Jump to content

Menu

Recommended Posts

59 minutes ago, chiguirre said:

Here's how they're doing it in Rome (although I think these people are standing too close to each other, frankly):

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-italy-rome-churche/rome-catholic-churches-ordered-closed-due-to-coronavirus-unprecedented-in-modern-times-idUSKBN20Z3BU


I think that’s thoroughly acceptable.👍

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 206
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I posted above that DD was to be baptized today, and then posted that our church was canceled (technically, they're switching to a streaming service for now.) Anyway, we had family coming in for

Have you read any of the accounts from Italian hospitals?  People are being left in the hallways to die because some hospitals are operating at 200+% capacity and there are simply no rooms or medical

If we can slow the spread of Covid-19 through social distancing we can potentially save thousands or even millions of lives--by not having it spread exponentially through the population and overwhelm

Since the early 1600's the citizens of Oberammergau, Germany have produced the Passion Play every 10 years, which they promised to do if God spared them from the plague.  Ironically, this year's production is in jeopardy of being cancelled.  

  • Sad 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, wendyroo said:

Have you read any of the accounts from Italian hospitals?  People are being left in the hallways to die because some hospitals are operating at 200+% capacity and there are simply no rooms or medical supplies to go around.  Doctors and nurses and lay people and anyone else that can be pressed into service are caring for the sick around the clock until they themselves almost inevitably get sick (because masks and other safety equipment are in short supply) and then they are (hopefully) out of commission for 14 days unless they are part of the not insignificant percentage that die.

One of the problems in Italy is that when the northern territory was placed on lockdown, people fled out of the area to southern regions like Puglia.  Not only did this cause contact with large amounts of people and further spread of the virus, it placed many people in regions that are less well-equipped to handle large populations of critically ill. 

A colleague in China said that Hubei province suffered so dramatically because people rushed to the hospital in a panic, making it difficult to triage and care for those who really needed it.  Having lived through this in China he says that he is not convinced that quarantine is the best in that it can result in deaths in other ways (which the statistics do not pick up).  He says that the main thing is not to stir panic.

I think the church gathering as a community brings lots of benefits.  Some of those with the greatest needs are isolated and need the care of the church community.  While we should certainly be mindful of the risks of gathering as a community, we also need to be aware that there are other risks.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well we’ve just had a cancellation for any non essential gatherings over 500 which affects the big churches . The PM suggested staggered services so there’s smaller groups.  I really don’t know if that would achieve much but we will see.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ours suspended services last night and requested people watch live stream. And please still give financial offerings. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Murphy101 said:

The Church already offers dispensation to the infirm or the ailing and to those who need to be their caregivers. It always has.  People may need sternly reminded of that by their bishops, but there doesn’t need to be a special dispensation.

I’m pretty hard core that there is never a good enough reason for the RCC to refuse to have mass entirely.  How far will this go? No anointing of the sick/last rites?  No baptisms or confirmations?

I have only ever seen that explained as a dispensation for people who are already ill orwho are homebound, never as for all elderly or medically high risk. (ihave heard of people getting an individual dispensation in extreme health cases).  If you have some resources that show that it is much broader, can you please link?

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Murphy101 said:

If there’s no need/value for healthy people to go to Mass or even adoration during a “plague”, then I’m not sure what the need/value is when there isn’t a one.

I find it incomprehensible that there is no way at all to manage having mass.

 

There will be masses no matter what, they just might be private masses without the people present. They will still have all the infinite value of Jesus’ sacrifice.

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were Pope... 😉

1. I'd require every priest (including those who aren't pastors ... all those administrator bishops can let the paperwork go for a while) to offer more Masses -- multiple per Sunday. Reinstitute the minor orders of Porters and Usher, immediately ordaining younger laymen (viri probati!) on an emergency basis as Ushers for the traditional task of guarding the entrance, limiting admission to any given mass. Hand massgoers a schedule of the new, plentiful mass times. Ushers guide attendees to their pews, one pew per family. Low masses only, 30 min. max, tell the elderly to go home and stay home. More Masses, not fewer, is safer.

