I seem to recall that Jesus Christ himself renamed Simon to be Peter aka the Greek Petros "The Rock" or "Rocky" and said "upon tis Rock I will build my Church". There is nothing more rigid than a rock. There is little more elastic than a Serpent.
Cephas....Hebrew, or Aramaic, for Peter. From Archbishop Fulton Sheen, he named him “Cephas”, in their own language; not Greek. Peter came, later,p: from Gentiles.
While that's true, the context of that verse is Jesus asking what the gospel is, and Peter reveals it, and then Jesus says upon THIS rock I will build the church. The THIS is not Peter, but rather the truth if the gospel.
I think a clearer version of rigidity as a vice comes from 1 Cor 13, that love does not insist on its own way (although of course, faithful Catholics are not insisting on their OWN way, but on the way of the Church, which is different)
Great points. To expect the Church to adapt to your personal preferences and circumstances is being rigid. Rather, willing and striving to change yourself to align with the teachings of the Church, is not rigid, but transforming.
@@greyhoundmama2062 Catholic beliefs don't change, unlike the values of human made religions and institutions. Why are you even here if you're not Catholic and don't understand the teachings and beliefs of Catholics?
Y'all are misunderstanding Grethound Mama. She is saying the teachings of the Church don't change. She literally says that's herasy!!! It seemed pretty clear to me a statement of warning to not fall into that mistake.
JESUS says keep Sabbath holy POPE says keep Sunday holy The WORD says the 7th day is holy! The WORLD says the 1st day is holy? 7th day Sabbath = (Exodus 20:8-11) 1st day Sunday = (Mark 7:7) WHO DO YOU OBEY 🤔??????
Great talk! I'm one of those "rigid" Catholics our pontiff continually bashes. I became"rigid" because I was tired of seeing the abuses at Mass and the wishy-washy catechism being taught. When "the worldwide virus of unknown origins" gave my local bishop cause to shut down the churches and deny us the sacraments, I found a priest literally doing underground Latin Mass for Sundays. There I found the beauty and reverence of the TLM and its uncompromising "rigidity" to the fullness of faith. I have only been back to a Novus Ordo Mass maybe a handful of times since then because the TLM brings me closer to God. Shame the one who preaches against"rigid" is himself seemingly rigid in the modernist heresy.
I’m not telling you what to do but you should treat the Pope charitably. I would not call him a heretic unless he is a proven material or formal heretic. We grow in holiness by honoring the hierarchy. That doesn’t mean they are outside or criticism but all criticism should be filtered through benefit of the doubt and filial loyalty.
The shut down of our churches was an unbelievable abuse upon Catholics as well as their pushing of the experimental inoculations, which, including Bergolio merit investigation for crimes against humanity.
@@imjustheretogrill4794 Hmm. I don't think the leaders of the Cburch impart Grace, God does. They are a possible conduit of grace, not the ultimare source. We grow in Holiness by knowing and following our Lord period, full stop. If men were the source of Holiness Christ would not have needed to suffer and die for us to redeem us from our sins. Would most of our leaders do that? I suspect too many of them lack the courage and the love for us to do so. If they truly love souls and seek that all men be saved, how much harder would they have fought against the closing of our Parishes, denying us from the sacraments? I forgive them for that. They moved in fear as many of us did early in the pandemic. I pray that eyes be opened and courage be found so the next time we don't see the same.
Brian , I truly thank you very much . I am born and raised a catholic and for as long as I can remember I haven't missed daily mass even though I have been a consistent sinner but I was always aware of where of where I was trying to get to. I have tried , apparently with little success to install the true knowledge of life's purpose in my 5 children who are all grown up and left . Recently though I find my local cathedral/ church very unfriendly cold and really uninviting places to the point where I am almost glad that some of my children don't go very often . I have actually thought of changing to Anglican faith but God has answered my heartache and prayers tonight listening to yourself , thank you .
I feel your pain... It can be so hard to worship along side so many people who you know obstinately refuse to follow the fullness of the Catholic faith. I have to blind myself to what goes on around me during communion. It just brakes my heart to watch.
Church without rigid foundation is useless. A man without rigid love of truth, justice, love… in one word - Jesus Christ - is useless. Thank you very much for your video.
Rigid ... it's a word being used by those who are not happy with those of us who are not following their lead to make a Left change in the teachings of the Church. It is an insult and a bludgeon against those who are faithful Catholics.
They (the accusers) never define the term or provide actual examples although the pope today said that sticking to Tradition is rigid. LOL. Poor guy. Heaven help us and the pope.
Rigid is a form of firmness that tends to have a negative connotation when it is used, so I think it is important to give it a negative definition and go from there. If rigidity is merely defined as an unwillingness to change, that is good or bad depending on the circumstance, so this must be a bad definition for the word since the word is always supposed to be bad. If, instead, rigidity is defined as: an inability to react to the needs of the moment, rigidity is clearly a vice, and flexibility: the ability to react to the needs of the moment, is it's corresponding virtue. Rigidity is an inability to apply virtue to the situation you are in because you are already set on a certain course of action, but it clearly is not a vice, and flexibility is not a virtue, relating to belief. In general, the tendency to demand everyone perform the Traditional Latin Mass and to not change liturgical practices *does* tend towards rigidity. Yes, it is true that prayer affects our belief, and it would seem that because we have one goal, that is, God, we should all pray in exactly the same way. However, this is false because it does not take into account the fact that every one of us starts from a different place with a different set of vices and virtues. If, for example, you had to make every number equal 12 through addition and subtraction, you could not add 5 to every number. Yes, you could add five to seven and get 12, but add five to eight and you get thirteen, but you can't have thirteen cause you need 12. In the same way, everyone starts in a different place, and because of that they need to practice a slightly different prayer life to gain the same virtues and beliefs when compared to those most like them. In the same way, nations start in different places with different cultures, and to some proper extent, the liturgy does need to be different for each nation, even each congregation, in order to minister to that nation more perfectly. Some towns need a TLM because of the culture there, and other need vernacular because of the culture there, and others need eastern rites because of the culture there, but the same liturgy won't affect the same people in the same way. It is true that, the more fundamental something is to our faith, the more firmly we should hold it and the less it should be changed, but the things which need to change the least are the matter and form of the sacraments, and even the proper sacramental words can be translated. If should be noted, however, that even though there is a certain tendency towards rigidity in traditionalism, there is far more of it in modernism and the vice that works alongside it, fluidity. The opposing virtue of fluidity is firmness. Fluidity is an inability to remain true to what one believes, while firmness is the ability to remain true to what one believes. Fickleness goes alongside rigidity because an inability to hold firm to any sort of principle prevents you from ever applying it to the needs of the moment (flexibility) and makes you incapable of knowing why you need to change. Ie. When you don't have firm principles, you can't apply them to the needs of the moment, so you become rigid and incapable of acting virtuously.
The "sin" of being rigid is assigned to those who confirm there is a natural, everlasting law given to man at creation, the following of which leads to both natural and supernatural life. Disobedience of that law leads to self-destruction and the eventual death of the soul.
JESUS says keep Sabbath holy POPE says keep Sunday holy The WORD says the 7th day is holy! The WORLD says the 1st day is holy? 7th day Sabbath = (Exodus 20:8-11) 1st day Sunday = (Mark 7:7) WHO DO YOU OBEY 🤔??????
Not just in the context of the Church, rigidity as a word with bad connotations is very modern, not even ancient pagan societies would say that being rigid about the society's customs is a bad thing. I would even argue that as Catholics, it's better for us if everyone, even our enemies be firm in their beliefs, as if they so happen to convert, they usually keep that firmness. I would also go so far as to say that lack of rigidity is one of the great sins of the modern world, as that lack of a firm stance makes it much easier for one to remain "agnostic" and other kinds of non-commital stances that leads to many sins being acceptable. I reject in every way the idea that rigidity in itself is a bad thing, and i don't think your example of a person refusing to let go of a vice is a valid way to interpret rigidity as a sin, as that refusal to change is invariably the result of the person not having a firmness of purpose and being enslaved by sin.
JESUS says keep Sabbath holy POPE says keep Sunday holy The WORD says the 7th day is holy! The WORLD says the 1st day is holy? 7th day Sabbath = (Exodus 20:8-11) 1st day Sunday = (Mark 7:7) WHO DO YOU OBEY 🤔??????
@@protestant7778 Sunday is the New Holy Day, the old Holy Sabbath on the Seventh Day was God's rest after the Six Days of Creation, Sunday is the day of Jesus' Resurrection and the rebirth of Creation. Christians eat pork too, BTW.
JESUS says keep Sabbath holy POPE says keep Sunday holy The WORD says the 7th day is holy! The WORLD says the 1st day is holy? 7th day Sabbath = (Exodus 20:8-11) 1st day Sunday = (Mark 7:7) Are you really rigid 🤔??????
@@protestant7778 So, you basically say that you disagree with everything in the New Testament? The fifth chapter of Galatians, among many others, is apparently meaningless to you? Original take, for a Protestant to be legalistic and contradict the Bible.
@Laudate Dominum I agree with everything in the Holy Bible! Including the NEW TESTAMENT! Sabbath in the New Testament! JESUS kept the sabbath! 👉(Luke 4:16) The Disciples kept the sabbath! 👉(Luke 23:56) The Gentiles kept the sabbath! 👉(Acts 13:42) Paul kept the sabbath! 👉(Acts 17:2) Hebrews 4:4 = 7th day sabbath! For if JESUS had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. ~ Hebrews 4:8 KJV ☝️Jesus never changed it! There remaineth therefore a rest for the people of God. ~ Hebrews 4:9 ☝️Remaineth = to remain the same! For he that is entered into his His rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from His. ~ Hebrews 4:10 ☝️ (Gen. 2:2,3) + (Exo. 20:10) = Heb. 4:10 I would like to share one Old Testament scripture with you. 😃We will all keep Sabbath in HEAVEN! 👉(Isaiah 66:23)
God bless you Brian, a voice of reason in this mad world. Hold tight to your faith and thank you so much for speaking the truth. We are with you. You have eloquently articulated my thoughts in a cogent and enlightened way. Thank you.
