Emeraldlady
New member
Quite the opposite. We have to be teachable and malleable in order to go with the breath of the Spirt who guides the Church. If we reject that movement we are left behind with the rigid dead whose faith is in temporal things.
- Status
Emeraldlady
New member
And that doctrine. hasn’t changed.
S
stpurl
Guest
Wait, what?
First of all, does the breath of the Spirit never keep us in a steady direction? Does it always have to ‘change’, and not just change in a deeper way but change to where "X is good’ becomes X is bad’?
Second, let’s picture a bridge across a vast chasm. A ‘malleable and flowing’ bridge which swings to and fro soon may weaken its pilings and wind up falling into the chasm, while the ‘rigid’ bridge remains steady and safe. I know which I’d rather be one.
And why do you assume those who are ‘rigid’ aren’t just 'dead, but had a faith 'only in temporal things"?
Personally, I’d love to have you tell the saints who were martyrs for the faith that they died because they were ‘rigid’ and their faith was only in ‘temporal things’, because if they’d just been teachable and malleable like people are today, they could have crossed their fingers, lied about being Christians, and stayed alive. . .or have ‘trusted in God’ to forgive them because obviously being alive was more important than dying a martyr’s death. . .
First of all, does the breath of the Spirit never keep us in a steady direction? Does it always have to ‘change’, and not just change in a deeper way but change to where "X is good’ becomes X is bad’?
Second, let’s picture a bridge across a vast chasm. A ‘malleable and flowing’ bridge which swings to and fro soon may weaken its pilings and wind up falling into the chasm, while the ‘rigid’ bridge remains steady and safe. I know which I’d rather be one.
And why do you assume those who are ‘rigid’ aren’t just 'dead, but had a faith 'only in temporal things"?
Personally, I’d love to have you tell the saints who were martyrs for the faith that they died because they were ‘rigid’ and their faith was only in ‘temporal things’, because if they’d just been teachable and malleable like people are today, they could have crossed their fingers, lied about being Christians, and stayed alive. . .or have ‘trusted in God’ to forgive them because obviously being alive was more important than dying a martyr’s death. . .
Emeraldlady
New member
As pilgrims on a journey, we have faith that the Spirit is taking us in the right direction through the Church. Our faith in the authority of the Church to lead us together is the essence of being Catholic.
Perhaps you are a former Protestant? In Catholicism we give the imagery of the bridge to the Pontiff which literally from the Latin means ‘bridge builder’. Protestantism made everyone their own bridge builder.
Catholics trust that it is the Church building the bridge with the guidance of the Holy Spirit and we the pilgrims keep moving forward together on the bridge to the ‘promised land’. The Church lays the bricks and we walk on their foundations.
If we reject the authority of the Church to teach and guide, where are we putting out faith?
This is such a strange example. The martyrs died defending the Church and Pope against the attacks of satan. Not defending some impression of what they thought the Church should be, against a living Pope.
S
stpurl
Guest
Wow. LOL, A 'former Protestant"? That’s news to this 62 year old cradle Catholic.
Your post is very puzzling. I just don’t understand how you interpreted what I said by responding the way you did.
Your post is very puzzling. I just don’t understand how you interpreted what I said by responding the way you did.
Emeraldlady
New member
I’m a cradle Catholic of 57 years and I don’t understand what makes Catholics comfortable to reject the authority of the Pope to teach. I understand that some people have personal preferences for one man over another, but what does it feel like to doubt teaching after a lifetime of trusting that the Holy Spirit won’t let something false to be taught? I identify with Peter who watched scores of people walk away from Jesus because they couldn’t accept what He was teaching.
“Do you want to leave too?” Simon Peter replied, “Lord, to whom would we go?
Emeraldlady
New member
This is why I think extremism is bad. Those on both ends of it end up in agreement with each other. It used to be called modernism and liberalism to say things like that.Emeraldlady:
It is more a doubt that the thing is actually being authoritatively taught, rather rhan a doubt in the authoirty to teach.
