Covid restrictions breech

uptherebels

Eden Silly Frame wrote: »

What a scary Stalinist (this isn't hyperbole, I say it deliberately) attitude and thought process this is:

more nonsense from you.

Eden Silly Frame wrote: »

1. Your default is to infringe on human rights
2. You do not have any evidence
3. You say you do not need to provide any
4. You say that it is impossible to get evidence anyway
5. To be able to exercise a human right you say you need evidence to demonstrate that it is safe, while saying it is impossible to provide evidence that it is dangerous. It is impossible to square this circle.

Very scary, no doubt you will say that the fact that the vast majority of the world have not banned Mass is irrelevant.

you really need to start reading what i write instead of immediately jumping to outrage.
1. My default is to put someones human right to life over your right to attend public mass or someone elses right to liberty during a pandemic.
That you seemingly want to do the opposite is very telling.
2-4, I said i dont need to provide evidence because the government has already stopped public mass, if you want it changed you need to show it is safe.
5. You want evidence from attending mass when attending mass is stopped
Do i really need to explain the issue with this to you?

Eden Silly Frame wrote: »

I have a feeling you will only apply this standard to worship (at first of course, tyranny always starts against someone you don't like), I have a feeling if the govt applied your standards to other areas of life you might object... I would hope that most people would take the reasonable position that human rights should only be infringed upon if there is evidence and proof that it is necessary.

what standard would that be? similar gatherings of people are also prohibited.
Again you are ignoring people basic human right of life. Why is that?
For the third time, is your right to mass more important than someone elses right to life? you need to be honest with yourself about this.

Eden Silly Frame wrote: »

But then you go on to say that Mass is not "deadly" but that it was banned because older people go to Mass. So are you saying that it is OK to have public worship if no medically vulnerable people attend?

again you need to actually read what I wrote. "mass" isnt the issue, it is the gathering of people a large % of which are high risk of death from covid. Thats why online mass is ok;)
No I said it is ok to have public worship again when enough of the population have been vaccinated.

uptherebels

growleaves wrote: »

No you are wrong. The numbers are correlated with restrictions to some extent but seasonality and other factors may influence things like e.g. a winter surge.

What people are doing is starting with a set of assumptions and then using confirmation bias to interpret what has happened.

That is not scientific proof, which means being able to say for definite that x was caused by y.

there is no scientific proof of what? that masks don't reduce the distance that droplets containing the virus travel when you exhale/cough/sneeze?
That restrictions on travel or congregations of people don't reduce numbers during a pandemic?
pull the other one lad.

breezy1985

uptherebels wrote: »

there is no scientific proof of what? that masks don't reduce the distance that droplets containing the virus travel when you exhale/cough/sneeze?
That restrictions on travel or congregations of people don't reduce numbers during a pandemic?
pull the other one lad.

Ide say he believes in science about as much as I do in god

smacl

one world order wrote: »

A mask that is totally useless. Good luck with that. We know the survival rate from this man made virus is over 99.9% and if someone dies that happen to have covid while in hospital, it is put down as a covid death. God didn't give us fear, that comes from trusting Satan and his lies.

Mod note: Please restrict any assertions that this pandemic is a man made virus to the conspiracy theories forum unless you can provide strong supporting evidence to the contrary.

smacl

breezy1985 wrote: »

Ide say he believes in science about as much as I do in god

Mod warning: Please restrict your comments to the topic in hand and play the ball, not the man. This is your second and final warning in this thread. Any responses via PM or to the feedback thread only.

looksee

Masses have not been banned, they are being said by the Priests, its allowing gatherings of people to be there that has been banned. The Dublin Archdiocese, for one, has specifically said that ceremonies will be online with just the absolutely essential people being there in person.

No-one is saying that Mass is only as significant as, say, going to the cinema or any other gathering. The point is not the reason for the gathering, it is the physical fact of the gathering. To insist on any more significance to the 'banning' of masses than this is heading into conspiracy territory. There is at least one well documented case that I know of where a large group of people gathered for a funeral, and this led to a local outbreak. There were horrendous numbers in Tramore in Co Waterford over Christmas that were a direct result of a lock-in in a pub. I can't remember the number of deaths, but there were some.

The virus will not respect the occasion, whether Mass or cinema or pub, people will die. Even if the Mass goers were willing to risk it, how many unwilling contacts might also be affected?

Jesus said 'The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath', meaning that if it was necessary to break the sanctity of the Sabbath to save a life then it was right to do so. How would this direct teaching not apply to attendance at Mass?

looksee

looksee wrote: »

Masses have not been banned, they are being said by the Priests, its allowing gatherings of people to be there that has been banned. The Dublin Archdiocese, for one, has specifically said that ceremonies will be online with just the absolutely essential people being there in person.

This is splitting hairs, "public" Mass is banned. It's a bit like saying to someone that pubs are not banned, you're just not allowed to go to one, but sure it's OK because the pub owner can go have a pint. It's a distinction without a difference for the faithful. It is good that private Masses are being held, and indeed public Masses are being held in almost every country in the world besides a handful like North Korea, but that does not alleviate the damage that denial of public worship does.