2. Cessation of distribution of the Eucharist. The point is the Mass, not Communing. On the flip side of the new mass schedule will be instructions for making a Spiritual Communion.

3. General dispensation from Mass obligation in any area affected by Coronavirus. Most Catholics are under the impression they have no Mass obligation anyway; maybe a dispensation would remind them they in fact have to go every Sunday.

4. Seize the opportunity to permanently suppress Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers, Communion on the (nasty germy) hand, Communion under both species, and the Sign of Peace outside a High Mass where it stops at the Subdeacon and the congregation has nothing to do with it.

5. So as not to be too Traddy, Pope Violet would revive the 1980s tradition of Communal Absolution outside of auricular Confession. This would take place 10 minutes before Mass started, and end with a prayer to St Rocco, the too-long-ignored patron invoked against plague. 

Meanwhile, the Crown family will behave as if these things were already the case.

Edited by Violet Crown
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Spudater said:

I have only ever seen that explained as a dispensation for people who are already ill orwho are homebound, never as for all elderly or medically high risk. (ihave heard of people getting an individual dispensation in extreme health cases).  If you have some resources that show that it is much broader, can you please link?


I don’t have a particular source because it’s always been that way. Some people may have chosen to interpret it more strictly but the wording is not as strict or narrow as you suggest. At some point we have to look at the actual words and take them at face value.

Lenten sacrifice is a great example of the RCC not being as strict and narrow as many rightly practice. For example, the rules of fasting and abstaining are relaxed for anyone over 70, under a certain young age I’m blanking on (I *think* 12), AND anyone sick or infirm.  It doesn’t say “over 70 and too sick to do it” though that is most often how it is interpreted in the spirit of intent to do good. And rightly so.

And there is usually nothing wrong with taking that narrower stance bc those rules are in place intending to meet a valid need - not as a catch all excuse to not do what we know we should do.

But the actual words have value too. Over 70? That alone is enough to materially excuse. If there is nothing else going on and they are just 70 and want a steak on Friday and are pulling this rule as a reason to do that? Imo I’d agree that is probably worthy of some spiritual scrutiny for them to address with their confessor, but not anything the general population would be able to know. 

So I say again. No one in the laity needs a special dispensation to avoid contagion spread.

Edited by Murphy101
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Violet Crown said:

If I were Pope... 😉

1. I'd require every priest (including those who aren't pastors ... all those administrator bishops can let the paperwork go for a while) to offer more Masses -- multiple per Sunday. Reinstitute the minor orders of Porters and Usher, immediately ordaining younger laymen (viri probati!) on an emergency basis as Ushers for the traditional task of guarding the entrance, limiting admission to any given mass. Hand massgoers a schedule of the new, plentiful mass times. Ushers guide attendees to their pews, one pew per family. Low masses only, 30 min. max, tell the elderly to go home and stay home. More Masses, not fewer, is safer.

2. Cessation of distribution of the Eucharist. The point is the Mass, not Communing. On the flip side of the new mass schedule will be instructions for making a Spiritual Communion.

3. General dispensation from Mass obligation in any area affected by Coronavirus. Most Catholics are under the impression they have no Mass obligation anyway; maybe a dispensation would remind them they in fact have to go every Sunday.

4. Seize the opportunity to permanently suppress Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers, Communion on the (nasty germy) hand, Communion under both species, and the Sign of Peace outside a High Mass where it stops at the Subdeacon and the congregation has nothing to do with it.

5. So as not to be too Traddy, Pope Violet would revive the 1980s tradition of Communal Absolution outside of auricular Confession. This would take place 10 minutes before Mass started, and end with a prayer to St Rocco, the too-long-ignored patron invoked against plague. 

Meanwhile, the Crown family will behave as if these things were already the case.


I could be on board with all of that. 👍

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:


I don’t have a particular source because it’s always been that way. Some people may have chosen to interpret it more strictly but the wording is not as strict or narrow as you suggest. At some point we have to look at the actual words and take them at face value.

