Church/Covid Vent Thread

[CF Mathews]

The Society near me has a register for Mass form online. I don't want to divulge too much online, other than the environment was not masky.

The looky-loos can see what they want.  That's why they want everything online, including the Mass.  See what the priests are saying in the homilies.  New World Order.  All-Seeing Eye.  Satan's attempt to be like God-omniscient.

[CF Mathews]

.

[CF Mathews]

A NOTE TO EVERYONE FOLLOWING THIS THREAD:

I do appreciate, as the OP, the great discussion that is going on.  But I don't think we want to make this "everything to do with covid and the Church."  Then it will become one of those threads with 10,000 pages.  I started this because I was very frustrated about being locked out of a church during Mass.  I wanted this to be a place to vent our sorrows and frustrations and to get some support (I myself have lost sight of this).  I didn't want to argue or get all into the weeds.  If someone wants to start a new thread about Mass registration, for instance, great idea.  So I'm just asking, let's keep it limited, or it will get out of control and no longer be a useful thread.  I know I'm not in charge and I am new here.  Just giving my 2 cents:)

[awkwardcustomer]

I was thinking, during the days of persecution, in the catacombs, in England, etc., you kind of had to "be one a list" to get into a Mass. If they were willing to risk imprisonment and death for the sake of the sacraments, the least we can do is put up with a few inconveniences for a few months for the same reason. If we can't deal with this, what are we going to do when real persecution comes?

Are we wiling to face death for our faith if we aren't even willing to make some small sacrifices for it?  Offer it up. Consider it a small penance, and a good way to work on our pride.

During former times of persecution, Catholics attended Mass in secret and they kept the catacombs, the secret chapels of England, and the Mass rocks of Ireland, free of any symbols of the state authorities that were persecuting them.

Not so today.  The symbols of state power are everywhere at Mass now.  I find it all quite disturbing. 

[The Theosist]

Isn't compliance mandatory? The Church says that we are bound under pain of sin to obey legitimate authorities except in cases where the authority is commanding us to sin. This I think is the SSPX's attitude at least. If I'm not mistaken, their priests are told to continue saying the Mass, to continue administering the sacraments, but not to break any civil laws in the process.

In order to break the law, one of the following conditions must be met:
1.) the government is a false or illegitimate authority (and even then I'm not sure that it's always ok to disobey), or,
2.) compliance with the law is positively sinful (not merely stupid or crazy)

So if the "legitimate authority", whatever that means, orders you to get on all fours and cluck like a chicken, you'll comply?

I don't believe in "authorities", and anyone who claims "legitimacy" to rule over me, whether it be by divine investiture, bloodline, or being elected by the mob, can kiss my free human arse. The only laws I hold to be legitimate and feel myself obligated to obey are the moral law and any morally-acceptable law to which I voluntarily contract myself.

[Miriam_M]

Isn't compliance mandatory? The Church says that we are bound under pain of sin to obey legitimate authorities except in cases where the authority is commanding us to sin. This I think is the SSPX's attitude at least. If I'm not mistaken, their priests are told to continue saying the Mass, to continue administering the sacraments, but not to break any civil laws in the process.

In order to break the law, one of the following conditions must be met:
1.) the government is a false or illegitimate authority (and even then I'm not sure that it's always ok to disobey), or,
2.) compliance with the law is positively sinful (not merely stupid or crazy)

So if the "legitimate authority", whatever that means, orders you to get on all fours and cluck like a chicken, you'll comply?

I don't believe in "authorities", and anyone who claims "legitimacy" to rule over me, whether it be by divine investiture, bloodline, or being elected by the mob, can kiss my free human arse. The only laws I hold to be legitimate and feel myself obligated to obey are the moral law and any morally-acceptable law to which I voluntarily contract myself.

Divine law supersedes human law.  Tablet One, including the Third Commandment, is Divine positive law.  The Fourth Commandment, part of Tablet Two, concerns itself with human law (civil and natural authority).  This is so basic that every Catholic bishop knows it inside-out.  And I'm not going to stand at my Particular Judgment with the Devil accusing me, and Our Lord asking me, about my preference for the Second Tablet to the First.  Good luck, bishops. Apparently you imagine you will not be held accountable for your own preferences in this regard.

[Daniel]

So if the "legitimate authority", whatever that means, orders you to get on all fours and cluck like a chicken, you'll comply?

I don't believe in "authorities", and anyone who claims "legitimacy" to rule over me, whether it be by divine investiture, bloodline, or being elected by the mob, can kiss my free human arse. The only laws I hold to be legitimate and feel myself obligated to obey are the moral law and any morally-acceptable law to which I voluntarily contract myself.

It's part of the fourth commandment. Parents are explicitly mentioned; civil authorities are implicitly included (as explained by the Catechism). Obedience to civil authority is also explicitly mentioned by St. Paul in the sixth chapter of his epistle to the Romans.

