Pope Francis on Rigidity

  • Thread starter Thread starter RHIC12
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

RHIC12

Guest
‘In his apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium , Francis further explains, and perhaps most clearly, where his aversion to rigidity comes from.

He criticizes what he calls a “self-absorbed promethean neopelagianism” among those who “ultimately trust only in their own powers and feel superior to others because they observe certain rules or remain intransigently faithful to a particular Catholic style from the past.”

“A supposed soundness of doctrine or discipline leads instead to a narcissistic and authoritarian elitism,” he believes, “whereby instead of evangelizing, one analyzes and classifies others, and instead of opening the door to grace, one exhausts his or her energies in inspecting and verifying.”

He further believes that “in neither case is one really concerned about Jesus Christ or others” and argues it is “impossible to think that a genuine evangelizing thrust could emerge from these adulterated forms of Christianity.”’
http://m.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/pope-francis-rigidity-is-something-pathological

Does one have to agree with the Pope on this matter? Simply curious. I read elsewhere that apostolic exhortations are not infallible. If they aren’t, do you have to agree with them anyways? Do these actually count as matters of moral teaching or doctrine of the Church?

Thanks for any insight!
 
You just need to tweak the attitude a bit and it isn’t a bad type of rigid anymore.
 
RHIC12 said:
Does one have to agree with the Pope on this matter? Simply curious. I read elsewhere that apostolic exhortations are not infallible. If they aren’t, do you have to agree with them anyways? Do these actually count as matters of moral teaching or doctrine of the Church?
Click to expand...
Responding to each sentence in turn:
  1. No
  2. They aren’t infallible
  3. No
  4. No
Pope Francis is tired, he always has issues expressing himself esp in English, and the media are cherry picking his comments to stir the pot. Pray for him.

I don’t think what he said in this case is too far off the mark though.
 
Last edited:
RHIC12 said:
He criticizes what he calls a “self-absorbed promethean neopelagianism” among those who “ultimately trust only in their own powers and feel superior to others because they observe certain rules or remain intransigently faithful to a particular Catholic style from the past.”
Click to expand...
Those are the modern day Pharisees.
 
It’s funny that he is always complaining about rigidity, when being rigid is what he is supposed to be–his whole office is to be a rock.

Granted, if rigidity is defined as “intransigently faithful to a particular Catholic style from the past” he is the most rigid Pope of my lifetime (being firmly stuck in the late 60s/70s).

One can have a “heart of stone,” but that has nothing to do with sticking to the moral law. That means resisting the grace of the Holy Spirit which calls us to unwavering fidelity and true charity. In fact, Christ said those who practiced divorce and remarriage had the hard hearts, not the one who forbade it (Jesus Himself). The one who decides for himself when to dispense with certain commandments or to propose novel doctrines is the one who trusts in himself, rather than trusting in what has come from the Lord and been handed down for our salvation.

In any event, whatever he means by this, we should build our house on the rigid rock, like Christ the Cornerstone says, not on shifting sands.
 
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself said:
he always has issues expressing himself esp in English
Click to expand...
Isn’t this more the problem of whoever translates the Pope’s messages in English? That person probably interprets whatever they want from the message and it results such as this, that the Pope said not to obey God’s laws too strictly. The messages from the Vatican don’t sound that absurd in other messages.
Just sayin’.
 
RHIC12 said:
…
Does one have to agree with the Pope on this matter? Simply curious. I read elsewhere that apostolic exhortations are not infallible. If they aren’t, do you have to agree with them anyways? Do these actually count as matters of moral teaching or doctrine of the Church?

Thanks for any insight!
Click to expand...
Donum Veritatis http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...aith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html

Assent is obligatory when the Magisterium:
  1. held as theological faith: makes an infallible pronouncement and solemnly declares that a teaching is found in Revelation
  2. firmly accepted and held: proposes in a definitive way, truths concerning faith and morals, which, even if not divinely revealed
  3. religious submission of will and intellect: undefinitively, teaches a doctrine to aid a better understanding of Revelation and make explicit its contents, or to recall how some teaching is in conformity with the truths of faith, or finally to guard against ideas that are incompatible with these truths.
Click to expand...
Also see: https://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfadtu.htm

Canon law:
CIC Canon 750 (Also CCEO Canon 598)
1. Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal Magisterium, which in fact is manifested by the common adherence of Christ’s faithful under the guidance of the sacred Magisterium. All are therefore bound to avoid any contrary doctrines.
2. Furthermore, each and everything set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held; namely those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
What’s wrong with being rigid? Isn’t the Papacy “The Rock”?
 
Genesis315 said:
It’s funny that he is always complaining about rigidity, when being rigid is what he is supposed to be–his whole office is to be a rock.

Granted, if rigidity is defined as “intransigently faithful to a particular Catholic style from the past” he is the most rigid Pope of my lifetime (being firmly stuck in the late 60s/70s).