Lenten sacrifice is a great example of the RCC not being as strict and narrow as many rightly practice. For example, the rules of fasting and abstaining are relaxed for anyone over 70, under a certain young age I’m blanking on (I *think* 12), AND anyone sick or infirm.  It doesn’t say “over 70 and too sick to do it” though that is most often how it is interpreted in the spirit of intent to do good. And rightly so.

And there is usually nothing wrong with taking that narrower stance bc those rules are in place intending to meet a valid need - not as a catch all excuse to not do what we know we should do.

But the actual words have value too. Over 70? That alone is enough to materially excuse. If there is nothing else going on and they are just 70 and want a steak on Friday and are pulling this rule as a reason to do that? Imo I’d agree that is probably worthy of some spiritual scrutiny for them to address with their confessor, but not anything the general population would be able to know. 

So I say again. No one in the laity needs a special dispensation to avoid contagion spread.

It’s what I’ve been told by priests my whole life. I’ve never found anything to contradict them and support your interpretation in the years I was getting a BA in theology or the years since I’ve been teaching catechism to my kids. I’ve been googling it to see ifI can find anything. 🤷‍♀️  

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Spudater said:

It’s what I’ve been told by priests my whole life. I’ve never found anything to contradict them and support your interpretation in the years I was getting a BA in theology or the years since I’ve been teaching catechism to my kids. I’ve been googling it to see ifI can find anything. 🤷‍♀️  


Okay. We can argue interpretation like Protestants or we can take the words as the facts that they are. Intent does matter, but the fact that the words are not written that narrowly matters too. There’s a valid reason for it. Such as plagues and other factors. 

It also doesn’t say exactly at what wind speed we don’t have to attend mass but  I don’t need a special dispensation to not go  to mass during tornadic conditions. It still doesn’t mean I’m valid to say I don’t have to go to mass on days with a slight summer breeze because what I really want to do is go fly a kite. And if I did do that, my confessor would be entirely right to correct me. Same as my confessor would be entirely right to correct me for scrupulously if I insisted on driving up to the church while the tornado sirens are going off.

Again, I’m fine with the bishops reminding the laity that they have dispensation.  My quibble was that they don’t need to create  a special general dispensation to give. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Violet Crown said:

So as not to be too Traddy, Pope Violet would revive the 1980s tradition of Communal Absolution outside of auricular Confession.

I am impressed with your list except for this small section. I'm too Traddy to be on board w/Pope Violet on this one.

But I'm definitely looking up St Rocco. Sounds like a good saint to be asking for intercession from at this time.

No word on Masses locally, but since my area still has their head in the sand, I'm expecting Mass to go on as scheduled for now. I will have to decide if I allow my sons to serve next to our glad-handing Parish Priest. He'll definitely get it if it is in our community. (He's young but he gets sick easily.)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Murphy101 said:

The Church already offers dispensation to the infirm or the ailing and to those who need to be their caregivers. It always has.  People may need sternly reminded of that by their bishops, but there doesn’t need to be a special dispensation.

I’m pretty hard core that there is never a good enough reason for the RCC to refuse to have mass entirely.  How far will this go? No anointing of the sick/last rites?  No baptisms or confirmations?

Dallas' Bishop offered a dispensation yesterday to people deemed high risk by the CDC -- the particulars are listed in his statement (people over 60, with chronic illnesses, etc.).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:


Okay. We can argue interpretation like Protestants or we can take the words as the facts that they are. Intent does matter, but the fact that the words are not written that narrowly matters too. There’s a valid reason for it. Such as plagues and other factors. 

It also doesn’t say exactly at what wind speed we don’t have to attend mass but  I don’t need a special dispensation to not go  to mass during tornadic conditions. It still doesn’t mean I’m valid to say I don’t have to go to mass on days with a slight summer breeze because what I really want to do is go fly a kite. And if I did do that, my confessor would be entirely right to correct me. Same as my confessor would be entirely right to correct me for scrupulously if I insisted on driving up to the church while the tornado sirens are going off.

