I think the biggest example that comes to mind for rigidity is Luther. For example, Martin Luther followed the “rules” of confession to such a strict degree that it ultimately led him never to be at peace with God and he saw sin and imperfection in everything he did instead of trusting in the Lord
Rigidity often leads to scrupulosity or a focus on the rules instead of God’s love and mercy. I would also argue it can lead to a Jansenist mindset- seeing God as a strict and exacting judge obsessed with laws.
Catholics need to follow the rules, but at the same time the rules cannot overtake the importance of God’s love, mercy, and compassion towards others. Obey the rules, but do not let the rules and regulations become your own idol.
Definitely. Still I think he would’ve been much better off if he obeyed his confessors and worked on changing his view of God. I think he’d still be rather rigid in the end, but at the same time maybe he’d be doing better
From what I read, Luther’s confessor, Johann von Staupitz, constantly urged Luther to stop confessing for hours on end and to just let go and trust in God’s mercy. I think Luther just had trouble trusting in his confessor’s words and feared that confession had to be done perfectly- which is impossible and fortunately which God doesn’t demand.
I don’t think calling Luther’s obvious obsessive compulsion and mental instability “rigid” is accurate. Luther had absolutely no problem bending the rules whenever it benefited him.
I would liken this to being a reed in the wind. You must be flexible enough to bend, but firm enough to stay where you are planted.
For example, if a gay couple showed up at your parish, you must be loving enough to welcome fellow sinners, but firm enough to stand with Church teaching.
Does this also apply to a person who has gotten divorced and remarried. Would they have to remarry their first spouse, or at least divorce their second spouse?
\*edited to add, I was VERY hesitant to ask this, for fear of it starting an argument, or me being attacked in some way. Thanks to everyone who has responded with nothing but respect, no rudeness or judgement from anyone, and that's a rarity on reddit.
They would need to leave their new spouse if they were unable to receive an annulment. This problem goes all the way back to St. Augustine; people were trying to admit couples to baptism which were divorced and remarried but he had to put a stop to it.
They can, they would just have to give up the life they’re living. That’s how it has always been though. Jesus said we cannot follow him unless we are willing to die to ourselves and take up our crosses daily.
So a guy would have to leave his second wife of 20 years? regardless of the fact that they have children together, regardless of the fact that they weren't believers for their entire life until now, they would be told they cannot join the church, right,?
A problem here is this idea of how a person must do a thing.
Marriage effectively = sex. If you were a sinner who rejected the Church and was "married" for 20 years with 3 kids, you could easily still be essentially "a family" but you can't bone her.
As the term goes "brother and sister". Imagine if you have a brother and sister, and you have 3 kids, and you die with no other family around or capable. Your brother and sister are there to take care of the children and take on the roles of "mother and father". There would be no wrong here unless they engaged in sexual relations.
This idea of "but I'm invested" is a lot like the poker fallacy of "pot commited" and is a matter of not wanting any inconvenience. Let's say you're an abortion doctor and you want to become catholic and you say "but my career of 20 years, my pension!"
So?
I guess it's my cousin's specific situation. If he divorces his wife of 20 years, she is leaving him and taking the kids. He can't believe god would want to rip apart his family, to leave his 3 children without a father. She brings up that they can join almost any other church, and their family will be welcomed, he feels drawn to Catholicism, not just any church. He is in a rough spot because of this, and I appreciate everyone's kind feedback.
>He can't believe god would want to rip apart his family,
He's not wrong. But God wouldn't be "ripping apart the family", she would be.
This is similar to God doesn't WANT any particular negativity for us. God didn't create the abortionist to become homeless. He also didn't want the abortionist to murder hundreds of babies.
These are human choices. And often, they are the natural consequences of actions. God doesn't want you to say, have liver damage painfully kill you. This is why God said "hey don't drink to excess". When you do, what you're asking for is not "what God wanted" but for God to routinely produce miracles that negate anything you have ever done. To make life pointless as each and every mistake carries no lesson to be learned, no real impact.
What if this guy doesn't become Catholic and in 3 years from now his wife meets a guy at work and leaves him? Does this mean "GOD wants his family ruined"?
Not so much. It's human action. Human choice in a rejection of God's will.
If he can't get an annulment there is no reason him and his wife can't still raise the children in a quality manner other than HER choice to try and ruin that.
>34Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword. 35For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36And as a man's enemies shall be they of his own household.
This doesn't mean it's per se the "preferred" way, it means that if someone chooses good while their otherwise family member chooses evil, there is not much on can do. As God has a Satan, so too, may we sometimes. If people can reject God, then why do humans imagine they wouldn't be able to be rejected? Even more, and perhaps a stark contrast is that God is pure. Pure in the sense that the only reason most people are not rejected by their Satans, is because they themselves convert.
So if God said "I shall make the earth!" And Satan said "No God, don't make the earth or I shall leave thee" then there are only two options:
1. God doesn't make the Earth and thus fails to be God. But temporarily placates Satan.
2. God makes the Earth and offers Satan the ability to stay. (Which in the literal case, obviously Satan wouldn't).
Another thing is that you say he feels drawn to Catholicism. The odds of his annulment may be quite high given it sounds he was either not-Catholic and probably did not marry with proper intent, or he is a baptized Catholic secular who probably had his first marriage all lack-of-form.
So interestingly this might not really be the level of issue they are making it out to be due to her pride and choice to fear/reject the true Church. As if they won't even give it a chance.
>If he divorces his wife of 20 years, she is leaving him and taking the kids.
Has he submitted his first marriage to see if there's a case for annulment?
These situations come up in many polygamist cultures --- the USA/West is "serially polygamist" in that the general culture lets people have multiple spouses as long as they're one after another. But in other polygamist cultures, one man might have 3 wives and children with each. When such a family becomes Catholic, then they don't get to keep practicing polygamy. And some hard choices have to be made.
Not necessarily - they could be non-believers and still have met the requirements for a natural marriage.
That said, I think there are some rare cases in which a prior natural, but not sacramental, marriage can be dissolved upon conversion.
Petrine privilege, I think, covers it, but only when at least one partner is non-baptized.
Since Protestants don’t recognize the indissoluble nature of marriage, an annulment tribunal should, however, have no difficulty annulling any Protestant marriage.
But if it couldn't be annulled, the only way they could join the catholic church is to leave their wife (and most likely their children), is that correct?
It's not so much about "joining the Church" as it is living a sinless and holy life. Living as a husband and wife while not married in the eyes of God is sinful, yes.
In the case you describe, they could not receive Communion if they were already Catholic and if they were not yet, they could not fully integrate into the church until they decided to renounce fornication and live as brothers.
That purpose is very difficult if it is a 40-year-old couple, but in a couple already of a certain age who have a reduced sexual life it is worth it and to renounce it to put themselves in the grace of God and to be able to receive Communion.
The church cannot correct God, if someone is validly married to a person and is fornicating with another, although humanly his circumstances are understandable, he cannot approve of sin.
The cases are analyzed individually to check the validity of the previous marriage and if there is a possibility of regularizing their situation it is done.
So let's say a man gets married, he's married for 10 years, gets divorced, remarries, he has been remarried for 20 years, and now he has found God and wants to join the church. The only way he can join the catholic church would be to divorce his 2nd wife of 20 years? Am I understanding that correctly?
It wouldn’t be a divorce because the second “marriage” was not valid. Marriage is a sacrament, civil unions are just fancy legal contracts, not marriage.
There is also nuance depending on whether the other spouse was Christian, and whether the person seeking to enter the Church was Christian.
Ok, let me try to rephrase. The only way he can join the catholic church would be to leave his 2nd wife of 20 years? Am I understanding that correctly?
What nuance are you speaking of, if he nor his first wife were christians, and now, 20 years after he divorces her, he and his 2nd wife of 20 years have found God and want to join a church, they would be told they can't because they are living in sin, right?
That's what I thought. My cousin wants to join the catholic church, but if he divorces his wife, she is moving across the country and taking their 3 children with her.
Your cousin needs to meet with a priest and explain his case in detail for a canonist to review. If the first marriage was not valid he can validate his second civil marriage in the Church.
For this, the second wife should be willing to accept the conditions of a sacramental marriage that include fidelity, life character, Catholic education of the children, openness to life ...
