During this Holy Week, let us contemplate the Passion – the price Jesus paid to redeem us.

And as we exit from this week into the glory of Our Lord’s Resurrection, – first and foremost, let us truly live what we have been so blessed to receive; – then let us make a firm resolution to tell others about this treasure that we have…let us be courageous in sharing what God has done for us, and given us….

This Christian Duty  (and IT IS a duty), to share the Gospel with those who haven’t received it is very serious indeed! It can be a sin of omission…if we don’t do it…if we remain silent about our Faith in front of others…especially if others ridicule it.

Jesus Christ: (Son of God and Redeemer of mankind)

“Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.” [--- Matt 10:32] 

At the beginning of Mass we often pray the “I confess” (the confiteor) which includes this line…

Divine Catholic Liturgy: 

“…what I have done and what I have failed to do…” [--- referring to sins of omission]

On this very topic, I was recently sent these news articles (here & here) reporting that the brother of Terri Schiavo (the woman who was murdered/euthanised last year in the US), had denounced his local bishop with a public letter for remaining silent and inactive in the fight to save Terri’s life. The letter strongly condemns the bishop’s lack of action and silence: letter here, and points out his alleged hypocrisy in later teaching about aiding the poor. Read the letter.

This brings up the question/notion of what the duties/obligations of a bishop are with regard to matters that concern him on Faith and Morals, not just inside the Church, but also in society.

Let’s have a look at what the Popes says about this duty of bishops to preach the truth to the world.

Pope Benedict XVI:

“As successors of the apostles you are ‘doctors of the faith,’ authentic doctors who with the same authority of Christ, above all proclaim to the people the faith we must live and believe…” [--- Allocution teaching a group of new prelates, 19 September 2005]

‘Doctor’, from the Latin means ‘Teacher’. Ideally, they should act and teach like true doctors…however in these times….sadly it’s often not the case…with even bishops seriously contradicting the Faith.

 Pope Pius XII:

“Catholic theologians and philosophers, whose grave duty it is to defend natural and supernatural truth, and instill it in the hearts of men, cannot afford to ignore or neglect…erroneous opinions.” [--- Humani Generis, Encyclical concerning threats to Catholic Doctrine, 2 August 1950]

Silence on important matters can sometimes mean culpability and complicitness with a crime/sin. Consider those death camps in Nazi Germany and how nearby villagers didn’t want to know what was going on – they preferred to be silent or be willfully ignorant. Or those who didn’t speak up and codemn Nazism when they should have…

Pope Benedict XIV:

“Two chief obligations, have been imposed by the Council of Trent on those who have the care of souls [especially bishops]: first, that of preaching the things of God…and second, that of teaching the rudiments of faith and of the divine law to [those] who need such instruction.” [--- Etsi minime, Encyclical, 7 February, 1742]

So it seems, for a bishop that there is an obligation to the world to (1) proclaim the truth, which means that there is an implicit obligation (2) to refute error, in the process of proclaiming this truth - with regard to Faith and Morals.

Pope Pius X:

 

“It is well to emphasize and insist that for a priest [or bishop] there is no duty more grave or obligation more binding than this [to teach the truth].” [--- Acerbo Nimis, Encyclical On Teaching Christian Doctine, 15 April 1905]

Euthanasia touches directly on morals, and in this case it was directly affecting a Catholic family under this bishop’s pastoral care; and was hotly debated in the media all over the world. It was setting a precedent. It needed clear teaching from the local ordinary. Allegedly this bishop refused to help the Schiavo family – a family in his diocese.

Further, St Thomas Aquinas adds that there are 2 obligations for bishops when refuting error:

St Thomas Aquinas:

“Superiors have a double responsibility in this regard, first of all to silence those who teach false doctrine, and secondly to prevent the Faithful from listening to those teaching such doctrine”

How would a bishop silence such teaching of a baptized person? or prevent the baptized listening to such errors? – through fraternal correction of the teacher, by threat of excommunication, by warning his Faithful about the errors, telling them not to go to hear such a teacher, and preventing the use of Catholic premises, including Churches…etc…for the propagation of such error.

How would he silence or refute the errors of non-Catholics in the world on serious matters? By making clear public statements about the Truth and refuting the errors with solid argumentation; and condemning erroneous (or sinful) actions; using all the political power necessary which is available to him – to try and stop it. The Vatican and the Pope often does this.

