Pope Francis on Rigidity

[Randolph]

It requires humility and self reflection to admit one’s mistakes, to apologize for them and, most importantly, to learn from them—so that one can healthily and positively move forward. I, along with many posters here on CAF, have made mistakes understanding and interpreting others’ posts. Affected posters often acknowledged my apologies, and we often moved on to productive and fruitful dialogues. In the end, we earned more respect from each other—although, more often than not, we remained far apart on issues at hand.

It’s a good life lesson for all to absorb. What is harmful is to continue placing blames on others rather than on one’s very own self. The straw man trap is often used in dialogues/debates to incorrectly and unjustly discredit others’ point of view. But, more often then not, it results in chaos and disarray, and brings negative consequences.

Pope Francis is our Holy Father and the Vicar of Christ on earth. It would be wrong to say that he is the enemy of the Church. He deserves our love and respect. I pray for him to guide the Church—the faithful bride of Christ.

I will check out of this thread, and wish you well.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Can you tell me who are the “enemies of the Church” who are referencing rigidity if you aren’t referring to Pope Francis? Is it people like me who agree with Pope Francis about the problem of rigidity? Give me an idea of who the ‘intellectually dishonest’ crowd is that you call ‘enemies of the Church’? I’ll have a better idea of your innocent intention if I know who you were really referring to.

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:

 

[Randolph]

I was referring to those who espouse to heresies and those who harm the Church. They conflate good/healthy devotional, discipline and doctrinal practices to rigid/unhealthy behavior. Among examples are: praying the rosary is mindless and stupid; the Eucharist is not the real presence, but just a communal meal, the Holy Mass is a playground for human creativity; the teachings and doctrines of the Church are outdated, rigid, unjust and prejudicial; the sacrament of confession is bothersome and unnecessary; receiving Communion is the the right for all; belittling and marginalizing those who attend Mass in the Extraordinary Form; etc…

 

[Malcolm]

[…] intransigently faithful to a particular Catholic style from the past

yes the deposit of faith should be defended not replaced by shallow modern improvements however crowd pleasing those may seem to be in the short term.

what is the point of modern alternatives when the half-life of novelty diminishes daily ? only eternal truths last

 

[Emeraldlady]

I was referring to those who espouse to heresies and those who harm the Church. They conflate good/healthy devotional, discipline and doctrinal practices to rigid/unhealthy behavior. Among examples are: praying the rosary is mindless and stupid; the Eucharist is not the real presence, but just a communal meal, the Holy Mass is a playground for human creativity; the teachings and doctrines of the Church are outdated, rigid, unjust and prejudicial; the sacrament of confession is bothersome and unnecessary; receiving Communion is the the right for all; belittling and marginalizing those who attend Mass in the Extraordinary Form; etc…

You seem to be referring to Protestant criticisms here in the main. That’s not modern. It’s at least 500 years old.

“belittling and marginalizing those who attend Mass in the Extraordinary Form; etc…”

[…] intransigently faithful to a particular Catholic style from the past

The Extraordinary Form of the Mass is a legitimate liturgy. I’ve never heard anyone call that ‘rigid’. The ‘rigid’ reference is in relation to the attitude that won’t accept the new order of the Mass or ‘belittles’ and condemns it because it wasn’t the form of the Mass that the Council of Trent endorsed.

 

[Randolph]

No, I am referring to recent time in the Church—not 500 years ago and not just from Protestants. I had catholics told me that saying the Rosary is mindless and stupid. The same for Church doctrines and teachings, the Eucharist, etc… There was a priest here at CAF said his past interactions with those who attended the Extraordinary Form Mass was mostly—if not wholly negative. He mentioned mental instability. He suggested that the Church should re-evaluate the whole situation. He wowed to never say Mass in the EF form again. He and I had heated exchanges on this very “rigid” subject a few years ago when Pope Francis first made reference to youths who attended the EF.

All Masses approved by the Church are legitimate, and deserve respect and dignity.

 

[Emeraldlady]

No, I am referring to recent time in the Church—not 500 years ago and not just from Protestants. I had catholics told me that saying the Rosary is mindless and stupid. The same for Church doctrines and teachings, the Eucharist, etc…

Ok so you’re referring to nominal, poorly catechised and lapsed Catholics? There is no theological movement to my knowledge that promotes losing the Rosary, Church doctrines or the Eucharist because they are ‘rigid’. I’m just not buying this boogey man.