No-one is saying that Mass is only as significant as, say, going to the cinema or any other gathering. The point is not the reason for the gathering, it is the physical fact of the gathering. To insist on any more significance to the 'banning' of masses than this is heading into conspiracy territory. There is at least one well documented case that I know of where a large group of people gathered for a funeral, and this led to a local outbreak. There were horrendous numbers in Tramore in Co Waterford over Christmas that were a direct result of a lock-in in a pub. I can't remember the number of deaths, but there were some.

People are saying that, including on this thread. It is clear that the government regard it as such, in contrast to how other governments, even on our very island, have responded. What no one is saying is that there should be a free for all. The risks can be mitigated with sensible precautions, strict limits on numbers, social distancing, masks etc. If this is good enough for things like coffee shops, or hairdressers (allowed under lower levels were Mass is still banned) it should be good enough for public worship. The answer to this question is invariably some variation of Mass is not important, it's non essential, it's a luxury. Clearly the government think so, as it is banned at Level 3, when a load of other "non-essential" places remain open!

The virus will not respect the occasion, whether Mass or cinema or pub, people will die. Even if the Mass goers were willing to risk it, how many unwilling contacts might also be affected?

Do you apply this standard to every restriction? How many deaths is 5km worth vs 4km? Where is your evidence that public worship is more dangerous than various other things which are allowed open at the various levels? Remember, Mass is banned from level 3 up, not just at level 5!

Jesus said 'The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath', meaning that if it was necessary to break the sanctity of the Sabbath to save a life then it was right to do so. How would this direct teaching not apply to attendance at Mass?

I refer you to my point in my previous post, I would be more inclined to take spiritual and theological advice or argument from the Bishops, than from someone who doesn't believe in any of it - I mean this respectfully (you had a bite of this apple already, and were incorrect). I don't think it is fair of you to purport to enter into theological discussion on points that you don't believe yourself, for example, it would be unfair, and dishonest, of me to offer spiritual advice (in the context of their religion) to a Pagan or whatever about how to practice their religion when I believe it is false (or worse). Suffice it to say, I disagree with your point, and I hope you understand why I am disinclined (I hope this does not come across as nasty it's not intended to) to get into a scriptural back and forth with someone who doesn't believe any of it in the first instance, these things tend to end with some version of "sure it's not true anyway". On that note, lets look at what the Bishops have said:

“We strongly believe that people’s freedom to worship publicly should be restored as soon as the current Level 5 restrictions begin to be eased. (Note, they are saying AFTER Level 5). It is particularly painful for Christians to be deprived, for the second year running, of the public expression of our faith during the most sacred time of Holy Week and Easter. This is especially true given that it has been clearly demonstrated that church buildings are among the safest places for people to gather. We also re-emphasise that the ongoing severe restrictions on attendance at Funeral Masses (currently limited to ten) are causing untold grief to many families.

Throughout this time of pandemic the approach of the Church has been firmly grounded in the protection of health and life and in the promotion of the Common Good. We recognise that strong restrictions are necessary in times of grave threat to public health. However, such restrictions on personal freedom should be proportionate and for the shortest time possible. Consideration must also be given to people’s mental, spiritual and emotional wellbeing. For people of faith, gathering for worship is fundamental to their identity and to their spiritual lives.

• That the easing of restrictions from Level 5 should include the restoration of public worship, albeit in a safe and limited way. For people of faith not to be free to worship until regulations return to Level 2, whilst many other restrictions are eased, is seen as particularly distressing and unjust. (My note: I.e. Mass should be allowed at Levels 3, and 4, and not banned until Level 2)."

They are, in effect, saying that it is unfair to ban Mass at Levels 3 and 4 when plenty of other things are open. A ban at levels 3, 4 and 5 is effectively an indefinite ban. No one is predicting a return to Level 2.

looksee

Just because I no longer (maybe never did) believe does not mean I do not have a fairly solid background in religious matters. You are free to use that as an excuse for not engaging if you wish, I am free to make the arguments. In pointing out a specific statement by Jesus, that is recorded in the Bible, and offering the standard interpretation, not mine, but the one usually offered, I am not offering spiritual advice, I am just reminding readers what the Bible says and what theologians have offered as interpretation.

With regard to the Bishops' advice, please read further than that document dated February, and see the clarification dated 4th March
https://www.dublindiocese.ie/statement-of-the-irish-catholic-bishops-conference-on-the-publication-of-the-framework-document-for-a-return-to-the-public-celebration-of-mass-and-the-sacraments/

A partial paragraph from that document

Under current restrictions all religious services continue to take place online. In the interest of health and safety priests and parishes ought not to succumb to requests to distribute Holy Communion before or after Mass, in or outside churches. Drive-in Masses are not permitted as no gatherings of people outdoors or indoors are permitted.

The problem is that this is not just a religious matter. There are implications for everyone, whether church-goer or not. The risk is not only to the people who attend Mass - or go to any public gathering - it is to the people they have contact with. And the sooner people stop spreading it around the sooner lockdowns can end and we can go back to a normal life.

looksee

looksee wrote: »

Just because I no longer (maybe never did) believe does not mean I do not have a fairly solid background in religious matters. You are free to use that as an excuse for not engaging if you wish, I am free to make the arguments. In pointing out a specific statement by Jesus, that is recorded in the Bible, and offering the standard interpretation, not mine, but the one usually offered, I am not offering spiritual advice, I am just reminding readers what the Bible says and what theologians have offered as interpretation.