The word rigid comes straight from Pope Francis himself, and he's not vague at all: the rigid are those who believe in moral absolutes, the Trads, anyone with serious reservations about the V2 revolution.
This period of history in which we live seems to be marked by a great sense of confusion. This confusion can totally undermine our sense of equilibrium. I am thankful for voices greater than my own who can shed light on these issues. Thanks Brian for being one of those voices.
As an atheist I do not subscribe to the Christian concept of sin. As for rigidity, that describe some attributes that are good and some that are not. I find it more effective to use terms that are less ambiguous, for example obstinate is a negative form of rigidity, while resolute and unwavering are positive ones. But, that said, I think that the context in which rigidity is used usually implies what is meant by the term. In the example given in the video the intention seems clearly on the negative side. While I understand concerns with calling it a sin because is not declared so in doctrine, I would think that squabbling about word usage serves mainly to avoid dealing with the underlying disagreement.
You'd be wise to subscribe to it. Sin is transgression, iniquity, Godlessness. Unbelief. No person is good on there own merit. If there is no "sin", then what is right and wrong is completely subjective.
@@bigredog100 I looked a few terms up. Sin is not just a transgression,but a transgression against god. Iniquity includes "denial of the sovereignty of god", "not just", or "lacking moral or spiritual principles". Goddesses is being without a god. Unbelief is lacking belief. If I still believed in God, these words would frighten me. As it stands, they seem to simply describe my atheism. So your warning to me is basically this: "you should subscribe to the Christian concept of sin, otherwise you would be an atheist". Well, atheist is what I am so it's hard to see your point. You seem to be suggesting that I take Pascal's wager, and believe in god simply out of fear of God's retribution, should he happen to exist. Sorry, but I cannot believe in something that I do not believe any more than you can.
I guess “judge not lest ye be judged” is what modernists might be basing their condemnation of “rigidity” on. However, they misunderstand Jesus’ admonition. Jesus was warning Pharisees and others that their superior attitude which completely rejected people who they might have, instead, embraced in order to help them come back to the Lord their God; and thus that they were imposing too heavy burdens on God’s people. Jesus was very clear about how perfectly we need to adhere to God’s laws-but that we can CHANGE from a place where people felt there was no use in changing and be welcomed by their Father in Heaven still. Good points Brian!!
Isaias 50:7 “...I set my face as a most hard rock: and I know that I shall not be confounded” (DRC). The context is persecution. The question is: Is the TLM being persecuted? I would say yes but this IS the question that needs fleshing out more clearly.🙏
I believe that what people intuit and call "rigidity" is simply a form of "objectivism" in which the objective knowledge they have about reality even though objective is incomplete and that incomplete understanding debilitates the capacity of increasing the broader understanding of the objective reality as a whole. The wholeness of the Gospel is something that nobody has ever grasped except for Jesus Christ and after him his Mother.
About being rigid or not, or in-between. "I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot. I would thou wert cold or hot. But because thou art lukewarm and neither cold nor hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth." Revelation 3:15-16
Brilliant logic laid out in a way that is intelligent and charitable. Thank you! This type of clarification is needed more than ever as we seem to be getting beaten with the rod of “rigidity” on a daily basis now.
Should be a red flag when a so called ecclesiastical in the Catholic Church calls traditional catholics guilty of a sin called rigidity. Tradition and Catholic Faith are inseparable . He's a wolf in vestments. One God, one Faith, one Baptism The same yesterday today and forever.
This is, indeed, a very thought provoking topic. From some of the comments I read, I would encourage a 2nd and 3rd viewing of this presentation. It seems that Brian's questioning of "rigidity" is being itself questioned as a code for something else. I think his observation should be taken at face value. His examples and thought process is honest and worthy of consideration. If you are looking to blame someone for confusion and ambivalence in the role of "rigidity" in the Catholic Church, simply look to the administrators. There are many examples that have been noted, but let me add one more: "Rigidity" is supposed to be bad, but the Communist Government of China demands to control who is to be appointed Bishops and our Church administrators agree and enforce that "rigidity. Hmmmm.
This seems to be the best passage I've found in regards to possible sinfulness of "Rigidity" “To the angel of the church in Ephesus write: These are the words of Him who holds the seven stars in His right hand and walks among the seven golden lampstands. I know your deeds, your labor, and your perseverance. I know that you cannot tolerate those who are evil, and you have tested and exposed as liars those who falsely claim to be apostles. Without growing weary, you have persevered and endured many things for the sake of My name. But I have this against you: You have abandoned your first love. Therefore, keep in mind how far you have fallen. Repent and perform the deeds you did at first. But if you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place. But you have this to your credit: You hate the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who overcomes, I will grant the right to eat from the tree of life in the Paradise of God. Revelation 2:1-7 The sin is not in remaining strictly holy, but leaving love behind, one who stops acting love and charity is in sin
I would say that this passage says that the Church has sinned by not being rigid enough. If they had held fast to the one thing necessary, they would not have sinned. I think you're conflating the Pope's use of "rigidity" with Protestants' use of "legalism", but they are not the same.
idk how this is so hard to understand truth without love is not what Catholics should aim for, and Brian knows this. He's a smart guy, idk why he doesn't mention the obvious meaning of rigidity
I see the "bad rigidity" on two levels... ONE: the expression "fullness of Truth" should not be mistaken for "finished Truth". This would deny that the Truth (God) will always be an inapprehensible mystery. The result would be some kind of Christian ideology, based on a legit but yet limited insight into God... an insight that is erected into an all-explanatory absolute (eg. someone who only accepts Aquinas' theology). This is pretentious and idolatric, because rather than seeking Truth, we are more attatched to our valid yet poor insight into an infinite mystery. TWO: a lack of understanding of how morals work. On one hand, we have PRINCIPLES which are unchanging, and on the other hand the realm of PRUDENCE which is the practical application of those principles to a myriad of different situations. One is more concerned with theoretical reason, while the other is concerned with practical reason. The first one is more of a science, while the second one is more of an art. A good example is the case method in business schools, where an optimal solution to a single problem is never reached, because there isn't one... but everyone contributes their viewpoint relying on the same reasonable principles. Now RULES are the PRUDENTIAL APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES TO THE MOST USUAL SITUATIONS, and because of that, RULES HAVE EXCEPTIONS. That is, different situations (than the usual) demand that the same unchanging principle be applied differently... otherwise the principle itself would be violated. Rigidity results from confusing RULES with PRINCIPLES. Principles have no exceptions, but rules do.
Brian, I wonder what you think of this: There is a nascent phenomenon in the Church that really underlies this accusation of rigidity towards traditionalists. It's not as malevolent as you might think. That nascent phenom is this: A burgeoning emphasis on understanding or intuiting the boundaries of indulgence. The Orthodox have a very liberal idea of this embodied in their understanding of "economia," and I would say it is excessive. On the other hand, we have struggled to carefully establish an ordered method of applying indulgences that doesn't undermine the "letter of the law." We are confronted by the fact that this has ended up problematic, to say the least... and it only becomes more uncertain given the Church's teaching on moral culpability. From wiki: "In short, economia is a discretionary deviation from the letter of the law in order to adhere to the spirit of the law and charity. This is in contrast to legalism, or akribia (Greek: ακριβεια), which is strict adherence to the letter of the law of the church." And it seems clear, even if we disagree with what people are trying to get away with, that this is in fact, the next phase of doctrinal development for the Church. Doctrinal development is not over... and that is per Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit will reveal the truth about God until the end of the age. We are seeing both rigidity and lawlessness. A good and clear example of rigidity is the Feeneyites, but they have many freelance analogues in the Church... especially amongst traditionalists. And this is just reality.
“Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.” 2nd Thessalonians, verse 15. Certain things we must hold on to.
3:26…I thought: “Oh, that mattress is shot.” My parent was “rigid” because he was always right and it saved time. God rest his saintly soul. Thank you for the video.
As always you boil things down to salt, Mr Holdsworth. Well done. As seems to be all too common, the judgement required prior to arriving at a position is passed over in today's discourse (or what passes for discourse) I think that simply means ultimately that people emote more than they think. The fostering of this kind of "shortcut-to-conclusions" seems strategic. Unfortunate.
Rigid is an adjective which can be positive or negative depending upon the context. Rigidly good is good. Rigidly bad is bad. Those saying people are too rigid are being rigidly bad in their misuse of the term rigid.
I've understood the term to be a reference to making idols of the faith. Someone who would hold above their interpretation to the condemnation of any other. The upset is when the term is used as a weapon to eat away at orthodoxy or attack opinions which Catholics can differ on.
Well, certainly Brian gets the "rigid" moniker just for talking about the issue. As anyone who watched this video... I certainly am stubborn, but I also recognize that there is nothing more perfect than the teachings of Our Lord, passed from the Apostles until ourselves. So if my unwillingness to see those changed, I will wear that "rigid" as a badge of honour.
I am praying to become more and more “rigid”. I want to be as rigid as St Athanasius, St Cyril of Alexandria, St Pius V, St Pius X and any other great orthodox saint. I’m not the slightest bit interested in Pope Francis’ ideas regarding the so-called (non)problem of “rigidity”!
Dont confuse rigidity by firmness, they are not the same thing. Saints have been incredibly firm but not rigid, Rigid leads you to resist tothe Holy Spirit, Firmness insteaad leads you to move along with themotions of The Holy Spirit while staying in God's Will and staying in Gods commandments as the exterior dispositions and forms may change, The core of what is Tradition remains the same. So You should pray God to stay firm but avoid rigidity.
@@animgreat2719 either way, I would be doing the opposite of what Francis wants. He loves fluidity, flexibility, novelty and a “God of surprises”. I’m not sure who his God is, but mine is a “God of no surprises at all” - Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever (Hebrews 13:8). Francis’ god sounds different to mine.
Can you please make a video regarding NFP and contraception for young Catholics? Again where does rigidity fit in there. Many young Catholics find this one the hardest in that it is the most demanding.
Brian, good for you for quoting Pope Pius XII Encyclical Mediator Dei. Have you read it in its entirety? Some say it lays the foundations for Sacrosanctum Concilium ... do you agree with that?
