Should that be the case I will be interested to see if the state authorities attempt to prosecute those who were there.
The sanctuary has been open to the public for a week now, though people were not allowed to approach the grotto directly and while religious ceremonies were taking place, the priests celebrating Mass were not allowed to speak in public., although they could broadcast.
Yes, places of worship have never been officially closed.
I've found the decree online now. It's dated yesterday, so they might have been legal .
I'm now ploughing through the recommendations of the Protestant Federation. For our part, we won't be meeting in person tomorrow; we've been planning, but this is too short notice for us.
Oddly enough I heard a rumour that Muslim leaders in the UK were actually urging lockdown to remain until after Eid because there was no way to maintain social distancing during the celebration if it was removed. Not sure about the truth of this.
Wind of change - you probably do know some Catholics and Orthodox who still espouse the idea of 'go to Mass or go to Hell'
The Catholic Church indeed still maintains that it is a grave sin for Catholics to miss Mass on Sundays. As far as I know there is no 'obligation', under pain of sin, for Orthodox to be present at the Divine Liturgy on Sundays.
However the statement 'go to Mass or go to Hell' has to be understood within its context.
IF one says I am a Catholic
I believe that the Church has the mission to evangelise and baptise
I accept that the Church is the gathered community, not just a series of
individuals
I accept that the Church, of which I claim to be part, has the right to ask me
physically to be present in prayer with my brothers and sisters.
I am physically in good enough shape to meet with my brothers and sisters
I live close enough to attend Mass
I have no other pressing obligations of service to other brothers and sisters,
such as looking after or providing for children, the sick or the vulnerable
IF WHEN ALL THESE CONDITIONS ARE FULFILLED and yet I say I am simply not going to Mass, then the Church has the right to declare that that person is not acting as a living limb within the body of the Church and has more or less apostatized.
Looking around the world it is easy to see that many people who would declare themselves to be Christians have an imperfect knowledge and understanding of what the Church and the churches teach. I may be wrong but I think that it is only the Catholic Church which presents its faithful with an obligation to attend Mass at certain times,but I would think that virtually all groups of Christians would expect those who claim to be their followers to be in touch, to read the Scriptures and to worship together with their fellow Christians.
What is sad, is the failure of the Christian churches to fully evangelise, but it doesn't mean that we should not try and that we should not encourage as many as possible to be involved in the life of the Church.
I think that perhaps we misunderstand what is meant by 'condemning 'anyone.
Do you ,in effect, mean that the Church/church is not right to proclaim that murder is wrong and should be condemned ?
No, I don't mean that at all. Who mentioned murder?
I don't accept that any Church/church has the right to condemn anyone for not taking what TPTB may consider a 'full part' in the life of that Church/church.
And I, for one, am glad that our Muslim brothers and sisters, can celebrate Eid amongst other ways, with public prayers, whilst, of course ,respecting distances etc.
As article 1 of the code of separation of Religion and State says ' the Republic assures liberty of conscience and guarantees the free exercise of religious rites , the only restrictions being those which affect public order.'
It was most heartening to see that a number of people had turned up this morning to take part in the Mass at the grotto in Lourdes, braving driving rain to do so.
Eid Mubarak !
There is no safe way to begin public worship as of yet. Every group that does it is putting themselves over the public.
Oddly enough I heard a rumour that Muslim leaders in the UK were actually urging lockdown to remain until after Eid because there was no way to maintain social distancing during the celebration if it was removed. Not sure about the truth of this.
The regional Muslim council leader, who is a friend of mine, has confirmed to me today that no mosques here will yet be opening, until they are sure they can do so safely, which is the same as our policy.
Thank you Bishop's finger. I understand that your statement about the Church/church not having the right to condemn anyone is not a blanket statement, as it might have seemed . I understand now that by the Church you actually mean TPTB. By TPTB you probably mean those who claim responsibility for teaching in the name of the Church
The Church certainly does not condemn people in general for not taking a 'full part' in the life of the Church. It condemns those who claim to be full members of the Church for not acting as full members of the Church ought to. Rightly or wrongly the Church claims to have the responsibility to baptise and to teach. Certainly over the centuries the Church has not been the best of teachers, but it has been mainly through the Church that many people have heard about the 10 Commandments and the teachings of Jesus
Perhaps you will agree with me that it is better to concentrate on the positive rather than the negative. In encouraging people to come to church we have to try to make our message one where people can see the value of it.
'Go to Mass or go to Hell' is a caricature of the Christian message, but it is for some people the level at which they function. In fact I would expect that almost all of those who fulfilled the various conditions which I set out earlier would not be in the position of being condemned by the Church.