But it is not an honest engagement. You do not believe that Christ was the Son of God, so any argument that "Jesus said x" and should be followed, is problematic, for obvious reasons. Already in the thread you purported to tell the faithful what their religion requires, and were incorrect, and did not acknowledge and moved on to using the words of Christ to undermine the Mass. When I address this will you just pick something else? In any case, there are probably at least a half dozen ways to respond to this particular point, the most straightforward being that Christ refers to the Sabbath (which was Saturday), the Sabbath of course, was "replaced", or more correctly put fulfilled, by the Lord's day, Sunday. The concept of the "Sabbath" is worlds away from that of the Lord's Day. Aside from this, you also imply that Christ said it was OK to "break the sanctity" of the Sabbath, he did no such thing, he never said this, nor did he break the sanctity of the Sabbath. Rather his teaching was that to pick and eat corn was not harvesting as the Pharisees claimed. The entire point of this teaching of Christ was that the Sabbath was pushed way beyond, by the Pharisees, what it was supposed to be, a day of rest to relive one of his/her burdens had become a day of way more onerous burdens where to pluck an ear of corn when starving was considered a sin. He also healed a man on the Sabbath, this was not a violation of the sanctity of the Sabbath, rather again another illustration by Christ that the Sabbath had, under the yoke of the Pharisees, become twisted, onerous and away from what God had intended, it had become an imposition, rather than a day of relief. For this, they began plotting to kill him. This is the orthodox understanding of this teaching of Christ, it is not that Jesus violated the sanctity of the Sabbath (although the Pharisees sought to accuse him and the disciples of that). I could go on, but that should suffice.

Do you not see my point, if you were a Christian and thought what you said, through this conversation I could try and demonstrate where I think you were mistaken, and if successful, you may change your mind. However, as an atheist, I could come up with the best theological argument ever that Mass should not be banned and it would not make one jot of difference because you are not in favour of banning public Mass for theological reasons, and will not be persuaded by theological argument. We need to get to the root of the argument here, referring to theological imperatives (correct or otherwise) that you do not believe is only dressing.

With regard to the Bishops' advice, please read further than that document dated February, and see the clarification dated 4th March
https://www.dublindiocese.ie/statement-of-the-irish-catholic-bishops-conference-on-the-publication-of-the-framework-document-for-a-return-to-the-public-celebration-of-mass-and-the-sacraments/

A partial paragraph from that document

What is your point here, I'm afraid I don't quite follow.

The problem is that this is not just a religious matter. There are implications for everyone, whether church-goer or not. The risk is not only to the people who attend Mass - or go to any public gathering - it is to the people they have contact with. And the sooner people stop spreading it around the sooner lockdowns can end and we can go back to a normal life.

Again, you need to offer evidence that Mass is dangerous to a degree that it should be banned, and explain what is so different in Ireland compared to everywhere else (almost) in the world.

At level three, just to pick one example, people can sit in a beer garden having drinks and meals, but Mass is banned. How is this fair? I think most people would understand if the govt said that Mass will be banned at Level 5, but when the Levels reduce and you are allowed do things like get your hair cut or have a meal then masses can take place too. Why do you think (if you do) that Mass should be banned at Level 3 & 4 as well as 5?

looksee

This is incorrect, theologically speaking. Watching it on the TV is not participating in the sacrifice of the Mass, you need to physically be in attendance. Also, people do not and should not go to Mass merely to satisfy some sort of obligation, so what you say is not particularly helpful, or even true. I have to say I am somewhat sick of people with no religious belief purporting to tell the faithful what their beliefs are, or how they should, or need to (theologically speaking) worship.

Ex loco refugii, I am simply quoting the Bishops as to whether watching Mass on tv is sufficient, not offering my own opinion. They have said that this is the way things will be for the immediate future. I did not say that people go to mass merely to satisfy some sort of obligation, I was saying that the obligation is satisfied by so doing.

I am sorry you are sick of people with no religious belief telling the faithful what their beliefs are, but you do not have to believe to understand what those beliefs are. I spent over 40 years being educated on obligations and beliefs, I prepared three children for first communion and confirmation. I was up to date with all mass times, holy days, rules of fasting and papal pronouncements. And prior to that, for 10 years I attended Protestant services and bible classes and even took Religion as an O level GCE subject, so I am pretty familiar with the Bible too. Not that any of this has anything to do with whether I may contribute on this forum, so leave my qualifications out of it.

Maybe the National Catholic Reporter will be good enough as information, https://www.ncronline.org/news/coronavirus/316-coronavirus-tracker-pope-resurrects-idea-spiritual-communion the Pope has said that Easter liturgies will not be open to the public and he is promoting the idea of a spiritual communion. I am just the messenger here, passing on what the Pope has said.