I think rigidity conflates stone hearts and those who have normal Catholic scruples and cherish the Catholic faith. In my experience stone hearts are not a characteristic of the later. Its just a hate game which we must rise above.
I pray every day for Jorge Bergolio and for each one of his ilk to seek & to be converted to the splendor of the purity of the Catholic faith. May they someday find Christ to be their Lord & Savior, then hold firm to the rigid reality of our Redeemer. May Mama Mary lead them to her Son.
No, "Mama Mary" has no part in one's leading to the Lord. Mary needed a Savior as well, she wasn't exempt. There is only one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus. You must be baptized in His name and recieve His Holy Spirit, just like the apostles did on the day of Pentecost.
The best way to support tradition is to vote with your dollars. Donate to Latin Mass communities and monasteries. Make your opinion known to the bishop! Show up to Latin Masses in your diocese and donate towards traditional church renovations. Tradition is the democracy of the dead...so vote!!!
So, other Catholics like Maronite Catholics and Greek Catholics should give up their Traditional Liturgical expressions and adapt the Latin Mass of the Western Roman Catholic Church?
@@adolphCat the maronites already gave up most of their liturgical traditions in favor of Novus Ordo practices. Their liturgy is not traditional at all.
It can be considered a sin if you are stuck in your ways sinning, say you're doing something bad and won't stop even if those around you make it clear what you're doing is bad. That's rigidity and is something you should avoid but I guess it really isn't a sin more of a mistake that leads you to keep sinning.
This is from my notebook on refuting the error of Sola Scriptura... 2 Thes 2:15 Paul commands to keep oral traditions (paradoesia, "to hand on", same word translated as "traditions" in some Protestant Bibles when used negatively and as "teachings" when used affirmatively, but the SAME EXACT WORD). “14 To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” First, believers are unequivocally grounded in the Faith by the traditions they follow, and secondly, those traditions were transmitted both orally and by writing. Paul was with the Thessalonians for a substantive period (just like he was with the Corinthians) so he must have certainly preached far more than just the content of those two epistles, in fact almost certainly more than the New Testament’s contents. --The word for “hold” in Koine is krateite, more accurately meaning “to be strong, to prevail, to be mighty”. Paul is admonishing his listeners to do their utmost to both believe and obey with the same dedication. what he told them in BOTH spoken word and written word--there is NO greater or lesser importance of one these means to the other. ---Gee, it.sounds like the Apostle.Paul is saying being theologically rigid is a COMMANDED VIRTUE!!!
You can rigid in bad ways too. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is a kind of rigidity, namely, ultimately refusing to budge to the point that you do not accept God's mercy. It is the unforgivable sin. Just because you're rigid doesn't mean you're not going to hell.
@@Krshwunk have you met a traditional Catholic so “rigid” in mortal sin that they refuse mercy? Clinging so hard to the Church that they reject the Church? Your comment may technically be true, in that anyone can sin mortally and go to hell, but that your initial reaction to the positive side of “rigidity” is to condemn people to hell for it proves more than you think
@@ArchetypeGotoh You were defining rigidity in purely positive ways, so I brought up how it can also be negative. Also, I didn't condemn anyone to hell. I said that a sin that can condemn someone to hell is a kind of rigidity, which it is. Also, there can be bad ways in which one clings hard to the Church. If one is rigid in clinging to certain aspects of the Church to the neglect of more important aspects of the Church, that can indeed be bad. Obviously, the Pharisees clung to certain details in the Bible to the rejection of more important details of divine revelation, so much so that they ended up crucifying God. Also, what were you insinuating about how it "proves more than you think?" I don't know what you're getting at.
@@Krshwunk As Brian discussed in the video, the word "rigid" is primarily used today as an attack against a particular kind of Catholic, even though the Bible uses many of the synonyms I listed as positive traits which we are meant to emulate. As also discussed in the video, we all know that "rigid" can be used negatively, but the current critique isn't that "rigid people" are holding fast to the tradition, they're "rigid" because they "refuse to change with the times," which isn't inherently negative. To this you typed "Just because you're rigid doesn't mean you're not going to hell." Perhaps you didn't mean your tone to be so definitive, but you make it seem like any possible application of "rigid" is a sin worthy of hell, which is clearly wrong. Because you implied "rigidity" is a damnable sin, I asked "Have you met people that you're describing, who are so stubbornly attached to the Church that they reject mercy", and you seem to have responded with "2000 years ago some people could be described that way," which really sounds like a "no, the 'rigidity' I'm describing as possible I haven't actually seen myself". These points taken together make the case that you consider "rigidity" only to be a bad thing, and that anyone who is "rigid" is like the Pharisees who crucified Jesus.
@@ArchetypeGotoh The first thing I said was, "You can be rigid in bad ways too," (I left out the word "be".accidentally the first time, if that makes a difference) emphasis on the word "too," implying that there are good ways to be rigid. So no, I was not implying rigidity is always bad. Again, you were simply defining rigidity in positive ways, and I said it can also be bad (I said "can" multiple times not merely "is"), therefore implying that there are good kinds of rigidity and bad kinds of rigidity (including very bad ways). I would note, however, that holding to tradition is also not necessarily good either. Obviously there are bad pagan traditions that missionaries had to contend with when spreading the Gospel. Also, there are non-sacred traditions in the Church that aren't necessarily useful for all times.
Thank you, Brian. I enjoyed this homily. Here in the States, we often accuse political opponents of "flip-flopping" - from the slang term for shower or beach sandals. It means that a person isn't rigid in their convictions, but bends back and forth to whichever conviction places them in a better light for the public view. Yet, just as you've discussed with the term "rigid," possessing the intellectual and moral flexibility to change as one's understanding matures is indeed a strength, not a weakness. Rigidity and flexibility must be understood within context. Ironically, the Church's admonishment of parishioner's rigidness can work against the Church. I am a Roman Catholic who has not been to mass for over two years now. I no longer felt welcomed, regardless of which parish I visited. Mass has changed. The Church wants change. Okay then...here is my change. I don't need the Church. I have my faith, my moral upbringing in the old rigid Catechism. I now find solace in the homilies of Brian Holdsworth and CS Lewis recordings. There is no sense in me remaining in a Church that doesn't want my rigidness. Let me demonstrate my respect by leaving. That is just what I have done...admittedly with a great sadness.
Rigidity in the sense of traditional Catholics holding fast to the truth of the church will always be looked upon as a bad thing by the modernist hierarchy, because traditional catholicism and modernism are mutually exclusive ideas, and cannot be reconciled one to the other, therefore the modernists seek to drive out the traditional standards in order to superimpose their secular, ever-changing ideology
Hi Brian, I was reluctant to click on the video, because I had my ideas about the video, by just looking onto it's subject and I felt rigid in my convictions. It was interesting how while I was listening to it - Bible verses came to mind - many of the same as you have mentioned yourself. In addition to that I've recalled Revelation 2 message "Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus" : " But I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first charity. Be mindful therefore from whence thou art fallen: and do penance, and do the first works. Or else I come to thee, and will move thy candlestick out of its place, except thou do penance.". It's mentioned "thy first charity" and "the first works", it may include also the original worship, original celebration of the Holy Mass and whatever was taught either via letter, or verbally (which beautifully includes oral Tradition). We should also hold fast to whatever was passed down to us through the authority of the Disciples, reject any different Gospel that differs with that, which is pretty rigid too. The Church ought to be sturdy, if the gates of Hell with all unholy fury will not prevail it, ever. Thank you very much for that video, Godspeed.
For me, rigidity is a form of pride, which is one of the deadly sins. And it is often connected with people, who know and understand texts in a very literal way without understanding the spirit in it. Like the Scribes Jesus dealt with, who wanted him to obey literally to the Sabath rules and not heal people on the day.
@@animgreat2719 interesting. I am always a bit confused about this pope. Sometimes he seems to really care for the poor and the outcasts and then on the other hand, I rarely hear clear words about the hot topics in church. I guess it is very complicated to be be pope.
I do think it is often used to condemn Catholics who are holding fast to their faith, and it is a ambiguous term that is abused. Although, sometimes when it is used by Pope Francis, I think he is actually speaking of those who may be condemning people who have sinned without considering the circumstances, misunderstanding, or even ignorance. One example would be not taking into consideration the circumstances of a couple who is remarried after divorce, but are working out how they may be able to live as brother and sister and then be able to take communion. As lay people we may not be privy to the circumstances and may unnecessarily condemn said couple for presenting themselves for communion without knowing. Another less grievous example would be a young teen girl who attends adoration at a retreat and sits in the isle and is subjected to condemnations for being irreverent, when she was in the midst of a very personal encounter with Christ. I've seen what this type of "rigidity" can do. We have to be concerned with pushing people away from Christ as well, by not have mercy in these situations. Is it not true that St. Paul said not all can handle meat, but must be given milk at first. This is what Pope Francis means when he says accompaniment, gently guiding people to the truth. It doesn't mean accepting peoples sin, but helping them to see the sin themselves, and how they're called to a higher and more beautiful life of virtue. Of course we can't allow blatant and intensional abuses in the liturgy and we should call out the type of abstinent sin you spoke of. Yet, we are called to be not QUICK to judge. It doesn't mean not to judge, just not quick to judge. We should give people the benefit of the doubt and assume good intentions in certain circumstances.
This is a good conversation starter. I, as an Eastern Catholic, often hear this word thrown around by "Novus Ordo" Roman Catholics and "Tridentine" Roman Catholics (insofar as we should really separate those groups). I agree that your concern about this wording is legitimate, but I think there is something about supposed "traditional" Catholics that is rigid in a concerning manner. The way I would describe this is that there is a present rigidity that seems nearly pharisaical. What I mean by this is that we see people who are, typically, liturgically rigid while being fairly malleable in terms of their spiritual or inner life. What you have pointed out here is that people are often "rigid" in their faith in an entirely spiritual sense: they take the doctrines and beliefs of the Church seriously. That should not be criticized. What should be criticized is this idea that simply doing something like fulfilling the sacramental life (perhaps specifically at a Latin mass) is the way to holiness. Perhaps you would argue that there are better words for this than rigid, such as legalistic, Pelagian, or pharisaical as I used above, but I also see acknowledging this as a problem to be quite valid.
