"Liberalism is a Sin"

[RSiscoe]

I am going to recommend a book to everyone. It is called “Liberalism is a sin”, by Fr. Felix Salvany. The book was first published in the late 1886. When it came out it cause somewhat of a commotion. The conservatives hailed it, while the liberals assailed it. A liberal Priest from Spain wrote another book as a response to it. Both books were sent to Rome for review. In those days dangerous books were placed on the “Index” which was a list of books Catholics were not supposed to read, since these books could endanger their faith.

A liberal Bishop sent the book “Liberalism is a Sin” together with the liberal book to Rome for review, along with a letter denouncing the conservative book. Rome carefully examined both books, and not only did they endorsed the book “Liberalism is a Sin“, but placed the liberal book on the Index. The following is the actual letter Rome sent to the liberal Bishop:

*“The sacred congregation of the Index has received the denunciation of the little work bearing the title Liberalism is a Sin, by Don Felix Sarda y Salvany, a priest of your diocese; the denunciation was accompanied at the same time by another book entitled “A refutation of the errors contained in the little work Liberalism is a sin”. The author of the second book is D. de Pazos, a canon of the diocese of Vich.

“Whereupon, the Sacred Congregation Has carefully examined both books and decided as follows: In the first, not only is nothing found contrary to sound doctrine, but its author, D. Delix Sarda, merits great praise from his exposition and defense of the sound doctrine therein set forth with solidity, order and lucidity, and without personal offense to anyone.

“The same judgment, however, cannot be passed on the other word, that by D. de Pazos, for in matter it needs corrections. Moreover, his injurious manner of speaking cannot be approved, for he inveighs rather against the person of D. Sarda than against the latter’s supposed errors.

“Therefore, the Sacred Congregation has commanded D. de Pazos, be admonished by his own bishop to withdraw his book, as far as he can, from circulation, and in the future, if any discussion of the subject should arise, to obstain from all expressions personally injurious, according to the precept of true Christian Charity… In communicating to you this order of the Sacred Congregation of the Index, that you may be able to make it known to the illustrious priest of your diocese, D. Sarda, for his peace of mind…”.

*There are several reasons why we should all read, and even study, this book. For one, we live in a sea of liberalism. It is the air we breath. Since we are so surrounded by it, it becomes extremely difficult for us to keep from become tainted by it. Therefore, we need a good book to help keep our minds clear. Another reason is because liberalism and conservatism are both relative: They are relative to the center. But the center is ever moving towards the left, so that a liberal idea of today becomes a conservative idea of tomorrow. I remember listening to Dennis Prager, the radio talk show host. He is considered a conservative. One day he said “I am a Kennedy liberal, and I have not changed by views, but today these views are considered conservative”.

continue…

 

[RSiscoe]

continuation of last post:

Liberalism is called “progressive” because it always progresses farther into error. Conservatism is the “conserving” force that slows the “progress” of liberalism. But conservatism does not hold firm, but only slows the progress a little. We are so far along today that most “conservatives” are actually flaming liberals compared to only 50 years ago.

Pope Pius IX said he feared liberalism more than “the commune of Paris”. In fact he made at least 40 public statement condemning liberalism, going so far as to say that “a liberal Catholic is the Churches worst enemy”. What many people do not know is that most conservative Catholics today are much more liberal than the liberals of his day. That is why we should all study the book Liberalism is a Sin, written over 100 years ago when liberalism was in its infancy.

I am going to quote a few parts of the book here, but I am encouraging everyone to purchase a copy of their own. It is probably very inexpensive and well worth the price. It is also fairly short, but contains all that is needed to bring to light the ambiguity that liberalism hides behind: they gray of liberalism is dispersed by the light of the truth. Take out a credit card and call TAN books at 800-437-5876, to order your copy today (sounds like a commercial doesn’t it?).

Here are a few excerpts:

“Liberalism, whether in the doctrinal or practical order, is a sin. In the doctrinal order, it is heresy, and consequently a mortal sin against faith. In the practical order, it is a sin against the commandments of God and of the Church, for it virtually transgresses all commandments. To be more precise: in the doctrinal order, Liberalism strikes at the very foundations of faith, because within it are comprehended all heresies… Liberalism is a heresy in the doctrinal order because… it repudiates dogma altogether and substitutes opinion.”