We - all of us - have a pandemic to deal with and all the religious arguments in the world are not going to convince me that there is any excuse for risking transmission of the disease by gathering together for any reason at all.

breezy1985

Eden Silly Frame wrote: »

But it is not an honest engagement. You do not believe that Christ was the Son of God, so any argument that "Jesus said x" and should be followed, is problematic, for obvious reasons. Already in the thread you purported to tell the faithful what their religion requires, and were incorrect, and did not acknowledge and moved on to using the words of Christ to undermine the Mass. When I address this will you just pick something else? In any case, there are probably at least a half dozen ways to respond to this particular point, the most straightforward being that Christ refers to the Sabbath (which was Saturday), the Sabbath of course, was "replaced", or more correctly put fulfilled, by the Lord's day, Sunday. The concept of the "Sabbath" is worlds away from that of the Lord's Day. Aside from this, you also imply that Christ said it was OK to "break the sanctity" of the Sabbath, he did no such thing, he never said this, nor did he break the sanctity of the Sabbath. Rather his teaching was that to pick and eat corn was not harvesting as the Pharisees claimed. The entire point of this teaching of Christ was that the Sabbath was pushed way beyond, by the Pharisees, what it was supposed to be, a day of rest to relive one of his/her burdens had become a day of way more onerous burdens where to pluck an ear of corn when starving was considered a sin. He also healed a man on the Sabbath, this was not a violation of the sanctity of the Sabbath, rather again another illustration by Christ that the Sabbath had, under the yoke of the Pharisees, become twisted, onerous and away from what God had intended, it had become an imposition, rather than a day of relief. For this, they began plotting to kill him. This is the orthodox understanding of this teaching of Christ, it is not that Jesus violated the sanctity of the Sabbath (although the Pharisees sought to accuse him and the disciples of that). I could go on, but that should suffice.

Do you not see my point, if you were a Christian and thought what you said, through this conversation I could try and demonstrate where I think you were mistaken, and if successful, you may change your mind. However, as an atheist, I could come up with the best theological argument ever that Mass should not be banned and it would not make one jot of difference because you are not in favour of banning public Mass for theological reasons, and will not be persuaded by theological argument. We need to get to the root of the argument here, referring to theological imperatives (correct or otherwise) that you do not believe is only dressing.

What is your point here, I'm afraid I don't quite follow.
Again, you need to offer evidence that Mass is dangerous to a degree that it should be banned, and explain what is so different in Ireland compared to everywhere else (almost) in the world.

At level three, just to pick one example, people can sit in a beer garden having drinks and meals, but Mass is banned. How is this fair? I think most people would understand if the govt said that Mass will be banned at Level 5, but when the Levels reduce and you are allowed do things like get your hair cut or have a meal then masses can take place too. Why do you think (if you do) that Mass should be banned at Level 3 & 4 as well as 5?

How come atheists cant talk about god or jesus but catholics get free reign to talk about science they dont believe in

looksee

looksee wrote: »

Ex loco refugii, I am simply quoting the Bishops as to whether watching Mass on tv is sufficient, not offering my own opinion. They have said that this is the way things will be for the immediate future. I did not say that people go to mass merely to satisfy some sort of obligation, I was saying that the obligation is satisfied by so doing.

You are again either incorrect here, or muddling things inadvertently.

The Sunday obligation has been lifted, there may be some spiritual value by watching on TV, but - again - spiritually, and theologically, watching on TV vs participating in the sacrifice of the Mass in person, which can only be done in person are two fundamentally different things. The faithful cannot get confession, nor can they receive the Eucharist, nor, as I said, participate in the Mass which is, theologically speaking, the best way to worship God.

I am sorry you are sick of people with no religious belief telling the faithful what their beliefs are, but you do not have to believe to understand what those beliefs are. I spent over 40 years being educated on obligations and beliefs, I prepared three children for first communion and confirmation. I was up to date with all mass times, holy days, rules of fasting and papal pronouncements. And prior to that, for 10 years I attended Protestant services and bible classes and even took Religion as an O level GCE subject, so I am pretty familiar with the Bible too. Not that any of this has anything to do with whether I may contribute on this forum, so leave my qualifications out of it.

It is not a question of being qualified (although you have been wrong on two occasions on this thread regarding these matters), or whether you should contribute to the forum, of course you can and I welcome it. It is the fact that a person who feels, as you do, about something for non theological reasons offering theological reasons only obfuscates things because no theological answer will satisfy you. If the Pope said tomorrow that everyone should go to Mass, illegal or not, you would not turn around and say "that's grand so".

Maybe the National Catholic Reporter will be good enough as information, https://www.ncronline.org/news/coronavirus/316-coronavirus-tracker-pope-resurrects-idea-spiritual-communion the Pope has said that Easter liturgies will not be open to the public and he is promoting the idea of a spiritual communion. I am just the messenger here, passing on what the Pope has said.

There is a world of difference between Mass being banned, and Bishops voluntarily closing down for a short period of time. No one is saying that Churches should not be closed in any circumstances. It would seem very prudent to discourage thousands of people, as would be the norm, to congregate in the Vatican.

What has driven people mad is that in Ireland, unlike the vast majority of the world, Ireland has banned Mass, even in circumstances when non essentials like beer gardens and barbers are open.

In the north for example, Churches have been shut voluntarily. The Bishops have not said that watching on TV indefinitely is sufficient, it is better than nothing and the best they can do in the circumstances, unless they are prepared to risk breaking the law. You are again muddling things, implying that the Pope or the Bishops have said something akin to "don't worry lads, no big deal, just watch it on the telly" when they have not.

We - all of us - have a pandemic to deal with and all the religious arguments in the world are not going to convince me that there is any excuse for risking transmission of the disease by gathering together for any reason at all.

This is my point exactly! If no religious arguments will convince you that Mass should not be banned, then why are you making religious arguments that it should be banned?

Again I ask, why is Ireland so different from the majority of the world in banning public Mass at all, and why should it remain banned at lower levels 3 and 4 when things like beer gardens and barbers are open?