I believe the Holy Father himself has said multiple times that he doesn’t like to speak authoritatively or doctrinally on these matters.
Hence implying that disagreement and discussion is allowed.
Honk Honk
J
JimG
Guest
That’s good.
Emeraldlady
New member
No, I’m saying that it used to be called modernism and liberalism to claim that one doesn’t have to accept Church teaching if in their own opinion it is wrong.
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
Actually both can be used for good. It isn’t an either/or situation.
Emeraldlady
New member
Personally I can’t think of any literature across the many areas of human behaviours and attitudes, that has used ‘rigidity’ to denote a positive attribute. I feel there is an attempt to rewrite the usage of a word here.
R
Randolph
Guest
I agree with you.
To get straight to the point. In recent times, the enemies of the Church have yet found a new vehicle to criticize Catholic faithful by way of rigidity. By labeling/associating good/healthy devotional, discipline and doctrinal practices with the word “rigid”—in all its negative elements, they want to marginalize these practices that have helped draw the faithful closer to Christ, the Church and our Holy Mother. In effect, this method is used to put distance between the faithful and Christ.
If the enemies of the Church were intellectually honest, they would also agree that:
—Christ was rigid throughout His ministry in proclaiming no one can come through the Father without Him; Christ was rigid in proclaiming the beatitudes; He was rigid in accepting his own death on the cross for the sake of humanity and in obedient to His Father; He was rigid in turning the tables of the money changers in the temple;
—Our Holy Mother was rigid in her faithfulness and obedience to God sand her Son;
—11 of 12 apostles were rigid in accepting their own violent death because of their faith in Christ; All the faithful and martyrs in history were rigid in their uncompromising faith in Christ; etc…
One key element about the Catholic faith is fidelity to Christ and the Magisterium. It should be encouraged and embraced. No one in the Church should ever question that.
To get straight to the point. In recent times, the enemies of the Church have yet found a new vehicle to criticize Catholic faithful by way of rigidity. By labeling/associating good/healthy devotional, discipline and doctrinal practices with the word “rigid”—in all its negative elements, they want to marginalize these practices that have helped draw the faithful closer to Christ, the Church and our Holy Mother. In effect, this method is used to put distance between the faithful and Christ.
If the enemies of the Church were intellectually honest, they would also agree that:
—Christ was rigid throughout His ministry in proclaiming no one can come through the Father without Him; Christ was rigid in proclaiming the beatitudes; He was rigid in accepting his own death on the cross for the sake of humanity and in obedient to His Father; He was rigid in turning the tables of the money changers in the temple;
—Our Holy Mother was rigid in her faithfulness and obedience to God sand her Son;
—11 of 12 apostles were rigid in accepting their own violent death because of their faith in Christ; All the faithful and martyrs in history were rigid in their uncompromising faith in Christ; etc…
One key element about the Catholic faith is fidelity to Christ and the Magisterium. It should be encouraged and embraced. No one in the Church should ever question that.
Last edited:
R
Randolph
Guest
It is true that the word “rigid” has negative connotations, and it is a negative personal trait and characteristic. But there are sub-elements/traits in the word that can be helpful.
Synonyms of the word include: “fixed, set, firm, unalterable, unchangeable, unyielding, relentless, immutable, unvarying, invariable,”
Here are some examples:
—“The words of Christ and the doctrines of the Church are firm, unalterable, and immutable.”
—“An Olympic athlete is set and firm in his/her vigorous training routine.”
—“A parent is fixed, unyielding and relentless in protecting his/her children from harms.”
Synonyms of the word include: “fixed, set, firm, unalterable, unchangeable, unyielding, relentless, immutable, unvarying, invariable,”
Here are some examples:
—“The words of Christ and the doctrines of the Church are firm, unalterable, and immutable.”
