Pope Francis on Rigidity

  • Thread starter Thread starter RHIC12
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I agree with your post. The poison of ambiguity seems to have ruled the day in recent time, while fidelity to Christ and the Magisterium has been conveniently and falsely labeled as rigid.

Conflating the fidelity to Christ and the Magisterium to the sickness of moral superiority is wrong and destructive. The Church will never cease to be faithful to Christ. Satan is quite clever and cunning in masking his efforts to separate the faithful from Christ and the Magisterium.

May Christ continue to have mercy on us and on the Church. Christ has always kept His promise to protect the Church.
 
Last edited:
The core of Catholic Church is Christ Himself—not just some human concept.
 
Last edited:
niceatheist said:
The core of Christianity is compassion. Some seem to treat it like a legal code. It ceases to be faith and becomes accounting.
Click to expand...
The core of Christianity is the salvation of souls. Compassion is bringing the means of salvation, which we understand we have received as a gift of God, to all sinners so that they may also do penance, obey the commandments, and be saved. Contempt would be to spitefully or even indifferently deny them that. It is also compassion toward the suffering of the body (charity is for the whole person), alleviating it where possible, or helping another to bear it well if need be.

If there is a squishy moral law, or none at all, there is no compassion, only indifference.

Would a doctor have compassion if he just told everyone they were well? Or if he did not clearly identify disorders and urge a proper treatment? If he had a treatment that he could freely provide to heal someone, but instead told them it was not possible for them to be healed (that’s only for special people) and they should pretend everything is all right? Or if he just made up disorders and treatments? He’d just be a quack or worse.
 
Last edited:
As long as it is reasonable and you aren’t prickly about it then it is good.
 
Last edited:
I don’t see how being loyal to tradition is making “Christianity a legal code”. Compassion is an inherent part of Catholicism. You can’t have it any other way.
 
Francis4 said:
This same ‘rigidity’ can be leveled at Christ Himself who was uncompromising in his clear affirmation of His divine mission and doctrine. Nor was Christ any less compromising on strict moral standards, nor did he hesitate to call out in clear terms those who undermined His mission or who undermined the doctrines of His Father.

Just read the gospel.
Click to expand...
Well, this is very inconvenient. Those who are the subject of Christ’s most incisive criticisms are the holders of orthodoxy at that time. In fact, Christ refers to Peter himself with a moniker that he applied to no one else in the Gospel. He calls Peter “Satan”. Tough stuff. And we should expect something less challenging?

Here’s the problem: Our mission is to call people out of their sin into holiness. Sin is evil and scandalous. When we hold the goods of salvation as if they are an exclusive possession, that is a really serious sin.
And it’s one that all of us as orthodox Catholics need to keep in mind.
 
Last edited:
Compassion is also to identify commonalities with the other, including sin. The word compassion means “to suffer with”. It is not just a feeling or disposition towards others, although it is that too… it is a participation.
To the extent that we see our holding of orthodoxy in opposition to others who are sinners, we are not compassionate. Because we are all sinners, thought not all sin is manifested in the same ways for each individual.
Our participation in the common struggle is what makes us compassionate.

This week I like to think of Christ, who had every right to enforce orthodoxy, but did not enforce it. Christ himself embodies the truth, and rather that hammer it into us, he who was without sin “became sin” for us. That is compassion. A complete identification.
 
Last edited:
Seems so to me. I would add that being rigid toward oneself is undoubtedly a good thing. Being kindly toward others is as well. Seems nowadays, it’s often the other way around.
 
Stability, not rigidity. A rock represents stability, an immortal Mother Church, a firm foundation for one’s faith. Rigidity indicates an unwillingness to change. Sometimes, this is a good thing. Other times, not so much.

From Psalm 95, we hear, “If today you hear His voice, harden not your hearts.”

Stability is the better road to take because it allows at least a little flexibility for correction when we only think we’re right.
 
Last edited:
Well put.

I’d say there are some who have recently left the FBI who suffer from moral superiority syndrome.
 
Christ judges ; and he does not do so based on one’s moral superiority. So, a compass and square can only get one so far.
 
Last edited:
CapitalistCatholic said:
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?
Click to expand...
Rigid is regarded as a negative attribute. It comes from the Latin ‘rigere’ which denotes the stiffness of something that was alive and is now dead.
 
Last edited:
Salary comes from the Latin word referring to salt and dried meat payed to Roman soldeirs. Doesn’t mean when I’m asking for my pay, I need three pounds of salt and dried meat.
 
Rigid in the English language means unable to change or adapt, as well as something unmoving. That’s not the correct definition, ma’am.

Being rigid doesn’t mean being legalistic. There’s obviously a line crossed, but being a rigid Catholic is a good thing.
 
I looked up the etymology of RIGID: RIGID | Definition of RIGID by Oxford Dictionary on Lexico.com also meaning of RIGID
Late Middle English: from Latin rigidus, from rigere ‘be stiff’.
Click to expand...
Here’s STABLE: STABLE | Definition of STABLE by Oxford Dictionary on Lexico.com also meaning of STABLE
Middle English: from Anglo-Norman French, from Latin stabilis, from the base of stare ‘to stand’.
Click to expand...
Try on this engineering analogy for size. I’ve lived in more than one earthquake zone. A rigid bridge will crack and crumble in an earthquake; it’s too stiff to withstand any kind of unexpected upheaval. A stable bridge with the right supports may have suspender cables that blow a little in the wind, and it will move with the tectonic plates and reposition itself appropriately when an earthquake hits. But it will remain standing.

So when you face challenges, i.e. life’s “earthquakes,” would you rather be a rigid Catholic or a stable one?
 
Not outrageous. Simply accept that you may not understand what HH the Pope has said and move on with life. Trust in God that His Church will not fail.
 
With respect to marriage at least, the Church derives its rigid stance on its permanence and its non-acceptance of divorce, directly from Jesus, who overruled the prior laxity on the matter.
 
these are the ones sown on rocky ground who, when they hear the word, receive it at once with joy.
But they have no root; they last only for a time. Then when tribulation or persecution comes because of the word, they quickly fall away.
Mark 4:16-17
Click to expand...
Not every reference to rocks and rigidity is positive. This is probably what Francis is concerned about, that the Word cannot put roots into the rock.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top