What does the Catechism say about this:

Catechism of 1992: 

“…we have a responsibility for the sins of others when we co-operate with them…by…approving of them…or by…not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so.” [--- CCC 1868] 

Lack of teaching against a particular error or sinful action could well be considered “…not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so…”. These days when a bishop or christians speak out against objectively proven heresies, errors, or sins, many christian people, including Catholics, often rally to the defence of the person, or priest, or bishop, who supports the error – as if it is charitable to do so…We should never defend another’s sin – it is one of the ways we participate and become responsible for that sin.

What else do the Popes say…?

Pope Pius X:

“We must now consider upon whom rests the obligation to dissipate this most pernicious ignorance and to impart in its stead the knowledge that is wholly indispensable.

There can be no doubt…that this most important duty rests upon all who are pastors of souls [bishops].”

“On them, by command of Christ, rest the obligations of knowing and of feeding the flocks committed to their care; and to feed implies, first of all, to teach.”

“These are…the pastors and teachers appointed by Christ in order that the faithful might not be as “children, tossed to and fro and carried about by every wind of doctrine devised by the wickedness of men,” but that practicing “the truth in love,”  they may, “grow up in all things in him who is the head, Christ.”

“For this reason the Council of Trent, treating of the duties of pastors of souls [above all bishops], decreed that their first and most important work is the instruction of the faithful…”

“The Council provided…by adding that the pastors…must explain the truths of religion…and inculcate obedience to God…”

“The teaching of the Catechism…when rightly done…never fails to profit those who listen to it.” [--- Acerbo Nimis, Encyclical On Teaching Christian Doctine, 15 April 1905]

Teaching is the first duty of the bishop, because without it nobody would be in Church to receive the Sacraments, or instruction. Baptism would not be requested or desired if one hadn’t had Christ preached to them yet, in one way or another.

Pope Pius XI:

“…the Church…can in no way renounce the duty that God has entrusted to her to interpose her authority…in all things that are connected with the moral law.”

“The deposit of truth that God committed to Us, and the grave duty of disseminating and interpreting the whole moral law, and of urging it [teaching it], in season and out of season, bring subject to Our supreme jurisdiction, not only social order, but economic activities themselves.” [--- Quadragesimo Anno, Encyclical on Reconstruction of the Social Order, 15 May 1931]

I think that Terri’s brother has a point….what do you guys think? 

On a positive note, here is a briliant example of the Italian bishops teaching moral truth to the world by condemning the proposed civil unions bill and warning Catholic politicians that they have an obligation to vote against it before God: here & here.

CWNews: 

Archbishop Angelo Bagnasco said that if the government offers civil-union status to homosexual couples, it will be impossible to draw the line against other relationships. “Why say No to incest?” he asked, adding that “…there would be no clear reason to refuse recognition for pedophiles, too.”

“When one loses the correct conception of the human person, there are no criteria for evaluating good and bad. When the dominant criterion is public opinion, or the voting majority, it is then very difficult to say ‘No’” - the archbishop said. [--- article here]

Cardinal O’Connor of England has also taught the truth strongly about this.

Also the Mexican bishops have strongly taught for life, and condemned the culture of death propagated by the “Herods and Pilates” of our times. 

————————————————

Considering this duty to teach truth and refute error for every Christian in their own little circumstances (not just Bishops), I would like to warn against a most dangerous deception that seems to be returning and growing…

Oprah Winfrey is promoting a dangerous New Age deception called “The Secret”. It is a rehash of some old hereises and new age stuff, but it has fast gained world wide acceptance among many people struggling to find happiness in this life. See it here on myspace, and the follow up show here. Have a look and make sure you undertstand what it is and how it is wrong – (we can discuss that in this post). Who knows, somebody may bring it up at work or even in your family.

Peace all – this is Agnes Day’s last post. Hope you’ve enjoyed the ride…

Sorry in advance for the length, just read the bits under the headings you’re interested in… 

—————————————————————

Murder: (deliberate taking of an innocent life)

Some readers may have heard or seen this story last week…- man who drowned baby daughter jailed for at least 17 years. Reading about this I was saddened and horrified, as any New Zealander would be. Thankfully justice was served.

