Catholic priests deny... the resurrection of Christ. Who allows this – besides in Poland? Many heretics in the Church refuse to accept the fundamental fact of Christianity: God has become human. They've been trying to lie this fact for 2,000 years.
Paul Chmielewski writes about this in his book “Heiters. Old heresies in fresh robes", a passage of which we print below courtesy of the “Fronda” release.
INTRODUCTION
In 1 of the more popular journals, the Polish reader could read any time ago that the Lord Jesus had never risen, or at least not as the Holy Church taught it, that means that he did not truly rise. possibly there would be nothing peculiarly amazing in specified “revelries”: we have freedom of speech in Poland and everyone writes what he likes, even veritable nonsense. If there was an abominable godless against the resurrection, it would only be possible to shrug his arms to add to himself an animus, a proudly sounding “rationalist”. mediocre man! possibly he was unlucky to be born in a home where the russian tradition of fighting religion was cultivated? Or was it not until the 1990s that he decided, in a spirit of fashion in the liberal circles of polonophobia, to reject everything that was his own, along with the Catholic faith, giving himself up to the joy of surviving in a planet where there is no God? In any case, a hard case, but for our typical era.
The problem, however, was that the claim that no resurrection had always been, or at least not as taught by the Church, could be read not in a column published in the writing of atheists or anti-clerical organization activists, but... in an extended interview which the magazine for alleged intelligence (post?) Catholic gave the priest; yes, priest. A Catholic priest proving that the natural resurrection is not in harmony with the fact of reason.
Wait, wait... Catechism of the Catholic Church, who is the Church of all Polish Catholics as well as this priest, teaches that “the resurrection of Christ is the culminating fact of our religion in Christ” and “the first Christian community believed in it and experienced it as a central truth, passed on by Tradition, as a fundamental truth, confirmed by the writings of the fresh Testament, foretold as part of the essential Passover Mystery just as the Cross did: Christ rose, By his death he conquered death, gave life to the dead."
How, then, can a Catholic priest preach the irrationality of the resurrection and want to negate it, acknowledging nothing little than a myth? Catechism teaches: “The subject of religion in the Resurrection is simply a historical event certified by the disciples who actually met the Risen One; the “Master of the Resurrection of Christ is simply a real event that had historically confirmed signs, as the fresh Testament shows. It was about 56 AD. Paul can compose to the Corinthians: «I gave you in the beginning what I had taken over: that Christ died, according to the Scriptures, for our sins, that he was buried, that he had risen on the 3rd day, according to the Scriptures; and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve» (1 Cor 15:3-4). So this is the religion of the Church—the belief in the true, historical resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Yet our unfortunate priest believes that this religion simply lacks rationality... As he convinces whether the tomb was empty or not, we do not know it at all; for there were no cameras in the tomb of the Lord that could evidence the fact of the resurrection, and if they were—they would most likely not evidence anything, for the naive 1 who believes that the body of Christ through the power of God avoided the bonds of death and destruction. This must have been different, the learned priest tells us; the catechism can not be accepted, and if so, it cannot be accepted or preached at all. For as a Catholic priest professes this demitologist of Scripture, he feels obliged to say only what he agrees with his reason. To teach specified naturalistic faith, he even wrote an extended book on the resurrection, as the chosen theologians see it – mostly German-speaking, mostly Protestant. Thus, various things can be considered, for example, that there was no grave at all, for in those days convicts seldom had graves. The Gospel tells us differently, but, as you can see, it is no difficulty – present it is unfashionable to believe the evidence of the evangelists; the novices admit that they wrote what they liked to convince others to their irrational faith; therefore, they did not care at all. besides Catechism teaches that the resurrection of the Savior is necessarily linked to the fact of an empty grave. He states that "the empty grave and the lying canvas mean that the body of Christ through the power of God has escaped the bonds of death and destruction; they prepare the disciples for the gathering of the risen." That Catechism does not apply to scholars on the works of Protestant theologians priests, it is clear that...
Going further, according to the anti-hero of our story, it can besides be assumed that, yes, Christ someway rose from the dead, only that...not entirely—because His earthly body remained dead, and He received the body completely new, changed, so at the same time he was lying inactive in the grave and not lying down.
Finally – and isn't that the most learned and rational view? – you can think that Jesus most risen, yes! But in this and only in the sense that He lives on in us, His disciples, who fulfill His mission. What mission? Here, the reader has to answer himself; perhaps, for example, by performing a “world-work”: kindness to people, animals and nature, for the well-being and the best well-being of the planet ("Gaja" after all feels...) and future generations of surviving beings. There is nothing else left for us unless there is simply a resurrection. Jesus, as long as he was alive, fought for social justice; but well, he died, just as Socrates, Buddha, and Mani died.