Those who do not fulfil these conditions are not 'full members' of the Church, but they can easily , if they wish, reactivate their membership.
We have had on other boards some discussion about the Church of Scotland. Certain members or adherents of the Church of Scotland are on the Communion Roll. It is my understanding , possibly wrong, that after a certain lapse of time, if they don't turn up to Communion, they are removed from the Communion Roll, and effectively 'excommunicated'. This terminology is probably not used but it amounts to the same thing, unless, of course,they wish and then they would be encouraged to come back into communion. So it is with 'go to Mass or go to Hell'.
We have had on other boards some discussion about the Church of Scotland. Certain members or adherents of the Church of Scotland are on the Communion Roll. It is my understanding , possibly wrong, that after a certain lapse of time, if they don't turn up to Communion, they are removed from the Communion Roll, and effectively 'excommunicated'. This terminology is probably not used but it amounts to the same thing, unless, of course,they wish and then they would be encouraged to come back into communion. So it is with 'go to Mass or go to Hell'.
My CofS experience is limited to one parish, I'll admit, but I think you're describing the practice of maybe half a century ago. The CofS widely practices open communion, so removal from the roll has no such effect. Nor, these days, is any record kept of who may or may not have attended on a communion Sunday. Communion tokens are no more. Plus, of course, the CofS historically celebrated communion only a handful of times in the year, so a requirement to attend on those occasions was far less onerous than the "Sundays and Holy days of obligation" message from Rome.
Thank you for the update. I had indeed forgotten about the 'open communion' as generally practiced by the Church of Scotland nowadays. So, is there now no Communion roll ?
Late Friday afternoon, at the urging of his evangelical friends, T has ordered that all churches, synagogues, and mosques are to be considered essential services and should be open this weekend. He has even threatened to overrule any governor who insists on keeping them closed. But it does not appear he has the constitutional authority to do that.
Reactions have been mixed. Fundamentalists/Evangelicals are gloating; some Roman Catholic dioceses are saying they will open. More liberal churches are still taking a go-slow approach. A common response from them is the church is not a building.
My particular congregation is currently conducting a survey asking how comfortable we would be with limited gathering, but there is no timeline as to when that will be. Sometime in June, it appears.
What @Arethosemyfeet said. I only once in my life had my name taken when I attended a communion service in a church where I was not a member, and I was completely taken aback. As I got to know that church better (my first Sunday with them had happened to be communion) it was obvious that they did nothing with this register, which initially would have been to keep the kind of tabs that @Forthview mentions. It had become one of these habits that no one could remember the origins of.
Thank you Bishop's finger. I understand that your statement about the Church/church not having the right to condemn anyone is not a blanket statement, as it might have seemed . I understand now that by the Church you actually mean TPTB. By TPTB you probably mean those who claim responsibility for teaching in the name of the Church
The Church certainly does not condemn people in general for not taking a 'full part' in the life of the Church. It condemns those who claim to be full members of the Church for not acting as full members of the Church ought to. Rightly or wrongly the Church claims to have the responsibility to baptise and to teach. Certainly over the centuries the Church has not been the best of teachers, but it has been mainly through the Church that many people have heard about the 10 Commandments and the teachings of Jesus
Perhaps you will agree with me that it is better to concentrate on the positive rather than the negative. In encouraging people to come to church we have to try to make our message one where people can see the value of it.
'Go to Mass or go to Hell' is a caricature of the Christian message, but it is for some people the level at which they function. In fact I would expect that almost all of those who fulfilled the various conditions which I set out earlier would not be in the position of being condemned by the Church.
Those who do not fulfil these conditions are not 'full members' of the Church, but they can easily , if they wish, reactivate their membership.
We have had on other boards some discussion about the Church of Scotland. Certain members or adherents of the Church of Scotland are on the Communion Roll. It is my understanding , possibly wrong, that after a certain lapse of time, if they don't turn up to Communion, they are removed from the Communion Roll, and effectively 'excommunicated'. This terminology is probably not used but it amounts to the same thing, unless, of course,they wish and then they would be encouraged to come back into communion. So it is with 'go to Mass or go to Hell'.
Why should the safety of the world be held to such a primitive interpretation?
Thank you for the update. I had indeed forgotten about the 'open communion' as generally practiced by the Church of Scotland nowadays. So, is there now no Communion roll ?
Oh no, the communion roll itself still exists, and I think being on it is a requirement for the eldership, but other than that there is no functional difference between being an adherent and being on the communion roll. I'm an adherent because I'm an Episcopalian but it doesn't prevent me (being dragooned into....) taking a full and active role in the life of the Kirk.