("Legitimate", at least as I'm using the word, are authorities who have received imperium from God (such as King David in the Old Testament. You can trace the davidic kings' authority back to God).
This is actually a real problem for me, as I'm an American and I can't seem to figure out whether the American government is or is not a legitimate authority. I see an awful lot of evidence against the American government's legitimacy, and not any real evidence for it, yet trad priests seem to take it for granted that the American government is a legitimate authority. I do wish I figured this out soon, because currently I've been disregarding all laws, and if what I am doing is sinful then I would like to stop as soon as possible. Same with international treaties and stuff. It's all very confusing.)

Also, in the sermon on the mount Jesus commands us not to resist evil: "You have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. But I say to you not to resist evil: but if one strike thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other: And if a man will contend with thee in judgment, and take away thy coat, let go thy cloak also unto him. And whosoever will force thee one mile, go with him other two, Give to him that asketh of thee and from him that would borrow of thee turn not away." (Matthew 5:38-41) I might be interpreting this passage wrong, but it sounds like He's saying that if somebody unjustly bullies you then you ought not only to go along with it but also to go even further. Seems also to be referring to all authorities (and basically anyone who tells you to do anything), not just legitimate authorities. But I don't know. As I said, I could be (and probably am) interpreting it wrong. (From what I can tell, Catholic theologians generally interpret it according to a far more limited scope than what Jesus seems to be saying.)

Divine law supersedes human law.  Tablet One, including the Third Commandment, is Divine positive law.  The Fourth Commandment, part of Tablet Two, concerns itself with human law (civil and natural authority).  This is so basic that every Catholic bishop knows it inside-out.  And I'm not going to stand at my Particular Judgment with the Devil accusing me, and Our Lord asking me, about my preference for the Second Tablet to the First.  Good luck, bishops. Apparently you imagine you will not be held accountable for your own preferences in this regard.

If this was directed at me, I never said we shouldn't obey the third commandment. You seem to be presenting it as some sort of dichotomy: choose between the third and fourth commandment. But why not obey both? The third commandment is to keep the sabbath day holy. Neither the government nor the bishops are forbidding anyone from doing that.

[Miriam_M]

Divine law supersedes human law.  Tablet One, including the Third Commandment, is Divine positive law.  The Fourth Commandment, part of Tablet Two, concerns itself with human law (civil and natural authority).  This is so basic that every Catholic bishop knows it inside-out.  And I'm not going to stand at my Particular Judgment with the Devil accusing me, and Our Lord asking me, about my preference for the Second Tablet to the First.  Good luck, bishops. Apparently you imagine you will not be held accountable for your own preferences in this regard.

If this was directed at me, I never said we shouldn't obey the third commandment. You seem to be presenting it as some sort of dichotomy: choose between the third and fourth commandment. But why not obey both? The third commandment is to keep the sabbath day holy. Neither the government nor the bishops are forbidding anyone from doing that.

If you look at my post, it actually answers a different poster, not you. However, I'm directing it at anyone on this thread and any bishop or priest IRL who has forgotten or has unilaterally dismissed the priorities of the Commandments as he learned them in seminary.  Even the Novus Ordo teaches this.  In this case, Daniel, there IS a dichotomy, there IS a conflict.  That's the entire point.  They cannot both be obeyed because they conflict with each other.  I have heard many, many traditionalist sermons -- solid traditionalists with excellent reputations for their knowledge and training -- speak about this in the last 7 months.  In addition, the part about General Dispensations, and particularly for these unnecessarily extended periods of time, is history-making in the Church.  Dispensations to attend Mass are given to individuals and specific (limited) time periods, for specific, extraordinary reasons.  They are not given en masse and indefinitely like this.

One of many:

[Daniel]

I'll give the video a watch, but I'm not seeing the dichotomy.

I grant that many bishops are setting a bad example and are abusing their power to grant dispensations. That's not good. Still, to my knowledge no bishop has commanded anyone to violate the third commandment.

The closest thing would probably be earlier in the year, when public Mass was temporarily suspended such that most Catholics were unable to hear Mass on Sundays for like two or three months. However, this does not translate to a command "Thou shalt not sanctify the Sunday". Mass attendance is not part of the divine law. Mass attendance is human law, and the law is written such as not to bind in situations when we are literally unable to attend Mass. The divine command nevertheless still binds: we do still need to sanctify the Sunday. But we do that in some other way, such as by praying a rosary and making a spiritual communion.

If the bishops or government did, for some reason, say "You are not allowed to pray on Sundays", then yes, we'd be required to disobey them. But so far it hasn't come to that. What they've been doing commanding us to do stuff that's burdensome and potentially spiritually dangerous, not stuff that's sinful.

[diaduit]

This covid nonsense is sending us back to the 'handwringing' phase about obedience.