Or, tell me this, in what circumstances would you "allow" public Mass to take place? What would it take?

breezy1985

breezy1985 wrote: »

How come atheists cant talk about god or jesus but catholics get free reign to talk about science they dont believe in

Of course everyone can talk about whatever they want. If I say I need to go to Mass for all the reasons I've been through, and an atheist turns around and says something amounting to "no you don't, cause none of that's true" then that is fair enough, and a transparent engagement and we can talk about the central issue in a productive way. However, if you come out with some theological snippet to further a position that you hold for completely unrelated reasons - and you think your theological point is nonsense anyway - and argue with it as if it were true, all that is, is a waste of everyone's time. Should it be "solved" satisfactorily it achieves nothing, either you throw up something else, or we move on the root of the issue and start to discuss the topic honestly by putting forward the argument that you actually believe.

breezy1985

Eden Silly Frame wrote: »

Of course everyone can talk about whatever they want. If I say I need to go to Mass for all the reasons I've been through, and an atheist turns around and says something amounting to "no you don't, cause none of that's true" then that is fair enough, and a transparent engagement and we can talk about the central issue in a productive way. However, if you come out with some theological snippet to further a position that you hold for completely unrelated reasons - and you think your theological point is nonsense anyway - and argue with it as if it were true, all that is, is a waste of everyone's time. Should it be "solved" satisfactorily it achieves nothing, either you throw up something else, or we move on the root of the issue and start to discuss the topic honestly by putting forward the argument that you actually believe.

But to engage in this forum you have to throw up snippets from the bible. I have tried to argue from an atheist viewpoint in the past and gotten warnings. The ruses of the forum dictate that you must approach from a theological angle

Hotblack Desiato

Eden Silly Frame wrote: »

In the north worship will be allowed. How ironic! In the six counties, the orange state, founded on a basis of bigotry, the loather of "priest-craft" with the Pope being the DUP's "anti-christ", where the powers that be would not have a Catholic "about the place", where Catholics were denied the vote, housing, jobs, literally "the enemy within", beaten and even murdered by agents of the state because of their religious beliefs - it is this state, one hundred years or so since its foundation that respects and upholds the right to practice ones religion, and it is the 'free state' which seeks to make it illegal, outlawing the Mass and other sacraments to a degree not seen since the penal days.

But we had a "Catholic state for a Catholic people" "down here".

Perhaps we should all reflect upon how uncomfortable both of these states were, and in some respects still are, for non-Christians?

Hotblack Desiato

This is rather odd - We Are Church Ireland is not Church of Ireland or ecumenical but an organisation for Catholics.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/church-and-covid-there-is-a-whole-ecclesiastical-world-which-is-disappearing-1.4510970

This is the background to the next step we took in March 2020 when not only church buildings closed, but we also had to close our homes to any outsiders. Physically isolated, we decided to move our Eucharistic celebrations online. Zoom enabled these gatherings.

...

The issue of the offertory and consecration of the bread and wine of course had to be dealt with. From a practical point of view, each person or couple has some bread and wine (or water when wine is not possible to procure) on a table in front of them before their screen.

These gifts are offered and consecrated through a communal prayer and then we receive Communion - the body and blood of Christ.

The extended hands over the elements are those of the people of God, separated by often huge physical distances, sometimes across continents. And yet the belief which sustains us and gives us the necessary daring is our belief in the reality of the presence of the Holy Spirit, so that there is truly an epiclesis at the heart of our celebrations.

We are gathered as the body of Christ and we receive the body of Christ. Though many and scattered across the face of the earth, we are one. We believe that the action of the Holy Spirit transcends space.

...

There is a whole ecclesiastical world which is increasingly disappearing. While this pandemic will, in time, be over, it will have contributed to some lasting changes which were already under way. It seems to me that for some Christians the experience of these Eucharistic celebrations will have effected a breakthrough and empowered them as a priestly people.

Participating in a Zoom Eucharist is a bit like walking on water. We have left the solid ground of our long-established theological frameworks, with its sense of safety, and find ourselves at large, sustained by the one who calls us to cross over to another shore.

Soline Humbert is a spiritual director and a member of We Are Church Ireland.

Surely according to Catholic doctrine only a validly ordained priest can consecrate the Host? What of those who participate in such a ritual? I thought WACI was, although not exactly aligned with the Catholic Church hierarchy's views, still a part of that church. What is being described there seems very odd indeed - heretical or even sacreligious.

Peregrinus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

This is rather odd - We Are Church Ireland is not Church of Ireland or ecumenical but an organisation for Catholics.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/church-and-covid-there-is-a-whole-ecclesiastical-world-which-is-disappearing-1.4510970

Surely according to Catholic doctrine only a validly ordained priest can consecrate the Host? What of those who participate in such a ritual? I thought WACI was, although not exactly aligned with the Catholic Church hierarchy's views, still a part of that church. What is being described there seems very odd indeed - heretical or even sacreligious.

Not sacriligious. Possibly heretical. Possibly misleading.

I say "possibly" because I think you could take this in two ways.

You could say/believe that what is being described here has the same spiritual/sacramental signficance and effect as a conventionally-celebrated eucharist. That would be (in the RCC view) heretical.

Or you could not say that, and instead say that it's an authentic response to the commandment to gather and to "take . . . eat . . . do this in memory of me", limited and constrained by the conditions caused by the pandemic.