It did make me think about how this is not much different to a woman murdering her baby in her own womb, and how such justice should find those who murder in that way too. This one murdered his child in the waters of the bath, and others murder their children in the waters of the womb. Time being the only real difference.

Last year, Cardinal Alfonso López Trujillo, the head of the Pontifical Council for the Family said:

“Today people want to trivialise abortion with the claim that authorities must not penalise this abominable crime. It is not acceptable that this crime should remain unpunished.”

The Mexican Bishops have also just called abortion and infanticide “abominable crimes”, thus echoing the words of Vat II; and they also referred to the ideology of abortion as a “program of extermination”. For many reasons, the modern holocaust of abortion is actually far worse that the Jewish Holocaust during WWII, but yet its acceptacle to many, including some Catholics!

If captial punishment was still applicable, these grim-reaper-abortionists (callous pre-meditated multiple murder of the most innocent and defenceless) would certainly qualify.

This man who drowned his own daughter has been punished by human justice which should be a temporal arm of Divine Justice (if it’s authentic); but unless he repents to God for this act (it’s quite possible he has), he won’t escape Divine Justice. Let us pray for him and for the mother of the baby.

Don’t forget, everybody has the natural law inscribed on their heart, and knows it’s wrong to commit murder (as long as they are sane). These days people use crafty, but false sophistry, to intellectually, morally, or legally sidestep the crime. 

For those who commit and perpetrate abortion; they may escape human justice temporarily, but Divine Justice can’t be side-stepped so easily; unless they repent, and even then, there is still the temporal punishment for sin, which requires atonement through penance. Let us pray for them for that, with mercy, … – a sincere recognition and repentance of their sin; and a true desire to atone for such disrespect of the sacredness of life.

—————————————————————

Liberation Theology:

Also, I see that the vatican has issued a warning and condemnation against the teachings and writings of Fr Jon Sobrino, SJ, who was an active proponent of some serious errors, including elements of Liberation Theology: here, here , here and here.

—————————————————————

Sacramentum Caritatis:

Sacramentum Caritatis was released last week. This document is a Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation on the Eucharist from Pope Benedict XVI. It was at this Synod in 2005 that Archbishop John Dew requested that the Church change its doctrine on Communion so that…

(1.) …those Catholics who are immorally and illicitly “remarried” can receive Communion,

and also, so that…

(2.) …their non-Catholic Christian spouses can receive Communion.

Read what he said here.

The issue of immorally “remarried”  Catholics is clear. Church teaching on this is doctrinal because it is based on the indissolubility of marriage, which Jesus Himself taught, and because one must be in Communion with the Church (on Faith and morals) and in a state of grace to receive Communion. This is all doctrinal and had been re-affirmed by this Apostolic Exhortation from the Pope.

The problem with this second request is multiple:

The Archbishop seems to imply that because our separated brethren (non-Catholic Christians)…

(1.) …may have received a valid baptism -

…if they used the right form and matter and had the same intention as the Church. Since the 3rd centruy the Church has affirmed that heretics and others can validly baptise as long as they meet those fundamentals/requirements listed above; even though they may not even have the correct theology of baptism, but they still may receive it),

and..

(2.) …because they actually do receive the Sacrament of Marriage when marrying a Catholic -

…even non-Catholic Christians receive the Sacrament of Marriage extra-ordinarily, which is distinct from natural marriage, if they are both validly baptised, and fulfill the correct requirements for valid marriage; even though they may not even recognise correct theology of marriage, but they can still receive it…

…then, the Archbishop asks,…

Why can’t they also partake of the Bread of Life with us? Why can’t they also receive this Sacrament too?

St Paul teaches that to receive Communion one has to profess belief formally in what Holy Communion is (i.e., confess with the mind and lips the Faith of the Church and join the Catholic Church).

It is a sham, a false idea of unity, a lie expressed with the body, to go up to Communion (the reality of the Jesus Christ, body, blood, soul, and Divinity, under the appearances of bread and wine — trans-substantiation) and receive it while not believing in it. The Pope expressed this in the Exhortation – even Catholics must believe, or not receive.

Communion with Christ cannot be separated from communion with the Church. 