—“An Olympic athlete is set and firm in his/her vigorous training routine.”
—“A parent is fixed, unyielding and relentless in protecting his/her children from harms.”
Last edited:
Emeraldlady
New member
“Enemies of the Church”? Is that what you are calling Pope Francis? Because the Pope was certainly NOT talking about “good/healthy devotional, discipline and doctrinal practices” as rigid. He is addressing the letter of the law type of attitude that eschews the spirit of the law such as were the Pharisees. They weren’t open to Gods presence outside the rules so profoundly rigid as to kill the Saviour in the end.
They were truly an example of formality. But they lacked life. They were, so to speak, “starched.” They were rigid. And Jesus knew their soul. This scandalizes us, because they were scandalized by the things Jesus did when He forgave sins, when He healed on the Sabbath. They rent their garments: “Oh! What a scandal! This is not from God, because He should have done this” [instead]. The people didn’t matter to them: the Law mattered to them, the prescriptions, the rubrics.”
Pope Francis gives a timely warning to beware of that attitude in religious people today. We all know them.
Be careful around those who are rigid. Be careful around Christians – be they laity, priests, bishops – who present themselves as so “perfect,” rigid. Be careful. There’s no Spirit of God there. They lack the spirit of liberty. And let us be careful with ourselves, because this should lead us to consider our own life. Do I seek to look only at appearance, and not change my heart? Do I not open my heart to prayer, to the liberty of prayer, the liberty of almsgiving, the liberty of works of mercy?
The bottom line is that rigidity prevents the spirit of Jesus from entering ones soul.
(Homily daily Mass at Casa Santa Marta 16/10/18)
Last edited:
R
Randolph
Guest
I said no such thing about Pope Francis. It was you who made that link. Show me anywhere in my post that I mentioned Pope Francis!!
You should be ashamed of yourself!!!
You should be ashamed of yourself!!!
Last edited:
Emeraldlady
New member
The thread is about Pope Francis admonishing people who are rigid and your post on the thread says that “criticising Catholic faithful by way of rigidity” is the “new vehicle” of “enemies of the Church.”
Why should I be ashamed of myself?
Why should I be ashamed of myself?
R
Randolph
Guest
In your reply to me, you said:
“Enemies of the Church”? Is that what you are calling Pope Francis? “
I did not mention Pope Francis in my own post. You went ahead and accused me of calling Pope Francis the “enemies of the Church”.
You attached words and sentiments that did not belong to me. In matters regarding the Holy Father—Pope Francis, this is very serious… That’s shameful…
“Enemies of the Church”? Is that what you are calling Pope Francis? “
I did not mention Pope Francis in my own post. You went ahead and accused me of calling Pope Francis the “enemies of the Church”.
You attached words and sentiments that did not belong to me. In matters regarding the Holy Father—Pope Francis, this is very serious… That’s shameful…
Last edited:
Emeraldlady
New member
It really was up to you to exclude Pope Francis from your accusation since the whole thread is based on Pope Francis’ comments about rigidity. It is perfectly reasonable that I might assume you were one of the many anti Pope Francis posters that post.
Last edited:
S
stpurl
Guest
You know, one does not have to be ‘anti’ a person to be concerned about something that person says, or to desire to have statements given clarity.
This thread has what, 63 posts? it doesn’t mention Pope Francis in every single post, and plenty of the posts are discussing concepts and definitions of words, not particularly addressing or indeed attacking Pope Francis at all.
This thread has what, 63 posts? it doesn’t mention Pope Francis in every single post, and plenty of the posts are discussing concepts and definitions of words, not particularly addressing or indeed attacking Pope Francis at all.
Emeraldlady
New member
Speaking of desiring clarity. Who are the ‘enemies of the Church’ who have this ‘new vehicle’ called rigidity to ‘criticise the Catholic’ faithful with? If it is not directed at Pope Francis criticism as linked to in the OP, who is it?
- Status