Oh no, the communion roll itself still exists, and I think being on it is a requirement for the eldership, but other than that there is no functional difference between being an adherent and being on the communion roll. I'm an adherent because I'm an Episcopalian but it doesn't prevent me (being dragooned into....) taking a full and active role in the life of the Kirk.
The Baptist church which I attended in the 70s, by no means a strict one, still had Communion tokens. We had 2 Communion services each month; f you were absent for more than 6 months you lost your right to vote at Church Meetings. Not a bad thing, actually, but I haven't come across them for years.
Some long-established Baptist churches have "closed Communion" written into the Trust Deeds of their buildings. If they wish to practice Open Communion - the Baptist norm in most cases - they can do things. Either they can go ahead and hope that no-one ever looks at the Trust Deed; or promulgate a private Act of Parliament, no less, as the only way to get the Deed changed! I bet there are quite a number of churches which are, unbeknowingly, acting illegally!
If the Communion roll exists , ATMF, are there any names on it ? If there are names on it, whose names are they ? Are they the names of those 'who joined the Church' ?
Are names never removed from it ? My understanding, again possibly wrong, of an 'adherent' is someone who is not a full communicant member of the Church of Scotland.
I hope that your being dragooned into taking a full and active role in the life of the Kirk is not for you an onerous as the obligation to take a full and active part in the life of the Catholic Church, if one claims to be a member of the Church.
If the Communion roll exists , ATMF, are there any names on it ? If there are names on it, whose names are they ? Are they the names of those 'who joined the Church' ?
Are names never removed from it ? My understanding, again possibly wrong, of an 'adherent' is someone who is not a full communicant member of the Church of Scotland.
I hope that your being dragooned into taking a full and active role in the life of the Kirk is not for you an onerous as the obligation to take a full and active part in the life of the Catholic Church, if one claims to be a member of the Church.
IANAPresbyterian, but my understanding is that generally people who join the Kirk will be added to the list of communicant members. Generally names are removed by request, transfer or death (mostly the latter). Certainly here they're not in the habit of conducting purges of the list. My local parish church has an unusually large number of adherents compared with communicant members, partly reflecting an older tradition of more and less committed membership (might even be baptised but not confirmed). Newer adherents tend to be folk like me who are involved in the life of the parish but aren't members of the denomination.
My tongue reasonably far into my cheek with regard to being dragooned. Broadly speaking I take the view that if the Church, however defined, asks something of me I will do it absent a good reason otherwise (such reasons include preservation of my sanity after four Sundays in a row leading worship).
As @Arethosemyfeet says the communion roll is the name of the roll of those who have taken membership vows and joined the church. There is, technically, also a supplementary roll, which is where someone who hasn’t been to church (not necessarily communion) for a year is placed for a year, before being dropped from the roll altogether (though still not excommunicated, since the table is open). The idea is that during the year on the supplementary roll the lapsed member is enjoined to return to the fold.
Whoever thought up that tortuous bit of legislation had no insight into human psychology or much idea about theology either, so it is far more often honoured in the breach than in any other way. Indeed neither of my congregations has such a roll. But really the only thing you need to be a member for (on the communion roll) is to be an elder. The days when the central levies were based on the numbers on the roll are long gone (that did give an incentive to purge!).
When it comes to electing a new minister, members and adherents, (which is yet another roll of people associated with the life of the church, but not members, like @Arethosemyfeet and many of my most active folk) can vote.
As @Arethosemyfeet says the communion roll is the name of the roll of those who have taken membership vows and joined the church. There is, technically, also a supplementary roll, which is where someone who hasn’t been to church (not necessarily communion) for a year is placed for a year, before being dropped from the roll altogether (though still not excommunicated, since the table is open). The idea is that during the year on the supplementary roll the lapsed member is enjoined to return to the fold.
Whoever thought up that tortuous bit of legislation had no insight into human psychology or much idea about theology either, so it is far more often honoured in the breach than in any other way. Indeed neither of my congregations has such a roll. But really the only thing you need to be a member for (on the communion roll) is to be an elder. The days when the central levies were based on the numbers on the roll are long gone (that did give an incentive to purge!).
When it comes to electing a new minister, members and adherents, (which is yet another roll of people associated with the life of the church, but not members, like @Arethosemyfeet and many of my most active folk) can vote.
And not only vote, but serve on the nominating committee...
But really the only thing you need to be a member for (on the communion roll) is to be an elder. The days when the central levies were based on the numbers on the roll are long gone (that did give an incentive to purge!).
When it comes to electing a new minister, members and adherents, (which is yet another roll of people associated with the life of the church, but not members, like @Arethosemyfeet and many of my most active folk) can vote.