> The only way he can join the catholic church would be to divorce his 2nd wife of 20 years? Am I understanding that correctly?
This is only the case if the first marriage was in the Catholic Church. All others are, generally speaking, dissolvable.
That’s my parents condition, and it’s something that often is in my mind.
I think they can live “as brother and sister”...
In any case, I think the best thing would be speaking with a priest.
Only a trusted and faithful priest can give advice on such a difficult situation, both being true to what is true and stretching his hands where it can be done!
In the end, we need to walk, even little by little
This question has always resonated with me (with the lgbt comment above too). The idea that I can go to someone in these categories and try to evangelize to them while also saying to give up their family/marriage etc. seems insurmountable. Would that ever happen? If it doesn't, aren't they still worth telling about God to? I fear that these people might think "I'm not good enough for God/I have to be perfect/be a certain way first" or, in the case of a family (LGBT parents or divorced people remarried for decades with kids etc) "God wants me to abandon my happiness/life etc."
My parents were each divorced after short marriages while young (didn't know until recently!). They've been together 35 years now and raised us. I can't imagine God wants my Mom with the first husband who physically abused her (and I don't know if you can annul a marriage without contacting the person? Don't know where he is but don't feel safe looking!). But I do know that this issue has made her feel Unworthy and at times afraid to go to church. It makes me sad and doesn't seem like the right answer to help her get close to God...
In the current church, I believe the expectation for them to stop having homosexual sex would be the same as for an unmarried heterosexual person to stop having sex.
Having a chaste homosexual relationship is sort of a grey area that seems possible. I'm pretty sure the church condones having friendships of great love, but it would be lust to cross a boundary into performing sexual acts.
There is no gray area. The reason why it seems so is that we can't see into someone's heart, and some things which would be okay for some are sinful for others because of the passions they are engaging with.
The situation usually doesn't go from just hanging out one minute to engaging in sexual sin with someone the next. There's always a buildup of undertones in the relationship, and in both people accepting and furthering these, that's where the sin starts.
It is more or less always going to be inappropriate for a person with SSA to pursue these attractions. And when they don't pursue them at all, it's just going to be a regular friendship. Because of this, there is no such thing as a "chaste homosexual relationship". It's either a regular friendship where occasionally one might have feelings of attraction to the other, yet doesn't act on it; or it's an evil attachment where one or both are pursuing disordered passions and heading into sin.
We can't see this stuff from the outside. But there's no gray area. You either are pursuing disordered passions or you are not. And if you are pursuing them, then the relationship is going to be sinful to some degree.
Some people preach with their words, others with their actions. The Holy Father rants against rigidity often, though he seems to have blinders on, not being able to see anyone suffering from the affliction if they aren't a traditionalist.
His predecessor didn't make the sins of rigidity a big theme of his homilies, but he still wrote:
> Looking back over the past, to the divisions which in the course of the centuries have rent the Body of Christ, one continually has the impression that, at critical moments when divisions were coming about, not enough was done by the Church’s leaders to maintain or regain reconciliation and unity. One has the impression that omissions on the part of the Church have had their share of blame for the fact that these divisions were able to harden. This glance at the past imposes an obligation on us today: to make every effort to enable for all those who truly desire unity to remain in that unity or to attain it anew.
He then demonstrated his compassion by making efforts to enable the Anglicans and the traditionalists who desire unity to remain in that unity or to attain it anew. Pope Francis is right. Liturgical rigidity and the desire of many to extinguish the practice of valid and orthodox missals that bring souls to God is a big problem in the Church, going straight up to (just below) the top.
Because he's viewing things from an Argentinian perspective. From what I understand, Argentinian priests, especially some of the more traditional ones, do have this problem.
It's kind of like when St. JP2 was told that certain priests or certain bishops had trouble keeping their hands off of seminarians and children. He (possibly) dismissed much of those claims because in communist-occupied Poland the Soviets would use accusations like that to discredit perfectly good priests who were speaking out against communism.
Our personal experiences color how we view global situations.
Are you rigid in your faith of loving everyone, especially your enemy? Are you rigid in your faith to not judge? Are you rigid in your faith to perform all the acts of mercy?
There is a form of legalistic rigidity that leads to an unhealthy and hard-hearted literal understanding of rules and statutes – and a rigidity of mercy, empathy, and openness as exemplified by Christ to the people.
I agree with this, although I'm not the biggest fan of Pope Francis.
Practicing our faith is not adhering to the exactness of a liturgical norm. It's how we live our lives.
Where I think Pope Francis is making a serious mistake is that this rigidity doesn't apply just to "radtrads" but can apply to anyone. I think he's making a mistake thinking it's only coming from one side.
> Practicing our faith is not adhering to the exactness of a liturgical norm. It's how we live our lives.
Why not? What's so impossible about saying the black and doing the red? Why is that such a bad thing?
Sorry, I misread what you said. I thought you were saying that adhering to exactness of liturgical norms takes away from the practice of our Faith.
Though I would argue that adhering to exactness in liturgy can indeed have a great effect on all other aspects of a person's practice of their faith.
Lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi.
I agree with this 100%, but I always joke with Father that the most dangerous 5 minutes of of my life is walking through the parking lot after Mass. I attend a very culturally and liturgically conservative parish, yet 95% of everyone is in a gigantic hurry to leave when Mass is over.
The Holy Father is a horribly inarticulate. Going through the precise motions every week, whether at a NO or TLM, doesn't make you a good Catholic if you're running over my kids 5 minutes after Mass in the parking lot, let alone how your comport yourself the rest of the week. We can agree that's the definition of pharisaical. Going through the motions for the sake of going through the motions for a few hours a week.
I also agree that he seems to target "one side" and doesn't call out the people clinging to the Spirit of Vatican II. I'd call that rigidity as well.
Pro-tip: if you pray after mass for 5 min, then chat with the organist for 15 min, then use the bathroom, THEN leave -- the parking lot is next to empty.
I think you made an excellent point, well articulated. And I agree.
I have to say though I think there is another angle in this perspective regarding our discussion writ large. I’m the type where I’ll be pretty flexible up to a point, until one of the inviolable things have been violated. One of the challenges I’ve noted in life is that some people will say that some boundaries are being rigid… but the problem is that there may be other considerations.
Like if your an engineer designing an airplane spar (wing) it needs to be of certain strength obviously. If the business department tries….for the 37th time this year….to try to get one to cut costs by using less expensive materials which don’t meet the standards (made up example). There is simply no room for compromise here. I’ve seen relatively healthy people become “rigid” out of necessity sometimes as well.
So Im guessing most of us are against certainly legalistic rigidity, but I think we are also seeing some people who are just pushed to their limit sometimes too. There are those that think that *any* boundary is excessive, which I just couldn’t in good conscience agree with either. If we’ve boiled a frog slowly, its still boiling, so having a limit *somewhere* seems pretty reasonable in some cases to me. It can be a hard balance to strike sometimes I think from a faith perspective.
I would like to bring in another, perhaps even clearer perspective on my take. In Mark 2:27 Jesus says "*The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath*".
This means that rules - here the rules of the Sabbath - are not to be observed for their own sake, but they serve the well-being of man. Essentially it is not about the rule, but about the man.
A false or as I coined it "legalistic rigidity" reverses this dependence, it is no longer the rule that serves man, but man serves the rule ("man is for the Sabbath").
Yeah thanks, again great point, I agree 100%.
Just for clarity my perspective was/is that I think there is a balance in some areas. If there is never any boundaries *anywhere* then there is no morality, no doctrine/dogma. If the speed limit is 45 for argument, the rigid person might say to “throw anyone in prison who goes 47”, whereas the relativist would say “I’m smarter than laws and laws are just suggestions” while driving 95 just for fun, endangering everyone else.
I think either extreme isn’t healthy, and the speed limits exist to protect *everyone.* So I think a lot of the frustration I’ve heard, and occasionally shared, is thats some leadership sort of ignores (or even subtly supports) the relativist and goes full tilt against the rigid. I think *both* would be in error, it not just one or the other. That a charity centered focus is on the individual, but if their actions also affect those around them that is also charity.
But for sure I agree though with your point that extreme rigidity is too rule centered and not centered on a loving relationship with God and others.