“Liberalism is a mortal sin. But Catholic theology teaches us that all sins are not equally grave, and that there are even degrees of venial sins. There are also degrees in the category of mortal sin, just as there are in the category of meritorious works. The gravity of sin is determined by the object at which it strikes. Blasphemy, for instance, which directly attacks God Himself, is a sin of much graver character than theft, which directly attacks man. With the exception of formal hatred of God, which the creature is rarely culpable of - unless he be in hell - the gravest of all sins are those against faith. The reason is evident. Faith is the foundation of the supernatural order… hence that is the greatest sin which attacks this [supernatural] order at its foundation. To destroy the foundation is to destroy the superstructure. To cut off the branch of a tree will not kill it, but to lay the ax to the trunk or to the root is fatal to its life. Henceforth it bears neither blossom nor fruit. St. Augustine cited by St. Thomas, characterizes sin against faith in these words: “This is the sin which comprehends all other sins.”

The angel of the Schools (St. Thomas Aquinas) expresses himself with his usual clearness on this point: “The gravity of sin is determined by the interval which it places between man and God; now sins against faith separates man from God as far a possible, since it deprives him of the true knowledge of God; it therefore follows that sin against faith is the greatest of all sins.”

“Hence, heretical doctrines - and works inspired by them - constituted the greatest of all sins, with the exception of formal hatred of God, of which only the demons in Hell and the damned are capable of. Liberalism, which is heresy, and all the works of Liberalism, which are heretical works, are the gravest sins known in the code of the Christian law.

“Liberalism is, therefore a greater sin than blasphemy, theft, adultery, homicide, [abortion], or any other violation of the law of God… heresy is always heresy, no matter what the shape it takes. Appearances may be fair, and the devil may present himself as an angel of light. The danger is the greater as the outward show is more seductive.

*“Heresy has never been so insidious as under its present form of Liberalism. … its most fatal shaft is in its plea from “liberty of mind”. This, in its own eyes, is its cardinal virtue. ‘Intellectual freedom from dogmatism’. … *

continue…

 

[RSiscoe]

*continuation of last Post:

Liberalism is a Sin: “The theater, literature, public and private morals are all saturated with obscenity and impurity. The result is inevitable; a corrupt generation necessarily begets a revolutionary generation. Liberalism is the program of naturalism. Free thought begets free morals, or immorality. Restraint is thrown off and a free reign given to the passions. Whoever thinks what he pleases will do what he pleases. Liberalism in the intellectual order is license in the moral order. Disorder in the intellect begets disorder in the heart, and vice-versa. Thus does Liberalism propagate immorality, and immorality Liberalism….
Liberalism denies the absolute jurisdiction of Jesus Christ, who is God, over individuals and over society… Moreover it denies the necessity of Divine Revelation, and the obligation of everyone to accept that Revelation under the pain of eternal perdition. It denies the formal motive of faith, viz. the authority of God revealing and admits only as much of revealed doctrine as it chooses or comprehends with its own narrow capacity…. It denies everything which itself does nor proclaim… The revelation of truth above reason it therefore debars at the outset… the submission of the human reason to the word of Christ or its Divinely constituted exponent (the Catholic church) is to intolerable. It is, therefore, the radical and universal denial of all divine truth and Christian dogma, the primal type of all heresy, and the supreme rebellion against the authority of God and His Church. As with Lucifer, its maxim is: ‘I will not serve’.

To meet such an enemy requires no ordinary courage, which must be guarded by a sleepless vigilance. When encountered, it is obligatory upon the Catholic conscience to resist it with all the powers of the soul. Heresy and all its works are sins; Liberalism is the root heresy, the tree of evil in whose branches all the harpies of infidelity find ample shelter; it is today the evil of all evils”.

Yes, liberalism is the evil of all evils of today. It is even more serious that abortion, since it attacks. If we do not become aware of this grave evil, we will almost certainly be overcome by it. This book shines the light in the error of liberalism, detailing both what it is and how to spot it. Do yourself a favor by buying the book for yourself as a Christmas present. This book is a medicine for the intellectual poison of our day - liberalism.*

 

[Ahimsa]

So could you give a concise definition of liberalism?

 

[Tom_of_Assisi]

Ahimsa:

So could you give a concise definition of liberalism?