There's an analogy with the eucharistic services held in Catholic churches in remoate areas where a priest is not regularly available. The congregation gathers and celebrates a liturgy in which they take communion previously consecrated by a priest. That;s not a mass, but it's a legitimate, official Catholic liturgy, celebrated with approval in many parts of the world. On the other hand, some bishops discourage its celebration on the grounds that the simple faithful might be misled by into thinking that it is a mass, and so misunderstand the nature of the sacrament.

This is a couple of steps further away again. The congregation can't physically gather, and they can't actually share bread and wine. All they can do is communicate, and (virtually) share the consumption by each of them of their own bread and wine. Again, you can say it's all that can be done, and its good to do it, or you can say that this will mislead, cause confusion, etc. I'm thinking that a lot more bishops will be of the "this is misleading" view, somehow.

The connection with "We are Church" won't reassure many bishops. It's a movement within Catholicism, but definitely at odds with the Church authorities on a number of points. It seeks to renew the Catholic church through the promotion of, it's fair to say, a highly progressive reading of the teachings of the Second Vatican Council.

Heresy and sacrilege are definable things, regardless of whether it meets those criteria, it is most definitely wrong.

Only a priest can say Mass and preform the consecration, and it must be done in person. "We Are Church" are a local constituent of a group with German roots, the founders of which have been excommunicated for exactly this type of thing, purporting to consecrate the host or say some weird form of mass. They also have a whole load of other views which do not conform with essential and fundamental aspects of Catholicism.

Sadly this is another group who think that Vatican 2 gave permission to "do whatever you want", underlining again how few have read the council documents. None of what they stand for is in line with Vatican 2. I do not understand why anyone who completely disagrees, on a theological basis, with central, fundamental teachings of the Catholic faith to the extent that they set up their own "mass", dispensing with priests, against the laws of the Church, don't just go set up their own protestant sect.

Anyone Catholic who attends these "services" should cease doing so and confess this the next time they are at Confession.

Hotblack Desiato

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

But we had a "Catholic state for a Catholic people" "down here".

Perhaps we should all reflect upon how uncomfortable both of these states were, and in some respects still are, for non-Christians?

You will not have to try hard to convince me that the people of Ireland grievously suffered (and continue to) through partition, as it facilitated the emergence of two conservative states. Had Ireland not been partitioned, and the republicans not lost the counter revolution which was the civil war, I think everyone would have been much better off living in an overtly republican country where the religious sensibilities of its citizens would had to have been "balanced" through the arms of the state being decidedly secular. In this way, contrasted to the secularization drive today, the churches and the faithful would have been in a position, and welcome to, inform and contribute to policy making, rather than dominating it.

looksee

Ex loco refugii, I am going to withdraw from this conversation. Obviously we are not going to agree, more especially since you do not accept any argument I might make as being even remotely valid.

The bottom line is that I do not agree that your personal need to attend Mass overrides care or concern for other people, and public safety generally. We urgently need everyone to pull together in these times and making these personal demands does not contribute to this. I am sure you will disagree on this and I do not see any point in arguing further.

I sincerely hope that you will soon be able to attend Mass again, and indeed, that everyone who needs to get back to work, open businesses, get special needs care for relatives and all the other things we are missing at the moment will also be able to fulfil their needs.

looksee

looksee wrote: »

Ex loco refugii, I am going to withdraw from this conversation. Obviously we are not going to agree, more especially since you do not accept any argument I might make as being even remotely valid.

This is not true, I see the merits of an argument that worship should not be allowed on public health grounds (I disagree because I believe precautions can be taken to sufficiently mitigate the risk). What I "objected" to was you making a theological argument for Mass to be banned, when you yourself do not believe that this theological argument has any basis in truth, and as such, this theological argument has zero relation to the reasons you have for the position you hold. This is a pointless avenue to pursue.

The bottom line is that I do not agree that your personal need to attend Mass overrides care or concern for other people, and public safety generally. We urgently need everyone to pull together in these times and making these personal demands does not contribute to this. I am sure you will disagree on this and I do not see any point in arguing further.

As has been pointed out, and not addressed, the majority of the world have decided that it is not proportional to ban Mass, and in Ireland you can skull pints in a beer garden before Mass is allowed (Level 3). This is not everyone pulling together. I note you have declined to say under what circumstances you would allow Mass. In this context, I do agree it is probably pointless engaging further, seen as you do not wish to.

I sincerely hope that you will soon be able to attend Mass again, and indeed, that everyone who needs to get back to work, open businesses, get special needs care for relatives and all the other things we are missing at the moment will also be able to fulfil their needs.

It is always good to end on a positive note of agreement

smacl

Eden Silly Frame wrote: »

However, if you come out with some theological snippet to further a position that you hold for completely unrelated reasons - and you think your theological point is nonsense anyway - and argue with it as if it were true, all that is, is a waste of everyone's time. Should it be "solved" satisfactorily it achieves nothing, either you throw up something else, or we move on the root of the issue and start to discuss the topic honestly by putting forward the argument that you actually believe.

Eden Silly Frame wrote: »

What I "objected" to was you making a theological argument for Mass to be banned, when you yourself do not believe that this theological argument has any basis in truth, and as such, this theological argument has zero relation to the reasons you have for the position you hold. This is a pointless avenue to pursue.