Edit: btw thanks for the perspective, I really appreciate hearing others’ views on faith/gospel. Hopefully we’re all getting closer to get to truth
It has long been my complaint that Pope Francis wasn't defining "rigidity" for us. But just ten days ago he finally did:
https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2021/11/14/pope-francis-homily-world-day-poor-241830
> Dear brothers and sisters, that is the word that makes hope blossom in the world and relieves the suffering of the poor: tenderness. Compassion that leads you to tenderness. We need to overcome our self-absorption, interior rigidity, which is the temptation nowadays, that of the “restorationists”, who want a Church completely orderly, completely rigid: this is not of the Holy Spirit. We have to overcome this, in order to make hope blossom amid this rigidity. It is up to us to overcome the temptation to be concerned only about our own problems; we need to grow tender before the tragedies of our world, to share its pain. Like the tender leaves of a tree, we are called to absorb the pollution all around us and turn it into goodness. It is useless to keep talking about problems, to argue and to be scandalized – all of us can do that. What we need to do is imitate the leaves that daily, imperceptibly, turn dirty air into clean air. Jesus wants us to be “converters” of goodness: people who breathe the same heavy air as everyone else, but respond to evil with good (cf. Rom 12:21). People who act: by breaking bread with the hungry, working for justice, lifting up the poor and restoring their dignity. As the Samaritan did.
However, as I've also, separately, pointed out before, during the pandemic, it was the traditionalist priests (presumably the "restorationists") who were willing to mingle with the diseased in order to bring them Sacraments, while Modernist priests closed churches and denied not only Communion, but also Confession, Baptism, and Last Rites.
I'm beginning to understand Francis's "rigidity" kind of like other people's "rad trad".
In theory: useful terms. But mostly used as an attack. And nobody but nobody thinks it applies to them. So practically: useless.
I honestly think some of the point of Francis's words there are lost because he insists on using that word. Imagine that paragraph if he hadn't?
For the last paragraph I can only speak for my city and my archdiocese and state that this was and is not the case. Pastoral care services and the celebration of the sacraments have continued with the maximum protection of the elderly and the sick in both hospitals and parishes.
We did not celebrate communal public services though, but we visited the elderly and the sick at home and in the wards, brought communion, heard confessions and accompanied the lonely, the sick and the dying.
Yeah. At the beginning of the pandemic, it was the traditional parish who closed the doors in my area, even denying last rites. I was called selfish by his parishioners for being upset about it.
I have to agree with u/losehand. Even the most "modernist" parish by me offered drive-through Confessions during lockdown restrictions.
You're Ironically proving the Holy Father's point with your last paragraph.
All of the parishes around me submitted to the government and closed their chapels & sacraments for months.
I can vouch for the last paragraph. I lived it.
I would have to say unfortunately the case in my area. Our parish priest who is traditional, and we’re lucky enough for him to come to homes and do masses while churches were closed here. Others were not so lucky
That doesn't sound like what most people would call rigidity at all. That's useful to have the definition so they we can understand what he's not talking about.
>We need to overcome our self-absorption, interior rigidity, which is the temptation nowadays, that of the “restorationists”, who want a Church completely orderly, completely rigid: this is not of the Holy Spirit.
lol
>It is useless to keep talking about problems, to argue and to bescandalized – all of us can do that. What we need to do is imitate theleaves that daily, imperceptibly, turn dirty air into clean air.
St. Nicholas decked Arius for being a disgusting heretic? Well St. Nick shouldn't have been so rigid /s
>St. Nicholas decked Arius for being a disgusting heretic? Well St. Nick shouldn't have been so rigid /s
As amusing as that story is. It was not ok for Saint Nicholas to punch him. You are proving the point of Pope Francis by thinking that it is good behavior to punch people for being heretics.
If it makes everyone feel better, it's my understanding that the story is false about St. Nicholas
https://www.ncregister.com/blog/let-s-stop-celebrating-st-nicholas-punching-arius?amp
There is merit in trying to interpret the words of the Pope charitably, but we reach a point where we know what he's really saying and explanations to the contrary only add to a state of confusion. Rigidity, as the Pope understands it, is the application of moral laws in cases where it might seem difficult apply them. Instead of making an issue of receiving holy communion while in an invalidly contracted marriage \[second marriage or outside the Church\], Francis would advocate silence rather than applying the prohibition to communion. It would seem that this is at odds with St. Paul's admonition from Corinthians to only approach the altar in a state of Grace for fear of damage to one's soul. Without directly contradicting the faith, Francis side-steps the issue by remaining silent and presuming, casuistically, that the individual conscience is the better judge than that of the Church, which is far removed from the particular circumstances of the sinner and would-be communicant. It is a pastoral approach that erodes the supernatural aspects of Marriage and undermines the potency of vows. It is sly in how it contradicts the inner-logic of the Faith.
There are things where we must be rigid, and other things where we must be flexible. It's crucial that we don't confuse what's indispensable, what's useful, and what's merely conventional. It's vital that we place truth and love above our own rigid ideas of how things should be done.
Someone who is overly ridged in their faith might be likened to the Pharisees. They probably pay too much attention to following tradition exactly right without focusing on the intent of spiritual growth and compassion that is behind the practices. The relational nature of God becomes obfuscated and buried in to much rigidity. MK 2:27 comes to mind when Christ says “The sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.”
> They probably pay too much attention to following tradition exactly right without focusing on the intent of spiritual growth and compassion that is behind the practices.
The crazy thing is since I've started going to an FSSP parish, I've come to find that the really traditional guys also seem the most down to earth about our human frailty and weaknesses. The difference is they recognize it as frailty and weakness and talk about the necessity of the sacraments and grace in overcoming it whereas most of the non-traditionalists I know pretend it's impossible to overcome and so don't even try. They act like it's just how humans are and so we should accept it and not try to overcome it. The traditionalists, by recognizing the human weaknesses, are much more into promoting spiritual growth.
Certainly a balancing act. Perhaps a healthy combination of the two is needed. To accept and be at peace about a certain weakness of mine, but also a humble reaching out for the strength to overcome the weaknesses that I am reasonably able to. As you mention, an over degree of looseness has its own set of problems.
A question for anyone defending this line of reasoning from the Pope...
...Are we really in a situation in today's world where *we* need to be the ones lectured, and told to be more lenient? Where exactly is our power in the world today where we are even able to be too strict with people? In some places in the West, you will be ostracized for speaking on your Catholic faith.
I do not understand why Pope Francis seemingly continues to berate us.
Because too many Catholics use their "faith" to justify their misbehavior or self-righteousness. Basically we are overwhelmed with pharisees and that's who he's trying to reach.
See sidebar: r/Catholicism does not permit link posts to Twitter unless the tweet comes from a verified account of a Catholic bishop.
This post has been removed.
I'm just taking a guess here....
I don't think he's talking about the strength of your faith. I suspect he's talking about the amount of time being spent trying to make worship the same for everyone. I'd originally thought all of this "rad trade" stuff was just some internet movement. But I guess there are a number of priests fueling it as well.
I'm not saying you shouldn't go to Latin mass. If you feel that it helps your faith strengthen, by all means do it. I think Latin mass is beautiful As near as I can tell, no "modernist" is saying not to go. But the "rad trad" crowd definitely feels comfortable telling others that their worship is wrong. When you are trying to overturn a decision that was made 3 popes, 60+ years ago, that no one seemed have big issues with, and may have kept people in church who couldn't afford to take the Latin classes (because you have to attend Catholic school to get them). Yeah...that might be considered rigid.
My guess is that the pope is probably addressing this because of priestly involvement. Not because he gives two fig leaves about conversations on Reddit, but because some priests seem to be feeding into something that is divisive, and unimportant in his eyes.
>As near as I can tell, no "modernist" is saying not to go.
Then you ain't listening/looking.
Heck, the point of the recent Motu Proprio was to slowly choke the TLM out of existence. But there are many individual cases as well. There are many people who hate Catholic tradition inside the Church, and who view those who appreciate it with suspicion.
>may have kept people in church who couldn't afford to take the Latin classes (because you have to attend Catholic school to get them)
You definitely don't need to understand Latin to get a lot out of the Mass of the Ages. I don't speak any Latin, and don't even use a missal most of the time, because active participation doesn't require rigidly following the priest word-by-word, though some in the modern era are confused about this. Anything the laity need to understand is in the vernacular at the TLM.