Maybe someone who trusts themselves or their “reason” over God. Maybe someone who values material things over the spiritual. Maybe someone who likes to keep thier religion private, or who doesn’t believe in objective Truth.

???

all I know for sure is “show me a liberal and I’ll show you a closet aristocrat.” --my old signature :tiphat:

 

[katherine2]

I too condemn what was called “liberalism” in 19th century Spain. I think it and other “free-market” ideologies are a grave sin.

 

[RSiscoe]

Ahimsa:

So could you give a concise definition of liberalism?

That would be a tough one. The book I recommended does a very good job in describing liberalism, but to define it in one sentence would be hard to do. There is an article that I like to recommend. I think it does a good job of exposing liberalism from one angle. It describes how liberalism attacks truth. If you would like to read it here it is:

seattlecatholic.com/article_20030523.html

But I really would suggest purchasing the book. It is well worth reading. But beware, many thing we have been led to beleive are “good” are actually errors.

 

[Gratias_Grace]

If you by “Liberalism” mean people that loosen the tie to the teaching of the Church as it is thaught by the pope and the magisterium, you might be rigth.

Then liberalism can lead to sin and to more and more and more sin!

But if you by liberalism mean the post-Vatican II Church, I will not agree!

G.Grace

 

[Sherlock]

I think it would be wise to remember that the terms “liberal” and '“conservative” can refer to different ideas at different times. When reading about “liberalism” in the 1880s, it is best to know exactly what that position represents in its specifics. Don’t assume that “liberal” positions today are identical to “liberal” positions in other times and places.

 

[RobedWithLight]

Sherlock:

I think it would be wise to remember that the terms “liberal” and '“conservative” can refer to different ideas at different times. When reading about “liberalism” in the 1880s, it is best to know exactly what that position represents in its specifics. Don’t assume that “liberal” positions today are identical to “liberal” positions in other times and places.

It is not simply what specific positions on issues the liberals of the late 19th century had espoused, in contrast to specific issues the liberals of today espouses, but rather the very mindset of the liberal, which seemingly distrusts all forms of authority, as well as tradition, including religious ones, and even to the extent of questioning the value of revelation, and this makes it the root of all later rebellion.

Gerry

 

[RSiscoe]

Sherlock:

I think it would be wise to remember that the terms “liberal” and '“conservative” can refer to different ideas at different times. When reading about “liberalism” in the 1880s, it is best to know exactly what that position represents in its specifics. Don’t assume that “liberal” positions today are identical to “liberal” positions in other times and places.

Well, having read the book, I can tell you that the only difference between the liberalism described in the book, and that of today, is the magnitude. Liberalism today is the same thing that is condemned in the book (in very great detail), the difference being that today it is much worse, and many people have swollowed the error hook, line, and sinker.

The reality is that most “conservatives” today will see many of their own beliefs condemned as liberal in the book, because most conservatives have been very tainted by liberalism, since it is so prevelant in our society.

This is not a book we should fear, but a book we should be greatful for, since it will reveal to us, in great detail, the greatest error of our day, and hopefully help us to see where in our own lives we have been affected, and infected, by it.

 

[RobedWithLight]

RSiscoe:

The reality is that most “conservatives” today will see many of their own beliefs condemned as liberal in the book, because most conservatives have been very tainted by liberalism, since it is so prevelant in our society.

A “pure”, untainted conservative today, unfortunately, would be immediately lambasted and laughed at as a narrow-minded intellectual neanderthal with a fossilized brain in today’s pervasively liberal and secular environment. The true challenge for all conservatives, is how to overcome this widespread hostility without absorbing little by little the very poison which they seek to confront.

Gerry

 

[Hesychios]

Labels like liberal in it’s different senses (and also whatever polar opposite of it there may be) are so mercurial and elusive that there is a great danger that we’ll just (name removed by moderator)ut our preconcieved notions and assume that it’s what the author or advocate means. The whole concept is too subjective and self-serving.

To many American Catholics, what accounts for liberalism will occupy half of the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (let’s all buy a copy) while Catholics all over the rest of the world would find that hard to understand.

Therefore I dislike terms like Liberal and Conservative when used in a religious context, it’s too vague.

