Also, this also presents one small problem, that some people might attempt to introduce some original ideas into the theology and thereby end up with some erroneous view, sort of like a Calvin. However, most of the real heretics in history that come to mind were in some way clerics, such as priests or bishops, such as Luther, Zwingli, Nestorius, Marcion, Arius, Pelaguis ect. so, in effect, against the argument that some employ against laymen studying theology fail to realize that even clerics, trained in theology, such as Luther, can be more prone to error than the unlearned in that they may attempt reconcile several positions that seem in their mind not to fit as it should, or they in effect attempt to be able to comprehend the incomprehensible as St. Paul states “in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction” (2 Peter 3:16), this may apply even to the learned in some cases. Luther was a well educated man, well learned, yet he was a heretic with unordthodox views; even so, the point being that those not schooled in the faith, or rather ill-catechised, could be ill-fitted to defend it when the appointed time presents itself, especially in an age when the faith is attacked from almost every side.
Yet, when a right theology is preached and studied, it is a good and salutary thing that laymen should know their faith, but in order to keep a right faith, certain other things must be retained, and that is the virtue of humility, which blocks the culpable guilt of formal heresy from taking root, and this is because heresy is born of pride; ergo, as long as an attitude of humility and submission is present, I believe that no real danger of heresy is imminent, but if one is of the opinion that he may be a second Cajetan or Athanasius, then there is risk of falling into an erroneous doctrine. The reason for which is due to the fact that such a man desires to fit his views into theology, thereby perverting it, yet to him it seems orthodox, and he defends it under such circumstances.

And the question that begs to be asked is, how can a man be expected to keep the faith if he does not know it? Therefore, it is for this reason that the faithful are obliged to learn their faith, and if necessary defend it as mandated by the old code of canon law: “The faithful are bound to profess their faith openly whenever under the circumstances silence, evasion, or their manner of acting would otherwise implicitly amount to a denial of the faith, or would involve contempt of religion, an offense to God, or scandal to the neighbor.” (Canon 1325.1)Catholics are expected to keep the faith, but this is only possible is one knows what faith he is keeping, and this is the reason why all Catholics need to learn their faith.

I do wish that I had the problem that Gregory had, it would be one more awesome sight.

I am new to this blog and quickly coming to love it. Fantastic article. Next fall I am looking to begin doctoral work focusing on either a theology of friendship or theological education and monasticism. When the time comes I may have to throw some questions your way.

Blessings,
Kyle