On this side of the Atlantic, the “communion roll” is called the “active member roll,” since those baptized but not confirmed (the “baptized member roll”) may take Communion. Only those on the active roll can vote in congregational meetings (including to call a minister) or can be elected to serve as deacons or elders.
There is also an “affiliate member roll,” which includes those (Presbyterian or otherwise) who become members of the congregation in question while maintaining their membership in another church. This category is designed for people temporarily living where the church with which they’ve affiliated is (students, military, etc.).
Late Friday afternoon, at the urging of his evangelical friends, T has ordered that all churches, synagogues, and mosques are to be considered essential services and should be open this weekend. He has even threatened to overrule any governor who insists on keeping them closed. But it does not appear he has the constitutional authority to do that.
Trump used the word "order," but he didn't in fact order anything. The largest jurisdiction of any closure due to covid-19 is at the state level, and he has no authority over the governors, who are acting according to the powers accorded to them by state constitutions. The 10th Amendment of the US Constitution says, "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."
Gathering to worship will be legally governed by the same patchwork of state and local authorities governing everything else about the stay-at-home orders. When the relevant authority says people can hold a gathering of 50 or 200 or whatever, then churches in that area can hold services. Judges in California have ruled that the stay-at-home order here does not violate our constitutional religious rights.
California Gov. Newsom says on Monday he will issue guidelines for churches to re-open, which is sooner than he had earlier said they would come out. The original plan was that churches would open in our stage 3, along with gyms and movie theaters. The governor's hand is being forced by an ad hoc group of evangelical pastors, including some in charge of mega-churches, who have said they will hold in-person services on Pentecost no matter what. These pastors are claiming that churches are "essential." The Roman Catholic Archdiocese has said they will follow the instructions of local public health officials.
LA County is still a hotspot. Hospitalizations and deaths are slowly falling, and the rate of infection appears to have fallen just below 1. But we just reopened a lot of retail for curbside pickup, and the parks and beaches are now all open for active recreation. We need to wait and see if that's okay. We haven't even started having small indoor gatherings, never mind large ones. LA has more concentrated poverty than the rest of the state, and people in poor neighborhoods live closely together. Those idiot pastors are going to get people killed.
With reference to the Communion Roll I should not have used the word 'excommunicated' and indeed I said that this would not be the word used. Nevertheless it seem to me that if a person's name has been removed from the Communion Roll or Supplementary Roll, as Cathscats has said ,then that person is no longer considered to be a communicant member of the Church. Of course they can always come back,just as Catholic backsliders can and do.
The Church has the mission to bless and to encourage but by the same token the Church at times has to reprove. What is the point of trying to encourage the lapsed to return to the fold,as we are told is the case when someone's name has been removed from the supplementary roll , if the Church doesn't think that it is better to be 'in' the Church rather than 'out'.
These days that is better done , and I fully agree, by encouragement rather than by censure.
We recognise that there are many people who are on the fringes of Church life, but we also recognise the work done nobly by so many people and I salute Arethosemyfeet for all his input into the life of his Church of Scotland parish. Somewhat tongue in cheek as he tells us, his being 'dragooned' into doing things for the Church, is the same for a good number of people gladly accept the 'onerous' burden of attending Mass on Sundays. And it is even greater for those who really do find it an 'onerous' burden but who nevertheless make that generous sacrifice.
Oddly enough I heard a rumour that Muslim leaders in the UK were actually urging lockdown to remain until after Eid because there was no way to maintain social distancing during the celebration if it was removed. Not sure about the truth of this.
The regional Muslim council leader, who is a friend of mine, has confirmed to me today that no mosques here will yet be opening, until they are sure they can do so safely, which is the same as our policy.
Makes sense.
There was an article on the BBC this morning about a (German?) Church that had opened it's doors for the Eid service as they could conduct it more safely there.
Normally I have contradictory views strongly for and against, but in this case feel the case for is much stronger than usual.
In any case it got me wondering, in the case of such an eventuality and assuming the hosts and guests want to be extremely good hosts and guests...
What's the most Islamic (or similarly Jewish, and differently Hindu etc...) friendly a Christian service can be and still be meaningful according to the different Christian denominations. What would they desire of us and what could we offer.
And conversely how Christian friendly could the other religions make their service. What bits of their normal service do they think would cross our lines (and are they right) and can these be reworked.
There was an article on the BBC this morning about a (German?) Church that had opened it's doors for the Eid service as they could conduct it more safely there.
Normally I have contradictory views strongly for and against, but in this case feel the case for is much stronger than usual.
Extreme circumstances can in my experience make for some good and meaningful multi- / interfaith events. In my experience the meaningfulness gets a lot trickier once you get beyond the three major monotheistic religions. Might be worth a separate thread to discuss?