If one doesn’t believe in it, there isn’t any unity with the reality of the Sacrament (who is Christ in the case of the Eucharist), nor is there any unity of the person’s faith with the Faith of the Church; they aren’t in communion with the Church, so to go to Communion as a sign of that unity, is false, and almost hypocritical (depending on the circumstances), i.e., if one knows what the Church believes and requests, but goes up to Communion anyway without subscribing to that, it suggests a lack of moral integrity and conscience – a lack of intellectual honesty.

An anology is this: a person goes to his friend’s Church and wants to be baptized, but doesn’t actually believe in God, or Jesus Christ, or the salvific mission…should he be baptized and receive the sacrament? The answer is obvious. He must profess belief in what the sacrament offers in a fundamental way (we’re not talking about some of the effects or fruits of the sacrament).

And if these non-Catholic Christians believe in the Real Presense, which is a fundamental building block of our Faith, then by all means joins us and become Catholic and come to Communion.

It does seem strange that Archbishop Dew would ask for such a thing…maybe it suggests that he doesn’t know or submit to the doctrinal Faith of the Church; or that his own faith is out of step with the Faith of the Church…which he then tries to imprint on the Church at an Apostolic Synod – without much success.

The complete text of the Pope’s Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation  can be found here. A summary of the key points of the document is here.

—————————————————————

Refusal of Holy Communion:

Also, here is an answer from a priest, and Canon Law regarding the criteria for refusing Holy Communion to somebody – what the Church actually teaches.

2 weeks ago we looked at the Virtue of Faith. This week we’ll have a quick look at one of the sins against Faith, heresy – and how conscience is often falsely used to justify an obstinant heretical position in the Church.

The Catechism (2089) and Canon Law defines these 3 sins against the Faith:

Can. 751

“- heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith;

- apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith;

- schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

Can. 752

“Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.”

In these days many nominal Catholics don’t care at all, – and even willfully embrace many heretcial ideas.

Often by subscribing to a false notion of conscience to falsely aleviate themselves of the necessity of obedience of Faith required to be Catholic. They think that they can just follow their conscience, adhereing to all sorts of heretical ideas, and it’ll be ok – they don’t have to follow the teachings of the Church to have Faith – their conscience is higher than the Magisterium.

They fail to realise that they have a moral obligation to inform and form their conscience in the truths of Faith – then humbly submit to those truths that God has revealed – and to the doctrines that the Church formulates from these truths. If they fail to do so, they could be guilty of wilful ignorance.

See here for an excellent outlay of conscience by Bishop Fisher (of Sydney) who recently gave this address in Rome to the Pontifical Academy for Life (it’s worth reading).

There are also those who think that dissent is in fact a form of obedience, in the Faith. Nothing could be further from the truth. Dissent is the opposite to the true Catholic sentiment of assent to Revealed Truth.

Dissent, if pernicious, is actually a form of intellectual pride. If one wilfully dissents from doctrine or dogma, one can be guilty of heresy – Martin Luther being the prime example. These days, it is often disguised by the phrase – “the Church wants thinking, questioning Catholics…”

This is often put across as if we should question some of the more speculatiave ideas around the Faith, but really, it is a cunning disguise to lead unwitting Catholics to question every moral and doctrine of the Faith. Why, because often, these dissenters think that Catholics who humbly submit to the Truths of the Faith are mindless and robotic, and need “enlightenment” and “freeing” from the “anti-pastoral tyrannical controlling Magisterium who has no idea what it is like for everyday Catholics on the ground….”

I have personally seen this happen where this phrase – “informed justified dissent” – was used to bring up the notion of the “primacy of conscience” when dealing with the moral issues of abortion, sodomy, and contraception – in regard to being Catholic – as if it was an issue of justice to disobey God and the Church on these issues due to “pastoral concerns” of not wanting offend anybody – because of course, God has given us freedom and we should be able to do anything we want – right? God doesn’t force anybody to act in any particular way – right?…

This whole problem flows from a false idea of freedom. We are free to do the good! Not evil! There is no “right” to do evil, or to propagate error (heresy). However, there is a “right” and an obligation to form one’s conscience in the truth.