One can have a “heart of stone,” but that has nothing to do with sticking to the moral law. That means resisting the grace of the Holy Spirit which calls us to unwavering fidelity and true charity. In fact, Christ said those who practiced divorce and remarriage had the hard hearts, not the one who forbade it (Jesus Himself). The one who decides for himself when to dispense with certain commandments or to propose novel doctrines is the one who trusts in himself, rather than trusting in what has come from the Lord and been handed down for our salvation.

In any event, whatever he means by this, we should build our house on the rigid rock, like Christ the Cornerstone says, not on shifting sands.
Click to expand...
This is simply not true. As a typical Jesuit formed on the Spiritual Exercises of St Ignatius, Francis returns to the life of Jesus in the Scriptures daily. If a Jesuit is stuck anywhere, it in the 1st century with Christ.

It’s not only Francis who questions those who claim tradition began with the Council of Trent and only it defines orthodox teachings. It’s millions of us ordinary orthodox Catholics who put our faith in the Rock as the living Spirit of Christ.
 
No, in everything in sacred scripture I can think of that deals with stones, it is specifically the rigidity that is the important characteristic of the rock.

Peter speaks of the living stones building a “spiritual house” in his first letter.

Speaking of houses, Jesus tells us to build our house on bedrock because the rigidity of the bedrock protects the house from wind, storm, and earthquake.

Likewise Peter is the Rock upon which the Church is build so that the Church can withstand (that is, not be moved by) the physical assaults of the gates of Hell.
 
Consider how water is used as both a good thing and a bad thing in the Scripture.
 
RHIC12 said:
they observe certain rules or remain intransigently faithful to a particular Catholic style from the past.
Click to expand...
JimmyTolder said:
40.png
Emeraldlady:
It’s not only Francis who questions those who claim tradition began with the Council of Trent and only it defines orthodox teachings.
Click to expand...
That’s a mighty fine strawman you’ve built there.
Click to expand...
Not at all. What Pope Francis was countering when he said “they observe certain rules or remain intransigently faithful to a particular Catholic style from the past.”, is the practice of those citing the Council of Trent, it’s doctrinal statements, it’s form of the Mass, it’s hardline counter-reformation focus (which was culture and era relevant), to condemn Vatican II, Pope Francis and especially Amoris Laetitia etc. It’s not a secret.
 
Asinner said:
No, in everything in sacred scripture I can think of that deals with stones, it is specifically the rigidity that is the important characteristic of the rock.

Peter speaks of the living stones building a “spiritual house” in his first letter.

Speaking of houses, Jesus tells us to build our house on bedrock because the rigidity of the bedrock protects the house from wind, storm, and earthquake.

Likewise Peter is the Rock upon which the Church is build so that the Church can withstand (that is, not be moved by) the physical assaults of the gates of Hell.
Click to expand...
What you are referencing is not ‘rigidity’ it is soundness. Like a good engineer, the soundness of a structures foundation depends on the environment it has to thrive in. They have to be tweaked to suit earthquakes or to withstand cyclones or to accommodate flood prone areas. The Apostolic authority that continues to be passed down is meant to maintain a sound foundation according to the conditions the era is faced with.
 
JimmyTolder said:
You said they think tradition began with Trent and only it defines orthodox teaching.

Feel free to cite a single person that believes this then get back to me. Remember to include quotes by them to the effect of:

“Tradition begins with Trent and only Trent defines orthodox teaching.”
Click to expand...
One of the notables is your man E. Christian Brugger whose prolific criticism of Amoris Laetitia is based squarely on it’s “inconsistency with the Council of Trent”. That is all laid down in his 2017 book “The Indissolubility of Marriage and the Council of Trent”.
 
JimmyTolder said:
Citing Trent as an authority is not acceptable? Was it not a legitimate council?

Still, I didn’t see any quote saying “tradition begins with Trent and only Trent can define orthodoxy” but I guess you must have just forgot to put that in. Surely you didn’t strawman your opponents, you just forgot to cite the hoardes of people who believe this ridiculous and easily refuted opinion. It couldn’t be that the situation is more nuanced than you originally stated.
Click to expand...
Citing Trent to prove discontinuity in doctrine is a well known treachery of a modern faction in the Church.
 
When I think of “narcissistic elitism” I think of a (hypothetical) celebrity author who basks in the adulation of his hundreds of thousands of social media sycophants who soak up every word of his dissent against certain Church teachings and who labels anyone who dares to question him a hater.
Hypothetically speaking, of course.
 
Last edited:
Yes, but I still don’t see how rigidity is a bad thing. Being unmoving and rigid in your traditions and beliefs is a good thing, is it not?
 
Until it’s not. The core of Christianity is compassion. Some seem to treat it like a legal code. It ceases to be faith and becomes accounting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top