Nice try. Especially as describing yourself as an "Eastern Catholic". For those unaware Francis and his acolytes are now transforming all the Eastern Rites into Vatican II Novus Ordo churches. They started on the Chalcedonians recently. Your mistake was throwing the "Pelagian" accusation in there, a recent favorite of Francis and Roach, without actually knowing what a Pelagian was or is. You are in fact a heretical Modernist prostelyzer. The struggle here, as surprisingly honestly proclaimed by the Modernists who are represented by Francis, is in ecclesiology. The liturgy reflects the beliefs of the Church. As we worship, as we pray, so we believe. You are trying to obscure that you are a Modernist disciple of Francis. You regard the beliefs of the Church as having been fundamentally changed by Vatican II and its aftermath. The liturgy must reflect that. While practically any kind of behavior is permitted under your rubrics, what is not permitted under the brand new dogma are the beliefs of the Church since Christ and the Apostles until the Council. The liturgy, dating back to the earliest Church and organically developing from it, which reflects those beliefs and does not change must be "rigidly" eliminated at all costs. Oddly your preferred conduct is not only directly contradictory to all previous Church Councils and the Deposit of the Faith, which is why the Oath Against Modernism and the St. Michael Prayer are banned, but it is contradictory to the language expressed in the documents approved AT THE VATICAN II COUNCIL. Now those documents were carefully written by committees with holes so you could drive a truck through them ( talk about being legalistic or Pharasetical - you obviously assume your opponents aren't familiar with Talmudic reasoning) but they were explicitly expecting the Traditional Mass to continue. Instead about 95% of it has been replaced. I was raised as an Evangelical Lutheran and even I scarcely recognize the Novus Ordo as anything in common with the old Mass. In short, you are a heretic and anathema. Like a slippery serpent you seek ti disguise yourself as what you are not. Not only is your own soul in imminent peril but you seek to entice others into the Pit with soothing words. Repent, confess and pray for forgivness. Please believe me for I do the same for myself and the manifest errors I have believed. One of my many penances is seeking to aid others who are in danger. Please ask Our Lady to pray for you and see the wrror of your ways.
@@brianmccarthy5557 Given your response, I am not even sure if you read my comment. I appreciate you ending with a note about prayer, but jumping from a 200 word comment to declaring someone a heretic is almost funny. You have no idea how I feel about Vatican II, the Tridentine Mass, or Novus Ordo innovations - which you evidently couldn't as I made no mention of any of that in my comment. Let us pray to Our Lord for more charitable and attentive dialogue.
@@Acgijhffx Yes! Agreed! But those Pharisees also had a liturgical practice of their own, and they conducted those practices. In a certain sense, many of them would have had the outward appearance of liturgical devotion, but we know they were hypocrites, as you said. My point is that our churches also suffer from this. This is the rigidity I was pointing to: that mere application of a rubric is sufficient, and then we can go on being as hateful and sinful as we please. To be clear, this is not merely one group of Catholics (such as Tridentine Mass attenders), but my comment was made toward Brian, who is such a person, becoming defensive about the accusation. It may have some ground, especially when he seems to have a view that his faith is somehow deeper due to the sort of Mass he attends (a view I've found to be common among those who go to the Latin mass - but maybe I have a biased sample in my personal circles). Surely, a richer form of the Mass provides an opportunity for deep prayer, but there is also a possibility for pride in claiming that it is therefore the only way and no one else is doing it properly. That's the rigidity I was pointing to. If someone simply goes to Mass (Latin or not), loves the Lord, and puts everything he or she has into softening his or her heart through God's grace, that's all we can ask.
It goes beyond liturgy, doesn't it? As I understand it, the East has a much more expansive view of when -- or even that -- exceptions can be made in individual circumstances, especially compared to the puritanical U.S. Or that the Church hopes that all may be saved. In the West most consider this only technically true at best, whereas in the East there's a sense that it is actually a live possibility.
This term has been leveled primarily against orthodox Catholic seminarians and novices in religious orders by liberals for a half century, particularly by those who are accepting of sexual immorality, especially homosexuality . It's a label used to weed out those with a serious nature.
I like Bruce Lee's philosophy: to be like water. Water changes its shape depending on what you pour it in. But changing shape is different from changing identity, and if it's no longer water how can it change shape? Blessings ✌️
So, what your saying is that water is ridgid in it's identity as a fluid. Which is fine so long as the containers are clean... but a dirty container will impureify liquid water and quickly change its nature. Whereas, ice cubes will not change their internal nature even in a filthy dirty container.
I always took "rigid" as meaning "someone who adheres too strictly to traditions or expressions of the Faith that can and should be subject to change when necessary." You know well that Catholicism hasn't talked or looked the same over the last 2000 years. Chrysostom, Aquinas, and JPII would differ in lots of ways. Would they differ on essentials? I guess not, but they're different, and not just on little things. Theology of the Body, ecumenism, evolution, etc. are all ways that the Church has broken from the past in clear, if not definitive ways. Aquinas and Chrysostom would be shocked by a lot of what JPII did and taught. As far as I'm aware you're a fan of JPII, but he broke radically from tradition in lots of areas. This is to say nothing of the many disciplines that have changed over time. It's easy to say the Church doesn't/shouldn't change, but it has plenty of times. I'm not saying it can change on definitive teaching, but I don't think Pope Francis is saying that. If he is, someone can show me. But until then, I'm inclined he's just thinking about people who don't have the circumspection to see how Catholicism isn't the same through the centuries - St. Benedict never heard of the rosary.
A measured and thorough evaluation. Thank you. From your mouth to the ears of... Sigh. I wonder if there's a similar evaluation to be made about the "sin" of racism.
does anyone know any good books ( maybe by a catholic author) on Joan of Arc i was listening to Joan of Arc: A Life Transfigured by Kathryn Harrison but im barley 2 chapters in and its way to blasphemous for me
Good discussion. I too think the word "rigid" is thrown about a bit too indiscriminately, and depending on what it is used on, it is good or bad. "Unchanging" rigid is good for structures, but compassion in a long-term view is needed (not giving in to the moan of the moment, but best in the long-term). One acquaintance complained about the "rigid" church services - because he wanted a free-flow rock band and change-up of contents each week, instead of an unchanging structure within which changes and variations came about from day to day, week to week, and season to season. It was a disingenuous and wrong use of the word.
At 8:00 you make a really good case against the infallibility and indefectability of the Roman Church. Wasn’t it Rome that added to the Creed? Wasn’t it Rome that denies Sacraments to children? I’m not being that serious, but you left yourself open to that.
I dont necessarily believe in anything supernatural but i do enjoy hearing your interesting perspective on things and i listen to you a lot. Thanks for a fresh perspective!
![เจ็บที่ยังฮัก - ม่อน วรวิทย์ [ Official Mv ] จอนนี่มิวสิค](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/KALIGSRSjFs/mqdefault.jpg)
I seem to recall that Jesus Christ himself renamed Simon to be Peter aka the Greek Petros "The Rock" or "Rocky" and said "upon tis Rock I will build my Church". There is nothing more rigid than a rock. There is little more elastic than a Serpent.
Good analogy.
Cephas....Hebrew, or Aramaic, for Peter. From Archbishop Fulton Sheen, he named him “Cephas”, in their own language; not Greek. Peter came, later,p: from Gentiles.
While that's true, the context of that verse is Jesus asking what the gospel is, and Peter reveals it, and then Jesus says upon THIS rock I will build the church. The THIS is not Peter, but rather the truth if the gospel.
@@Richardcontramundum have you read the Father's of the Church on this?
@@MTR_06 Cephas means rock....
Love & Support for my Northern Brothers 🇨🇦 🚚🛻🚛🚒🚚🛻🚛🚒🚚🛻🚛🚒🚚 🇺🇸
I think a clearer version of rigidity as a vice comes from 1 Cor 13, that love does not insist on its own way (although of course, faithful Catholics are not insisting on their OWN way, but on the way of the Church, which is different)
Totally agree
Great points. To expect the Church to adapt to your personal preferences and circumstances is being rigid. Rather, willing and striving to change yourself to align with the teachings of the Church, is not rigid, but transforming.
Just you don't think that the teachings of the Church herself can change. That's heresy.
@@greyhoundmama2062 then the catholic church has fallen then
@@greyhoundmama2062 Catholic beliefs don't change, unlike the values of human made religions and institutions. Why are you even here if you're not Catholic and don't understand the teachings and beliefs of Catholics?
Y'all are misunderstanding Grethound Mama. She is saying the teachings of the Church don't change. She literally says that's herasy!!! It seemed pretty clear to me a statement of warning to not fall into that mistake.
JESUS says keep Sabbath holy
POPE says keep Sunday holy
The WORD says the 7th day is holy!
The WORLD says the 1st day is holy?
7th day Sabbath = (Exodus 20:8-11)
1st day Sunday = (Mark 7:7)
WHO DO YOU OBEY 🤔??????
Great talk! I'm one of those "rigid" Catholics our pontiff continually bashes. I became"rigid" because I was tired of seeing the abuses at Mass and the wishy-washy catechism being taught. When "the worldwide virus of unknown origins" gave my local bishop cause to shut down the churches and deny us the sacraments, I found a priest literally doing underground Latin Mass for Sundays. There I found the beauty and reverence of the TLM and its uncompromising "rigidity" to the fullness of faith. I have only been back to a Novus Ordo Mass maybe a handful of times since then because the TLM brings me closer to God. Shame the one who preaches against"rigid" is himself seemingly rigid in the modernist heresy.
Amen, my friend. We're not the only ones!
I’m not telling you what to do but you should treat the Pope charitably. I would not call him a heretic unless he is a proven material or formal heretic.
We grow in holiness by honoring the hierarchy. That doesn’t mean they are outside or criticism but all criticism should be filtered through benefit of the doubt and filial loyalty.