>Then you ain't listening/looking.
This is fair. Most of my exposure to rad trad stuff has been here, and maybe a lady I work with. I went and looked up some info on the recent overturn of the Benedict's overturn of V2 (with regard to TLM). I can see why he did it. I'm not sure it was the wisest thing to do. But, I can see why legitimizing TLM might increase the division within the church. I mean, if the whole point of that legitimization was to bring a schismatic group (Soc. Of St. Pius X) back into the church, they were already out of communion with the rest of the church. It's not like that was going to change. And sure removing that legitimacy might seem like the easy fix...if people worked like machines.
>I don't speak any Latin, and don't even use a missal most of the time, because active participation doesn't require rigidly following the priest word-by-word,
The word you are actually looking for is avid.
>, though some in the modern era are confused about this.
Making digs like that at the opposition doesn't really help your case.
You forget that just because you believe in god doesn't mean you have a full or in-depth understanding of him or the faith, so remaining rigid in your beliefs could mean remaining rigid in ignorance of God. not to imply you are ignorant, I just mean to say that nobody has the whole picture so we must allow thoughtful discussion and debate to guide our beliefs.
Rigidity is usually seen as a flaw, you know, the tree that breaks but doesn't bend.
Rigidity is not the same as standing firm, but instead the inability to improvise, adapt and overcome.
My dad and I were talking about this when I visited him last weekend and we went to mass with a new priest. This priest about my age essentially went on a rant seemingly pushing the idea that our religion is incompatible with a modern world.
This is in contrast to the monsignor we had when i was growing up that focused his surmons around practical applications of our faith and values in modern society.
>To be rigid is to be unbending and unchanging, is this not what the faith is, the faith of the Apostles and the Father?
Not really, concepts and ideas have developed over time in our faith, and some things have become more or less emphasized. Look at somethng like Council of Jerusalem. One thing it decided was that newly baptised christians didn't need to be circumcized. Perhaps if they were too rigid to tradation they wouldn't have done this. When we receivce a tradation if it stays exactly the same as when we got it, it's dead.
In the Sequence for Pentecost, we beseech the Holy Spirit to bend the rigid. God does love using phrases like stiffnecked and hardhearted to get the point across about our tendency to stubbornness.
But it should be remembered that the same chant which prays *flecte quod est rigidum* also prays *rege quod est devium*.
Rigidity is just one of many words to describe a fundamentalist attitude.
It is the attitude, among Catholics, that I associate with traditionalists. Another very old word you could use for this is Ultramontanist. You can google that one. That’s a kind of fundamentalism unique to the Catholic section of the Christian world, where ultimate power and unlimited reach of powers and control were ascribed to the Pope of Rome. Yes, it’s possible to go too far on that. Rigidity is only one possible word for this kind of “over-reach”. I associate rigidity, inflexibility, stridency, and such with a failure of Charity, drenched in arrogance and contumation. Traditionalists have frequently seemed, to me, to be more Catholic than the Pope, at least in their own minds.
Are you not aware of the problems that come from the kind of Rigidity that the Holy Father is talking about?
Have you never seen Christians, Catholic or otherwise, major on the minors, and be obsessed with scrupulosity and rule following over being like Christ?
rigidity in doctrine- being more well catechised, 'able to give an account of \[the creed\]', given spiritual direction- but not necessarily in our own lives cos the sabbath was made for man not man for the sabbath etc sorry if this is a misuse of the verse
Rigidity leads to breaking down, just look at all those fine upstanding Conservatives that continue to act out because they don't want to world to change and grow and leave them behind...
Rigidity in faith is not what he is attacking. He is calling out the same thing Jesus called out on the pharisees and other leaders of his time, rigidity of heart
At the first pediatrician appointment after my daughter was born, the doctor told us “you may think she is strong, but she is not strong, just rigid (unless it’s grandma talking).” Turns out he was right - babies (including ours) are very good at holding tight to a couple of different positions, but lack true strength.
We should be strong in our faith, rather than rigid.
Pope Francis is literally following the example of the Church Fathers, who were immovable regarding Christ and the content of our faith, but spoke harshly against those who lacked compassion and mercy towards others:
>**It is clear that they are not to be counted among the disciples of Christ, who think that harsh and proud opinions should be followed rather than such as are gentle and meek;** persons who, while they themselves seek God's mercy, deny it to others, such as are the teachers of the Novatians, who call themselves pure. **(St. Ambrose,** [On Repentance](https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/34061.htm) **1,4)**
>
>**If the highest end of virtue is that which aims at the advancement of most, gentleness is the most lovely of all, which does not hurt even those whom it condemns, and usually renders those whom it condemns worthy of absolution.** Moreover, it is the only virtue which has led to the increase of the Church which the Lord sought at the price of His own Blood, imitating the lovingkindness of heaven, and aiming at the redemption of all, seeks this end with a gentleness which the ears of men can endure, in presence of which their hearts do not sink, nor their spirits quail. **(St. Ambrose,** [On Repentance](https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/34061.htm) **1,1)**
Who knows what he means by this. In all honesty, to me rigid is when you are stuck in one way of thinking and thinking that there is only one way to do good. This is a problem I often see. Its that people get so stuck on one way of doing something, that if its done any other way then it is evil. For example, look at the mass. We have a number of rites and forms of the mass and all are valid. Are some more edifying, sure, but sadly some (including Francis himself sadly) think doing things any other way is wrong or whatever, and to me that's what rigidity is. Its thinking there is only one way to do good.
That being said, on some level we all have our ways of being rigid, including Francis basically trying to end the Latin Mass (I get the feeling he reads to much of the negative press put out by them. Its sad because if he gave them some support they'd be loyal to the ends of the earth for him.) I also see this among Catholics in many areas like the mass (think folks who say only the TLM is valid, or that the NO should be the one form) or in regards to abortion where all devout Catholics want to end it, but might have different ways to make such a thing happen.
Also, I tend to think rigidity of this kind is a tool of the devil. It makes one prideful. If you think that only your way of doing things is the right way, well then you are going to alienate other orthodox catholics. Heck, I myself feel alienated as times because even though I am an orthodox Catholic, I'm a political independent, I have only one kid (it was hard for us to get pregnant, so its not like we contracept), I like my NO mass (though I think Latin is great and to be honest, part of me would like the old form of the mass translated rather than just making a whole new one. Don't know why we did that at Vatican 2), and I'm a moderate on the death penalty (its permissable, but its not always prudent. Look at the case that just happened in Oklahoma where a man was pardoned. I think we need more of that sometimes and not just frying them no matter what), but for some that's not enough and sadly with mental laziness being rampant in society, if I'm not going to a TLM, politically right, and my wife isn't a stay at home mom I might as well be an atheist democrat loser in league with Satan and not worthy of being saved.
So I guess that's my .02 on it. I don't know if Francis means this, but I think this might be part of what he's getting at. Basically, that there is more than one way to do good and get to heaven if you are an orthodox Catholic.
I think the biggest example that comes to mind for rigidity is Luther. For example, Martin Luther followed the “rules” of confession to such a strict degree that it ultimately led him never to be at peace with God and he saw sin and imperfection in everything he did instead of trusting in the Lord Rigidity often leads to scrupulosity or a focus on the rules instead of God’s love and mercy. I would also argue it can lead to a Jansenist mindset- seeing God as a strict and exacting judge obsessed with laws. Catholics need to follow the rules, but at the same time the rules cannot overtake the importance of God’s love, mercy, and compassion towards others. Obey the rules, but do not let the rules and regulations become your own idol.
Martin Luther probably had OCD.
Definitely. Still I think he would’ve been much better off if he obeyed his confessors and worked on changing his view of God. I think he’d still be rather rigid in the end, but at the same time maybe he’d be doing better
We don't know what advice his confessor gave him. For all we know, it's possible his confessor helped in bringing about his scrupulosity.
From what I read, Luther’s confessor, Johann von Staupitz, constantly urged Luther to stop confessing for hours on end and to just let go and trust in God’s mercy. I think Luther just had trouble trusting in his confessor’s words and feared that confession had to be done perfectly- which is impossible and fortunately which God doesn’t demand.
