Mass obligation (w/mask)

  • Thread starter Thread starter volturno
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
  • The threat of fire at a Christmas Mass is relatively low. Easter Vigil might be a little more risky!
  • If I were the Fire Marshall, I would never enter a house of worship on any major feast day to avoid the appearance of interference with the right to worship.
Our Christmas Masses involve a lot of candles. And the only way the fire marshal gets involved is if the parish has neglected to monitor the number of people who’ve entered the building for Mass. If I were the fire marshal, I’d be a lot more concerned about people dying in a fire than any “appearance” of interference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nik
Not the case I’m making. The case I’m making is that flattening leads to a reduction in the number of deaths , not infections .
That’s why it’s “merely” a nice (but likely) side effect.
 
This very thing happened to me at Mass a couple weeks ago. My son was (unexpectedly) picked to be a lector. We sat in the front row. At the end of the pew was an elderly parishioner, who we ended up walking closely past after Communion.
I also observe how strange it seems that everyone is masked and distanced for most of Mass, but then at Communion everyone clusters together at the front and then they take off their masks. Eye roll. I’m not going back for a while.
Also, why does my pastor insist on having the EMHC now? There are two pastors, a seminarian, then he brings up two or three extraordinary ministers. Meanwhile there is about 30% of the normal number of parishioners there.
 
Last edited:
Also, why does my pastor insist on having the EMHC now? There are two pastors, a seminarian, then he brings up two or three extraordinary ministers. Meanwhile there is about 30% of the normal number of parishioners there.
Maybe to spread communicants out to distance them.
 
FYI - I mentioned a sick priest. He now has been diagnosed with COVID, and he got sick a couple of weeks ago. I pulled up the stats of his parish. At this time, it looks like there is no significant increase, despite the number of people at Mass lately. I will update the good or the bad later, because it is important to think about what works, and what doesn’t.
 
I also observe how strange it seems that everyone is masked and distanced for most of Mass, but then at Communion everyone clusters together at the front and then they take off their masks.
Not at my parish! Of course, you have to take off your mask to receive, but there is no clustering allowed.
 

And yet, none of us have come down with COVID-19 (yet).
I am wondering how you know that none have come down with COVID-19 (yet)?, since, for example, 42% of a group of infected people in Wuhan, China, were asymptomatic. Do you say that “come down with” means there are symptoms, or is there testing going on?
 
Last edited:
40.png
Gorgias:
Not the case I’m making. The case I’m making is that flattening leads to a reduction in the number of deaths , not infections .
That’s why it’s “merely” a nice (but likely) side effect.
I would argue that it’s the intended effect!
 
40.png
Jen95:
Also, why does my pastor insist on having the EMHC now? There are two pastors, a seminarian, then he brings up two or three extraordinary ministers. Meanwhile there is about 30% of the normal number of parishioners there.
Maybe to spread communicants out to distance them.
I feel like it just clusters them up more in a horizontal line. If there were one or two ministers of Communion that would be fewer people. Then they are awkward shuffling around to the minister, bowing while people are stepping around, etc.
I feel like it could be done more carefully. Heaven forbid it would take an extra minute or two.
 
Last edited:
I am wondering how you know that none have come down with COVID-19 (yet)?, since, for example, 42% of a group of infected people in Wuhan, China, were asymptomatic. Do you say that “come down with” means there are symptoms, or is there testing going on?
Perhaps I should just say, “Only one of us had symptoms/illness matching the description of COVID-19, but that person had two tests and both were negative.”

We keep hearing that even asymptomatic people can spread the virus around. I’m not sure what to do with that, I’m really not sure.

Should we all stay hidden in the safety of our homes, while only a few people are allowed out in special hazmat-type suits (like those worn in the old movie “Andromeda Strain”), and these people deliver packets of food (everyone gets the same) and prescription medicine to all of us in hiding?

How about the hospitals? Would we be sequestered in our hospital, sleeping, eating, showering, etc., never going out, and doing our duties for those poor souls who are admitted with COVID symptoms? How about all the other illnesses that beset humans? Would those people be forced to stay in their homes and be treated by medical personnel, again wearing special hazmat suits?