@@imjustheretogrill4794 we must pray for Francis. But he's definitely doing some damage
The shut down of our churches was an unbelievable abuse upon Catholics as well as their pushing of the experimental inoculations, which, including Bergolio merit investigation for crimes against humanity.
@@imjustheretogrill4794 Hmm. I don't think the leaders of the Cburch impart Grace, God does. They are a possible conduit of grace, not the ultimare source. We grow in Holiness by knowing and following our Lord period, full stop. If men were the source of Holiness Christ would not have needed to suffer and die for us to redeem us from our sins. Would most of our leaders do that? I suspect too many of them lack the courage and the love for us to do so. If they truly love souls and seek that all men be saved, how much harder would they have fought against the closing of our Parishes, denying us from the sacraments? I forgive them for that. They moved in fear as many of us did early in the pandemic. I pray that eyes be opened and courage be found so the next time we don't see the same.
Brian , I truly thank you very much . I am born and raised a catholic and for as long as I can remember I haven't missed daily mass even though I have been a consistent sinner but I was always aware of where of where I was trying to get to. I have tried , apparently with little success to install the true knowledge of life's purpose in my 5 children who are all grown up and left . Recently though I find my local cathedral/ church very unfriendly cold and really uninviting places to the point where I am almost glad that some of my children don't go very often . I have actually thought of changing to Anglican faith but God has answered my heartache and prayers tonight listening to yourself , thank you .
Head for an SSPX or FSSP Church
@@theien5929 Theologically safer to be with an ordinary parish, attending Novus Ordo mass.
I feel your pain... It can be so hard to worship along side so many people who you know obstinately refuse to follow the fullness of the Catholic faith.
I have to blind myself to what goes on around me during communion. It just brakes my heart to watch.
Your just a bit isolated
@@theien5929 Definitely theologically safer the FFSP, and other alike groups, still have misgivings re SSPX though.
Church without rigid foundation is useless. A man without rigid love of truth, justice, love… in one word - Jesus Christ - is useless. Thank you very much for your video.
Rigid ... it's a word being used by those who are not happy with those of us who are not following their lead to make a Left change in the teachings of the Church. It is an insult and a bludgeon against those who are faithful Catholics.
They (the accusers) never define the term or provide actual examples although the pope today said that sticking to Tradition is rigid. LOL. Poor guy. Heaven help us and the pope.
"If you conquer, I will make you a pillar in the Temple of my God; you will never go out of it." - Revelation 3:12
Pillars are pretty rigid.
Rigid is a form of firmness that tends to have a negative connotation when it is used, so I think it is important to give it a negative definition and go from there.
If rigidity is merely defined as an unwillingness to change, that is good or bad depending on the circumstance, so this must be a bad definition for the word since the word is always supposed to be bad.
If, instead, rigidity is defined as: an inability to react to the needs of the moment, rigidity is clearly a vice, and flexibility: the ability to react to the needs of the moment, is it's corresponding virtue. Rigidity is an inability to apply virtue to the situation you are in because you are already set on a certain course of action, but it clearly is not a vice, and flexibility is not a virtue, relating to belief.
In general, the tendency to demand everyone perform the Traditional Latin Mass and to not change liturgical practices *does* tend towards rigidity. Yes, it is true that prayer affects our belief, and it would seem that because we have one goal, that is, God, we should all pray in exactly the same way. However, this is false because it does not take into account the fact that every one of us starts from a different place with a different set of vices and virtues. If, for example, you had to make every number equal 12 through addition and subtraction, you could not add 5 to every number. Yes, you could add five to seven and get 12, but add five to eight and you get thirteen, but you can't have thirteen cause you need 12. In the same way, everyone starts in a different place, and because of that they need to practice a slightly different prayer life to gain the same virtues and beliefs when compared to those most like them. In the same way, nations start in different places with different cultures, and to some proper extent, the liturgy does need to be different for each nation, even each congregation, in order to minister to that nation more perfectly. Some towns need a TLM because of the culture there, and other need vernacular because of the culture there, and others need eastern rites because of the culture there, but the same liturgy won't affect the same people in the same way.
It is true that, the more fundamental something is to our faith, the more firmly we should hold it and the less it should be changed, but the things which need to change the least are the matter and form of the sacraments, and even the proper sacramental words can be translated.
If should be noted, however, that even though there is a certain tendency towards rigidity in traditionalism, there is far more of it in modernism and the vice that works alongside it, fluidity. The opposing virtue of fluidity is firmness. Fluidity is an inability to remain true to what one believes, while firmness is the ability to remain true to what one believes. Fickleness goes alongside rigidity because an inability to hold firm to any sort of principle prevents you from ever applying it to the needs of the moment (flexibility) and makes you incapable of knowing why you need to change. Ie. When you don't have firm principles, you can't apply them to the needs of the moment, so you become rigid and incapable of acting virtuously.
The vagueness of the label is what makes it a good label to be applied to those who oppose change in the church.
The "sin" of being rigid is assigned to those who confirm there is a natural, everlasting law given to man at creation, the following of which leads to both natural and supernatural life. Disobedience of that law leads to self-destruction and the eventual death of the soul.
"You're rigid" > "You're unwilling to come at compromise with the vices and sins of the modern world"
You bet I am
Thanks for this video. This helps me put into words what I’ve been struggling with on this idea of rigidity as a negative.
"Rigidity" is only a sin to an innovator.
Gulity as charged.
Blessed to be as rigid as a pillar in the temple of the Lord.
JESUS says keep Sabbath holy
POPE says keep Sunday holy
The WORD says the 7th day is holy!
The WORLD says the 1st day is holy?
7th day Sabbath = (Exodus 20:8-11)
1st day Sunday = (Mark 7:7)
WHO DO YOU OBEY 🤔??????
Thank you, Catholics, need to hear this. We cannot allow ourselves to be doormats.
As a non catholic i belive all Christians should hear this
Our Lord said “if you are faithful in the little things, you will be faithful in much.” Luke 16:10.
What some call rigidity, I call faithfulness.
Not just in the context of the Church, rigidity as a word with bad connotations is very modern, not even ancient pagan societies would say that being rigid about the society's customs is a bad thing.
I would even argue that as Catholics, it's better for us if everyone, even our enemies be firm in their beliefs, as if they so happen to convert, they usually keep that firmness.
I would also go so far as to say that lack of rigidity is one of the great sins of the modern world, as that lack of a firm stance makes it much easier for one to remain "agnostic" and other kinds of non-commital stances that leads to many sins being acceptable.
I reject in every way the idea that rigidity in itself is a bad thing, and i don't think your example of a person refusing to let go of a vice is a valid way to interpret rigidity as a sin, as that refusal to change is invariably the result of the person not having a firmness of purpose and being enslaved by sin.
You’re a smart cookie! Excellent, balanced commentary!👍
The Truth is Unchanging, AKA Rigid. Hold Fast to Tradition. Words have many senses, as the Summa Theologica makes clear.
JESUS says keep Sabbath holy
POPE says keep Sunday holy
The WORD says the 7th day is holy!
The WORLD says the 1st day is holy?
7th day Sabbath = (Exodus 20:8-11)
1st day Sunday = (Mark 7:7)
WHO DO YOU OBEY 🤔??????
@@protestant7778 Sunday is the New Holy Day, the old Holy Sabbath on the Seventh Day was God's rest after the Six Days of Creation, Sunday is the day of Jesus' Resurrection and the rebirth of Creation. Christians eat pork too, BTW.
Yes I am “ridged”..
When it comes to worshiping God
When it comes to following our Lord’s law
When it comes to how I pray
Yes I AM ridged..
JESUS says keep Sabbath holy
POPE says keep Sunday holy
The WORD says the 7th day is holy!
The WORLD says the 1st day is holy?
7th day Sabbath = (Exodus 20:8-11)
1st day Sunday = (Mark 7:7)
Are you really rigid 🤔??????
@@protestant7778 So, you basically say that you disagree with everything in the New Testament? The fifth chapter of Galatians, among many others, is apparently meaningless to you? Original take, for a Protestant to be legalistic and contradict the Bible.
@Laudate Dominum
I agree with everything in the
Holy Bible!
Including the NEW TESTAMENT!
Sabbath in the New Testament!
JESUS kept the sabbath!
👉(Luke 4:16)
The Disciples kept the sabbath!
👉(Luke 23:56)
The Gentiles kept the sabbath!
👉(Acts 13:42)
Paul kept the sabbath!
👉(Acts 17:2)
Hebrews 4:4 = 7th day sabbath!
For if JESUS had given them rest,
then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.
~ Hebrews 4:8 KJV
☝️Jesus never changed it!
There remaineth therefore a rest for the people of God.
~ Hebrews 4:9
☝️Remaineth = to remain the same!
For he that is entered into his His rest,
he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from His.
~ Hebrews 4:10
☝️
(Gen. 2:2,3) + (Exo. 20:10) = Heb. 4:10
I would like to share one Old Testament scripture with you.
😃We will all keep Sabbath in HEAVEN!
👉(Isaiah 66:23)
I only know of one Catholic leader who likes to use the word "rigid": Pope Francis.
As an Orthodox inquirer and friend to my Catholic brothers and sisters. I pray for you guys
God bless you Brian, a voice of reason in this mad world. Hold tight to your faith and thank you so much for speaking the truth. We are with you. You have eloquently articulated my thoughts in a cogent and enlightened way. Thank you.
Bergoglio is rigid about changing everything and telling us that WE are rigid
My parents will always use the word “rigid” whenever I bring up that fact that my can’t receive communion in a state of mortal sin.
Thank you Brian!
Excellently well said! It’s so nice to see and hear converts who can offer the perspective that they ( you) offer. Thank you!!!!
The word rigid comes straight from Pope Francis himself, and he's not vague at all: the rigid are those who believe in moral absolutes, the Trads, anyone with serious reservations about the V2 revolution.
Oh, I got it. The rigid for Francis are "the basket of the deplorables", aren't they?
@@olgakarpushina492 you got it!
Another great message, Brian. Thank you again.
This period of history in which we live seems to be marked by a great sense of confusion. This confusion can totally undermine our sense of equilibrium. I am thankful for voices greater than my own who can shed light on these issues. Thanks Brian for being one of those voices.