Again, I’m fine with the bishops reminding the laity that they have dispensation.  My quibble was that they don’t need to create  a special general dispensation to give. 

Nevermind. I was going to post pictures from the CCC and the Baltimore Catechism and a link to canon law and why I don’t think it’s at all obvious that people who are merely high risk but not actually ill are dispensed but I really don’t don’t see the point in arguing with you.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Murphy101 said:

I’m pretty upset at the idea of all catholic masses being canceled. It seems to me the better response would be to add more masses so that people can attend in smaller groups and be more spread out in the pews.  Possible permit outdoor masses to reduce spread as well.

We will be at mass if we are not sick.

I think it is awful that the Bishop of Oregon, and Oregon is a hot spot, will still be doing communion on the tongue.  Talk about spreading disease-outrageous

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Spudater said:

The feasibility of that will depend on your local conditions. Canon law allows a priest to say a maximum of three Masses on a Sunday. Our parish Mass schedule is chock full and both priests are already saying their maximum. And there are definitely too many of us there to spread out. For us, I think it would be a better move for the bishop to issue a blanket dispensation from the Sunday obligation for all elderly and those with health conditions that increase their risk. Frankly, way too many Catholics think it makes them extra pious to come when sick.  My second oldest almost died as a baby from a virus we caught at Mass. I’m pregnant right now and the number of Catholics on social media saying they will come to Mass no matter what and we all just need to have faith is seriously stressing me out. I would love a dispensation for myself right now...

Please don't go.  God is a God of Grace.  God is in charge, not any human.   As it is, the Archbishop in Milwaukee, has issued a dispensation.  Do not think that God is interested in hierachical wars--- just take his dispensation and stay home.  https://fox6now.com/2020/03/12/archbishop-listecki-catholics-are-free-of-obligation-to-attend-sunday-mass-for-a-couple-weeks/

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, TravelingChris said:

I think it is awful that the Bishop of Oregon, and Oregon is a hot spot, will still be doing communion on the tongue.  Talk about spreading disease-outrageous

He did say that the health authorities told the diocese it wasn't any more hazardous than communing on the hand. I know the talking point in trad circles lately is that the priest's fingers don't touch lips or tongue unless the communicant does it wrong, but that isn't my experience (especially when one of the priests used to the New Mass gets drafted to help distribute).

The obvious thing is to suspend distributing the Eucharist to the laity at all. But Catholics today tend to think communion is the whole point of Mass, so somehow this standard practice of the previous 2000 years is unthinkable now.

ETA: Pretty sure no bishop has the canonical right to forbid communion by mouth unless all communing is banned.

Edited by Violet Crown
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Ktgrok said:

 

 

All this. And I don't mean it lightly. Honestly, churches not having services is kind of the thing tipping me over the "oh wow this is super serious" ledge. But I know the catholic churches here have maybe 500 per service, with standing room only, with 1 on saturday and 4 on sunday already. Even if you add 3 more on Saturday...still not enough and who would do it? And since the virus can live on surfaces, you'd have to have a team sanitizing the pews in between, or you could catch it from an empty pew. And with stores OUT of sanitizing cleaners, out of alcohol, out of nearly everything (I snagged some peroxide when I ordered today, but not at all confident it will actually be delivered), plus no hand sanitizer available, so you can't say, well, use that...it's bad. 

And the priest does "wash" with water before handing out communion, but certainly not for 20 seconds with soap. And of course, the idea of a priest who can't touch you at all..it's very distressing all around. I don't knw what the right answer is, but I think a dispensation for anyone worried about the virus is a good idea. And I agree that it is VERY upsetting when I hear about people who seem to think it makes them holy to show up to church no matter how sick. 

Totally agree.  Here is the dispensation from Milwaukee Archbishop= https://fox6now.com/2020/03/12/archbishop-listecki-catholics-are-free-of-obligation-to-attend-sunday-mass-for-a-couple-weeks/

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Murphy101 said:

The Church already offers dispensation to the infirm or the ailing and to those who need to be their caregivers. It always has.  People may need sternly reminded of that by their bishops, but there doesn’t need to be a special dispensation.