Mod note:Your implication in the above two arguments would appear to be that one needs to have religious belief to have an in-depth understanding of theology and make arguments from that perspective. This is patently not the case. For example, if you consider Bart Ehrman you'll see a highly accomplished theologian with 30 books on the subject to his name and long time academic and teacher of religious studies. He is also an agnostic atheist, who, like looksee, was once a Christian but has rejected Christianity over time.

Should you wish to limit your discussions to the Christian side of the argument, I would suggest you start a new thread for [Christians only]. For any other threads, assume that anyone posting can make theological arguments once they remain civil. It is not reasonable to dismiss these argument on the basis of religious belief and in fact to do so would fall foul of the charter.

smacl

smacl wrote: »

Mod note:Your implication in the above two arguments would appear to be that one needs to have religious belief to have an in-depth understanding of theology and make arguments from that perspective. This is patently not the case. For example, if you consider Bart Ehrman you'll see a highly accomplished theologian with 30 books on the subject to his name and long time academic and teacher of religious studies. He is also an agnostic atheist, who, like looksee, was once a Christian but has rejected Christianity over time.

Should you wish to limit your discussions to the Christian side of the argument, I would suggest you start a new thread for [Christians only]. For any other threads, assume that anyone posting can make theological arguments once they remain civil. It is not reasonable to dismiss these argument on the basis of religious belief and in fact to do so would fall foul of the charter.

That is not the case. Of course an atheist, or anyone for that matter, could know a lot about a religion. It is very possible that (notwithstanding the errors discussed previously) that Locksee, or whomever, is a far greater expert on scripture than I will ever be. This is not the issue I raise. This is a discussion relating to the banning of religious worship by the civil authorities, it is not an abstract discussion about aspects of theology.

The atheists in this thread believe Mass should be banned due to public health concerns. This is a fair argument, and I have no reason to believe that there is anything insincere about putting this forward, in those terms.

However, when an atheist makes a theological argument in this context (whether it is "correct" or utterly wrong, as it was in this instance) in favour of their position, which they expressly hold on non-theological grounds, it is necessary to note that they do not believe themselves that this line of argument is true, or in the end even matters. As Locksee explained, he/she does not believe that any religious arguments could or should overcome their objection to allowing Mass, because of public health considerations. So why raise a theological argument at all? The issue here is public health concerns! All it serves to do is to obscure the basis for the belief (i.e. public health considerations) - and when these theological arguments are addressed, it means nothing, either another one is raised in its place, or ignored. All it does is waste the time and effort of the faithful in the hope that, if we are lucky, perhaps, these can be broken through and eventually a sincere conversation can be had where both sides put forward points that they actually believe themselves in favour of their position.

It is not that I do not want to talk to atheists on this point, far from it! I do, but I want each side to be sincere and offer the real arguments, sincere arguments, that they actually believe. In this way something of worth may be gained.

Now, perhaps you are fine with the concept of people putting forward lines of argument that they do not believe to have any merit or truth, I am not suggesting that they should be banned etc. But it surely cannot be objectionable to point this out, and say why, (in response to being challenged to address it) that this line of conversation cannot be fruitful, when the real bone of contention is something else (i.e. public health concerns) and is there to be discussed. Now that I have done that, there is not much remaining to add, except a sincere wish that the root of this issue can be sincerely discussed, particularly with Locksee who offers an important perspective.

(I note you have not said that this is a mod instruction and should not be replied to, hence my reply here. There probably is not much more to be said on this point tbh).

Returning to the topic at hand, breaches of restrictions regarding worship, it is relevant to note that there was a march/rally yesterday in Dublin calling for an end to the ban on worship.

"A group describing themselves as Saint Patrick’s Faithful have held a public procession in Dublin city centre calling for an end to what they said amounts to a ban on public worship.

They say they represent a growing number of Mass goers who are becoming increasingly frustrated with the lockdown measures which the government is imposing in response to Covid-19. The organisers said the event was a “religious procession” and an opportunity for “the faithful to take part in an act of Public Worship which has been denied to them since restrictions were placed on attendance at Mass at Christmas”.

As readers can tell (:o) I feel strongly about the ban on Mass, but marching in a protest, while understandable on one level (it is a good thing that our recognized avenue for public dissent is having a march/protest), is very foolish and dangerous in current circumstances, no matter what the reason. I hope no one gets sick.

Dublin Archbishop Dermot Farrell has protested the current ban in an altogether better way than the misguided marchers by saying:
“As a matter of human dignity and fairness — but even more so as matter of wellbeing and the restoration of normality, I call on the public authorities to give assurance that the legitimate desire of people to gather responsibly and within reasonable guidelines to exercise their constitutional right to worship will be prioritised in the easing of restrictions.”

At the same time, Bishops in the North have announced that (careful) public worship is to resume from the 26th March.

breezy1985

Eden Silly Frame wrote: »

Returning to the topic at hand, breaches of restrictions regarding worship, it is relevant to note that there was a march/rally yesterday in Dublin calling for an end to the ban on worship.

As readers can tell (:o) I feel strongly about the ban on Mass, but marching in a protest, while understandable on one level (it is a good thing that our recognized avenue for public dissent is having a march/protest), is very foolish and dangerous in current circumstances, no matter what the reason. I hope no one gets sick.