All of this just isn’t possible. It’s not possible for people who feel and look fine and have no symptoms to stay sequestered just in case they are carrying the virus.

And why do some people have no symptoms, but still test positive? Is it their own excellent health and strong immune system? Or is it a weaker form of the virus that has infected them?

Lots of questions, but I doubt we’ll ever know the truth. I think that COVID-19 has been captured by politicians who are using it to further their agendas.

The fact is, no matter how careful we are, no matter how securely we sequester ourselves, no matter how faithful we are to “wear the mask” and “wash our hands” and “social distance,” many of us will eventually be infected by the virus. Some of us will die from it, just as some people still die from Strep throat–did you know that people still die from Strep throat?

But more importantly, MOST of us will recover fully from COVID-19, just like most of us recover from the flu, Strep throat, bronchitis, even pneumonia.

It’s a virus, not the Angel of Death.

As for your question about testing, no, of course we don’t test asymptomatic people. The tests cost money to manufacture, to package and deliver to labs, and to process and perform by trained medical laboratory techs. We need to save the tests for those who are symptomatic, so that we can either diagnose or rule-out COVID-19 as the cause of their respiratory crisis. If COVID-19 is ruled out, we need to continue testing for other respiratory illnesses; .e.g, influenza, pneumonia (bacerial and viral), etc.
 
There might be another way. All blood donations are now being tested for the COVID antibodies. This is new, but the percentage might give an idea of how many asymptomatic people we have.
 
Should we all stay hidden in the safety of our homes, while only a few people are allowed out in special hazmat-type suits (like those worn in the old movie “Andromeda Strain”), and these people deliver packets of food (everyone gets the same) and prescription medicine to all of us in hiding?

How about the hospitals? Would we be sequestered in our hospital, sleeping, eating, showering, etc., never going out, and doing our duties for those poor souls who are admitted with COVID symptoms? How about all the other illnesses that beset humans? Would those people be forced to stay in their homes and be treated by medical personnel, again wearing special hazmat suits?

All of this just isn’t possible. It’s not possible for people who feel and look fine and have no symptoms to stay sequestered just in case they are carrying the virus.
Of course it’s not possible to have people hermetically sealed off in hazmat suits. There are always going to trade offs and balancing of risks. The point is that, based on available data, we know that masks mitigate (not eliminate) the risk of spreading the virus. Asking people to take inexpensive, relatively painless steps to lower the risk like wearing a mask and using hand sanitizer is, for most people, an acceptable sacrifice to lower the risk.

Obviously we can imagine unacceptable demands, like “literally you can’t leave your house for any reason whatsoever.” But it doesn’t follow from that that any mitigation efforts are unreasonable.
 
My Dad worked in a Hospital laboratory for over 40 years. Everything you’re saying is true!
 
My Dad worked in a Hospital laboratory for over 40 years. Everything you’re saying is true!
Thanks! Good for your dad!

One thing that occurred to me as I was driving home today after a long Saturday workday–I was listening to a public service announcement on the radio thanking health workers for being “essential” during this pandemic–and I realized that health care workers are ALWAYS essential. If your dad is still available, tell him that!
 
I would argue that it’s the intended effect!
“an”, not “the” intended effect.

spreading out the infections temporally when they can’t be avoided makes more resources per case available, which reduces deaths (an intended reduction in deaths by being able to devote more limited resources to each case even though the number of cases is not reduced).

As a practical matter, experienced technological advance hopefully/likely result in being able to save lives in some of the later cases that would have died with even full resource treatment just a couple of months earlier.
 
Last edited:
Our parish opened and a mask was required the entire time while inside, and no singing. At Divine Liturgy, the whole thing is sung.
What Eparchy are you in? I’m in the Archeparchy of Philadelphia. Idk about others but I sing with a mask on.
 
Add to that the singing I do, it is challenging. I actually bring two masks to Mass. One for singing and the other for the rest of the time.
That’s a good idea! I wish I’d thought of it.
 
Lol. The Diocese dress code was put in with the former Bishop, stayed as a fixture.

No denim, no sneakers, no sleeveless, no strapless or spaghetti straps minimum cap sleeve. No cleavage, no mini skirts. This applies to sponsor as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top