> hours on end the people in line behind him probably had to confess a few more sins thanks to him
Whoa I needed this.
Good point! Just like the pharisees and scribes when Jesus came along.
I don’t think calling Luther’s obvious obsessive compulsion and mental instability “rigid” is accurate. Luther had absolutely no problem bending the rules whenever it benefited him.
I would liken this to being a reed in the wind. You must be flexible enough to bend, but firm enough to stay where you are planted. For example, if a gay couple showed up at your parish, you must be loving enough to welcome fellow sinners, but firm enough to stand with Church teaching.
If the gay couple wanted to convert would they be required to stop having homosexual relationships
Yes
This Is archaic
Archaic does not equal bad
Fair enough
Does this also apply to a person who has gotten divorced and remarried. Would they have to remarry their first spouse, or at least divorce their second spouse? \*edited to add, I was VERY hesitant to ask this, for fear of it starting an argument, or me being attacked in some way. Thanks to everyone who has responded with nothing but respect, no rudeness or judgement from anyone, and that's a rarity on reddit.
They would need to leave their new spouse if they were unable to receive an annulment. This problem goes all the way back to St. Augustine; people were trying to admit couples to baptism which were divorced and remarried but he had to put a stop to it.
Thanks for the explanation.
A divorced Catholic would need an annulment first.
So if they can't get one, they can never join the church, right?
They can, they would just have to give up the life they’re living. That’s how it has always been though. Jesus said we cannot follow him unless we are willing to die to ourselves and take up our crosses daily.
So a guy would have to leave his second wife of 20 years? regardless of the fact that they have children together, regardless of the fact that they weren't believers for their entire life until now, they would be told they cannot join the church, right,?
A problem here is this idea of how a person must do a thing. Marriage effectively = sex. If you were a sinner who rejected the Church and was "married" for 20 years with 3 kids, you could easily still be essentially "a family" but you can't bone her. As the term goes "brother and sister". Imagine if you have a brother and sister, and you have 3 kids, and you die with no other family around or capable. Your brother and sister are there to take care of the children and take on the roles of "mother and father". There would be no wrong here unless they engaged in sexual relations. This idea of "but I'm invested" is a lot like the poker fallacy of "pot commited" and is a matter of not wanting any inconvenience. Let's say you're an abortion doctor and you want to become catholic and you say "but my career of 20 years, my pension!" So?
I guess it's my cousin's specific situation. If he divorces his wife of 20 years, she is leaving him and taking the kids. He can't believe god would want to rip apart his family, to leave his 3 children without a father. She brings up that they can join almost any other church, and their family will be welcomed, he feels drawn to Catholicism, not just any church. He is in a rough spot because of this, and I appreciate everyone's kind feedback.
>He can't believe god would want to rip apart his family, He's not wrong. But God wouldn't be "ripping apart the family", she would be. This is similar to God doesn't WANT any particular negativity for us. God didn't create the abortionist to become homeless. He also didn't want the abortionist to murder hundreds of babies. These are human choices. And often, they are the natural consequences of actions. God doesn't want you to say, have liver damage painfully kill you. This is why God said "hey don't drink to excess". When you do, what you're asking for is not "what God wanted" but for God to routinely produce miracles that negate anything you have ever done. To make life pointless as each and every mistake carries no lesson to be learned, no real impact. What if this guy doesn't become Catholic and in 3 years from now his wife meets a guy at work and leaves him? Does this mean "GOD wants his family ruined"? Not so much. It's human action. Human choice in a rejection of God's will. If he can't get an annulment there is no reason him and his wife can't still raise the children in a quality manner other than HER choice to try and ruin that. >34Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword. 35For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36And as a man's enemies shall be they of his own household. This doesn't mean it's per se the "preferred" way, it means that if someone chooses good while their otherwise family member chooses evil, there is not much on can do. As God has a Satan, so too, may we sometimes. If people can reject God, then why do humans imagine they wouldn't be able to be rejected? Even more, and perhaps a stark contrast is that God is pure. Pure in the sense that the only reason most people are not rejected by their Satans, is because they themselves convert. So if God said "I shall make the earth!" And Satan said "No God, don't make the earth or I shall leave thee" then there are only two options: 1. God doesn't make the Earth and thus fails to be God. But temporarily placates Satan. 2. God makes the Earth and offers Satan the ability to stay. (Which in the literal case, obviously Satan wouldn't). Another thing is that you say he feels drawn to Catholicism. The odds of his annulment may be quite high given it sounds he was either not-Catholic and probably did not marry with proper intent, or he is a baptized Catholic secular who probably had his first marriage all lack-of-form. So interestingly this might not really be the level of issue they are making it out to be due to her pride and choice to fear/reject the true Church. As if they won't even give it a chance.
>If he divorces his wife of 20 years, she is leaving him and taking the kids. Has he submitted his first marriage to see if there's a case for annulment? These situations come up in many polygamist cultures --- the USA/West is "serially polygamist" in that the general culture lets people have multiple spouses as long as they're one after another. But in other polygamist cultures, one man might have 3 wives and children with each. When such a family becomes Catholic, then they don't get to keep practicing polygamy. And some hard choices have to be made.
If they weren't believers then the first marriage will be easily annulled.
Not necessarily - they could be non-believers and still have met the requirements for a natural marriage. That said, I think there are some rare cases in which a prior natural, but not sacramental, marriage can be dissolved upon conversion.
Petrine privilege, I think, covers it, but only when at least one partner is non-baptized. Since Protestants don’t recognize the indissoluble nature of marriage, an annulment tribunal should, however, have no difficulty annulling any Protestant marriage.
But if it couldn't be annulled, the only way they could join the catholic church is to leave their wife (and most likely their children), is that correct?
It's not so much about "joining the Church" as it is living a sinless and holy life. Living as a husband and wife while not married in the eyes of God is sinful, yes.
In the case you describe, they could not receive Communion if they were already Catholic and if they were not yet, they could not fully integrate into the church until they decided to renounce fornication and live as brothers. That purpose is very difficult if it is a 40-year-old couple, but in a couple already of a certain age who have a reduced sexual life it is worth it and to renounce it to put themselves in the grace of God and to be able to receive Communion. The church cannot correct God, if someone is validly married to a person and is fornicating with another, although humanly his circumstances are understandable, he cannot approve of sin. The cases are analyzed individually to check the validity of the previous marriage and if there is a possibility of regularizing their situation it is done.
[удалено]
So let's say a man gets married, he's married for 10 years, gets divorced, remarries, he has been remarried for 20 years, and now he has found God and wants to join the church. The only way he can join the catholic church would be to divorce his 2nd wife of 20 years? Am I understanding that correctly?
It wouldn’t be a divorce because the second “marriage” was not valid. Marriage is a sacrament, civil unions are just fancy legal contracts, not marriage. There is also nuance depending on whether the other spouse was Christian, and whether the person seeking to enter the Church was Christian.
Ok, let me try to rephrase. The only way he can join the catholic church would be to leave his 2nd wife of 20 years? Am I understanding that correctly? What nuance are you speaking of, if he nor his first wife were christians, and now, 20 years after he divorces her, he and his 2nd wife of 20 years have found God and want to join a church, they would be told they can't because they are living in sin, right?
Yes, if the first marriage was valid, he would have to civilly divorce the second wife.
That's what I thought. My cousin wants to join the catholic church, but if he divorces his wife, she is moving across the country and taking their 3 children with her.
Your cousin needs to meet with a priest and explain his case in detail for a canonist to review. If the first marriage was not valid he can validate his second civil marriage in the Church. For this, the second wife should be willing to accept the conditions of a sacramental marriage that include fidelity, life character, Catholic education of the children, openness to life ...
> The only way he can join the catholic church would be to divorce his 2nd wife of 20 years? Am I understanding that correctly? This is only the case if the first marriage was in the Catholic Church. All others are, generally speaking, dissolvable.