Dublin Archbishop Dermot Farrell has protested the current ban in an altogether better way than the misguided marchers by saying:
“As a matter of human dignity and fairness — but even more so as matter of wellbeing and the restoration of normality, I call on the public authorities to give assurance that the legitimate desire of people to gather responsibly and within reasonable guidelines to exercise their constitutional right to worship will be prioritised in the easing of restrictions.”

At the same time, Bishops in the North have announced that (careful) public worship is to resume from the 26th March.

That's a Gript link for anyone (like me) who doesn't want to give them clicks

breezy1985

breezy1985 wrote: »

That's a Gript link for anyone (like me) who doesn't want to give them clicks

Is there a rule against that website or something? (Do you not use an addblocker and such anyway ?) There is not much tbh beyond the excerpt I posted.

The second link is not from Gript.

breezy1985

Eden Silly Frame wrote: »

Is there a rule against that website or something? (Do you not use an addblocker and such anyway ?) There is not much tbh beyond the excerpt I posted.

The second link is not from Gript.

No rule at all but some people myself included are concerned that their content my be far right and fake in a way that mimics far right US news and therefore do not want to generate traffic for them.

I know many who feel the same about Daily Mail

smacl

Eden Silly Frame wrote: »

That is not the case. Of course an atheist, or anyone for that matter, could know a lot about a religion. It is very possible that (notwithstanding the errors discussed previously) that Locksee, or whomever, is a far greater expert on scripture than I will ever be. This is not the issue I raise. This is a discussion relating to the banning of religious worship by the civil authorities, it is not an abstract discussion about aspects of theology.

The atheists in this thread believe Mass should be banned due to public health concerns. This is a fair argument, and I have no reason to believe that there is anything insincere about putting this forward, in those terms.

However, when an atheist makes a theological argument in this context (whether it is "correct" or utterly wrong, as it was in this instance) in favour of their position, which they expressly hold on non-theological grounds, it is necessary to note that they do not believe themselves that this line of argument is true, or in the end even matters. As Locksee explained, he/she does not believe that any religious arguments could or should overcome their objection to allowing Mass, because of public health considerations. So why raise a theological argument at all? The issue here is public health concerns! All it serves to do is to obscure the basis for the belief (i.e. public health considerations) - and when these theological arguments are addressed, it means nothing, either another one is raised in its place, or ignored. All it does is waste the time and effort of the faithful in the hope that, if we are lucky, perhaps, these can be broken through and eventually a sincere conversation can be had where both sides put forward points that they actually believe themselves in favour of their position.

It is not that I do not want to talk to atheists on this point, far from it! I do, but I want each side to be sincere and offer the real arguments, sincere arguments, that they actually believe. In this way something of worth may be gained.

Now, perhaps you are fine with the concept of people putting forward lines of argument that they do not believe to have any merit or truth, I am not suggesting that they should be banned etc. But it surely cannot be objectionable to point this out, and say why, (in response to being challenged to address it) that this line of conversation cannot be fruitful, when the real bone of contention is something else (i.e. public health concerns) and is there to be discussed. Now that I have done that, there is not much remaining to add, except a sincere wish that the root of this issue can be sincerely discussed, particularly with Locksee who offers an important perspective.

(I note you have not said that this is a mod instruction and should not be replied to, hence my reply here. There probably is not much more to be said on this point tbh).

Mod warning: The above amounts to back seat moderation and is both off topic and unacceptable. Should you wish to discuss what you feel are inappropriate forms please do so on the feedback thread only. These can then be considered on their merits with a view to changing the charter if deemed necessary. Any response via PM or to the feedback thread only please.

In a further development re breaches of restrictions, a Priest in rural Cavan has been fined €500 for not locking the public out of the church when saying Mass.

Now, The Irish Catholic understands that the gardaí have ratcheted things up and fined Fr Hughes €500. Fr Hughes previously revealed that a garda had told him: “this is your final warning”.

Sources close to the Co. Cavan-based priest have told this newspaper that he is determined not pay the fine and is prepared to go to jail if necessary.

Fr Hughes is also adamant that he will continue to celebrate Mass while the church doors remain open, although he does not advertise the fact.

https://www.irishcatholic.com/gardai-fine-fr-pj-hughes-for-celebrating-public-mass/

Fr Hughes has a very good chance of winning should it end up in court (see previous posts with academic commentary on whether public worship is actually illegal). This is, as far as I am aware, the first fine in relation to public worship, certainly of a Priest, since restrictions were imposed.

He certainly seems to be on a collision course with the authorities so it will be interesting to see what happens next. I cannot imagine his arrest, should it escalate that far (hopefully not) going down well. The authorities might deem it prudent to leave him at it in the circumstances.

breezy1985

Eden Silly Frame wrote: »

In a further development re breaches of restrictions, a Priest in rural Cavan has been fined €500 for not locking the public out of the church when saying Mass.


https://www.irishcatholic.com/gardai-fine-fr-pj-hughes-for-celebrating-public-mass/

Fr Hughes has a very good chance of winning should it end up in court (see previous posts with academic commentary on whether public worship is actually illegal). This is, as far as I am aware, the first fine in relation to public worship, certainly of a Priest, since restrictions were imposed.

He certainly seems to be on a collision course with the authorities so it will be interesting to see what happens next. I cannot imagine his arrest, should it escalate that far (hopefully not) going down well. The authorities might deem it prudent to leave him at it in the circumstances.

Worse he seems to be on a collision course with a pandemic that may kill him and his worshippers