I’m pretty hard core that there is never a good enough reason for the RCC to refuse to have mass entirely.  How far will this go? No anointing of the sick/last rites?  No baptisms or confirmations?

Look at what Lombardy area of Italy is doing.  Take that as an example.  Remember, Jesus said that after Loving God, the second rule is Love Your Neighbor.  Your neighbor includes the medical staff that gets overwhelmed with patients and some of whom die, even though not old or with underlying conditions  Your neighbor includes the elderly.  Your neighbor includes the people with underlying conditions.  Jesus preached all the time how love is more important than rules (which was why the Pharisees and Sadducees were upset with him).

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, wendyroo said:

Have you read any of the accounts from Italian hospitals?  People are being left in the hallways to die because some hospitals are operating at 200+% capacity and there are simply no rooms or medical supplies to go around.  Doctors and nurses and lay people and anyone else that can be pressed into service are caring for the sick around the clock until they themselves almost inevitably get sick (because masks and other safety equipment are in short supply) and then they are (hopefully) out of commission for 14 days unless they are part of the not insignificant percentage that die.

Now is the only chance we are going to get to delay the spread and impact of the disease here.  And every single day we can delay the spread is going to save countless lives.  Most of us are going to get sick eventually, a certain percentage will require hospitalization, and of those some will needs intensive ICU care.  I think that is pretty much a given, so all we can do now is try to control how many of those patients will need medical services at the same time.  In countries and regions with adequate medical facilities, the fatality rate of COVID is around 1%.  That pales in comparison to the fatality rate in country's whose medical infrastructure is overwhelmed past the breaking point and therefore is offering subpar care to the sick.

If one contagious person, who isn't even showing any symptoms yet, attends a large church gathering, they can easily spread the virus to hundreds of people which will quickly becomes thousands as each goes about their daily lives.  Within days hospitals can be inundated and brought to their knees.  OTOH, if people avoid all large gatherings and self-isolate as much as possible, then we can slow the spread of the disease and the hospitalizations and ensure that everyone receives the best possible care and that the fatality rate is kept as low as possible.

Wendy

That one person scenario is why South Korea has had that huge outbreak.  That one person went to a megachurch and the people who had no idea they were infected because of no symptoms went on with their lives.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 I go to a Protestant mega church....I am really frustrated to hear that they haven’t said anything yet.  We won’t be going.  
 

 The first case was just confirmed here in Alabama today, but we all know it’s been here for a while.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Our church is cancelled and it is viewed as a sacrifice, a love your neighbor sort of thing.  We're not terrified and we want to meet but being proactive to not spread disease is more important than us meeting as usual.

I see some people irl being proud to not take precautions and they label everyone else as fearful.  It is not fearful in our case, it is loving

  • Like 10
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Violet Crown said:

ETA: Pretty sure no bishop has the canonical right to forbid communion by mouth unless all communing is banned.

According to Fr. Ralph (he who said, "Please don't lick the priest.") they can't forbid communion by mouth but at our parish, the priests and eucharistic ministers would very much appreciate people receiving communion on their hand. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RootAnn said:

I am impressed with your list except for this small section. I'm too Traddy to be on board w/Pope Violet on this one.

But I'm definitely looking up St Rocco. Sounds like a good saint to be asking for intercession from at this time.

No word on Masses locally, but since my area still has their head in the sand, I'm expecting Mass to go on as scheduled for now. I will have to decide if I allow my sons to serve next to our glad-handing Parish Priest. He'll definitely get it if it is in our community. (He's young but he gets sick easily.)

I am not on board with the general absolution either, but if we all just go be traddy all of the rest is already in place in the TLM.  If it could be implemented other places it would make it easier to find an acceptable Mass when going on vacation (when we get to have those again).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mom2mthj said:

I am not on board with the general absolution either, but if we all just go be traddy all of the rest is already in place in the TLM.  If it could be implemented other places it would make it easier to find an acceptable Mass when going on vacation (when we get to have those again).