There was a priest here at CAF said his past interactions with those who attended the Extraordinary Form Mass was mostly—if not wholly negative. He mentioned mental instability. He suggested that the Church should re-evaluate the whole situation. He wowed to never say Mass in the EF form again. He and I had heated exchanges on this very “rigid” subject a few years ago when Pope Francis first made reference to youths who attended the EF.

Well lots of us have had negative interactions with EF devotees. It is a shame that that element has such a large part in the EF community. My daughter is having the problem herself at the moment. She loves the EF Mass and has been going of a Monday night for about a month now. The crowd of mainly young adults is not at all welcoming of her and her friend. It’s such a different atmosphere to the young adult ministry in the diocese who fall over themselves to welcome newcomers. Anyway, she loves the Mass and that is the real love of Jesus for her.

 

[stpurl]

This explains a LOT about your postings, IMO.

You and your family have ‘negative perceptions of a group’, therefore you are finding that ‘negative’ everywhere in that group to the point of your assuming based on only your perceptions that this ‘element has such a large part in the EF community’.

I would think that might actually make it easier for you to understand that for a person who has had negative experiences of being treated poorly by ‘that OF community’–except I for one would not tie it to a community–but say rather that in expressing simply my enjoyment of the EF and my support of a woman choosing to wear a head covering I have received scads of vituperative emaisl calling me a rigid, nasty, bigoted hypocrite and claiming that it was ‘people like me’ who made the Catholic Church hateful, that it would be better if ‘people like me’ would just go away and never darken the door of a Catholic church again, etc.

Considering how FEW places even now have an EF available, and how many OF devotees who would never consider an EF even IF available, I always find it so surprising that when somebody comes on and talks about 'those people who like the EF" their interactions have always been so apparently negative.

Reminds me of an old story.
Once there was a couple who approached an old man sitting outside the town hall and asked him, “We’re thinking about moving here. How are the people?”
He asked them, “What are they like where you are now?”
They said, “Oh, they are terrible. Nasty, hypocritical, lazy. . .”
The old man said, “They’re like that here, too.”

Later another couple came by and asked the old man the same question. “How are the people here?”
The old man asked, “what are they like where you are now?”
They said, "Oh, they’re really nice people. Kind, friendly, pleasant. . "
The old man said, “They’re like that here, too.”

something to ponder. . .

 

[Randolph]

The EF has been a timeless treasure for the Church for over 1,000 years, and will continue its march into glory with the same zeal. I am sorry that your daughter and her friend have had a difficult time with the unwelcoming crowd. (But it’s the same challenge in most new environments). It seems that she has overcome it and was able to experience the richness and beauty of the EF. I am confident that she will be able to reap the many great spiritual benefits from it as I have had.

 

[Emeraldlady]

This explains a LOT about your postings, IMO.

You and your family have ‘negative perceptions of a group’, therefore you are finding that ‘negative’ everywhere in that group to the point of your assuming based on only your perceptions that this ‘element has such a large part in the EF community’.

I would think that might actually make it easier for you to understand that for a person who has had negative experiences of being treated poorly by ‘that OF community’–except I for one would not tie it to a community–but say rather that in expressing simply my enjoyment of the EF and my support of a woman choosing to wear a head covering I have received scads of vituperative emaisl calling me a rigid, nasty, bigoted hypocrite and claiming that it was ‘people like me’ who made the Catholic Church hateful, that it would be better if ‘people like me’ would just go away and never darken the door of a Catholic church again, etc.

I’ve observed the championship of Tridentine Mass over the years and can easily discern the difference between those who have an attachment to the holiness and beauty of the Latin and those whose primary interest is formed in varying degrees by hostility to Vatican II and the renewal of the Church.

It comes down to those who rejoice in Pope Benedicts rolling back the restrictions on the Tridentine Mass and those who bash the current Magisterium overtly or subtly. Trust me. There are two distinct attitudes.

Considering how FEW places even now have an EF available, and how many OF devotees who would never consider an EF even IF available, I always find it so surprising that when somebody comes on and talks about 'those people who like the EF" their interactions have always been so apparently negative.

The Tridentine Mass is approved at the request of the people since 2006. Before then the Church as it had done in all the ages beforehand promoted a universal liturgy as a symbol of catholicity. Hence, the new order became that universal form and as in the early Church, the vernacular was used. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, the EF has grown into a symbol of anti VII sentiment and for a Catholic like myself, a symbol of division and disunity.

