamp. Stage and house are once again dark.

Slowly a sharp but dim light comes on focused on the center altar.

The bishop crosses to the light carrying a black breviary and with a match slowly lights the candles until with the aid of a spot light the altar area alone is lit. He then kneels before altar so that his left side faces the audience, putting him in silhouette. After a period of silence he crosses himself and begins the Invitatory.

Bishop:    “Lord, open my lips…and my mouth shall proclaim Thy praise.”

He bows his head slightly as he recites: “Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit; as it was in the beginning, is now, and will be forever. Amen.

Silence

Bishop:     “Cry out with joy to the Lord, all the earth; serve the Lord with gladness.”

 He looks down at the breviary and reads aloud, a tone of tired sadness…

“Psalm 95…A call to praise God…Encourage each other daily while it is still today.”

He pauses in silence and then looks stage left.

A spot light slowly rises on stage left revealing the priests standing around frozen in various poses of attention, some facing others in apparent conversation, others alone.

The bishop rises and steps a few paces toward the twelve priests. When he begins speaking to them, the priests come into action, their conversations muted, etc.

Bishop:       “Come, let us sing to the Lord and shout with joy to the Rock who saves us…”

 Some of the priests stop what they are doing and listen.

Bishop:       “Let us approach him with praise and thanksgiving and sing joyful songs to the Lord.”

Six of the priests leave behind their distractions and cross to the bishop. They greet each other, receive the bishop’s blessing, walk to the altar, and together kneel.

Bishop and six priests:  “Cry out with joy to the Lord, all the earth; serve the Lord with gladness.”

 The bishop rises again and addresses the remaining six priests stage left.

 Bishop:     “The Lord is God, the mighty God, the great king over all the gods…”

The remaining priests continue looking at their distractions or talking softly, but two slowly lay their distractions down.

Bishop:     “…He holds in his hands the depths of the earth and the highest mountains as well. He made the sea; it belongs to him, the dry land, too, for it was formed by his hands.”

The two priests walk to bishop, greet him, receive his blessing, and then together they kneel with the others at the altar.

Bishop and eight priests: “Cry out with joy to the Lord, all the earth; serve the Lord with gladness.”

The bishop rises and beckons silently to the remaining four priests who in various ways, some belligerent, others reluctantly, turn from him.

Bishop to the eight:  “Come, then, let us bow down and worship, bending the knee before the Lord, our maker. (He kneels again and faces the altar) For he is our God and we are his people, the flock he shepherds.”

Bishop and the eight: “Cry out with joy to the Lord, all the earth; serve the Lord with gladness.”

The bishop once again rises and crosses several steps toward the remaining four priests, and beckons to them…

Bishop:     “Today, listen to the voice of the Lord: do not grow stubborn, as your fathers did in the wilderness…”

The four remaining priests pause; three slowly look down at their distractions and then to the bishop; the fourth looks down and away.

Bishop:     “…when at Meriba and Massah they challenged me and provoked me, although they had seen all of … my … works.”

The bishop drops his face, reflectively, looking at own hands. The three priests drop their distractions, cross to the bishop, and grasp his hands in greeting. After receiving his blessing, the three join the eight and kneel. The bishop remains facing the one remaining priest. Together the bishop and the eleven speak…

Bishop and the eleven:  “Cry out with joy to the Lord, all the earth; serve the Lord with gladness.”

Bishop alone, beckoning to the one remaining priest: “Forty years I endured that generation. I said, “They are a people whose hearts go astray and they do not know my ways…”

 The remaining priest glances at his distraction, then to the bishop, and then back finally to his distraction.

The bishop continues to beckon: “So I swore in my anger… ‘they shall not enter into my rest.’”

The priest looks up at the bishop, but then turns his back on him and faces off stage left. The bishop sadly turns and joins the eleven and together they speak…

Bishop and the eleven “Cry out with joy to the Lord, all the earth; serve the Lord with gladness.”

All bowing slightly: “Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit…

 Bishop rises and looks toward the priest standing left still facing off left…

 “as it was in the beginning, is now, and will be for ever…Amen.”

The stage lights go down leaving only the flickering lights of the candles.

Bishop and the eleven priests: “Cry out with joy to the Lord, all the earth; serve the Lord with gladness.”

 The curtains close.

After 40 years of ministry, half as a Protestant and half as a Catholic, I’ve come to the deep conviction that every single person needs continual conversion, especially when it comes to me. I’m constantly being startled by new aspects of this wonderful Catholic faith, which I thought I had come to understand, but which in reality I understand only as “in a mirror dimly.” And I believe the cause behind most of the conflicts that divide Christians stems from this need for continual conversion, from the top down.

