Give an impression instead of a message?

Grand Pope Benedict XVI summed up this vocation in his episcopal motto: „Cooperators veritatis“ – „ Companions of Truth“. And really, what would priests be called to if they wanted to solve everything without the willing cooperation of man?

Give the impression instead of the message. 

Today, however, it seems as if we also succumbed to the temptation not to proclaim the whole truth but only to its „ pleasant part “. The enjoyable part sounds quite sufficient, as the dogmas of the modern trend put it: above all, it must be tolerated! It destroys evil and intent; sin must not be judged! In particular, there is a focus on decency… 

As early as 1996, the American philosopher of Slovak origin, Michael Novak, pointed to the danger of reducing religion to a pleasant social group. It professes „ social cooperative and individual choice, and its basic commandments would be: Be friendly and open, do not offend, behave decently, be kind “ (Tell me why).

But suppose the priest  adds a little deeper ( to this understanding attitude, such as that God also wants the salvation of our soul ). In that case, he threatens to leave the impression in people that tolerance, decent behavior, and ethics alone are enough.

The priest, rather than anyone else, is responsible for the impression of the truth he evokes in the listening and with which he leaves them. It is not a rarity that a particularly contemporary person cannot move forward on his own than just the personal impression that is often the first, but also the last stop on the path of faith. 

However, what is the impression of „ the exclusivity of decent behavior “ actually different from us, such unacceptable views that „ important is to be well on earth only “?

„ Grace precedes nature “ or fall into proselytism?

Efforts to build on human foundations seem to be in line with such a well-known Thomistic principle: „ Grace presupposes nature.“ If God’s gift is to descend truly, it must have land or a „ landing area “ on which it will stop. 

If, according to Christ’s command, a priest is to teach of eternal values, it is understandable that he will build on the naturally early ones. At present, however, the current question seems to be the extent to which the principle of „ the previous nature “ does not fall into pure proselytism.

So only by the targeted acquisition of new „ believers “is at the cost of blasting the original content of Revelation and Faith. It is somewhat apparent that even after years of (in some countries, even after generational exchanges ) of such a predominantly natural formation, higher noble goals are not achieved at all. 

I believe that the years of anthropocentric projects and priestly attitudes are a long enough time for super-anthropocentric, t. j. sacramental results. However, churches remain empty and the sacramental life is weak. 

I also believe that there is no willingness to reconsider the attitudes that prove to be a church faux pas when a priest reduces his work as second Christ (alter Christus) only to activities characteristic maximum only for his own anthropological alter ego. ( In that better case, Freudian super-regime – that is, to the ethical ideal of a person who gives the impression as if he were to be the last goal of all pastoral and preaching activities.)

Even a humanist and a person can hate God.

Fortunately, God did not become man just to make us more decent people, but sons – heirs of salvation who live from the truth (cf. Jn 18.37)

The ethic of Socrates would also be enough to breed decent people, and many other moralists before and after him. As the British Protestant thinker C says. WITH. Lewis: „ We must not succumb to the illusion that even if we managed to make all people good, we would save their souls “ (calls).

The world is full of good people who are voluntarily turned away from God. After all, even the greatest people can reject God with the same resistance as the most corrupt sinner. It is, therefore, very important not to succumb only to worldly thinking and, in full knowledge of its responsibility for immortal souls, not just to announce worldly dwellings. 

The Swiss Catholic theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar put it this way: „ Some would very much like to turn Jesus into an apostle of love for neighbor, who cares for the poor and oppressed or shows solidarity with sinners. But then we would have to ignore all the provocative circumstances associated with his person and the assessment of the neighbor according to his relationship to him (Mk 8.38; Mk 8.27-29; Mk 10.29; Mt 8.21…)“ (Why am I still a Christian). 

And really, I remember how Slovaks in one Italian parish have repeatedly thanked us for literally „ not finally reporting sociology “ to them in sermons.

The Martyrish importance of ordination

I am convinced that having the courage today to offer and point out something more than just one-sidedness – only to anthropology, ethics or psychology – means a new form of martyrdom for the current priest, and more precisely: postmodern martyrdom. 

However, the tragic hive of the faithful priest of today is not washed away by what the priest is actually called by the being from his ordination. This is expressed by the ordination and the meaning „ hand insertion “. 

It is noteworthy that biblical texts use (Sk 6.6), priestly (1 Tim 5.22), and episcopal consecration (Sk 13.3) the same verb when describing seasonal <TAG1>, what we find in the descriptions of the individual stops of the Lord’s torture.

„ Hand insertion “ (gr. Ηπιτίθημι – epitithemi) to which power is transferred to the sacred service as if it automatically included a certain mysterious share in „ storage of “ crown of thorns (ίη. μτθ: Jn 19.2) whether „position “ of the cross of Jesus on Simon’s shoulders (gr. Lk 23.26). 

In the theological-spiritual sense, if we allowed our hands to be laid on the side of the Holy Church during ordination, we also took on the part of it, who put us in a form called alter Christus. That ass cannot be done without the Jerusalem element. 

In other words, no doubt accepting a diagonal, priestly, or episcopal ordination always means accepting – God with a known share of – the same painful consequences of Calvary anxieties and the cross. 

However, it does not end with death or pessimism. Christ has soared the attention of his twelve disciples for eternity: „ Whoever lasts to the end will be saved “ (Mt 10.22). Shakespeare, in turn, pointed out such verses for the eternity that love between the phoenix and the dove, that is, between truth and fidelity:

„Death becomes a nest of phoenix,

his dove also sits in fidelity,

the direction of relief is eternity – their common path.“ 

( Shakespeare, Phenix and turtle, par. 57 – 59 )