Ireland is back at 'level 3' lockdown.  Last spring it was phases now we're at levels, the new words change faster than a baby's nappy.  Masses are online only but churches open for private prayer.  We're back to sneaking around to get the Sacraments.  No indoor dining, pubs that finally opened two weeks ago are now only open if they serve outdoors.  We're in Ireland, its raining or freezing or both this time of year so basically pubs are closed. Some hotels have shut down because of the indoor dining nonsense and the level 3 is supposed to be only for 3 weeks.  Where have we heard that before!!  I do believe we will be in full lockdown for Christmas.  Well you know what ...good.
Those dam NO Catholics who go to mass once a year for Christmas and then only weddings and funerals, this will interfere with the magic of Christmas for them so I hope it stirs up some sort of reaction as its beyond pathetic at the moment.   

[awkwardcustomer]

Is sacrilege permitted as long as it's carried out in the name of obedience?

Hand sanitizer instead of Holy Water, mask wearing, social distancing, all the horrible notices -  none of these awful things belong anywhere near the Mass or in any Church.   And yet we are supposed to accept them in order to be obedient.

I suppose that so many sacrileges have been tolerated in the name of obedience for so long since Vatican II that people have become immune to them.  Is committing sacrilege in order to receive the Sacraments pleasing to God?  Shouldn't loving God with all your heart and soul mean that you would not allow such abominations to desecrate His House?

 

[The Theosist]

So if the "legitimate authority", whatever that means, orders you to get on all fours and cluck like a chicken, you'll comply?

I don't believe in "authorities", and anyone who claims "legitimacy" to rule over me, whether it be by divine investiture, bloodline, or being elected by the mob, can kiss my free human arse. The only laws I hold to be legitimate and feel myself obligated to obey are the moral law and any morally-acceptable law to which I voluntarily contract myself.

It's part of the fourth commandment. Parents are explicitly mentioned; civil authorities are implicitly included (as explained by the Catechism).

No, they are not "implicitly included'', as they are not implied logically or in any other way by the text. That this is claimed by a catechism recapitulating a theology built upon centuries of clerical authoritarianism intertwined with a ruling class of elites by heredity, that is of no concern to me.

As I implied, I don't have a problem with a social contract with a central government that exists to protect the moral law, enforce contract, and most importantly uphold my personal autonomy as a free human being. But I do not accept such as an "authority'', and anything beyond that amounts to rule, which I utterly reject for myself. Maybe others enjoy being ruled and led like dogs on a leash; that is their perogative.

Obedience to civil authority is also explicitly mentioned by St. Paul in the sixth chapter of his epistle to the Romans.

Hupotasso is not hupokouo, and historical context is important, as well as Paul's own behaviour.

("Legitimate", at least as I'm using the word, are authorities who have received imperium from God (such as King David in the Old Testament. You can trace the davidic kings' authority back to God).

You can't do this for any other king, his kingship was called for by the people, so it was essentially voluntary and contractual, and the mandate of his kingship is not clear; certainly it seems to have had primarily a religious and military function. We all recall what happened when David tried to take a census.

[The Theosist]

Is sacrilege permitted as long as it's carried out in the name of obedience?

Hand sanitizer instead of Holy Water, mask wearing, social distancing, all the horrible notices -  none of these awful things belong anywhere near the Mass or in any Church.   And yet we are supposed to accept them in order to be obedient.

I suppose that so many sacrileges have been tolerated in the name of obedience for so long since Vatican II that people have become immune to them.  Is committing sacrilege in order to receive the Sacraments pleasing to God?  Shouldn't loving God with all your heart and soul mean that you would not allow such abominations to desecrate His House?

Would Paul have obeyed such things? Would he have closed the doors of the eucharistic rite to the people? I don't think so! So much for the interpretation of Romans on civil obedience.

[awkwardcustomer]

Is sacrilege permitted as long as it's carried out in the name of obedience?

Hand sanitizer instead of Holy Water, mask wearing, social distancing, all the horrible notices -  none of these awful things belong anywhere near the Mass or in any Church.   And yet we are supposed to accept them in order to be obedient.

I suppose that so many sacrileges have been tolerated in the name of obedience for so long since Vatican II that people have become immune to them.  Is committing sacrilege in order to receive the Sacraments pleasing to God?  Shouldn't loving God with all your heart and soul mean that you would not allow such abominations to desecrate His House?

Would Paul have obeyed such things? Would he have closed the doors of the eucharistic rite to the people? I don't think so! So much for the interpretation of Romans on civil obedience.

Would St Paul have opened the doors of the eucharistic rite to the people if this had been conditional on also opening the doors of the eucharistic rite to the gross symbols of a corrupt secular power?

[awkwardcustomer]

And what happens when a Covid vaccination certificate is required for entry to all public spaces, including churches?

Will people obey then?

It's a slippery slope.  Hand sanitizer instead of Holy Water today, Covid ID tomorrow.