As an atheist I do not subscribe to the Christian concept of sin. As for rigidity, that describe some attributes that are good and some that are not. I find it more effective to use terms that are less ambiguous, for example obstinate is a negative form of rigidity, while resolute and unwavering are positive ones.
But, that said, I think that the context in which rigidity is used usually implies what is meant by the term. In the example given in the video the intention seems clearly on the negative side. While I understand concerns with calling it a sin because is not declared so in doctrine, I would think that squabbling about word usage serves mainly to avoid dealing with the underlying disagreement.
Very good post, Amen !.
You'd be wise to subscribe to it. Sin is transgression, iniquity, Godlessness. Unbelief. No person is good on there own merit. If there is no "sin", then what is right and wrong is completely subjective.
@@bigredog100 I looked a few terms up. Sin is not just a transgression,but a transgression against god. Iniquity includes "denial of the sovereignty of god", "not just", or "lacking moral or spiritual principles". Goddesses is being without a god. Unbelief is lacking belief.
If I still believed in God, these words would frighten me. As it stands, they seem to simply describe my atheism. So your warning to me is basically this: "you should subscribe to the Christian concept of sin, otherwise you would be an atheist".
Well, atheist is what I am so it's hard to see your point. You seem to be suggesting that I take Pascal's wager, and believe in god simply out of fear of God's retribution, should he happen to exist. Sorry, but I cannot believe in something that I do not believe any more than you can.
I guess “judge not lest ye be judged” is what modernists might be basing their condemnation of “rigidity” on. However, they misunderstand Jesus’ admonition. Jesus was warning Pharisees and others that their superior attitude which completely rejected people who they might have, instead, embraced in order to help them come back to the Lord their God; and thus that they were imposing too heavy burdens on God’s people. Jesus was very clear about how perfectly we need to adhere to God’s laws-but that we can CHANGE from a place where people felt there was no use in changing and be welcomed by their Father in Heaven still. Good points Brian!!
Such a great explanation! Thank you!
Isaias 50:7 “...I set my face as a most hard rock: and I know that I shall not be confounded” (DRC). The context is persecution. The question is: Is the TLM being persecuted? I would say yes but this IS the question that needs fleshing out more clearly.🙏
Brian,Your videos are outstanding! I'd love to see you on Rumble. Don't plan on staying with youtube much longer.
I believe that what people intuit and call "rigidity" is simply a form of "objectivism" in which the objective knowledge they have about reality even though objective is incomplete and that incomplete understanding debilitates the capacity of increasing the broader understanding of the objective reality as a whole. The wholeness of the Gospel is something that nobody has ever grasped except for Jesus Christ and after him his Mother.
I like your explanation, that if you are a bad person then being ridid is a bad thing. If you are truthful and good then being rigid is a good thing.
About being rigid or not, or in-between.
"I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot. I would thou wert cold or hot.
But because thou art lukewarm and neither cold nor hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth." Revelation 3:15-16
Brilliant logic laid out in a way that is intelligent and charitable. Thank you! This type of clarification is needed more than ever as we seem to be getting beaten with the rod of “rigidity” on a daily basis now.
Really well said (as usual!) thanks for posting!
St. Benedict was accused of being Ridged. I’ll take Benedict.
And those who didn't like Saint Benedict's ridgidy -- tried to kill him to be free of it.
I have shared this with priest and religious and saved it. Extremely beautiful and true.
The wisdom to know when and for what to be rigid about is a rare gift.
Thank you, Brian; that was delightful.
Should be a red flag when a so called ecclesiastical in the Catholic Church calls traditional catholics guilty of a sin called rigidity. Tradition and Catholic Faith are inseparable . He's a wolf in vestments. One God, one Faith, one Baptism The same yesterday today and forever.
I rigidly say no to Cell phones, felt banners, and 30 Eucharistic ministers….
This is, indeed, a very thought provoking topic. From some of the comments I read, I would encourage a 2nd and 3rd viewing of this presentation. It seems that Brian's questioning of "rigidity" is being itself questioned as a code for something else. I think his observation should be taken at face value. His examples and thought process is honest and worthy of consideration.
If you are looking to blame someone for confusion and ambivalence in the role of "rigidity" in the Catholic Church, simply look to the administrators.
There are many examples that have been noted, but let me add one more:
"Rigidity" is supposed to be bad, but the Communist Government of China demands to control who is to be appointed Bishops and our Church administrators agree and enforce that "rigidity. Hmmmm.
This seems to be the best passage I've found in regards to possible sinfulness of "Rigidity"
“To the angel of the church in Ephesus write:
These are the words of Him who holds the seven stars in His right hand and walks among the seven golden lampstands.
I know your deeds, your labor, and your perseverance. I know that you cannot tolerate those who are evil, and you have tested and exposed as liars those who falsely claim to be apostles. Without growing weary, you have persevered and endured many things for the sake of My name.
But I have this against you: You have abandoned your first love. Therefore, keep in mind how far you have fallen. Repent and perform the deeds you did at first. But if you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place.
But you have this to your credit: You hate the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.
He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who overcomes, I will grant the right to eat from the tree of life in the Paradise of God.
Revelation 2:1-7
The sin is not in remaining strictly holy, but leaving love behind, one who stops acting love and charity is in sin
I would say that this passage says that the Church has sinned by not being rigid enough. If they had held fast to the one thing necessary, they would not have sinned. I think you're conflating the Pope's use of "rigidity" with Protestants' use of "legalism", but they are not the same.
idk how this is so hard to understand
truth without love is not what Catholics should aim for, and Brian knows this. He's a smart guy, idk why he doesn't mention the obvious meaning of rigidity
I see the "bad rigidity" on two levels...
ONE: the expression "fullness of Truth" should not be mistaken for "finished Truth". This would deny that the Truth (God) will always be an inapprehensible mystery. The result would be some kind of Christian ideology, based on a legit but yet limited insight into God... an insight that is erected into an all-explanatory absolute (eg. someone who only accepts Aquinas' theology). This is pretentious and idolatric, because rather than seeking Truth, we are more attatched to our valid yet poor insight into an infinite mystery.
TWO: a lack of understanding of how morals work. On one hand, we have PRINCIPLES which are unchanging, and on the other hand the realm of PRUDENCE which is the practical application of those principles to a myriad of different situations. One is more concerned with theoretical reason, while the other is concerned with practical reason. The first one is more of a science, while the second one is more of an art. A good example is the case method in business schools, where an optimal solution to a single problem is never reached, because there isn't one... but everyone contributes their viewpoint relying on the same reasonable principles. Now RULES are the PRUDENTIAL APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES TO THE MOST USUAL SITUATIONS, and because of that, RULES HAVE EXCEPTIONS. That is, different situations (than the usual) demand that the same unchanging principle be applied differently... otherwise the principle itself would be violated. Rigidity results from confusing RULES with PRINCIPLES. Principles have no exceptions, but rules do.
Brian, I wonder what you think of this: There is a nascent phenomenon in the Church that really underlies this accusation of rigidity towards traditionalists. It's not as malevolent as you might think. That nascent phenom is this: A burgeoning emphasis on understanding or intuiting the boundaries of indulgence. The Orthodox have a very liberal idea of this embodied in their understanding of "economia," and I would say it is excessive. On the other hand, we have struggled to carefully establish an ordered method of applying indulgences that doesn't undermine the "letter of the law." We are confronted by the fact that this has ended up problematic, to say the least... and it only becomes more uncertain given the Church's teaching on moral culpability. From wiki: "In short, economia is a discretionary deviation from the letter of the law in order to adhere to the spirit of the law and charity. This is in contrast to legalism, or akribia (Greek: ακριβεια), which is strict adherence to the letter of the law of the church." And it seems clear, even if we disagree with what people are trying to get away with, that this is in fact, the next phase of doctrinal development for the Church. Doctrinal development is not over... and that is per Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit will reveal the truth about God until the end of the age. We are seeing both rigidity and lawlessness. A good and clear example of rigidity is the Feeneyites, but they have many freelance analogues in the Church... especially amongst traditionalists. And this is just reality.
“Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.” 2nd Thessalonians, verse 15. Certain things we must hold on to.
3:26…I thought: “Oh, that mattress is shot.” My parent was “rigid” because he was always right and it saved time. God rest his saintly soul. Thank you for the video.
As always you boil things down to salt, Mr Holdsworth. Well done. As seems to be all too common, the judgement required prior to arriving at a position is passed over in today's discourse (or what passes for discourse) I think that simply means ultimately that people emote more than they think. The fostering of this kind of "shortcut-to-conclusions" seems strategic. Unfortunate.
Rigid is an adjective which can be positive or negative depending upon the context. Rigidly good is good. Rigidly bad is bad. Those saying people are too rigid are being rigidly bad in their misuse of the term rigid.
I've understood the term to be a reference to making idols of the faith. Someone who would hold above their interpretation to the condemnation of any other. The upset is when the term is used as a weapon to eat away at orthodoxy or attack opinions which Catholics can differ on.
Well, certainly Brian gets the "rigid" moniker just for talking about the issue. As anyone who watched this video... I certainly am stubborn, but I also recognize that there is nothing more perfect than the teachings of Our Lord, passed from the Apostles until ourselves. So if my unwillingness to see those changed, I will wear that "rigid" as a badge of honour.
I am praying to become more and more “rigid”. I want to be as rigid as St Athanasius, St Cyril of Alexandria, St Pius V, St Pius X and any other great orthodox saint. I’m not the slightest bit interested in Pope Francis’ ideas regarding the so-called (non)problem of “rigidity”!
Dont confuse rigidity by firmness, they are not the same thing. Saints have been incredibly firm but not rigid, Rigid leads you to resist tothe Holy Spirit, Firmness insteaad leads you to move along with themotions of The Holy Spirit while staying in God's Will and staying in Gods commandments as the exterior dispositions and forms may change, The core of what is Tradition remains the same. So You should pray God to stay firm but avoid rigidity.
@@animgreat2719 either way, I would be doing the opposite of what Francis wants. He loves fluidity, flexibility, novelty and a “God of surprises”. I’m not sure who his God is, but mine is a “God of no surprises at all” - Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever (Hebrews 13:8). Francis’ god sounds different to mine.