I'm just thinking of all those people with their faces close up against the screen, while Father leans over close to hear.

A friend who used to go to the Central American "magnet" parish in town said confessions there were generally outdoors, with Father in a chair against a tree trunk, facing away from the confession line, and penitents kneeling on the other side of the tree. It's really hard to overhear in the open air, so there's privacy and hygiene in one place. I could go for that solution.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Arctic Mama said:

Here is the email our church sent out, which strikes a pretty good balance, I think.  I snipped a few bits out but I’m pleased they finally decided something, I was poking them all day yesterday.
 

That is excellent!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Our church just sent out their plan (subject to change). Their adding services so that the gatherings can be smaller. They're also taking steps to make everything touch-free (no food in the cafe, gloves door holders and such). 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Violet Crown said:

He did say that the health authorities told the diocese it wasn't any more hazardous than communing on the hand. I know the talking point in trad circles lately is that the priest's fingers don't touch lips or tongue unless the communicant does it wrong, but that isn't my experience (especially when one of the priests used to the New Mass gets drafted to help distribute).

The obvious thing is to suspend distributing the Eucharist to the laity at all. But Catholics today tend to think communion is the whole point of Mass, so somehow this standard practice of the previous 2000 years is unthinkable now.

ETA: Pretty sure no bishop has the canonical right to forbid communion by mouth unless all communing is banned.

Well and that is why the Catholic Church needs to get modern and also go with the Bible.  There is absolutely nothing in the Bible about how communion will be shared.   But I already knew that the Catholic Church isn't looking out for disabled and sick people.  Recent stories about how the autistic boy won't be able to get communion,  how the celiacs can't ever get communion, and now this-  legalism above love.  And Jesus preached Love and Grace-  not legalism.

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, OKBud said:

 

+1

All the churches (of any size) in our diocese are closed until further notice. I'm really glad, because some people in church were openly antagonistic about any health measures whatsoever being taken. 

https://www.episcopalnewsservice.org/2020/03/13/diocese-by-diocese-list-of-announcements-in-response-to-coronavirus-outbreak/

Same here.  Last week a couple guys made a big show of shaking hands during the peace when we had just been asked not to.  They weren't "giving in to fear".  Ugh.  I don't get that attitude.  (Presuming it is fear)

We have so many ways to "meet" nowadays.  I really appreciate that face-to-face isn't seen as the only thing that "counts"

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, TravelingChris said:

Well and that is why the Catholic Church needs to get modern and also go with the Bible.  There is absolutely nothing in the Bible about how communion will be shared.   But I already knew that the Catholic Church isn't looking out for disabled and sick people.  Recent stories about how the autistic boy won't be able to get communion,  how the celiacs can't ever get communion, and now this-  legalism above love.  And Jesus preached Love and Grace-  not legalism.

Okay.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, OKBud said:

 

+1

All the churches (of any size) in our diocese are closed until further notice. I'm really glad, because some people in church were openly antagonistic about any health measures whatsoever being taken. 

https://www.episcopalnewsservice.org/2020/03/13/diocese-by-diocese-list-of-announcements-in-response-to-coronavirus-outbreak/

There have been at least four attendees at a meeting of an Episcopalian Consortium have been diagnosed with coronavirus.  The rector at my church is one of them (and was the first case in my area.)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Violet Crown said:

 

The obvious thing is to suspend distributing the Eucharist to the laity at all. But Catholics today tend to think communion is the whole point of Mass, so somehow this standard practice of the previous 2000 years is unthinkable now.

ETA: Pretty sure no bishop has the canonical right to forbid communion by mouth unless all communing is banned.

Agree entirely. They need to show leadership by making that decision themselves, not relying on the parishoners to figure it all out. That's the whole point of a magesterium!

4 hours ago, TravelingChris said:

Look at what Lombardy area of Italy is doing.  Take that as an example.  Remember, Jesus said that after Loving God, the second rule is Love Your Neighbor.  Your neighbor includes the medical staff that gets overwhelmed with patients and some of whom die, even though not old or with underlying conditions  Your neighbor includes the elderly.  Your neighbor includes the people with underlying conditions.  Jesus preached all the time how love is more important than rules (which was why the Pharisees and Sadducees were upset with him).