 

[stpurl]

Wait, I was with you until the last. The Tridentine Mass was never ‘disapproved’ and was in fact celebrated between 1970 and 2007 (not just in many places). Furthermore there is not simply ‘one liturgy’ in the Catholic Church. The Latin rite liturgy is not the sole Catholic liturgy; there are several rites in the Eastern Catholic Church including that of the Maronite (and the Maronites have never ‘not been’ in communion with Rome, to boot). So I think you have a misunderstanding there.

Furthermore, what has ‘grown into a symbol of anti Vatican 2 sentiment’ is the unjustified perception of a certain few people that the EF is somehow responsible for all kinds of ills and all sorts of wretched people–not the EF itself.

What you call division and disunity I call a legitimate, unabrogated, valid rite of the Catholic Church.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Wait, I was with you until the last. The Tridentine Mass was never ‘disapproved’ and was in fact celebrated between 1970 and 2007 (not just in many places).

It was never abrogated, so as to allow for the transition to the new form around the world. To bring it back required approval and that is described by Pope Benedicts 2007 Summorum Pontificum.

In more recent times, the Second Vatican Council expressed the desire that the respect and reverence due to divine worship should be renewed and adapted to the needs of our time. In response to this desire, our predecessor Pope Paul VI in 1970 approved for the Latin Church revised and in part renewed liturgical books; translated into various languages throughout the world, these were willingly received by the bishops as well as by priests and the lay faithful. Pope John Paul II approved the third typical edition of the Roman Missal. In this way the Popes sought to ensure that “this liturgical edifice, so to speak … reappears in new splendour in its dignity and harmony.” [4]

In some regions, however, not a few of the faithful continued to be attached with such love and affection to the earlier liturgical forms which had deeply shaped their culture and spirit, that in 1984 Pope John Paul II, concerned for their pastoral care, through the special Indult Quattuor Abhinc Annos issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship, granted the faculty of using the Roman Missal published in 1962 by Blessed John XXIII. Again in 1988, John Paul II, with the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei, exhorted bishops to make broad and generous use of this faculty on behalf of all the faithful who sought it.

Given the continued requests of these members of the faithful, long deliberated upon by our predecessor John Paul II, and having listened to the views expressed by the Cardinals present at the Consistory of 23 March 2006, upon mature consideration, having invoked the Holy Spirit and with trust in God’s help, by this Apostolic Letter we decree the following:

Art 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the lex orandi (rule of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. The Roman Missal promulgated by Saint Pius V and revised by Blessed John XXIII is nonetheless to be considered an extraordinary expression of the same lex orandi of the Church and duly honoured for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church’s lex orandi will in no way lead to a division in the Church’s lex credendi (rule of faith); for they are two usages of the one Roman rite.

It is therefore permitted to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal, which was promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the Church’s Liturgy.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Furthermore there is not simply ‘one liturgy’ in the Catholic Church. The Latin rite liturgy is not the sole Catholic liturgy; there are several rites in the Eastern Catholic Church including that of the Maronite (and the Maronites have never ‘not been’ in communion with Rome, to boot). So I think you have a misunderstanding there.

Lets assume we are discussing the history of the Latin rite.

Furthermore, what has ‘grown into a symbol of anti Vatican 2 sentiment’ is the unjustified perception of a certain few people that the EF is somehow responsible for all kinds of ills and all sorts of wretched people– not the EF itself .

It is unfortunate that the EF has a bad name based on the attitude of the vocal anti VII people that use it.

 

[stpurl]

it’s unfortunate that some people have unfairly given the EF a bad name–and not necessarily that it was done by "bad EF supporters’.

You know, it’s funny. If I told you that in my ‘personal experience’ I had been unkindly treated by 'people who vehemently expressed their preference for the OF and who told me that the EF was stupid, rigid, and incomprehensible, and that this made me perceive the OF as a source of division and nastiness, you’d be pretty quick, I think, to tell me that the OF itself was guiltless and that everybody YOU KNEW who liked the OF was ever so nice, so why attack the OF based on only the personal experiences and hearsay of one person?

But somehow it is perfectly acceptable for one person to cite her experience and hearsay and now “the EF is a source of division” and “The EF has a bad name because of its adherents”. . .really?