For instance in terms of Catholic issues there can be: moral and/or ethical liberalism, theological liberalism, liturgical liberalism and even architectural liberalism! Also their opposites called conservative in each category. Of course these things can overlap but otherwise they are distinct in themselves and lumping them all together into one category can be deceiving.

To some so-called conservative Catholics, anyone who likes the Novus Ordo Mass is a liberal, while other Catholics who only worship according to the Novus Ordo have no idea that they are liberals but rant against “liberals” too.

To a Catholic from Rome in the third century the church of the fifth century could possibly look like a liberal church gone amuck. One could easily say the same for the church before and after Charlemagne, or the church of the Medici Popes, or before and after 1870.

 

[amarischuk]

Of course, because I trust everything that TAN publishes:

Let’s look at TAN’s review of “Liberalism is a Sin”

“Refutes every aspect of the deadly error that one religion is as good as another and that a person has a moral right to choose whichever religion suits him best. Cuts through the foggy religious thinking rampant today!”

God forbid that people cannot be coerced into belief:
Aquinas:

Among unbelievers there are some who have never received the faith, such as gentiles and Jews. These are by no means to be compelled, for belief is voluntary

socinian.org/thomas_aquinas2.html

Or DIGNITATIS HUMANAE:

Nevertheless, the doctrine of the Church that no one is to be coerced into faith has always stood firm.

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html

But let’s look at some other gems from TAN:

“The Book Of Destiny” by Rev. Herman Kramer

“An in-depth analysis of the Apocalypse that really makes sense. Proves it is a prophetic history of the Catholic Church. Proceeds chapter by chapter and verse by verse, explaining everything in terms of the language and symbolic meaning of Scripture itself. Gives the keys to understanding the Apocalypse. Shows we are on the verge of dramatic events! A masterpiece! 520 Pp. PB. Impr.”

First published in 1955. Seems like the verge has lasted for almost fifty years.

Or Yves Dupont’s “Catholic Prophecy: The Coming Chastisement” first published in 1971.

" In our opinion, this is the best book of prophecy in print! Covers the Great Catholic Monarch, the Holy Pope, and the period before Antichrist, with excellent, excellent commentaries by Dupont. It seems totally impossible that so many prophecies from various countries and different centuries should all speak about the same time and the same historical characters. Shows the coalescing of Saints’ prophecies on our times and our immediate future. 125 Pp. PB. Impr."

I didn’t know our immediate futuren would last over the lifetime of Jesus.

Or another gem:

“The Evolution Hoax Exposed” by A.N. Field

“Former Title: Why Colleges Breed Communists. Absolutely devastates Evolution as a credible theory. Studies the history, the theories, the “proof,” the propaganda campaign for, and the results of the theory of Evolution; plus gives the preponderating evidence against it. Great and sadly needed to dispel the now almost universal assumption that Evolution is true.”

But the Church has nothing to fear from Science I thought?

Or another gem:

Michael Davies’ “Religious Liberty”

“A very thought-provoking analysis of the Church’s traditional stand on religious liberty and a discussion of the controversy caused on the subject by the “Declaration on Religious Liberty” of Vatican II. Shows this statement is not a declaration of Faith and that therefore “it is not disloyalty to the faith to seek a clarification of its ambiguities,” to quote a July 3, 1977 article in National Catholic Register.”

Or “The Science of Today and The Problem of Genesis” by Rev. O’Connell

"The error of Evolution, the truth of the Flood, the real age of the earth, the accuracy of the Bible account of creation, how science supports the Bible, etc., etc. Fabulously interesting, especially on the Flood! "

I don’t even think I need to say anything about this one.

TAN is the Jack Chick of Catholic publishers. They do more damage to the faith than any number of liberal presses. I cannot think of a single sane person whom I know who would not laugh at TAN and dismiss Catholicism entirely upon it.

But the whole title is non sequitor since a belief, even a heretical belief, can never constitute “sin” as a willing and knowledgable regection of God.

You can call liberalism a heresy, false opinion, objectively erroneous set of beliefs, but you can never call it a sin without abandoning 2000 years of Catholic moral philosophy.

But when has 2000 years of thought ever stood in the way of a conservative trying to scare the world with the bogeyman stories about the end of the world, how everyone who has ever looked at a Karl Rahner book is going to hell, or anyone who attends the Novos Ordo mass will enjoy the eternal fire.