YESSSSS And I'd add that how we love our neighbor is how we love God. How we treat the least of these is how we treat God. Perhaps a paraphrase along the lines of, "I was a senior with COPD and you infected me" might go a long way. 

4 hours ago, happi duck said:

Our church is cancelled and it is viewed as a sacrifice, a love your neighbor sort of thing.  We're not terrified and we want to meet but being proactive to not spread disease is more important than us meeting as usual.

I see some people irl being proud to not take precautions and they label everyone else as fearful.  It is not fearful in our case, it is loving

Yes! They claim it is not giving into fear, but I have a feeling it is more the sin of pride. 

39 minutes ago, OKBud said:

 

+1

All the churches (of any size) in our diocese are closed until further notice. I'm really glad, because some people in church were openly antagonistic about any health measures whatsoever being taken. 

https://www.episcopalnewsservice.org/2020/03/13/diocese-by-diocese-list-of-announcements-in-response-to-coronavirus-outbreak/

And despite having cases here, my diocese has crickets. Figures. 

16 minutes ago, TravelingChris said:

Well and that is why the Catholic Church needs to get modern and also go with the Bible.  There is absolutely nothing in the Bible about how communion will be shared.   But I already knew that the Catholic Church isn't looking out for disabled and sick people.  Recent stories about how the autistic boy won't be able to get communion,  how the celiacs can't ever get communion, and now this-  legalism above love.  And Jesus preached Love and Grace-  not legalism.

I hear your concerns and share some of them, but I don't think Christians attacking Christians is a good thing right now. Peace. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, TravelingChris said:

Well and that is why the Catholic Church needs to get modern and also go with the Bible.  There is absolutely nothing in the Bible about how communion will be shared.   But I already knew that the Catholic Church isn't looking out for disabled and sick people.  Recent stories about how the autistic boy won't be able to get communion,  how the celiacs can't ever get communion, and now this-  legalism above love.  And Jesus preached Love and Grace-  not legalism.

I am very sad that you think this is a charitable way to address your brothers and sisters in Christ.  Maybe it is coming across wrong?   

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, TravelingChris said:

Well and that is why the Catholic Church needs to get modern and also go with the Bible.  There is absolutely nothing in the Bible about how communion will be shared.   But I already knew that the Catholic Church isn't looking out for disabled and sick people.  Recent stories about how the autistic boy won't be able to get communion,  how the celiacs can't ever get communion, and now this-  legalism above love.  And Jesus preached Love and Grace-  not legalism.


You can’t get more biblical than Jesus specifically saying he did not come to do away with the law, but to fulfill it.  Jesus had no issue with the law.  His issue was with people perverting the law to suit their own desires. He actually preached love and grace and law.  People walked away bc he told them the law and they didn’t like it  He did not change the law to whatever would make it easier.

I can have compassion and love for the struggles of my fellows without agreeing with them.

6 minutes ago, SilverBrook said:

I am very sad that you think this is a charitable way to address your brothers and sisters in Christ.  Maybe it is coming across wrong?   

 
I think it came across just fine.  She is free to be honest and I am free to honestly explain why I think she is wrong in that stance.

Love is not dependent on agreement or acceptance of opinions.

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:


You can’t get more biblical than Jesus specifically saying he did not come to do away with the law, but to fulfill it.  Jesus had no issue with the law.  His issue was with people perverting the law to suit their own desires. He actually preached love and grace and law.  People walked away bc he told them the law and they didn’t like it  He did not change the law to whatever would make it easier.

I can have compassion and love for the struggles of my fellows without agreeing with them.

 
I think it came across just fine.  She is free to be honest and I am free to honestly explain why I think she is wrong in that stance.

Love is not dependent on agreement or acceptance of opinions.

I am sorry, I was trying to only quote Traveling Chris and I really shouldn't have done that.  I try to leave stuff alone, because I really am not a great online communicator.