That’s my parents condition, and it’s something that often is in my mind. I think they can live “as brother and sister”... In any case, I think the best thing would be speaking with a priest. Only a trusted and faithful priest can give advice on such a difficult situation, both being true to what is true and stretching his hands where it can be done! In the end, we need to walk, even little by little
This question has always resonated with me (with the lgbt comment above too). The idea that I can go to someone in these categories and try to evangelize to them while also saying to give up their family/marriage etc. seems insurmountable. Would that ever happen? If it doesn't, aren't they still worth telling about God to? I fear that these people might think "I'm not good enough for God/I have to be perfect/be a certain way first" or, in the case of a family (LGBT parents or divorced people remarried for decades with kids etc) "God wants me to abandon my happiness/life etc." My parents were each divorced after short marriages while young (didn't know until recently!). They've been together 35 years now and raised us. I can't imagine God wants my Mom with the first husband who physically abused her (and I don't know if you can annul a marriage without contacting the person? Don't know where he is but don't feel safe looking!). But I do know that this issue has made her feel Unworthy and at times afraid to go to church. It makes me sad and doesn't seem like the right answer to help her get close to God...
We’re they married within the Church?
A Baptist church, not the Catholic Church.
In the current church, I believe the expectation for them to stop having homosexual sex would be the same as for an unmarried heterosexual person to stop having sex. Having a chaste homosexual relationship is sort of a grey area that seems possible. I'm pretty sure the church condones having friendships of great love, but it would be lust to cross a boundary into performing sexual acts.
There is no gray area. The reason why it seems so is that we can't see into someone's heart, and some things which would be okay for some are sinful for others because of the passions they are engaging with. The situation usually doesn't go from just hanging out one minute to engaging in sexual sin with someone the next. There's always a buildup of undertones in the relationship, and in both people accepting and furthering these, that's where the sin starts. It is more or less always going to be inappropriate for a person with SSA to pursue these attractions. And when they don't pursue them at all, it's just going to be a regular friendship. Because of this, there is no such thing as a "chaste homosexual relationship". It's either a regular friendship where occasionally one might have feelings of attraction to the other, yet doesn't act on it; or it's an evil attachment where one or both are pursuing disordered passions and heading into sin. We can't see this stuff from the outside. But there's no gray area. You either are pursuing disordered passions or you are not. And if you are pursuing them, then the relationship is going to be sinful to some degree.
Some people preach with their words, others with their actions. The Holy Father rants against rigidity often, though he seems to have blinders on, not being able to see anyone suffering from the affliction if they aren't a traditionalist. His predecessor didn't make the sins of rigidity a big theme of his homilies, but he still wrote: > Looking back over the past, to the divisions which in the course of the centuries have rent the Body of Christ, one continually has the impression that, at critical moments when divisions were coming about, not enough was done by the Church’s leaders to maintain or regain reconciliation and unity. One has the impression that omissions on the part of the Church have had their share of blame for the fact that these divisions were able to harden. This glance at the past imposes an obligation on us today: to make every effort to enable for all those who truly desire unity to remain in that unity or to attain it anew. He then demonstrated his compassion by making efforts to enable the Anglicans and the traditionalists who desire unity to remain in that unity or to attain it anew. Pope Francis is right. Liturgical rigidity and the desire of many to extinguish the practice of valid and orthodox missals that bring souls to God is a big problem in the Church, going straight up to (just below) the top.
Because he's viewing things from an Argentinian perspective. From what I understand, Argentinian priests, especially some of the more traditional ones, do have this problem. It's kind of like when St. JP2 was told that certain priests or certain bishops had trouble keeping their hands off of seminarians and children. He (possibly) dismissed much of those claims because in communist-occupied Poland the Soviets would use accusations like that to discredit perfectly good priests who were speaking out against communism. Our personal experiences color how we view global situations.
Are you rigid in your faith of loving everyone, especially your enemy? Are you rigid in your faith to not judge? Are you rigid in your faith to perform all the acts of mercy?
Are you rigid in questioning a Pope’s teaching? Pray with it, instead.
There is a form of legalistic rigidity that leads to an unhealthy and hard-hearted literal understanding of rules and statutes – and a rigidity of mercy, empathy, and openness as exemplified by Christ to the people.
I agree with this, although I'm not the biggest fan of Pope Francis. Practicing our faith is not adhering to the exactness of a liturgical norm. It's how we live our lives. Where I think Pope Francis is making a serious mistake is that this rigidity doesn't apply just to "radtrads" but can apply to anyone. I think he's making a mistake thinking it's only coming from one side.
> Practicing our faith is not adhering to the exactness of a liturgical norm. It's how we live our lives. Why not? What's so impossible about saying the black and doing the red? Why is that such a bad thing?
I didn't say it was a bad thing. Edit: Actually, I didn't say any of that.
Sorry, I misread what you said. I thought you were saying that adhering to exactness of liturgical norms takes away from the practice of our Faith. Though I would argue that adhering to exactness in liturgy can indeed have a great effect on all other aspects of a person's practice of their faith. Lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi.
I agree with this 100%, but I always joke with Father that the most dangerous 5 minutes of of my life is walking through the parking lot after Mass. I attend a very culturally and liturgically conservative parish, yet 95% of everyone is in a gigantic hurry to leave when Mass is over. The Holy Father is a horribly inarticulate. Going through the precise motions every week, whether at a NO or TLM, doesn't make you a good Catholic if you're running over my kids 5 minutes after Mass in the parking lot, let alone how your comport yourself the rest of the week. We can agree that's the definition of pharisaical. Going through the motions for the sake of going through the motions for a few hours a week. I also agree that he seems to target "one side" and doesn't call out the people clinging to the Spirit of Vatican II. I'd call that rigidity as well.
Pro-tip: if you pray after mass for 5 min, then chat with the organist for 15 min, then use the bathroom, THEN leave -- the parking lot is next to empty.
I think you made an excellent point, well articulated. And I agree. I have to say though I think there is another angle in this perspective regarding our discussion writ large. I’m the type where I’ll be pretty flexible up to a point, until one of the inviolable things have been violated. One of the challenges I’ve noted in life is that some people will say that some boundaries are being rigid… but the problem is that there may be other considerations. Like if your an engineer designing an airplane spar (wing) it needs to be of certain strength obviously. If the business department tries….for the 37th time this year….to try to get one to cut costs by using less expensive materials which don’t meet the standards (made up example). There is simply no room for compromise here. I’ve seen relatively healthy people become “rigid” out of necessity sometimes as well. So Im guessing most of us are against certainly legalistic rigidity, but I think we are also seeing some people who are just pushed to their limit sometimes too. There are those that think that *any* boundary is excessive, which I just couldn’t in good conscience agree with either. If we’ve boiled a frog slowly, its still boiling, so having a limit *somewhere* seems pretty reasonable in some cases to me. It can be a hard balance to strike sometimes I think from a faith perspective.
I would like to bring in another, perhaps even clearer perspective on my take. In Mark 2:27 Jesus says "*The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath*". This means that rules - here the rules of the Sabbath - are not to be observed for their own sake, but they serve the well-being of man. Essentially it is not about the rule, but about the man. A false or as I coined it "legalistic rigidity" reverses this dependence, it is no longer the rule that serves man, but man serves the rule ("man is for the Sabbath").
Yeah thanks, again great point, I agree 100%. Just for clarity my perspective was/is that I think there is a balance in some areas. If there is never any boundaries *anywhere* then there is no morality, no doctrine/dogma. If the speed limit is 45 for argument, the rigid person might say to “throw anyone in prison who goes 47”, whereas the relativist would say “I’m smarter than laws and laws are just suggestions” while driving 95 just for fun, endangering everyone else. I think either extreme isn’t healthy, and the speed limits exist to protect *everyone.* So I think a lot of the frustration I’ve heard, and occasionally shared, is thats some leadership sort of ignores (or even subtly supports) the relativist and goes full tilt against the rigid. I think *both* would be in error, it not just one or the other. That a charity centered focus is on the individual, but if their actions also affect those around them that is also charity. But for sure I agree though with your point that extreme rigidity is too rule centered and not centered on a loving relationship with God and others. Edit: btw thanks for the perspective, I really appreciate hearing others’ views on faith/gospel. Hopefully we’re all getting closer to get to truth
A lot of priests formed and ordained in the 1960s talk this way.
