Let us put together the figures of 2 completely different priests to show the scale of the coup that took place in the formation of priests after the Second Vatican Council. A comparative analysis of both thinkers will supply many interesting conclusions on the material difference in the reasoning of both.
The dying priest Joseph Tischner wrote on his deathbed: “The suffering does not bear, the suffering does not refine. On the contrary, suffering always destroys. The things that bring forth, lift up, and lift up, are only love.” (Fr. Joseph Tischner, Does suffering refine? Common Week No 37/2014.)
Fr Tischner was 1 of the leading representatives of open Catholicism, he professed the doctrine of dialogue, promoted Judaism thinkers and primarily placed the human same at the centre of Christianity. There is no uncertainty that erstwhile he died, he suffered greatly from laryngeal cancer.
From the life of the saints, we know that they were able to find comfort in suffering and to offer it as a sacrifice to Christ, they understood perfectly that suffering combined with the sacrifice of the cross not only cleanses but can be worthy. St. Paul of the Cross, the steadfast priest and founder of the enthusiasts, wrote: “Remember that actual holiness is invariably accompanied by:
-pains and distresses both interior and external;
- threats from enemies both public and hidden;
-physical and spiritual suffering;
-disruption and endless idleness;
Because all who want to live godly in Christ Jesus will encounter persecution.”http://mtrojnar.rzeszow.okoka.org.pl/swieci/pawel_od_krzyza/myśli.htm)
St. Paul of the Cross noted that love is just manifested in the suffering of the cross and is from
Sunday: “The full life of Jesus was the Cross. Therefore, the full life of 1 who serves God should be specified as to stay on the Cross with Jesus. Jesus ’ torment is entirely the work of Love. You should never lose sight of it.”
Some time ago, I had a lively discussion with a individual who represents a modernist imagination of faith. She stated that Christianity does not require mortification, that it is simply a fabrication of the Church and of any saints who perverted the Gospel. According to her, Christ utilized the goods of this world, feasted with taxation collectors, drank wine, etc. The level of absurdity of these were besides equal, the assurance of the interviewer. He even referred to the celebrated rule of St. Thomas of Aquinas saying that "grace builds upon nature," which led him to conclude that nature cannot be destroyed.
After a while, I realized that the above thesis was nothing fresh under the sun and was presented a 100 years ago in progressive theology. It was written by O. Garrigou-Lagrange in a phenomenal work 3 periods of interior life. According to a large French mystic: “Practical naturalism, which is simply a denial of the spirit of religion in the conduct of life, always tends to be reborn in more or little accented forms, as it was any time ago in Americanism and modernism...
They asked us, "Why talk so much about mortification if Christianity is the doctrine of life; about renunciation if Christianity should assimilate all human activity alternatively of destroying it; about obedience if Christianity is the doctrine of freedom?" These passive virtues, as they said, are of relevance only to the [generated] negative spirits, incapable to take anything and have only the power of inertia.
In this opposition expressed by Americanism and re-entered by modernism, fact is skillfully mixed with falsehood. Even St. Thomas' authority is invoked, and the following rule is frequently repeated: 'Grace does not destruct nature, but improves it'. They say that the agitations of nature are not as disorderly as the author of Imitate maintains; full improvement of nature is essential under the influence of grace.
And due to the fact that they deficiency the actual spirit of faith, they deliberately distort the rule of St. Thomas, to which we refer. He speaks of nature as such, in the philosophical sense of the word, of nature with its essential, as well as good elements, of the work of God, and not of the wounded and fallen nature, which is in fact as a consequence of first sin and our individual sins, more or little distorted by our frequently unaware selfishness, our lusts, our pride. Similarly, St. Thomas speaks of passions or emotions as such, not of disorder, erstwhile he says that they are forces to be used; but to usage them, 1 must destruct what is unordered in them, not only cover, moderate, but besides kill.
All these ambiguities rapidly uncover their consequences. The tree is judged by its fruits: in order to be besides pleasing to the world, alternatively of converting it, these apostles of the fresh kind who were modernists were themselves converted by it.