Edited by SilverBrook
Link to post
Share on other sites

The president of our synod just put out a message basically encouraging folks to proceed with caution, not fear, and with love for their neighbors and respect and prayer for local government. All of which I agree with.

I'm not sure how this plays out in our individual congregation. On the one hand, my family is all currently well, with no reason to think we have been exposed to anything. And we are scheduled on Sunday for roles others will have to fill if we are absent. OTOH, we have a LOT of vulnerable elderly folks in our congregation and I honestly think it would be best for them to take a hiatus for a weekend or two. But I seriously doubt that will happen. Like others have mentioned, I'm seeing a lot of scoffing in my denomination and equating caution with "giving in to fear" and lacking faith. It makes me sad. 

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, SilverBrook said:

I am sorry, I was trying to only quote Traveling Chris and I really shouldn't have done that.  I try to leave stuff alone, because I really am not a great online communicator.


I think you communicated just fine too. 🙂  It’s all okay. I’m really not cranky or anything. Just discussing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Heatherwith4 said:

I just saw a fb post from our church that basically sounds like they aren’t cancelling anything.  I am pretty much livid.  We are talking thousands of people every Sunday.  

Our church just canceled all church and non church activities in our church building for the month- except the preschool will be folliowing  Huntsville schools.  Randolph already went online.

My church will film services with just the pastors probably

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

One of our pastors and several other church members have the virus. Everything is cancelled. The building is closed. 

The church where my AHG troop meets has closed their building. 

 

  • Sad 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

My parents' church is continuing with regular services, but their attendance is so low I am pretty sure they can keep good social distancing.  Mom said they are going to be serving communion in individually wrapped packets like these.  The ushers are supposed to use hand sanitizer before serving, but mom isn't very confident that that is enough, so she is going to be skipping for a while until things settle down.  My brother has chosen to stay home altogether from church services for a while because he is immune-compromised.  He is a school teacher and very glad that they are closing the schools here.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Our church decided tonight that given today's announcement of a state of emergency here, all services will be cancelled for an indefinite period of time.  They'll be available online.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Our church has canceled everything except Sunday services. Typical attendance is probably around 100 on a Sunday morning, less in the evening service. They are asking that people stay home if they are at all sick, so since DH and I both have colds (just regular colds!), our family will be home tomorrow. Assuming we do go next weekend, we will make sure that our family is not sitting close to anyone else. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/13/2020 at 3:42 AM, Bootsie said:

 

A colleague in China said that Hubei province suffered so dramatically because people rushed to the hospital in a panic, making it difficult to triage and care for those who really needed it.  Having lived through this in China he says that he is not convinced that quarantine is the best in that it can result in deaths in other ways (which the statistics do not pick up).  He says that the main thing is not to stir panic.

 

well, there were at least two in china that I know about.  some idiot decided to break quarantine - and killed two guards to do it.  Knowing china - he'll probably be executed making it three deaths from "other ways".

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Our services are definitely still on. Not sure how I feel about that.

We are 100% on board with self-isolating in the interest of protecting those around us. But what good does that do if a large percentage of the community isn't participating? It's the same with things like the TP shortage: we purposely didn't buy TP early in the week when we shopped because we didn't need any at the moment and didn't want to contribute to causing a shortage. But now, although we are still fine for the time being, there isn't a square to spare in our town. Hopefully a shipment arrives before we run out.

When dh asked about services, our pastor (whom I dearly love, don't get me wrong) quoted the commandment about the Sabbath to him. But what about the commandment against murder? Our catechism interprets that as a prohibition against doing anything that will hurt or harm our neighbor's body. Christians have historically been known as those who are willing to rush in to aid others in a crisis, even at risk to their own life and limb. But what happens when the best possible way we can help is to STAY AWAY? I don't like the insinuation that those of us who are trying to help by self-isolating (or as one of the memes in the other thread put it, being exiled for the good of the realm 😆) are just giving in to panic and fear. I am not afraid for myself or even my kids; I just want to protect my neighbor. How does that make me a bad Christian?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...