Meanwhile I learn this morning that the Catholic Conference of Bishops statement in response to the authorisation as of yesterday is to say that any bishops and parishes opening for business immediately do so at their own risk and reminding everyone that the government's official recommendation is not to do anything before 2 June.
This seems pretty pathetic after their earlier lobbying. It seems like the government called their bluff.
At the same time, it wasn't them that brought the action leading up to the Council of State decision (it was mostly more fundamentalist Catholics AIUI).
And I'm quite glad to have that decision: it's established some important legal precedent and in its ruling, gone so far as to explicitly exonerate the French evangelical church in Mulhouse, where there was an early and critical hotspot, from responsibility (the hotspot happened before any official guidelines or recognition of the epidemic). Again, I guess it is best taken as a good legal victory, but not as a good basis for public health policy.
I am delighted to hear that the French Evangelical church in Mulhouse has been explicitly and officially exonerated from any responsibility,(legal responsibility ? )in connection with the outbreak of corona virus in Mulhouse.
I am happy to accept your estimation of the French Catholic bishops as 'pathetic'
Can you let me know if they made any statements blaming the French Evangelical church in Mulhouse for the spread of the virus ?
The 'exoneration' was to the effect that the gathering having taken place before any official awareness of the pandemic or relevant measures, it could not be held to be representative of what new gatherings or their circumstances would be like.
The bishops have made no comment on the Mulhouse church that I know of - either way. Their claim to speak for those of all faiths in their demands does not give a voice to the protestants, evangelicals, and muslims urging more caution.
I have a certain grudging admiration for the way that they appear to have obtained a good legal (not public health) precedent by proxy, by creating enough of a fuss to get others to bring a case, but much less admiration for the hierarchy refusing to accept any liability for any even of their own flock who take advantage of the legal ruling thus obtained.
It should be noted that according to @ruth, in California it is a section of evangelicalism that is acting moronically in this respect while the Catholics appear, in my estimation, to be behaving sensibly. Despite your attempts to turn this into a religious war, @Forthview, my opposition to what I see as cyncism and stupidity on the part of religious leaders is fully ecumenical.
I am equally delighted that you are unable to tell me that the Catholic bishops have made unpleasant remarks about the meeting in the Evangelical church in Mulhouse.
I have absolutely no desire to turn this into a religious war. If you knew me personally you would know this.
I have felt sorry for the Christians from the Evangelical Church in Mulhouse as I have felt sorry for the Catholics who have been unable for so long to participate communally in religious rites. This has been a difficult time for them ,as indeed for us all.
It should be noted that according to @ruth, in California it is a section of evangelicalism that is acting moronically in this respect while the Catholics appear, in my estimation, to be behaving sensibly.
I did some poking around on the internet and learned that the churches in California who want to re-open before health officials say it is safe to do so are represented by a law firm that operates a subsidiary non-profit law firm called Advocates for Faith and Freedom, which says in its mission statement:
We recognize that America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. In today’s culture, that foundation is slowly being eroded by legal challenges to traditional family structure, religious freedom, basic property rights, and parental rights, and by other court decisions that have created a society increasingly devoid of the message and influence of God.
They are representing a church that has had its videos in favor of gay "conversion therapy" taken down by Vimeo; the church lost their discrimination lawsuit and is appealing. The law firm had the minister of that church speak at their "Ministry under Fire" conference in February of this year: "Navigating the threats to your ministry's religious liberty."
The whole thing is just one more battle in the culture wars being fought here. And seriously: fuck these people.
We're going to "soon" start offering communion for pickup - we'll have a small communion service (with the priest and about 2 others present), at which a box of individual wine-and-wafer containers will be consecrated. Parishioners will be able to collect (or we'll deliver to people without transport) the sacrament for their household, along with a sheet containing a service for communion by extension that they can use at home.
We've had a rather sensible-looking set of instructions from the diocese describing all the things we have to do and plan before physical reopening; the diocese wants to approve a detailed plan from each church before it may reopen its building. I expect we'll re-start limited physical services late July or August, unless things take a turn for the worse before then.
Like others have said, the church isn't closed. I've actually got to know several fellow parishioners better while we've been all-virtual, because zoom services offer different opportunities for interaction. Plus we've had several visitors at our services (some ex-parishioners who have moved away, some friends of current parishioners who live elsewhere).
Well our parish immediately organised three masses (instead of the normal 1) with a limit on the number of people, masks and hand gel compulsory, spaces marked out between seats and a sort of one way system. 40 people or so this evening, don't know about this morning. But well organised and frankly I'm not sure it's more risky than supermarkets (where people don't have to wear masks) or other places where people are gathering, sometimes in clear breach of the current French rules.