Edward Schillibeecksx for Head of the Office of the Doctrine of the Faith!!!

Save the Church from an American fundamentalist takeover!

Adam

 

[Pinklady]

That’s not true. I’m “liberal” and that’s not a sin. Who is this guy, anyway, that he would presume to judge me? That’s not his job; that’s God’s.

 

[Catholic_Mike]

Pinklady:

That’s not true. I’m “liberal” and that’s not a sin. Who is this guy, anyway, that he would presume to judge me? That’s not his job; that’s God’s.

I’m liberal in some ways too Pinklady; and I doubt the liberalism taked about in the book means the same thing as liberalism today.

But I don’t think the guy was judging you. As Christians we ARE supposed to talk about what is and what is not sin. I believe the Bible even talks about situations in which we are to tell each other when we’re in the wrong. (Respectfully!)

 

[RSiscoe]

amarischuk:

Of course, because I trust everything that TAN publishes:

Let’s look at TAN’s review of “Liberalism is a Sin”

“Refutes every aspect of the deadly error that one religion is as good as another and that a person has a moral right to choose whichever religion suits him best. Cuts through the foggy religious thinking rampant today!”

God forbid that people cannot be coerced into belief:
Aquinas:socinian.org/thomas_aquinas2.html

Or DIGNITATIS HUMANAE:
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html

But let’s look at some other gems from TAN:

“The Book Of Destiny” by Rev. Herman Kramer

“An in-depth analysis of the Apocalypse that really makes sense. Proves it is a prophetic history of the Catholic Church. Proceeds chapter by chapter and verse by verse, explaining everything in terms of the language and symbolic meaning of Scripture itself. Gives the keys to understanding the Apocalypse. Shows we are on the verge of dramatic events! A masterpiece! 520 Pp. PB. Impr.”

First published in 1955. Seems like the verge has lasted for almost fifty years.

Or Yves Dupont’s “Catholic Prophecy: The Coming Chastisement” first published in 1971.

" In our opinion, this is the best book of prophecy in print! Covers the Great Catholic Monarch, the Holy Pope, and the period before Antichrist, with excellent, excellent commentaries by Dupont. It seems totally impossible that so many prophecies from various countries and different centuries should all speak about the same time and the same historical characters. Shows the coalescing of Saints’ prophecies on our times and our immediate future. 125 Pp. PB. Impr."

I didn’t know our immediate futuren would last over the lifetime of Jesus.

Or another gem:

“The Evolution Hoax Exposed” by A.N. Field

“Former Title: Why Colleges Breed Communists. Absolutely devastates Evolution as a credible theory. Studies the history, the theories, the “proof,” the propaganda campaign for, and the results of the theory of Evolution; plus gives the preponderating evidence against it. Great and sadly needed to dispel the now almost universal assumption that Evolution is true.”

But the Church has nothing to fear from Science I thought?

Or another gem:

Michael Davies’ “Religious Liberty”

“A very thought-provoking analysis of the Church’s traditional stand on religious liberty and a discussion of the controversy caused on the subject by the “Declaration on Religious Liberty” of Vatican II. Shows this statement is not a declaration of Faith and that therefore “it is not disloyalty to the faith to seek a clarification of its ambiguities,” to quote a July 3, 1977 article in National Catholic Register.”

Or “The Science of Today and The Problem of Genesis” by Rev. O’Connell

"The error of Evolution, the truth of the Flood, the real age of the earth, the accuracy of the Bible account of creation, how science supports the Bible, etc., etc. Fabulously interesting, especially on the Flood! "

I don’t even think I need to say anything about this one.

TAN is the Jack Chick of Catholic publishers. They do more damage to the faith than any number of liberal presses. I cannot think of a single sane person whom I know who would not laugh at TAN and dismiss Catholicism entirely upon it.

But the whole title is non sequitor since a belief, even a heretical belief, can never constitute “sin” as a willing and knowledgable regection of God.

You can call liberalism a heresy, false opinion, objectively erroneous set of beliefs, but you can never call it a sin without abandoning 2000 years of Catholic moral philosophy.

But when has 2000 years of thought ever stood in the way of a conservative trying to scare the world with the bogeyman stories about the end of the world, how everyone who has ever looked at a Karl Rahner book is going to hell, or anyone who attends the Novos Ordo mass will enjoy the eternal fire.