We are members of the Church-militant here on earth so we must "Stand-Fast" against sin.If that means being rigid then so be it.
Can you please make a video regarding NFP and contraception for young Catholics? Again where does rigidity fit in there. Many young Catholics find this one the hardest in that it is the most demanding.
Truth is rigid, it does not change. It can't or it wouldn't be the truth
Brian, good for you for quoting Pope Pius XII Encyclical Mediator Dei. Have you read it in its entirety? Some say it lays the foundations for Sacrosanctum Concilium ... do you agree with that?
I think rigidity conflates stone hearts and those who have normal Catholic scruples and cherish the Catholic faith. In my experience stone hearts are not a characteristic of the later. Its just a hate game which we must rise above.
Dedication and devotion would seem essential. But a key part of my faith is surrender daily to how HE changes me. I can't be a rigid new creation.
I pray every day for Jorge Bergolio and for each one of his ilk to seek & to be converted to the splendor of the purity of the Catholic faith. May they someday find Christ to be their Lord & Savior, then hold firm to the rigid reality of our Redeemer. May Mama Mary lead them to her Son.
No, "Mama Mary" has no part in one's leading to the Lord. Mary needed a Savior as well, she wasn't exempt. There is only one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus. You must be baptized in His name and recieve His Holy Spirit, just like the apostles did on the day of Pentecost.
Who has the authority? The canon law or the opinion ? What does the law says about the resignation of Benedict?
The best way to support tradition is to vote with your dollars. Donate to Latin Mass communities and monasteries. Make your opinion known to the bishop! Show up to Latin Masses in your diocese and donate towards traditional church renovations. Tradition is the democracy of the dead...so vote!!!
So, other Catholics like Maronite Catholics and Greek Catholics should give up their Traditional Liturgical expressions and adapt the Latin Mass of the Western Roman Catholic Church?
@@adolphCat who said that bro??
@@adolphCat the maronites already gave up most of their liturgical traditions in favor of Novus Ordo practices. Their liturgy is not traditional at all.
I'm feeling rigid instead of lukewarm. What should I do?
Francis, the heretic: "I will squeeze the rigidity out of you."
A pope can be a heretic?
@@diegobarragan4904 heretic:a person believing in or practicing religious heresy.
@The smartest man according to Papa Joe! that contradicts Vatican 1
@The smartest man according to Papa Joe! I’m Orthodox so I agree with you. I’m just pointing out that you don’t agree with Vatican 1.
@@diegobarragan4904 Please point out what document in Vatican I that says the pope can never be a heretic.
Excellent video regarding the new most popular term used by many in today's Church hierarchy.
Rigidity is not a sin; it's only a "sin" against modernism and humanism.
It can be considered a sin if you are stuck in your ways sinning, say you're doing something bad and won't stop even if those around you make it clear what you're doing is bad. That's rigidity and is something you should avoid but I guess it really isn't a sin more of a mistake that leads you to keep sinning.
Is being scrupulous a sin?
We are called to treasure nothing on earth but only that which can be taken to heaven. The pearls of virtues and mercy.
This is from my notebook on refuting the error of Sola Scriptura...
2 Thes 2:15 Paul commands to keep oral traditions (paradoesia, "to hand on", same word translated as "traditions" in some Protestant Bibles when used negatively and as "teachings" when used affirmatively, but the SAME EXACT WORD).
“14 To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.”
First, believers are unequivocally grounded in the Faith by the traditions they follow, and secondly, those traditions were transmitted both orally and by writing. Paul was with the Thessalonians for a substantive period (just like he was with the Corinthians) so he must have certainly preached far more than just the content of those two epistles, in fact almost certainly more than the New Testament’s contents.
--The word for “hold” in Koine is krateite, more accurately meaning “to be strong, to prevail, to be mighty”. Paul is admonishing his listeners to do their utmost to both believe and obey with the same dedication. what he told them in BOTH spoken word and written word--there is NO greater or lesser importance of one these means to the other.
---Gee, it.sounds like the Apostle.Paul is saying being theologically rigid is a COMMANDED VIRTUE!!!
Rigidity: the “sin” of being firm, stable, solid, well-founded upon a rock, indomitable, persevering, unwavering, reliable, consistent, traditional
You can rigid in bad ways too. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is a kind of rigidity, namely, ultimately refusing to budge to the point that you do not accept God's mercy. It is the unforgivable sin. Just because you're rigid doesn't mean you're not going to hell.
@@Krshwunk have you met a traditional Catholic so “rigid” in mortal sin that they refuse mercy? Clinging so hard to the Church that they reject the Church? Your comment may technically be true, in that anyone can sin mortally and go to hell, but that your initial reaction to the positive side of “rigidity” is to condemn people to hell for it proves more than you think
@@ArchetypeGotoh You were defining rigidity in purely positive ways, so I brought up how it can also be negative. Also, I didn't condemn anyone to hell. I said that a sin that can condemn someone to hell is a kind of rigidity, which it is.
Also, there can be bad ways in which one clings hard to the Church. If one is rigid in clinging to certain aspects of the Church to the neglect of more important aspects of the Church, that can indeed be bad. Obviously, the Pharisees clung to certain details in the Bible to the rejection of more important details of divine revelation, so much so that they ended up crucifying God.
Also, what were you insinuating about how it "proves more than you think?" I don't know what you're getting at.
@@Krshwunk As Brian discussed in the video, the word "rigid" is primarily used today as an attack against a particular kind of Catholic, even though the Bible uses many of the synonyms I listed as positive traits which we are meant to emulate. As also discussed in the video, we all know that "rigid" can be used negatively, but the current critique isn't that "rigid people" are holding fast to the tradition, they're "rigid" because they "refuse to change with the times," which isn't inherently negative. To this you typed "Just because you're rigid doesn't mean you're not going to hell." Perhaps you didn't mean your tone to be so definitive, but you make it seem like any possible application of "rigid" is a sin worthy of hell, which is clearly wrong.
Because you implied "rigidity" is a damnable sin, I asked "Have you met people that you're describing, who are so stubbornly attached to the Church that they reject mercy", and you seem to have responded with "2000 years ago some people could be described that way," which really sounds like a "no, the 'rigidity' I'm describing as possible I haven't actually seen myself". These points taken together make the case that you consider "rigidity" only to be a bad thing, and that anyone who is "rigid" is like the Pharisees who crucified Jesus.
@@ArchetypeGotoh The first thing I said was, "You can be rigid in bad ways too," (I left out the word "be".accidentally the first time, if that makes a difference) emphasis on the word "too," implying that there are good ways to be rigid. So no, I was not implying rigidity is always bad. Again, you were simply defining rigidity in positive ways, and I said it can also be bad (I said "can" multiple times not merely "is"), therefore implying that there are good kinds of rigidity and bad kinds of rigidity (including very bad ways).
I would note, however, that holding to tradition is also not necessarily good either. Obviously there are bad pagan traditions that missionaries had to contend with when spreading the Gospel. Also, there are non-sacred traditions in the Church that aren't necessarily useful for all times.
0:45 it does. He doesn’t use the word, but Paul condemns rigidity. This is the problem when converts try to explain Catholicism.
pope francis is rigid against actual catholics. that's the definition of rigidity.
Thank you, Brian. I enjoyed this homily.
Here in the States, we often accuse political opponents of "flip-flopping" - from the slang term for shower or beach sandals. It means that a person isn't rigid in their convictions, but bends back and forth to whichever conviction places them in a better light for the public view. Yet, just as you've discussed with the term "rigid," possessing the intellectual and moral flexibility to change as one's understanding matures is indeed a strength, not a weakness. Rigidity and flexibility must be understood within context.
Ironically, the Church's admonishment of parishioner's rigidness can work against the Church. I am a Roman Catholic who has not been to mass for over two years now. I no longer felt welcomed, regardless of which parish I visited. Mass has changed. The Church wants change.
Okay then...here is my change. I don't need the Church. I have my faith, my moral upbringing in the old rigid Catechism. I now find solace in the homilies of Brian Holdsworth and CS Lewis recordings. There is no sense in me remaining in a Church that doesn't want my rigidness. Let me demonstrate my respect by leaving. That is just what I have done...admittedly with a great sadness.
Rigidity in the sense of traditional Catholics holding fast to the truth of the church will always be looked upon as a bad thing by the modernist hierarchy, because traditional catholicism and modernism are mutually exclusive ideas, and cannot be reconciled one to the other, therefore the modernists seek to drive out the traditional standards in order to superimpose their secular, ever-changing ideology
Hi Brian,
I was reluctant to click on the video, because I had my ideas about the video, by just looking onto it's subject and I felt rigid in my convictions.
It was interesting how while I was listening to it - Bible verses came to mind - many of the same as you have mentioned yourself.
In addition to that I've recalled Revelation 2 message "Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus" :
" But I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first charity. Be mindful therefore from whence thou art fallen: and do penance, and do the first works. Or else I come to thee, and will move thy candlestick out of its place, except thou do penance.".
It's mentioned "thy first charity" and "the first works", it may include also the original worship, original celebration of the Holy Mass and whatever was taught either via letter, or verbally (which beautifully includes oral Tradition). We should also hold fast to whatever was passed down to us through the authority of the Disciples, reject any different Gospel that differs with that, which is pretty rigid too. The Church ought to be sturdy, if the gates of Hell with all unholy fury will not prevail it, ever.
Thank you very much for that video, Godspeed.
For me, rigidity is a form of pride, which is one of the deadly sins. And it is often connected with people, who know and understand texts in a very literal way without understanding the spirit in it. Like the Scribes Jesus dealt with, who wanted him to obey literally to the Sabath rules and not heal people on the day.
I think that is much more what pope Francis refers to when He has used that Term.
@@animgreat2719 interesting. I am always a bit confused about this pope. Sometimes he seems to really care for the poor and the outcasts and then on the other hand, I rarely hear clear words about the hot topics in church. I guess it is very complicated to be be pope.
You've got it.
I think Pope Francis is trying (in general) to be compassionate, but maybe to a fault, which is to say, imprudently.