For this is the "true Christ" of the heretics of all centuries—the Master of Nazareth, Jesus the Teacher, Jesus the baker of mercy and righteousness, the outstanding individual, the best, but possibly even the most perfect in history—but yet mortal, created, human, in short—man, only and simply man. It is Christ of the progressives of the 21st century, modernists of the 19th and 20th centuries, Christ of enlightened philosophers, Christ of liberalism, Christ of progressive Protestants, but besides Christ of Muhammad, Arius, Valentine, Marcion...
But it is not the Christ of the Church. It reminds us of the image of Christ involving St. Bernard, who painted Spanish caravaggiolist Francesco Ribalta. The Savior in the thorn crown, tormented, covered with wounds, bled – yet alive, truly alive. Bernard entrusts himself to His shoulders, just as he entrusted himself to Him throughout his life, this large ascetic, a fiery believer of the Risen, zealous worshiper of Our Lady, who absolutely and to a good degree gave His destiny to the Church, trusting that what the Church preaches is true: that the Lord truly rose. This Christ is worth everything. What is worth giving to Jesus the teacher of wisdom, who died erstwhile and for all? Jesus, who lives only as long as we inactive want to remember him and remember his words? Besides, words about which content we are not sure, due to the fact that neither cameras nor recorders were then...
Yet heretics of all times want this – to kill the irreverent God, to reject the eventual triumph of death. any talk of it directly, others half-headed, others do not contact the subject at all yet, seeking an outlet for their antichristian swarms in other, little conspicuous themes of the Church, reasoning that before burying for centuries the divinity of Christ, 1 must first bury the authority of the Holy Capital. And this is the task they dedicate their lives to, foretelling not the Risen, who founded the Holy Catholic Church, but preaching only themselves, their ideas, their venom, their poison, the pride of his doomed life. no of them are wasted. What 1 heretic erstwhile proclaims, another sometimes takes over immediately, sometimes only after tens and hundreds of years, establishing on the ground of these errors fresh churches built on a human measure, sometimes ephemeral, another time very permanent. No or almost no heretical thought dies. Old heresies only dress up in fresh robes, enriching them at most with innovative design. It should be admitted that this hard effort, which has been repeated for centuries, must be a reflection on the perseverance and intent of their actions; it wonders how, together, you frequently work together, so, it seems, different innovators. But don't their lies have a common father?
Let us return to our priest, who, as he confessed, has “a problem” with the resurrection. Where does he get his ideas by saying that he can only talk about what is in harmony with his mind? Naturally, indirectly from the founding fathers of modern neomodern philosophy, Protestant ideologists who, on the eve of the French Revolution, set themselves the goal of building fresh theories that will replace the foundations of authentically Christian thinking, constituting Western civilization. Their achievements show how – like at the intersection of trails – they converge into 1 different currents of heretic errors, in order to join forces, to release something seemingly new, but very old. After all, the authors of this period preached the necessity of a fresh era of reason, in which there will no longer be a request to believe in any dogma or authoritatively given by the religion of truth; all morality will be derived only from human reason. The origin of their errors was not only in protestantism with its rule of individual and, in fact, self-interpretation of Scripture; it was besides in other, much older heresies.
For example, revolutionary “reformers” have frequently preached, for example, the constant moral effort of human souls after death, thus referring to the Church's condemned explanation of methempsychosis and eternal return; they have proclaimed the request to prosecute the establishment of a kingdom of reason on this earth, replicating the errors of ancient and medieval millennials awaiting the fulfilment of the intent of history; while absoluteizing reason and its function in attaining individual enlightenment, they have entered into the shoes of gnostics who, not in Christ, but in the individual's knowledge, have seen the intent of human life; and yet negating the historicity of the natural resurrection, they have repeated, consciously or not, the the the thesis of Arius and his indirect and direct disciples, taken centuries later besides by the Mexican prophet... Today, building on their thoughts, and adding tens and hundreds of another errors, progressives effort to disprove the religion of the Church in various ways, yet demitologize it, so as to leave at the end only miserable ruins and preach—as post-protestant ridiculers—‘God died...'...
The passage comes from Paul Chmielewski’s book “Heiders. Old heresies in fresh robes”, Fronda 2023
About the book in the program Right Simple Morning is told by the author (since 18:00)