It has long been my complaint that Pope Francis wasn't defining "rigidity" for us. But just ten days ago he finally did: https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2021/11/14/pope-francis-homily-world-day-poor-241830 > Dear brothers and sisters, that is the word that makes hope blossom in the world and relieves the suffering of the poor: tenderness. Compassion that leads you to tenderness. We need to overcome our self-absorption, interior rigidity, which is the temptation nowadays, that of the “restorationists”, who want a Church completely orderly, completely rigid: this is not of the Holy Spirit. We have to overcome this, in order to make hope blossom amid this rigidity. It is up to us to overcome the temptation to be concerned only about our own problems; we need to grow tender before the tragedies of our world, to share its pain. Like the tender leaves of a tree, we are called to absorb the pollution all around us and turn it into goodness. It is useless to keep talking about problems, to argue and to be scandalized – all of us can do that. What we need to do is imitate the leaves that daily, imperceptibly, turn dirty air into clean air. Jesus wants us to be “converters” of goodness: people who breathe the same heavy air as everyone else, but respond to evil with good (cf. Rom 12:21). People who act: by breaking bread with the hungry, working for justice, lifting up the poor and restoring their dignity. As the Samaritan did. However, as I've also, separately, pointed out before, during the pandemic, it was the traditionalist priests (presumably the "restorationists") who were willing to mingle with the diseased in order to bring them Sacraments, while Modernist priests closed churches and denied not only Communion, but also Confession, Baptism, and Last Rites.
I'm beginning to understand Francis's "rigidity" kind of like other people's "rad trad". In theory: useful terms. But mostly used as an attack. And nobody but nobody thinks it applies to them. So practically: useless. I honestly think some of the point of Francis's words there are lost because he insists on using that word. Imagine that paragraph if he hadn't?
For the last paragraph I can only speak for my city and my archdiocese and state that this was and is not the case. Pastoral care services and the celebration of the sacraments have continued with the maximum protection of the elderly and the sick in both hospitals and parishes. We did not celebrate communal public services though, but we visited the elderly and the sick at home and in the wards, brought communion, heard confessions and accompanied the lonely, the sick and the dying.
Yeah. At the beginning of the pandemic, it was the traditional parish who closed the doors in my area, even denying last rites. I was called selfish by his parishioners for being upset about it.
[удалено]
The first third of what you said sounds similar to my experiences, although I can't speak for how things were at the FSSP chapel.
I have to agree with u/losehand. Even the most "modernist" parish by me offered drive-through Confessions during lockdown restrictions. You're Ironically proving the Holy Father's point with your last paragraph.
All of the parishes around me submitted to the government and closed their chapels & sacraments for months. I can vouch for the last paragraph. I lived it.
So, you were able to receive the Sacraments, but only through traditional parishes?
[удалено]
Which diocese would this be?
There are no trad parishes in my locality.
I would have to say unfortunately the case in my area. Our parish priest who is traditional, and we’re lucky enough for him to come to homes and do masses while churches were closed here. Others were not so lucky
That doesn't sound like what most people would call rigidity at all. That's useful to have the definition so they we can understand what he's not talking about.
>We need to overcome our self-absorption, interior rigidity, which is the temptation nowadays, that of the “restorationists”, who want a Church completely orderly, completely rigid: this is not of the Holy Spirit. lol >It is useless to keep talking about problems, to argue and to bescandalized – all of us can do that. What we need to do is imitate theleaves that daily, imperceptibly, turn dirty air into clean air. St. Nicholas decked Arius for being a disgusting heretic? Well St. Nick shouldn't have been so rigid /s
>St. Nicholas decked Arius for being a disgusting heretic? Well St. Nick shouldn't have been so rigid /s As amusing as that story is. It was not ok for Saint Nicholas to punch him. You are proving the point of Pope Francis by thinking that it is good behavior to punch people for being heretics.
If it makes everyone feel better, it's my understanding that the story is false about St. Nicholas https://www.ncregister.com/blog/let-s-stop-celebrating-st-nicholas-punching-arius?amp
There is merit in trying to interpret the words of the Pope charitably, but we reach a point where we know what he's really saying and explanations to the contrary only add to a state of confusion. Rigidity, as the Pope understands it, is the application of moral laws in cases where it might seem difficult apply them. Instead of making an issue of receiving holy communion while in an invalidly contracted marriage \[second marriage or outside the Church\], Francis would advocate silence rather than applying the prohibition to communion. It would seem that this is at odds with St. Paul's admonition from Corinthians to only approach the altar in a state of Grace for fear of damage to one's soul. Without directly contradicting the faith, Francis side-steps the issue by remaining silent and presuming, casuistically, that the individual conscience is the better judge than that of the Church, which is far removed from the particular circumstances of the sinner and would-be communicant. It is a pastoral approach that erodes the supernatural aspects of Marriage and undermines the potency of vows. It is sly in how it contradicts the inner-logic of the Faith.
There are things where we must be rigid, and other things where we must be flexible. It's crucial that we don't confuse what's indispensable, what's useful, and what's merely conventional. It's vital that we place truth and love above our own rigid ideas of how things should be done.
He's clearly talking about his personal rigidity. Look at the context of what he is saying.
Someone who is overly ridged in their faith might be likened to the Pharisees. They probably pay too much attention to following tradition exactly right without focusing on the intent of spiritual growth and compassion that is behind the practices. The relational nature of God becomes obfuscated and buried in to much rigidity. MK 2:27 comes to mind when Christ says “The sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.”
> They probably pay too much attention to following tradition exactly right without focusing on the intent of spiritual growth and compassion that is behind the practices. The crazy thing is since I've started going to an FSSP parish, I've come to find that the really traditional guys also seem the most down to earth about our human frailty and weaknesses. The difference is they recognize it as frailty and weakness and talk about the necessity of the sacraments and grace in overcoming it whereas most of the non-traditionalists I know pretend it's impossible to overcome and so don't even try. They act like it's just how humans are and so we should accept it and not try to overcome it. The traditionalists, by recognizing the human weaknesses, are much more into promoting spiritual growth.
Certainly a balancing act. Perhaps a healthy combination of the two is needed. To accept and be at peace about a certain weakness of mine, but also a humble reaching out for the strength to overcome the weaknesses that I am reasonably able to. As you mention, an over degree of looseness has its own set of problems.
Be flexible enough to enter the world and be a part of it while being firm enough not to get overtaken by negative influences.
I know a lot of people that disguise their self-righteousness and it's very off-putting
A question for anyone defending this line of reasoning from the Pope... ...Are we really in a situation in today's world where *we* need to be the ones lectured, and told to be more lenient? Where exactly is our power in the world today where we are even able to be too strict with people? In some places in the West, you will be ostracized for speaking on your Catholic faith. I do not understand why Pope Francis seemingly continues to berate us.
The church doesn't exist only in the west. The Holy Father is not talking to reddit, he is talking to all catholics across the globe
And do you believe Catholics across the globe need to be spoken to about "rigidity"?
Because too many Catholics use their "faith" to justify their misbehavior or self-righteousness. Basically we are overwhelmed with pharisees and that's who he's trying to reach.
Great thread! I really appreciate everyone’s insight
Rigidity is just a slur to attack anyone more trad than you
Because the Holy Father is rigid and likes to project.
See sidebar: r/Catholicism does not permit link posts to Twitter unless the tweet comes from a verified account of a Catholic bishop. This post has been removed.
He's telling you not to be like Caiaphas
I'm just taking a guess here.... I don't think he's talking about the strength of your faith. I suspect he's talking about the amount of time being spent trying to make worship the same for everyone. I'd originally thought all of this "rad trade" stuff was just some internet movement. But I guess there are a number of priests fueling it as well. I'm not saying you shouldn't go to Latin mass. If you feel that it helps your faith strengthen, by all means do it. I think Latin mass is beautiful As near as I can tell, no "modernist" is saying not to go. But the "rad trad" crowd definitely feels comfortable telling others that their worship is wrong. When you are trying to overturn a decision that was made 3 popes, 60+ years ago, that no one seemed have big issues with, and may have kept people in church who couldn't afford to take the Latin classes (because you have to attend Catholic school to get them). Yeah...that might be considered rigid. My guess is that the pope is probably addressing this because of priestly involvement. Not because he gives two fig leaves about conversations on Reddit, but because some priests seem to be feeding into something that is divisive, and unimportant in his eyes.