They denied the consequences of first sin; by listening to them, 1 would think that a man was born good, as the Pelagians claimed, and later Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
They forgot the seriousness of mortal sin as images of God; and they regarded it simply as evil that harms man. Hence, they peculiarly did not see the importance of intellectual sins: unbelief, presumptuousness, pride. The most serious offense for them was to refrain from social activity; consequently, purely contemplative life was considered completely useless or suitable for the inept. God himself wanted to respond to this charge through the canonization of St Teresa from Baby Jesus and through the extraordinary radiation of this contemplative soul.”https://obronaviary.pl/o-r-garrigou-lagrange-op-naturalism-practical-a-poority-edug-evangelii/ Or O. Garrigou-Lagrange OP, 3 Periods of interior Life, Impokalanów 2018, p. 247-249, crowd. S. Teresa Landy – Franciscan Cross Servant.)
Oh. Garrigou-Lagrange in an highly penetrating way noted the convergence of a mentality rejecting mortification with heresies of naturalism and modernism. This mistake leads to the rejection of contemplative life as specified and brings distant active life, in the secular sense of the word, above spiritual life. For believers of heresy of naturalism, closing in in the order is simply a distortion and rejection of nature, and putting contemplative life before work ceases to have any meaning.
Clearly, we are dealing with a confusion of the order of nature and grace. The grace is given to us free of God, and it is not unconditionally due to nature, which, due to first sin, has been completely turned distant from the Lord God and is greatly shaken in its authority. Baptism erases the guilt of first sin, but each of us remains weakened in the higher authority of the soul, which frequently succumb to passions and emotions. That is why it is essential to mortify reason and will to avoid giving in to the higher—the lower.
Fr Henri de Lubac, who confused the order of nature and grace, instilled in the order of the Jesuits a misconception about the perfection of human nature, which, of itself, is able to draw close to God and naturally directs itself towards him. Before de Lubaci another Jesuit Teilhard de Chardin even dared to reject the full theology of St Augustine due to the fact that they delineated these 2 orders. (Dietrich von Hildebrand, Trojan Horse in the City of God, Warsaw 1993, p. 349, crowd Jerzy Wocial.)
These thinkers wanted to go out into the planet to convert him and be converted themselves, as O. Garrigou-Lagrange frequently said. Mortification is yet of large benefit to the soul because:
“He takes distant the temporal punishments that we should atone for in this life or in purgatory, and brings us untold glory in heaven.” (Józef Sebastian Pelczar, spiritual Life, Krakow 2012, p. 382)
What unimaginable folly is it to accumulate mortifications in the life to come erstwhile they will be many times more painful than here on earth?
Let us return to our comparative analysis of the 2 figures of priests. 1 can wonder why looking at suffering in Fr Tischner and St Paul from the Cross is so different. The Scriptures clearly indicate that suffering is an integral part of Christian life: “My pain before My face always” (Psalm 37,18), “We carry in our body the death of Jesus, that the life of Jesus may be revealed in our body” (2 Cor 4:10)?.
However, the look of Fr Tischner is not isolated. The Warsaw Metropolitan Archbishop Galbas gave an almost identical answer to the question of the meaning of suffering: “We do not request suffering for anything. It always destroys, degrades and ruins. It surely does not refine.”https://www.pap.pl/updates/abp-galbas-me-not once-difficult-is-believe-in-god-interview)
For a individual acquainted with the Church's crisis, it will be easier to realize that this fundamental difference lies in changing theology of Holy Mass. While the Mass in the Tridentic rite expresses the essence of the Cross's Sacrifice, the fresh rite removes Christ's Sacrifice to the background and accentuates the Community dimension of the gathering of God's people.
Fr Waldemar Linke CP in 1 of his lectures on the spirituality of St Paul from the Cross noted that John Paul II accused the founder of the passionate of neglecting the Paschal accent of Christianity. (https://www.youtube.com/embed/CGTen1al9B4)
This clearly shows the distance between the post-consort hierarchy and the conventional Catholic spirituality, in which Christ's sacrifice is the center of worship, and the joy of resurrection is regarded as a consequence of this sacrifice, without which there would be no redemption of mankind.
The change in the ritual of Holy Mass resulted in a crucial difference in the knowing of what the Sacrifice of Christ is and what its saving dimension is. As Archbishop Lefebvre said: “The Catholic church was actually established on the Cross, in the spirit of the sacrifice, and so the spirit of the sacrifice is disappearing today. You can say that anywhere around you. People don't want to sacrifice themselves anymore, they don't want to mortify themselves anymore, they want to enjoy themselves, they want to have life, even Catholics. Why? due to the fact that there is no more spirit of sacrifice, due to the fact that there is no more Cross. And since the Cross is no longer present, the Catholic Church is no longer present." — Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Kazan, Warsaw 1999, p. 278.)