Here is an excerpt from Bishop Fisher (mentioned above) on this matter:

“John Paul II took the opportunity of the 25th anniversary of “Humanæ vitæ” to publish his groundbreaking encyclical “Veritatis splendor.” Here he reasserted the teaching of Vatican II that Christ and the Church can, have and do teach definitively in moral matters, and that a well-formed Christian conscience will be informed by such authoritative teaching. Here one ought to proceed with obedience of faith, submitting one’s experience, insights and wishes to the judgment of the Gospel, prepared to reform oneself according to the mind of Christ authentically transmitted by the Church. Conscience is indeed the proximate norm of personal morality, but its dignity and authority “derive from the truth about moral good and evil, which it is called to listen to and to express.” Sincerity cannot establish the truth of a judgment of conscience and freedom is never freedom from the truth but always and only freedom in the truth. The magisterium does not bring to the conscience truths which are extraneous to it, but serves the Christian conscience by highlighting and clarifying those truths which a well-formed conscience ought already to possess.” 

This false idea of “freedom of conscience” is often used to justify Catholics holding views and moral positions which are contrary to the Faith; – and if these people perniciously (wilfully and knowingly) hold to these heresies, thus losing the Faith, and lead others to do so, they will lose He, who is the object of Faith, through grace, and will be cut off from the Book of Life – serious stuff.

Of course, repentance and conversion is the beautiful solution to these obstinantly heretical positions which lead to immoral behaviours, sinful actions, and finally to eternal damnation.

God is Truth, let us conform ourselves to that Truth so as to have communion with Him for eternity.

The Church also makes the distinction between material heresy and formal heresy.

Material heresy is where a person has the “matter of heresy” (theological error) and obstinantly holds or doubts something contrary to the Faith, and contrary to Divine Revelation.

If the person obstinantly doubts or denies a dogma or doctrine of the Faith that they know the Church Teaches with authority, they place themselves out of communion with the Church; and into a state of mortal sin; and seriously endanger their salvation. The virtue of Faith is dead in them if they are at fault.

Notice the use of the term “obstinantly” – it means that the will is involved in not wanting to submit, or inform the mind of the truth of the matter. Just having a doubt here or there about something is not being guilty of heresy. If that is the case, then one should seek out good books, or the Catechism, or a good priest to clarify the matter – seeking the truth, which is the correct attitude for a Catholic – not questioning and doubting everything the Church has ever taught.

God doesn’t judge and condemn people who don’t know something due to no fault of their own. But a person who obstinantly holds to an error even after discovering the truth of it, is guilty of heresy. This only applies to the baptized.

Formal heresy is where a person, even after correction from Church Authority, obstinantly (wilfully) holds to the error, thus refusing communion with the Church, and the authority of the Church, and cutting themselves off from Christ.

Then the Church can pronounce a judgement that they are formally guilty of heresy, and formally a heretic, and no longer in communion with the Church. They don’t just hold the “matter of heresy” internally, but also, they externally/outwardly manifest the “form of heresy” thus endangering the common good of the Church.

It is a public judgement by the Church, to offer repentance and confession as a way back from this error, but also so that other members of Christ’s Faithful are protected from the errors that this person may be holding and teaching. It is part of the Teaching Office of the Maternal Church to teach the truth, but also the refute the error. Any mother would do the same to their children – give the truth and expose the error of a dangerous idea, e.g., a child puts jinola into a cookie dough mixture instead of yeast…mum won’t just tell the child to put yeast into the mixture, mum will tell her child why it’s wrong to put jinola into mixture and will tell her child never to do so again and why it is so dangerous.

This example above is about mum protecting the natural life of her child. In the case of heresy (and many other issues) – Holy Mother Church is on about protecting the supernatural life of her children.
 

I always pondered about the virtue of Faith.

Many people these days say they have Faith, but don’t believe what the Church teaches. I had a friend at work who told me he was Catholic but didn’t agree with the Church on abortion. So said to him, “…So you’re a Catholic-pro-abortionist?”. He said, “Yes”. I told him that he shouldn’t really call himself Catholic because he’s misrepresenting the Catholic Faith in a scandalous way. In a certain way, that’s like being a Nazi who loves the Jews. Or an atheist who believes in God.

So that raises the question, what is exactly is faith? Is it an experience? Is it an orientation of life? Is it a disposition? Is it a feeling?

No – not really.

Faith is one of the theological virtues which is infused into us supernaturally at Baptism.