@Black Cat it would be interesting to find out what overall numbers were like compared to a usual Sunday and how they evolve.
In many ways I agree that the risk at a mass is less than in a supermarket, especially in a larger building - although a recent visit to Leroy Merlin (local equivalent of Home Depot) was like going through TSA airport screening, I can't imagine churchwardens of any faith being so fiercely enforcing.....
It's more complicated for religious groups that tend to sing/have smaller premises/have longer services/have a strong community angle. Muslims and evangelicals are going to struggle and African churches here especially so I think. We reckon we can now legally fit 42 people into a building otherwise compliant for 150. The Baptist church in Frankfurt that has become a post-lockdown hotspot appears to consist of ethnic Russians who tend to have large extended family meals after worship. I expect all religious groups to get blowback from the development of any post-lockdown hotspot related to a religious gathering. I found about about the one in Frankfurt from Le Parisien news site.
The whole thing is just one more battle in the culture wars being fought here. And seriously: fuck these people.
@Ruth I think the official Catholic response here is at least in part a culture wars thing too, albeit with the lines drawn rather differently. Many more traditional believers of all faiths see the secular state as the enemy of religion (mostly, so far as I can see, because they ultimately aspire to theocracy, although perhaps not consciously), whereas more liberal minds of all faiths see it as a basically sensible solution that, rightly dealt with, can be an ally and not an enemy.
I'd say the recent Council of State ruling demonstrates everything I find good about French secularity (laïcité) but again, it does not address the health issue directly.
The archdiocese of Los Angeles knows that it is chock full of Latinos who are very hard hit by the coronavirus. Around here they've suffered more deaths than any other group. The archbishop is himself a Latino immigrant. He's not messing around.
They are representing a church that has had its videos in favor of gay "conversion therapy" taken down by Vimeo; the church lost their discrimination lawsuit and is appealing. The law firm had the minister of that church speak at their "Ministry under Fire" conference in February of this year: "Navigating the threats to your ministry's religious liberty."
The whole thing is just one more battle in the culture wars being fought here. And seriously: fuck these people.
Thanks for the info. Bit of a tangential question about Evangelical churches and Pentecost: Are they celebrating according to a liturgical calendar? Or did they happen to pick a date that corresponds with the liturgical Feast of Pentecost?
Just curious. I've occasionally heard of fund/evo churches celebrating Advent, but nothing else except Christmas and Easter.
You know, I think the Christian folks who've bought into the conspiracy theory that Forces (tm) are using the pandemic to close down places of worship have missed something.
If whoever/whatever is trying to eliminate Christianity, then mightn't they want Christians to go back to church, catch the virus, spread it around to other Christians, and die off?
Not saying any of the above is remotely true. Just occurred to me as a possible plot/strategy twist.
- in France I'd say a majority of mainstream evangelical churches commemorate anything in the liturgical calendar that still has a public holiday attached - Christmas, Easter, Ascension, Pentecost (they of course won't celebrate the Feast of the Assumption...). Advent would be rarer.
- in France the highest civil court of appeal in the land has decided that the government's initial complete shutdown of any form of gathering in a place of worship caused prejudice to the constitutional freedom of religion that was disproportionately severe, and excessive in view of the health risks.
On the one hand, this says to me that from a legal and constitutional point of view, religious freedoms are well-protected in this country, certainly much better than conspiracy theorists would have you believe.
On the other hand, the fact that it took a court case to establish this and enforce a ruling indicates that government overreach in precisely the direction the conspiracy theorists fear is a reality. It's no secret that our current Interior Minister is a secularist in all the wrong sorts of ways and it shows in his policymaking.
The prisons here in France have had a relatively good pandemic in terms of keeping case numbers impressively low, but there is concern from plenty of people not noted for their tinfoil hattery that the pandemic (already used to lock chaplains out whereas in many neighbouring countries they have been among the rare people let in throughout lockdowns), will be the next pretext after terrorism to restrict chaplains' access and further marginalise their important role (which to my mind, matters of faith aside, includes the role of outside observer of how prisoners are being treated). There has been talk in some regions of banning all religious gatherings in prisons until at least September. This now looks illegal, but I'm sure many prison authorities would love an excuse to prevent Muslims in particular gathering in jail to pray. (I should know more about how things might pan out for chaplains by the end of this week).
I think having a Pentecostal Prime Minister who is clearly enunciating the policies and bluntly saying do this to save lives, backed up by equally blunt medical advisers, may be defusing some of the issues which we are seeing in other countries. I am not of his political persuasion, but he has clearly stepped up and made decisions expeditiously for the country.
