Disagreeing with Canceling Holy Week

  • Thread starter Thread starter andre03051
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I saw another thread in the forum where people disagreed with it an alluded to it akin to “fast food”. I understand that the eucharist is a celebration of mass, but certain events that have transpired have to make us bend the rules at least temporarily. I’m just annoyed with the stubbornness of some people in this thread. Ideally none of us want mass cancelled, but for the sake of public safety it’s best for all of us.
 
The sacraments are not pet ideas.

The “pet ideas” I refer to are the ideas floating around the internet for resuming public mass: by on-line signup; or outdoors, 6 feet apart; or by having huge numbers of masses; or whatever.

They all require the handling of hosts; and enforcement; and putting lots of people in groups outside their homes; possibly large numbers of agreeable priests; and many other problems no one can or will address (what happens when the visibly sick show up, etc.)

They’re all put forth earnestly. For the reasons I mentioned, they’re also all terrible ideas.

The internet is full of bad ideas that somebody loves. I once - no kidding - came across a guy with what he believed was a credible plan to lauch a manned rocket to Alpha Centauri. He wasn’t deterred that he needed like $20 trillion and technology that didn’t exist.

And so it is with some of these “let’s get mass going again!” Ideas. They’re all sincere…and they are all bad, for reasons I keep spelling out that no one can or will answer. If you think I’m wrong, address the reasons I’ve given above.
 
Last edited:
If we’re all assuming we’re infected for the sake of protecting others, then none of us should be congregating with other people, especially vulnerable ones. The bishops have merely made that official.
 
k.vasquez222 said:
I saw another thread in the forum where people disagreed with it an alluded to it akin to “fast food”.
Click to expand...
I once heard a priest say “I would receive the Eucharist standing on my head if that was the only option available”, he was saying this in reference to not being able to receive on the tongue as ordered by the bishop a couple of years ago during flu season.
Idk, but I can tell you this, if a drive-thru mass were available I would definitely be in attendance.
 
They are our shepherds, after all! If we disagree with anything; if we are upset, even angry, let us be angry at the master of evil: the devil himself.

Let us oppose him with prayer and with holy water in this time of dryness.

Hell was made for him. Let us pray that he is also quarantined in his home.
 
No. Because again, in a epidemic, if you get it, you increase risk to others. You have a responsibility to others not to risk illness. Watch mass on television or online and make a spiritual communion as often as you wish.

Many have explained to you that each person who gets infected risks infecting others. Even if only you get sick, of medical intervention is needed, you risk the health of those caring for you, may need a ventilator that we are short on, and generally add to resource needs.

So, if mass is being offered only privately by priests, for electronic viewing only, if you are among the faithful, cooperate. Making a nuisance of yourself in a crisis is not appropriate.
 
I will address one reason at a time. If hands are disinfected, or gloves used, before handling the Eucharist, then they are not infectious, on top of objects not being the primary way infection is spread. In the Mass I attended, the priest did disinfect before giving communion. The one host he elevated before disinfecting, he consumed.

It is the distance, the density, that presents a danger, not the sheer number.
 
andre03051 said:
In this particular situation, I think the appropriate response should have been to encourage those sick or afraid of becoming sick to stay home.
Click to expand...
There will always be the diehards that will go no matter what and not give thought to the danger they bring to others. This is necessary and wise.
 
Problems, problems:
  1. “If the priest disinfects”…with what? Purell? Good luck finding that. Soap and water? I guess we need running water too, on the altar.
You said gloves could be used. Gloves do not magically disinfect themselves;
All they do is keep germs off your skin,
But proper infection prevention is to change them after every single use.
Otherwise you just transfer germs to everything your gloved hands touch.
  1. In your view we need lots more masses. These priests are coming from…where? What about rural parishes where there’s 1 priest For like 4 churches. Anyway, the priests are out and about, driving around - and handling gas pumps; paying cashiers; etc.: more things to touch and people to interact with.
  2. So it’s density of people that’s a problem. OK, are you using churches and not filing them? Who decides who comes in? Who counts? Is there a doorman? Where does he stand? Or are we using large open spaces like church parking lots for mass? So you’ve got maybe huge numbers of people spread out, maybe standing, in a parking lot. So where do these people actually park? And does this sound safe to you? And if these people are driving…that’s gas pumps THEY’RE handling, and cashiers they too need to interact with, etc.
All of this is just off the top of my head.

I double down on the internet being full of earnest ideas, completely unworkable in the real world.
 
Last edited:
An excellent point. Or, much worse, they see the danger and think, “mass is so important it justifies the danger!” Again, that cavalier flippant disregard for others is utterly incompatible with true Christianity.
 
VonDerTann said:
So it’s density of people that’s a problem. OK, are you using churches and not filing them? Who decides who comes in? Who counts? Is there a doorman? Where does he stand?
Click to expand...
As much as I will miss the Triduum liturgies, these are the rules we must abide with for funerals in my province/diocese:
  • No wakes.
  • Funeral services without Mass (no distribution of communion).
  • Numbers in attendance “as close to zero as possible” (fewer than 5) with an absolute maximum in keeping with our health authority (presently fewer than 10).
  • Work with funeral homes to make the service available via live streaming.
  • The front door must be tended by a door attendant (to control cross contamination and guest list).
  • Seating arrangements should be tightly controlled and respect social distancing.
  • All music books should be removed from the pews.
  • Seating area should be disinfected before and after the service.
  • Graveyard service should respect social distancing.
 
Last edited:
Interesting.

Funeral homes aren’t accepting bodies in many locations.

What that is causing in part is hospital morgues to fill up. Hospitals are thus making arrangements to bring in refrigerated tractor trailers to serve as makeshift morgues.

I sincerely hope facts like this will sink in to those who expect priests and parishioners to die so they can have mass. They’re half right already: people are dying.

One final point. A very wise man taught me this once: when a crisis occurs, what should I do? Should I act decisively? Or should I keep out of the way and let professionals do their jobs?

There’s wisdom In that. Many people have died because they inserted themselves into fires; police chases, etc., unnecessarily. Medical professionals, law enforcement, and elected leaders (and Church leaders!) really have a lot more to deal with than varied and ill-thought-out schemes for allowing Catholic masses - whether it be masses in parking lots; priests saying like 12 masses a day all Over the place, whatever - continuing.

Stay home. For that matter, stay out of the way.
 
Last edited:
The Catholic Church is currently being part of the solution and not part of the problem. I am thankful that sober minds are in charge here.
 
Bingo. You know what the fastest way to ensure you’re safely back at mass with the shortest disruption possible is? Staying home and accepting that for now mass is a risk to you, your priest, and your community at large. And as for missing Holy Week… good news, it’ll happen whether you’re there or not and you can still participate in most of it from afar. And doubly good news, it happens again next year too. That’s the beauty of the liturgical calendar.
 
Last edited:
But isn’t it incumbent on any church member who would go to church in such a scenario not to get others sick? I don’t understand why anyone would put anyone else’s life at risk, even if the don’t care about their own. That person may not be sick, carry the virus, then pass it on to countless innocent people who aren’t going to the church. But that’s just me, not being a fan of global pandemic.
 
Pattylt said:
This is talking about political loss of liberty for safety, not a viral pandemic. Please, this is about sickness and death, not revolutions and civil disobedience. You are making a category error. Do you really, actually fear that the guidelines and rules we are currently under will become permanent in any way? Why would ANYONE assume this is how we are going to live here on out?
Click to expand...
The hatred that some have for Catholicism and freedom to practice our religion, founded as it was by God himself is immense (and always has been.) Why would anyone assume the present to be different?
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top