According the St Paul, faith is the “…the substance of the things hoped for, and the evidence of things that appear not..” (Heb 11:1)

The substance, as St Thomas Aquinas points out, is the knowledge of God acquired through faith. God, the object of Faith, then can be Hoped for and Loved. (Faith, Hope, Charity)

According to the doctors of the Church, the virtue of Faith primarily exists in the intellect; it is the habit which perfects man’s mind. It is an intellectual habit, through which the mind continually assents to the Revealed Truths of Revelation.

God has revealed through Revelation certain truths that are beyond the mind of man, hence the requirement of the theological virtue of Faith. St Thomas says, “Faith is a habit in the mind that it is the beginning of eternal life in us.”

It gives man (a) knowledge of God as He is in Himself and (b) knowledge of God’s actions in the world for man’s good.

But how does the mind assent to this truth, this knowledge, if it is beyond it?

The intellect assents by colluding with the will. The will moves the intellect to submit to the Revealed Truths contained in Revelation under the promptings of grace, not on the basis of clear evidence, but on the basis that it is God who reveals it.

This is what gives Faith its certainty – that God has revealed it through Christ. 

There is no clear logical proof that God can give to man to show He is Trinity, or that Jesus is True God and True Man – these are mysteries beyond us. However, Faith seeking understanding (theology), using our reason, can give us penetration into them, by grace.

There can be supporting evidence to give credibility to these truths – i.e., the resurrection of Christ, healings, miracles, – to which the intellect can say, “…it adds weight…”,…i.e., they are motives for credibility.

BUT only grace, prompting the will to move the intellect to accept these truths on the authority of God, can give Faith.

Since Faith means the acceptance of truths which man cannot fully understand, faith is a test of man’s good will. Hence the act of faith can be meritorious. When man’s will under the influence of grace and love of God, moves man’s reason to accept God’s revelation in faith, the act of belief is meritorious in God’s sight.

But because we are accepting (knowing) these truths through Faith, there is a certain type of obscurity in the intellect (not uncertainty) – we can’t understand them fully in our limited capacity.

St Thomas teaches that every man (and woman) is offered enough actual grace in their life to convert, and come to the truth, i.e., come to Faith - the Scriptures also teach this.

What about baptised babies who don’t have the use of reason yet? Well, they recieve the virtue of Faith, in seedling form, supernaturally infused in baptism, on the God-given authority of their parents. Then at a certain point the child’s reason and intellect must make a personal assent to the revealed truth, or the virtue will cease to grow and die.

But this is made all the more easier if their life has been embued with Catholic liturgy, piety, prayer, and practise, through which the other virtues have been growing in them, and through which the intellect can call on these other holy experiences to validate internally the truths of the Faith, i.e., the truths of the Faith correspond to reality.

This is another reason why infant baptism in so important. How many people come back to the Church due to infant baptism!

It is also why authentic Catholic catechesis is so important for children – so that their mind is filled with Divine Truth from an early age, so that the virtue of Faith can grow properly in them. In recent times such catechesis has been lost, or poisoned by modernism.

What if somebody refuses one part of the Revelation? (e.g., the Church, or the Real Presense of Christ in the Eucharist, or the perpetual virginity of Mary…). Well, then they aren’t accepting the revelation on the authority of God, but on their own authority (picking and choosing), and the virtue of Faith is not alive in them, or is dead, or dying.

If a person refuses to acknowlege one Article of Faith of the Church – then they don’t have the Faith.

At baptism, the person asking for baptism asks for Faith from the Church. The Church is indispensible for the Virtue of Faith. It is the instrument through which the Revelation is made known to us.

So, in that sense, Faith is not a feeling, nor an experience….we may have feelings and experiences in our life of Faith that can be very good - but these experiences or feelings are not the sublime virtue of Faith itself.

Final comment:

St Jerome’s famous comment: “Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ…” lends weight to this argument about Faith and knowledge. We must persue diligent study of our Faith for the virtue to grow well in us. This doesn’t mean being a boffin or theologian, but just reading the Scriptures, Catechism, and good spirtual books, with authenticity and a true desire to know God, so that also, we can Hope to attain God, and love God (Charity), and that these may also grow in us.

Next week we’ll look at one of the sins against Faith – heresy…[and if we find a heretic we could gather for a burning - that's a joke ;) ]