Edward Schillibeecksx for Head of the Office of the Doctrine of the Faith!!!

Save the Church from an American fundamentalist takeover!

Adam

Many people look at the state of the Church today and ask “has God completely abandoned His Church”. They see these apostate Bishops and Priests and say “Where is God”.

Well, after reading your profile, I can see that God has not completely abandoned his sheep. He must have answered some Holy old woman’s prayers, which resulted in you beoming a former seminarian. Thank heavens God intervened!

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Ahimsa:

So could you give a concise definition of liberalism?

Anyone who is not a card-carrying Stepford Catholic is one ==

 

[amarischuk]

RSiscoe:

Many people look at the state of the Church today and ask “has God completely abandoned His Church”. They see these apostate Bishops and Priests and say “Where is God”.

Well, after reading your profile, I can see that God has not completely abandoned his sheep. He must have answered some Holy old woman’s prayers, which resulted in you beoming a former seminarian. Thank heavens God intervened!

RSiscoe, what ever is wrong with you, it is no little thing. If you have a problem with those books, don’t blame me. If you haev a problem with me, too bad. I didn’t come here to make friends but rather proclaim the truth. The level of truth in TAN publications is similar to the level of truth in Jack Chick publications.

For your information, I was one of the more conservative seminarians there, I finished with the highest grades in all my classes and the seminary asked me to reconsider when I told them that I was leaving. This was only last year. I refuse to name the seminary or the order out of respect for both.

It was while at the seminary that I came to these conclusions after much study…especially studying conservative theologians like Germain Grisez and reading medieval philosophy from Boethius to Aquinas and Scotus. Truly studying does seem to lead to making one a heretic.

I was the first person from my parish to go to the seminary after an unfortunate incident where the former ‘home town’ priest was jailed for child molestation. The fact that I went was the answer to any number of old lady’s prayers. Not to mention friends in Opus Dei, the remorse of my bishop for choosing an order, the prayers of the nuns at the soup kitchen where I worked before, etc.

Merry Christmas,

Adam

 

[RSiscoe]

amarischuk:

Truly studying does seem to lead to making one a heretic.
Merry Christmas,

Adam

Adam,

I would like to have a discussin with you. We can either do it publically, or privately. It’s up to you.

You say that study leads to making one a heretic. Now, from reviewing a few of your posts, I do believe you are a heretic. I probably would not have said that had you not made the above remark.

Do you know what I believe leads to many people today becoming heretics? It is not study, for many people study yet do not become heretics, but rather more convinced of the truth; what I believe causes so many people to become heretics is reading bad material. I know you did not like the thread I started title “Liberalism is a sin” because you consider yourself a liberal. Well, I firmly believe that liberalism is the error of our day and is what leads so many once faithful Catholics into heresy.

It is not “study” that leads to heresy, but studying the writings of liberal heretics, that leads many into heresy. Liberalism is very seductive and easily leads the unwary astray. It is also very subtle in its manner of attacking the truth. Actually, in one way, liberalism attacks the truth, by truth: that is, it deceives by a redirection away from the primry truth towards lesser truths - from supernatual truth, to natural truth; from objective truth, to subjective guilt. This is very subtle and very difficult to discern; thus it is very effective in leading many astray. It is not easy to detect error that comes to us under the form of truth. There is a saying that the devil will encourage us to do what is good, in order to keep us from doing what is best. That somewhat similar to the manner in which liberalsims operates. But liberalism redirects our attention away from God and towards man - from the supernatural towards the natural For example, if we pay attention, we will notice that liberalism encourages “natural” health, and “natural” safety to such an extent that our minds are redirected away from spiritual health (practicing virtue) and spiritual safety (avoiding sin): thus, there is a redirection of attention away from the supernatural and towards to natural. It has a similar way in which it attacks the truth, and end by leading many into heresy. These things are very subtle and difficult to discern.

Your last post sounded sincere. Let’s have a discussion about liberalism and your reasons for rejecting portions of the faith (thus becoming a heretic). My intent would be two-fold: to find out how and what particular points caused you to loose the faith; and also to try and clear up any objections you have.

What thinkest thou? Are you up for it?