 

[Emeraldlady]

it’s unfortunate that some people have unfairly given the EF a bad name–and not necessarily that it was done by "bad EF supporters’.

You know, it’s funny. If I told you that in my ‘personal experience’ I had been unkindly treated by 'people who vehemently expressed their preference for the OF and who told me that the EF was stupid, rigid, and incomprehensible, and that this made me perceive the OF as a source of division and nastiness, you’d be pretty quick, I think, to tell me that the OF itself was guiltless and that everybody YOU KNEW who liked the OF was ever so nice, so why attack the OF based on only the personal experiences and hearsay of one person?

But somehow it is perfectly acceptable for one person to cite her experience and hearsay and now “the EF is a source of division” and “The EF has a bad name because of its adherents”. . .really?

What’s actually funny is that I cited my experience responding to Randolphs post #68 which accused people of “belittling and marginalizing those who attend Mass in the Extraordinary Form” which hadn’t even been mentioned in the thread discussing rigidity. It’s always ‘funny’ to note how these EF discussions start and it’s ‘funny’ to recognise who actually starts them and it’s curious to think about why they do it.

 

[stpurl]

Didn’t you ask him about the enemies of ‘rigidity’ and didn’t he list a few other things along with the quoted 'belittling and marginalizing. . ."

 

[Emeraldlady]

Didn’t you ask him about the enemies of ‘rigidity’ and didn’t he list a few other things along with the quoted 'belittling and marginalizing. . ."

I asked him who the ‘enemies of the Church’ he was referring to were. He started the fire under the EF/OF issue.

 

[Randolph]

My point of bringing up the belittling and marginalizing those whose attend the EF was that the EF is a legitimate and approved Mass for the Universal Church. It can be said anytime and anywhere. There are still many today who strongly believe its current existence is a step backward for the Church; while mocking the priest turning his back on the people when in fact he is facing Christ and leading his people to Christ.

If the Church approved the EF, and the EF itself is of great spiritual gift and benefits to so many for over 1,000 years, what makes Catholics (many in the laity and in the clergy) try to suppress, dismiss and get rid of it?

For the record, I support all Masses approved by the Church. Each deserves its proper place in respect and dignity.

 

[leonhardprintz]

I’m sorry to see this thread having turned into another slog fest. There are some interesting aspects to discuss in regards both to the sensitive question about how much, or how little, we as Catholics can disagree with the Holy Father.

I personally, humbly, do think Our Holy Father has made some problematic statements in Amoris Laetitia, when it comes to the doctrines of the Catholic Church. Asking some of those questions, and wishing for clarifications cannot be called ‘rigid’ in any proper way.

At any rate, when it comes to the EF vs OF. We all have our sad experiences of either type of community. I fled from a hyper-liberal OF community, to a smaller fellowship in the EF. This fellowship has its odd elements, one or two older ladies who are full of crank conspiracies, but it also has a core of solid people who are good friends to me, welcoming of new people, and most of whom believe that the OF can be celebrated in a pious and good way.

Doctrines can evolve, so can discipline. The early Church required years of penance prior to confession (which had to be given publically). This was significantly laxed after the age of martyrs.

Having chairs and benches in our churches is a very modern invention when compared to the long history of the churches, and originates in protestant churches. Yet I doubt even the most piously committed EF attendee would wish for the benches to be burned.

So we’re not supposed to be rigid. Things can grow and change. But there are cores that can never change, even though some people wish for it.

Contraception can never become good. Women can never be priests. Abortion will always be murder. Homosexuals partners cannot have their relationship blessed. Christ rose on the third day, in glorified flesh and blood.

If the Church ever departed on those aspects and began to teach the opposite, then as a Catholic I could know that it had defected from the truth, and therefore could never have been the Church to begin with.

I consider that impossible so I don’t worry about it too much.

I mostly just defend the statements of Francis, and show how they can be understood as part and parcel of Catholic moral teaching.

 

[Emeraldlady]

I’m sorry to see this thread having turned into another slog fest. There are some interesting aspects to discuss in regards both to the sensitive question about how much, or how little, we as Catholics can disagree with the Holy Father.

It is a very modern thing to criticise a Pope in a manner that reflects we know better than him. It first emerged with the liberal persuasion of modern Catholic but the baton has now been taken up by the ‘traditionalists’ ironically.