And also backed up by senior clergy in the Catholic and Anglican churches, at least in Sydney (don't know details elsewhere).
@Gee D most definitely! The fact that our provincial bishops have been unanimous in their policy-making across the state has made implementation very effective. The reopening looks like being patchy, as evidenced by our local area. Some parishioners in neighbouring parishes are reluctant to return to the church buildings at present, expressing a preference for home communions in small groups. I think at least one of our weekday congregations will return to regular worship, not sure about the other as it was very small and high in average age even before lockdown, and one of the regulars has elected to take shore leave from all parish involvement. This is all dependent upon diocesan approval of our risk management plans.
In consultation with Purgatory and Ecclesiantics hosts I've split the Communion tangent from this thread and moved it to Ecclesiantics (unfortunately, mere hosts can't move threads in this incarnation of the forums).
Please take further discussion of "treading Jesus into the carpet" (sic) and similar matters there.
Comments
The sanctuary has been open to the public for a week now, though people were not allowed to approach the grotto directly and while religious ceremonies were taking place, the priests celebrating Mass were not allowed to speak in public., although they could broadcast.
I've found the decree online now. It's dated yesterday, so they might have been legal
I'm now ploughing through the recommendations of the Protestant Federation. For our part, we won't be meeting in person tomorrow; we've been planning, but this is too short notice for us.
The Catholic Church indeed still maintains that it is a grave sin for Catholics to miss Mass on Sundays. As far as I know there is no 'obligation', under pain of sin, for Orthodox to be present at the Divine Liturgy on Sundays.
However the statement 'go to Mass or go to Hell' has to be understood within its context.
IF one says I am a Catholic
I believe that the Church has the mission to evangelise and baptise
I accept that the Church is the gathered community, not just a series of
individuals
I accept that the Church, of which I claim to be part, has the right to ask me
physically to be present in prayer with my brothers and sisters.
I am physically in good enough shape to meet with my brothers and sisters
I live close enough to attend Mass
I have no other pressing obligations of service to other brothers and sisters,
such as looking after or providing for children, the sick or the vulnerable
IF WHEN ALL THESE CONDITIONS ARE FULFILLED and yet I say I am simply not going to Mass, then the Church has the right to declare that that person is not acting as a living limb within the body of the Church and has more or less apostatized.
Looking around the world it is easy to see that many people who would declare themselves to be Christians have an imperfect knowledge and understanding of what the Church and the churches teach. I may be wrong but I think that it is only the Catholic Church which presents its faithful with an obligation to attend Mass at certain times,but I would think that virtually all groups of Christians would expect those who claim to be their followers to be in touch, to read the Scriptures and to worship together with their fellow Christians.
What is sad, is the failure of the Christian churches to fully evangelise, but it doesn't mean that we should not try and that we should not encourage as many as possible to be involved in the life of the Church.
YMMV.
Do you ,in effect, mean that the Church/church is not right to proclaim that murder is wrong and should be condemned ?
I don't accept that any Church/church has the right to condemn anyone for not taking what TPTB may consider a 'full part' in the life of that Church/church.
The regional Muslim council leader, who is a friend of mine, has confirmed to me today that no mosques here will yet be opening, until they are sure they can do so safely, which is the same as our policy.
The Church certainly does not condemn people in general for not taking a 'full part' in the life of the Church. It condemns those who claim to be full members of the Church for not acting as full members of the Church ought to. Rightly or wrongly the Church claims to have the responsibility to baptise and to teach. Certainly over the centuries the Church has not been the best of teachers, but it has been mainly through the Church that many people have heard about the 10 Commandments and the teachings of Jesus
Perhaps you will agree with me that it is better to concentrate on the positive rather than the negative. In encouraging people to come to church we have to try to make our message one where people can see the value of it.
'Go to Mass or go to Hell' is a caricature of the Christian message, but it is for some people the level at which they function. In fact I would expect that almost all of those who fulfilled the various conditions which I set out earlier would not be in the position of being condemned by the Church.
Those who do not fulfil these conditions are not 'full members' of the Church, but they can easily , if they wish, reactivate their membership.
We have had on other boards some discussion about the Church of Scotland. Certain members or adherents of the Church of Scotland are on the Communion Roll. It is my understanding , possibly wrong, that after a certain lapse of time, if they don't turn up to Communion, they are removed from the Communion Roll, and effectively 'excommunicated'. This terminology is probably not used but it amounts to the same thing, unless, of course,they wish and then they would be encouraged to come back into communion. So it is with 'go to Mass or go to Hell'.
