At Calvary, it was after being pierced that the effulgence of grace poured forth from Our Lord (Jn 19:34).
“Hence it is, that the sacred mysteries flow; as often, therefore, as thou approachest the awful cup, approach it as if thou wert going to drink from thy Saviour’s sacred side.” (S. Chrys. hom. lxxxiv. in Joan.)
Likewise, whenever heresy pierces the side of the living Church, there is an even greater outpouring of grace and beauty.
“And where sin abounded, grace did more abound.” (Rom. 5:20)
The thrust of this sermon resonates well with a post I wrote a few months ago, when my Catholic sanity was finally getting “fixed” and coming back into shape.
FideCogitActio : "Omnis per gratiam" fidescogitactio @ gmail . com 
Aah, our family started to include a daily devotion (usually reciting the Litany together after the rosary) to the Sacred Heart starting this June 🙂
Very nice sermon too!
You have probably seen this by now
http://www.ewtnnews.com/catholic-news/Vatican.php?id=10154
One I found most distressing was the following
Violence in the name of God dominates the Middle East.
It’s a contradiction. Violence in the name of God does not correspond with our time. It’s something ancient. With historical perspective, one has to say that Christians, at times, have practiced it. When I think of the Thirty Years War, there was violence in the name of God. Today it is unimaginable, right? We arrive, sometimes, by way of religion to very serious, very grave contradictions. Fundamentalism, for example. The three religions, we have our fundamentalist groups, small in relation to all the rest.
And, what do you think about fundamentalism?
A fundamentalist group, although it may not kill anyone, although it may not strike anyone, is violent. The mental structure of fundamentalists is violence in the name of God.
I guess the Catholics in the past were fundamentalists and instead of fighting wars, they should have just surrendered to Islam and Protestantism. And who are the fundamentalists today? The traditionalists?
And I noticed in the daily homily, Pope Francis skipped referring to the gospel today and concentrated on the first reading. Probably because it contained the clear words of Jesus on adultery, divorce and remarriage….
And it seems to me that by the reasoning of the Pope in the interview, since many things are unimaginable today like chastity, belief in God or religion, celibacy and all sorts of virtues, I suppose he would conclude that people who insist on even those things are fundamentalist?
“Pope Francis skipped referring to the gospel today and concentrated on the first reading. Probably because it contained the clear words of Jesus on adultery, divorce and remarriage….”
Wow. Just wow.
ANOTHER INTERVIEW?!?!?
His words are like a plague of locusts. Unending, overwhelming, deafening, all-consuming, enervating.
Okay, that interview was a few weeks old, I think. Phew. And it wasn’t the worst interview. Some parts of it were decent. But his jabs at fundamentalism are par for the course.
Essays like this are so important to brnnaeoidg people’s horizons.