Allow me to illustrate this with a diagram:

The above three circles represent:

CIRCLE A: An individual’s formation before and apart from the person’s formation as a Catholic Christian. This represents all the sources of information—pastors, teachers, books, media, experiences, family, friends, etc.—that form an individual’s understanding of God, life, religion, self, etc., before the person receives specific instruction as a Catholic Christian. For converts to the Catholic faith, this includes their non-Catholic formation and convictions as well as any non-Catholic bias and false representations of Catholic beliefs. For life-long Catholics, this sometimes could include childhood formation at home, school, or parish before they experienced an “adult awakening” which instills within them a desire to “relearn” their faith and live it more fully and faithfully.

CIRCLE B: The new “Catholic” sources of formation that awaken an individual’s desire for a deeper understanding of the Catholic faith and/or a conversion to the Catholic religion, as well as the ongoing formation of that individual’s understanding of the faith. This includes teachers, books, media, experiences, family, friends, even sometimes Catholic television programs.

CIRCLE C: The true fullness of the Catholic faith, teaching, and experience, which is not necessarily equivalent to (B) what Catholic teachers, writers, media spokesmen, or even some members of the Catholic clergy proclaim. This represents what is in fact true.

The following combination of these three circles is one way of representing an individual’s present formation in relation to the three sources mentioned:
In other words, there are at least five kinds of knowledge and/or experiences that make up our present state of formation:

“A” represents the residual “baggage” of our past knowledge and experience, which continues, sometimes subconsciously, on into our present religious life, but still needs examination and correction.

“A-B” represents those aspects of our past knowledge and experience that did not need to change as a result of our conversion, areas of equivalence.

“B” represents things we learned from “Catholic” sources that are not precisely in line with the fullness of the truth; things we were taught to be true and necessary by sincere believing Catholics, but instead are less than accurate expressions of the Catholic faith, some of which may remain undetected until challenged.

“B-C” represents those aspects of Catholic truth we learned, which required radical changes from our past. Doctrines, ways of living, ethics, and morals, that we had to relearn or correct.

“C” represents those aspects of Catholic truth that we have yet to learn.

For example, in my own journey:

“A” includes lingering presumptions I have about the surety of my salvation, based on my previous longstanding presumptions of “once saved—always saved.”

“A-B” includes my continuing belief in the Trinity and Mary as Mother of God.

“B” includes certain devotional practices and radical misrepresentations of Church teachings.

“B-C” includes many things, like the trustworthiness of Sacred Tradition, the authority of the Magisterium in union with Peter, and intercession of the Saints.

“C” includes lots of stuff (!) I’ve yet to learn!

If you reflect on the significance of this diagram, you will see how different it is for each person, sometimes radically different even between life-long Catholics. We each have differing levels of residual baggage from our formative years (A), of less-than-accurate information we’ve picked up along the way from less-than-accurate sources (B), and, of course, lots of the truth we’ve yet to learn (C).

And it is the conflict of these differences that continues to plague the Christian community, because every Christian confronts other Christians with differing combinations of formation, which is one of the reasons every single one of us (maybe mostly me) needs continual conversion.

When St. Augustine said, “In essentials unity, non-essentials diversity, in all things charity,” he didn’t foresee the extent to which modern Christians are divided over what are essentials and non-essentials, and the extremes to which we would forget charity.

I chose not to say that we need “continual catechetical instruction,” because what is needed is not merely a matter of continual education, but of spiritual change, a change that is primarily the work of God, not of ourselves, a growth in holiness.

What this requires is a continual recognition of the inadequacies, holes, and blind-spots in our spiritual formation, and a humble willingness to continually examine our understanding and practice of the faith. As Jesus himself instructed in his Sermon on the Mount, we need the “attitudes of the Beatitudes”: poverty of spirit, mourning for our sins, meekness, a hungering and thirsting for righteousness, purity of heart, etc., all of which lead us to grow more deeply in our union with Christ and His Church.

Our Lord once made a disturbing revelation to his followers:

Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness! (Mt 7:21-23)

How can our Omniscient Lord Jesus not “know” us? He knows us each better than we know ourselves! Most sincere Christians do all we can to “know, love, and serve” Him, but how is it that He might fail to know us?

Remember those five maidens who did not have enough oil for their lamps? Why didn’t the bridegroom let them into the marriage feast? Because He said, “I do not know you” (Mt 25:12).

In our journeys of faith, are we continually preparing ourselves to meet Him? And when we do, will He know us?

In light of the diagram, I believe one way we can become better known by Him, is through continual self-examination, identifying residual baggage that holds us back (A) as well as inaccurate new information (B) that needs to be purged from our hearts and minds, so that our knowledge and practice can grow more in union with Him and His Church (C).

This is essentially what Saint Paul instructed the Christians at Corinth: “Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, and make holiness perfect in the fear of God” (2 Cor 7:1).