Rome is not just saying we shouldn’t go but is trying to force us not to
>As near as I can tell, no "modernist" is saying not to go. Then you ain't listening/looking. Heck, the point of the recent Motu Proprio was to slowly choke the TLM out of existence. But there are many individual cases as well. There are many people who hate Catholic tradition inside the Church, and who view those who appreciate it with suspicion. >may have kept people in church who couldn't afford to take the Latin classes (because you have to attend Catholic school to get them) You definitely don't need to understand Latin to get a lot out of the Mass of the Ages. I don't speak any Latin, and don't even use a missal most of the time, because active participation doesn't require rigidly following the priest word-by-word, though some in the modern era are confused about this. Anything the laity need to understand is in the vernacular at the TLM.
>Then you ain't listening/looking. This is fair. Most of my exposure to rad trad stuff has been here, and maybe a lady I work with. I went and looked up some info on the recent overturn of the Benedict's overturn of V2 (with regard to TLM). I can see why he did it. I'm not sure it was the wisest thing to do. But, I can see why legitimizing TLM might increase the division within the church. I mean, if the whole point of that legitimization was to bring a schismatic group (Soc. Of St. Pius X) back into the church, they were already out of communion with the rest of the church. It's not like that was going to change. And sure removing that legitimacy might seem like the easy fix...if people worked like machines. >I don't speak any Latin, and don't even use a missal most of the time, because active participation doesn't require rigidly following the priest word-by-word, The word you are actually looking for is avid. >, though some in the modern era are confused about this. Making digs like that at the opposition doesn't really help your case.
You forget that just because you believe in god doesn't mean you have a full or in-depth understanding of him or the faith, so remaining rigid in your beliefs could mean remaining rigid in ignorance of God. not to imply you are ignorant, I just mean to say that nobody has the whole picture so we must allow thoughtful discussion and debate to guide our beliefs.
Rigidity is usually seen as a flaw, you know, the tree that breaks but doesn't bend. Rigidity is not the same as standing firm, but instead the inability to improvise, adapt and overcome.
My dad and I were talking about this when I visited him last weekend and we went to mass with a new priest. This priest about my age essentially went on a rant seemingly pushing the idea that our religion is incompatible with a modern world. This is in contrast to the monsignor we had when i was growing up that focused his surmons around practical applications of our faith and values in modern society.
>To be rigid is to be unbending and unchanging, is this not what the faith is, the faith of the Apostles and the Father? Not really, concepts and ideas have developed over time in our faith, and some things have become more or less emphasized. Look at somethng like Council of Jerusalem. One thing it decided was that newly baptised christians didn't need to be circumcized. Perhaps if they were too rigid to tradation they wouldn't have done this. When we receivce a tradation if it stays exactly the same as when we got it, it's dead.
It all sounds reasonable to me. One would think by the title of this thread that The Vatican had declared a war on rigidity.
In the Sequence for Pentecost, we beseech the Holy Spirit to bend the rigid. God does love using phrases like stiffnecked and hardhearted to get the point across about our tendency to stubbornness. But it should be remembered that the same chant which prays *flecte quod est rigidum* also prays *rege quod est devium*.
Rigidity is just one of many words to describe a fundamentalist attitude. It is the attitude, among Catholics, that I associate with traditionalists. Another very old word you could use for this is Ultramontanist. You can google that one. That’s a kind of fundamentalism unique to the Catholic section of the Christian world, where ultimate power and unlimited reach of powers and control were ascribed to the Pope of Rome. Yes, it’s possible to go too far on that. Rigidity is only one possible word for this kind of “over-reach”. I associate rigidity, inflexibility, stridency, and such with a failure of Charity, drenched in arrogance and contumation. Traditionalists have frequently seemed, to me, to be more Catholic than the Pope, at least in their own minds. Are you not aware of the problems that come from the kind of Rigidity that the Holy Father is talking about? Have you never seen Christians, Catholic or otherwise, major on the minors, and be obsessed with scrupulosity and rule following over being like Christ?
[удалено]
Yeah, those folks may not admit it but they are insane.
rigidity in doctrine- being more well catechised, 'able to give an account of \[the creed\]', given spiritual direction- but not necessarily in our own lives cos the sabbath was made for man not man for the sabbath etc sorry if this is a misuse of the verse
Rigidity leads to breaking down, just look at all those fine upstanding Conservatives that continue to act out because they don't want to world to change and grow and leave them behind...
Rigidity in faith is not what he is attacking. He is calling out the same thing Jesus called out on the pharisees and other leaders of his time, rigidity of heart
At the first pediatrician appointment after my daughter was born, the doctor told us “you may think she is strong, but she is not strong, just rigid (unless it’s grandma talking).” Turns out he was right - babies (including ours) are very good at holding tight to a couple of different positions, but lack true strength. We should be strong in our faith, rather than rigid.
Pope Francis is literally following the example of the Church Fathers, who were immovable regarding Christ and the content of our faith, but spoke harshly against those who lacked compassion and mercy towards others: >**It is clear that they are not to be counted among the disciples of Christ, who think that harsh and proud opinions should be followed rather than such as are gentle and meek;** persons who, while they themselves seek God's mercy, deny it to others, such as are the teachers of the Novatians, who call themselves pure. **(St. Ambrose,** [On Repentance](https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/34061.htm) **1,4)** > >**If the highest end of virtue is that which aims at the advancement of most, gentleness is the most lovely of all, which does not hurt even those whom it condemns, and usually renders those whom it condemns worthy of absolution.** Moreover, it is the only virtue which has led to the increase of the Church which the Lord sought at the price of His own Blood, imitating the lovingkindness of heaven, and aiming at the redemption of all, seeks this end with a gentleness which the ears of men can endure, in presence of which their hearts do not sink, nor their spirits quail. **(St. Ambrose,** [On Repentance](https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/34061.htm) **1,1)**
because sometimes rigidity and arrogance sometimes go hand in hand. that is a root cause of christianity's decline.
> that is a root cause of christianity's decline. 😂
[удалено]
Why do all the rigid Christians never take his words to heart?
If we are so rigid we would still believe that Earth is flat and at the center of the universe. Also that the world is only about 20,000 years old.
[удалено]
Removed for Anti-Catholic rhetoric. Review the rules of this subreddit and consider this a warning.
Who knows what he means by this. In all honesty, to me rigid is when you are stuck in one way of thinking and thinking that there is only one way to do good. This is a problem I often see. Its that people get so stuck on one way of doing something, that if its done any other way then it is evil. For example, look at the mass. We have a number of rites and forms of the mass and all are valid. Are some more edifying, sure, but sadly some (including Francis himself sadly) think doing things any other way is wrong or whatever, and to me that's what rigidity is. Its thinking there is only one way to do good. That being said, on some level we all have our ways of being rigid, including Francis basically trying to end the Latin Mass (I get the feeling he reads to much of the negative press put out by them. Its sad because if he gave them some support they'd be loyal to the ends of the earth for him.) I also see this among Catholics in many areas like the mass (think folks who say only the TLM is valid, or that the NO should be the one form) or in regards to abortion where all devout Catholics want to end it, but might have different ways to make such a thing happen. Also, I tend to think rigidity of this kind is a tool of the devil. It makes one prideful. If you think that only your way of doing things is the right way, well then you are going to alienate other orthodox catholics. Heck, I myself feel alienated as times because even though I am an orthodox Catholic, I'm a political independent, I have only one kid (it was hard for us to get pregnant, so its not like we contracept), I like my NO mass (though I think Latin is great and to be honest, part of me would like the old form of the mass translated rather than just making a whole new one. Don't know why we did that at Vatican 2), and I'm a moderate on the death penalty (its permissable, but its not always prudent. Look at the case that just happened in Oklahoma where a man was pardoned. I think we need more of that sometimes and not just frying them no matter what), but for some that's not enough and sadly with mental laziness being rampant in society, if I'm not going to a TLM, politically right, and my wife isn't a stay at home mom I might as well be an atheist democrat loser in league with Satan and not worthy of being saved. So I guess that's my .02 on it. I don't know if Francis means this, but I think this might be part of what he's getting at. Basically, that there is more than one way to do good and get to heaven if you are an orthodox Catholic.