@@petervonbergen5364 Then he should retire and let a Catholic have the job, look at his outrages , he knows what he is doing.
Of course I stay rigid. Have you ever built a house on jelly?
@@nello_77 That is a house boat. So the house was on a boat which was rigid. Plus he built it on the land before the floods which put it in the water.
I do think it is often used to condemn Catholics who are holding fast to their faith, and it is a ambiguous term that is abused. Although, sometimes when it is used by Pope Francis, I think he is actually speaking of those who may be condemning people who have sinned without considering the circumstances, misunderstanding, or even ignorance. One example would be not taking into consideration the circumstances of a couple who is remarried after divorce, but are working out how they may be able to live as brother and sister and then be able to take communion. As lay people we may not be privy to the circumstances and may unnecessarily condemn said couple for presenting themselves for communion without knowing. Another less grievous example would be a young teen girl who attends adoration at a retreat and sits in the isle and is subjected to condemnations for being irreverent, when she was in the midst of a very personal encounter with Christ. I've seen what this type of "rigidity" can do. We have to be concerned with pushing people away from Christ as well, by not have mercy in these situations. Is it not true that St. Paul said not all can handle meat, but must be given milk at first. This is what Pope Francis means when he says accompaniment, gently guiding people to the truth. It doesn't mean accepting peoples sin, but helping them to see the sin themselves, and how they're called to a higher and more beautiful life of virtue. Of course we can't allow blatant and intensional abuses in the liturgy and we should call out the type of abstinent sin you spoke of. Yet, we are called to be not QUICK to judge. It doesn't mean not to judge, just not quick to judge. We should give people the benefit of the doubt and assume good intentions in certain circumstances.
This is a good conversation starter. I, as an Eastern Catholic, often hear this word thrown around by "Novus Ordo" Roman Catholics and "Tridentine" Roman Catholics (insofar as we should really separate those groups). I agree that your concern about this wording is legitimate, but I think there is something about supposed "traditional" Catholics that is rigid in a concerning manner.
The way I would describe this is that there is a present rigidity that seems nearly pharisaical. What I mean by this is that we see people who are, typically, liturgically rigid while being fairly malleable in terms of their spiritual or inner life. What you have pointed out here is that people are often "rigid" in their faith in an entirely spiritual sense: they take the doctrines and beliefs of the Church seriously. That should not be criticized.
What should be criticized is this idea that simply doing something like fulfilling the sacramental life (perhaps specifically at a Latin mass) is the way to holiness. Perhaps you would argue that there are better words for this than rigid, such as legalistic, Pelagian, or pharisaical as I used above, but I also see acknowledging this as a problem to be quite valid.
Nice try. Especially as describing yourself as an "Eastern Catholic". For those unaware Francis and his acolytes are now transforming all the Eastern Rites into Vatican II Novus Ordo churches. They started on the Chalcedonians recently. Your mistake was throwing the "Pelagian" accusation in there, a recent favorite of Francis and Roach, without actually knowing what a Pelagian was or is. You are in fact a heretical Modernist prostelyzer.
The struggle here, as surprisingly honestly proclaimed by the Modernists who are represented by Francis, is in ecclesiology. The liturgy reflects the beliefs of the Church. As we worship, as we pray, so we believe. You are trying to obscure that you are a Modernist disciple of Francis. You regard the beliefs of the Church as having been fundamentally changed by Vatican II and its aftermath. The liturgy must reflect that. While practically any kind of behavior is permitted under your rubrics, what is not permitted under the brand new dogma are the beliefs of the Church since Christ and the Apostles until the Council. The liturgy, dating back to the earliest Church and organically developing from it, which reflects those beliefs and does not change must be "rigidly" eliminated at all costs. Oddly your preferred conduct is not only directly contradictory to all previous Church Councils and the Deposit of the Faith, which is why the Oath Against Modernism and the St. Michael Prayer are banned, but it is contradictory to the language expressed in the documents approved AT THE VATICAN II COUNCIL. Now those documents were carefully written by committees with holes so you could drive a truck through them ( talk about being legalistic or Pharasetical - you obviously assume your opponents aren't familiar with Talmudic reasoning) but they were explicitly expecting the Traditional Mass to continue. Instead about 95% of it has been replaced. I was raised as an Evangelical Lutheran and even I scarcely recognize the Novus Ordo as anything in common with the old Mass.
In short, you are a heretic and anathema. Like a slippery serpent you seek ti disguise yourself as what you are not. Not only is your own soul in imminent peril but you seek to entice others into the Pit with soothing words. Repent, confess and pray for forgivness. Please believe me for I do the same for myself and the manifest errors I have believed. One of my many penances is seeking to aid others who are in danger. Please ask Our Lady to pray for you and see the wrror of your ways.
@@brianmccarthy5557 Given your response, I am not even sure if you read my comment. I appreciate you ending with a note about prayer, but jumping from a 200 word comment to declaring someone a heretic is almost funny. You have no idea how I feel about Vatican II, the Tridentine Mass, or Novus Ordo innovations - which you evidently couldn't as I made no mention of any of that in my comment.
Let us pray to Our Lord for more charitable and attentive dialogue.
The pharisees were condemned for their hypocrisy, not their devotion to liturgy
@@Acgijhffx Yes! Agreed!
But those Pharisees also had a liturgical practice of their own, and they conducted those practices. In a certain sense, many of them would have had the outward appearance of liturgical devotion, but we know they were hypocrites, as you said.
My point is that our churches also suffer from this. This is the rigidity I was pointing to: that mere application of a rubric is sufficient, and then we can go on being as hateful and sinful as we please. To be clear, this is not merely one group of Catholics (such as Tridentine Mass attenders), but my comment was made toward Brian, who is such a person, becoming defensive about the accusation. It may have some ground, especially when he seems to have a view that his faith is somehow deeper due to the sort of Mass he attends (a view I've found to be common among those who go to the Latin mass - but maybe I have a biased sample in my personal circles). Surely, a richer form of the Mass provides an opportunity for deep prayer, but there is also a possibility for pride in claiming that it is therefore the only way and no one else is doing it properly. That's the rigidity I was pointing to.
If someone simply goes to Mass (Latin or not), loves the Lord, and puts everything he or she has into softening his or her heart through God's grace, that's all we can ask.
It goes beyond liturgy, doesn't it?
As I understand it, the East has a much more expansive view of when -- or even that -- exceptions can be made in individual circumstances, especially compared to the puritanical U.S.
Or that the Church hopes that all may be saved.
In the West most consider this only technically true at best, whereas in the East there's a sense that it is actually a live possibility.
This term has been leveled primarily against orthodox Catholic seminarians and novices in religious orders by liberals for a half century, particularly by those who are accepting of sexual immorality, especially homosexuality . It's a label used to weed out those with a serious nature.
I like Bruce Lee's philosophy: to be like water. Water changes its shape depending on what you pour it in. But changing shape is different from changing identity, and if it's no longer water how can it change shape?
Blessings ✌️
So, what your saying is that water is ridgid in it's identity as a fluid. Which is fine so long as the containers are clean... but a dirty container will impureify liquid water and quickly change its nature. Whereas, ice cubes will not change their internal nature even in a filthy dirty container.
And the modern world is a really big filthy dirty container.
a "hardened heart" seems to be a Biblical terms for rigid
Excellent observation.
Truth doesn't change.
I always took "rigid" as meaning "someone who adheres too strictly to traditions or expressions of the Faith that can and should be subject to change when necessary."
You know well that Catholicism hasn't talked or looked the same over the last 2000 years. Chrysostom, Aquinas, and JPII would differ in lots of ways. Would they differ on essentials? I guess not, but they're different, and not just on little things. Theology of the Body, ecumenism, evolution, etc. are all ways that the Church has broken from the past in clear, if not definitive ways. Aquinas and Chrysostom would be shocked by a lot of what JPII did and taught. As far as I'm aware you're a fan of JPII, but he broke radically from tradition in lots of areas.
This is to say nothing of the many disciplines that have changed over time.
It's easy to say the Church doesn't/shouldn't change, but it has plenty of times.
I'm not saying it can change on definitive teaching, but I don't think Pope Francis is saying that. If he is, someone can show me. But until then, I'm inclined he's just thinking about people who don't have the circumspection to see how Catholicism isn't the same through the centuries - St. Benedict never heard of the rosary.
Most important question: button or clip suspenders?
A measured and thorough evaluation. Thank you. From your mouth to the ears of...
Sigh.
I wonder if there's a similar evaluation to be made about the "sin" of racism.
Thanks Brian! I love learning from you.
does anyone know any good books ( maybe by a catholic author) on Joan of Arc i was listening to Joan of Arc: A Life Transfigured by Kathryn Harrison but im barley 2 chapters in and its way to blasphemous for me
Mark Twain did one on this saint , it maybe available online for free.
There is no Bible passage or Church document that calls rigidity a sin.
But many call lukewarm faith a sin...
It’s a term used to disarm, put good people on the defensive, used to discredit them and it’s a shame that this is happening.
Good discussion. I too think the word "rigid" is thrown about a bit too indiscriminately, and depending on what it is used on, it is good or bad. "Unchanging" rigid is good for structures, but compassion in a long-term view is needed (not giving in to the moan of the moment, but best in the long-term). One acquaintance complained about the "rigid" church services - because he wanted a free-flow rock band and change-up of contents each week, instead of an unchanging structure within which changes and variations came about from day to day, week to week, and season to season. It was a disingenuous and wrong use of the word.
At 8:00 you make a really good case against the infallibility and indefectability of the Roman Church.
Wasn’t it Rome that added to the Creed? Wasn’t it Rome that denies Sacraments to children?
I’m not being that serious, but you left yourself open to that.
I dont necessarily believe in anything supernatural but i do enjoy hearing your interesting perspective on things and i listen to you a lot.
Thanks for a fresh perspective!
Dear Sir or Madame, I invite you to open up your heart to the truth, which is Jesus Christ, and you'll drop the word "depressed" in your nickname.
Brian thank you - you keep me sane
In seminaries nowadays being accused of rigidity is code for pending expulsion.