Faithfull and angry?

[Michael19682]

Jesus wasn’t generally angry, and he forgave everyone. If he was angry, he took a course of action that forced a showdown between his forgiveness and their anger. Their anger led them to believe to this day that they have won. I personally would like to know what people think about the purpose of anger and/or angry affect. And whether total forgiveness can be achieved in the same world where what Jesus despised remains to be found everywhere.
Does it any longer make sense to be a martyr when such makes the haughty haughtier, the evil more evil, and where the complexity of society makes resultant more trouble than good from martyrdom.
As a practical example, I have heard that genuflecting before reception of the host is no longer advisable. That either recontextualizes genuflecting absolutely, or else makes a martyr of sorts of the person genuflecting if genuflecting is a sincere and reverent sign of respect, etc. for the host and its minister.
Yet if the faithful have been angered, of what use is the sacrifice of one’s own self?

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

Hi Michael. What I’m going to write are my opinions. I’ve been hanging around churches on and off for a long time and I see things from many points of view at once.

I don’t know whether we need to “decide” whether they (my mother’s people incidentally ) have necessarily been thinking they won. I think they have always had a great many shades of viewpoint and still have.

Angry affect is an emotion that arises in distress over hurt to us or another. It hurts us to prolong the bodily part of it unnecessarily. Pain without anger is the next stage.

Forgiveness comes when we are ready. It’s not right for anyone to lecture us about forgiveness. We must first and foremost stay safe and help everyone else be safe.

We needn’t worry about Jesus. He has His Father to look after him!

It’s no use speculating what kind of “martyr” (i.e witness) we may be if any.

Christ is calling us to share our gifts with others so we shall have a share in their crowns. It is necessary to work together as we have half a gift each.

Some people called Catholics insist we mustn’t relate with each other.

Worries over liturgy aren’t martyrdom. In my personal opinion it is inappropriate to attach undue importance to the details of liturgy, whatever “undue” may end up being discovered to be! But that’s just me!

Back to anger. Who knows what of the anger of the faithful is appropriate and what isn’t?

 

[Petaro]

Jesus wasn’t generally angry, and he forgave everyone. If he was angry, he took a course of action that forced a showdown between his forgiveness and their anger. Their anger led them to believe to this day that they have won. I personally would like to know what people think about the purpose of anger and/or angry affect. And whether total forgiveness can be achieved in the same world where what Jesus despised remains to be found everywhere.
Does it any longer make sense to be a martyr when such makes the haughty haughtier, the evil more evil, and where the complexity of society makes resultant more trouble than good from martyrdom.
As a practical example, I have heard that genuflecting before reception of the host is no longer advisable. That either recontextualizes genuflecting absolutely, or else makes a martyr of sorts of the person genuflecting if genuflecting is a sincere and reverent sign of respect, etc. for the host and its minister.
Yet if the faithful have been angered, of what use is the sacrifice of one’s own self?

I am not sure if I fully understand your point you are making. I believe it is natural to have justifiable anger at the evil in the world. I believe it is always valuable to fight against it as best we personally can. Evil cannot come from good. I don’t agree that any sacrifice to the good we may do will strengthen our enemies. For their success is shortlived in the scheme of eternity and our small sacrifice can be offered and joined with the greatest Sacrifice of Christ for our salvation, branding our allegiance to our Lord on our souls so He may identify us as His on the last day. I have never heard of derision of genuflection before the Eucharist. It may be an inconvenient act of overt piety that goes against the Anglo-Saxon reserve of some cultures, but I have never seen it frowned upon. Look after your own soul and ignore the opinions of others if you feel you are doing the will of the Lord in these devotions.
But on the main point nothing evil can come of any good you do in the fulfillment of your birthright of Baptism.

 

[Michael19682]

I am not sure if I fully understand your point you are making. I believe it is natural to have justifiable anger at the evil in the world. I believe it is always valuable to fight against it as best we personally can. Evil cannot come from good. I don’t agree that any sacrifice to the good we may do will strengthen our enemies. For their success is shortlived in the scheme of eternity and our small sacrifice can be offered and joined with the greatest Sacrifice of Christ for our salvation, branding our allegiance to our Lord on our souls so He may identify us as His on the last day. I have never heard of derision of genuflection before the Eucharist. It may be an inconvenient act of overt piety that goes against the Anglo-Saxon reserve of some cultures, but I have never seen it frowned upon. Look after your own soul and ignore the opinions of others if you feel you are doing the will of the Lord in these devotions.
But on the main point nothing evil can come of any good you do in the fulfillment of your birthright of Baptism.

A very useful answer. I thank you for responding.
Still, however, I feel I wasn’t personally clear enough, and thus your response seems somewhat distant to my question. No fault of anyone but me.
Isn’t what you propose really an example of the consequences of predestination thinking?
I mean, if we have free will, then we have a will to begin with. What if the will becomes overwhelmed?
You seem to say essentially that if the will’s provocation, its stimulus, is a righteous concern, deed, or action, then that will indeed is damned if it be overwhelmed by the goodness provoking it. I say that such goodness is a weapon, and indeed one that is commonly harnessed and abused when it is not genuine goodness, but “aped” for personal gain.
If I know that genuflecting leads Anglo-Saxons to peevishness followed by irreverence and to ultimately rejection of God, how can my firm conviction in its goodness not be overwhelmed if I should worship among them?
Then what is left to salvage?
Jesus was an offense to many.
I think this is beginning to become discursive, but consider the Mt 5:5.
If Jesus is talking about interior meekness, then he is really only clarifying and repeating his Beatitude about the clean of heart. The other possibility is that he is opening the door to Heaven to those who can imitate meekness to get what they want.
Here surely, others should agree. Meekness as aggression is an offense to God.
I hope I have clarified/qualified my OP idea(s).

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

Churches have a lot of grumpy people around them. Our devotions are at our own free discretion. Jesus, the Pope etc don’t command us to let people get in our hair.

Is somebody actually making a public fuss about your perfectly inoccuous behaviour?

Maybe a person who acts out of turn is creating even more of a scene in loads of other places as well. For all you know, a large amount of people are on the point of doing something about that person’s behaviour.