My CofS experience is limited to one parish, I'll admit, but I think you're describing the practice of maybe half a century ago. The CofS widely practices open communion, so removal from the roll has no such effect. Nor, these days, is any record kept of who may or may not have attended on a communion Sunday. Communion tokens are no more. Plus, of course, the CofS historically celebrated communion only a handful of times in the year, so a requirement to attend on those occasions was far less onerous than the "Sundays and Holy days of obligation" message from Rome.
Reactions have been mixed. Fundamentalists/Evangelicals are gloating; some Roman Catholic dioceses are saying they will open. More liberal churches are still taking a go-slow approach. A common response from them is the church is not a building.
My particular congregation is currently conducting a survey asking how comfortable we would be with limited gathering, but there is no timeline as to when that will be. Sometime in June, it appears.
Oh no, the communion roll itself still exists, and I think being on it is a requirement for the eldership, but other than that there is no functional difference between being an adherent and being on the communion roll. I'm an adherent because I'm an Episcopalian but it doesn't prevent me (being dragooned into....) taking a full and active role in the life of the Kirk.
Neon yellow stains on your hands and clouds of neon yellow in your breath.
Some long-established Baptist churches have "closed Communion" written into the Trust Deeds of their buildings. If they wish to practice Open Communion - the Baptist norm in most cases - they can do things. Either they can go ahead and hope that no-one ever looks at the Trust Deed; or promulgate a private Act of Parliament, no less, as the only way to get the Deed changed! I bet there are quite a number of churches which are, unbeknowingly, acting illegally!
Are names never removed from it ? My understanding, again possibly wrong, of an 'adherent' is someone who is not a full communicant member of the Church of Scotland.
I hope that your being dragooned into taking a full and active role in the life of the Kirk is not for you an onerous as the obligation to take a full and active part in the life of the Catholic Church, if one claims to be a member of the Church.
IANAPresbyterian, but my understanding is that generally people who join the Kirk will be added to the list of communicant members. Generally names are removed by request, transfer or death (mostly the latter). Certainly here they're not in the habit of conducting purges of the list. My local parish church has an unusually large number of adherents compared with communicant members, partly reflecting an older tradition of more and less committed membership (might even be baptised but not confirmed). Newer adherents tend to be folk like me who are involved in the life of the parish but aren't members of the denomination.
My tongue reasonably far into my cheek with regard to being dragooned. Broadly speaking I take the view that if the Church, however defined, asks something of me I will do it absent a good reason otherwise (such reasons include preservation of my sanity after four Sundays in a row leading worship).
Whoever thought up that tortuous bit of legislation had no insight into human psychology or much idea about theology either, so it is far more often honoured in the breach than in any other way. Indeed neither of my congregations has such a roll. But really the only thing you need to be a member for (on the communion roll) is to be an elder. The days when the central levies were based on the numbers on the roll are long gone (that did give an incentive to purge!).
When it comes to electing a new minister, members and adherents, (which is yet another roll of people associated with the life of the church, but not members, like @Arethosemyfeet and many of my most active folk) can vote.
And not only vote, but serve on the nominating committee...
There is also an “affiliate member roll,” which includes those (Presbyterian or otherwise) who become members of the congregation in question while maintaining their membership in another church. This category is designed for people temporarily living where the church with which they’ve affiliated is (students, military, etc.).
[/tangent]
Trump used the word "order," but he didn't in fact order anything. The largest jurisdiction of any closure due to covid-19 is at the state level, and he has no authority over the governors, who are acting according to the powers accorded to them by state constitutions. The 10th Amendment of the US Constitution says, "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."
Gathering to worship will be legally governed by the same patchwork of state and local authorities governing everything else about the stay-at-home orders. When the relevant authority says people can hold a gathering of 50 or 200 or whatever, then churches in that area can hold services. Judges in California have ruled that the stay-at-home order here does not violate our constitutional religious rights.
California Gov. Newsom says on Monday he will issue guidelines for churches to re-open, which is sooner than he had earlier said they would come out. The original plan was that churches would open in our stage 3, along with gyms and movie theaters. The governor's hand is being forced by an ad hoc group of evangelical pastors, including some in charge of mega-churches, who have said they will hold in-person services on Pentecost no matter what. These pastors are claiming that churches are "essential." The Roman Catholic Archdiocese has said they will follow the instructions of local public health officials.
LA County is still a hotspot. Hospitalizations and deaths are slowly falling, and the rate of infection appears to have fallen just below 1. But we just reopened a lot of retail for curbside pickup, and the parks and beaches are now all open for active recreation. We need to wait and see if that's okay. We haven't even started having small indoor gatherings, never mind large ones. LA has more concentrated poverty than the rest of the state, and people in poor neighborhoods live closely together. Those idiot pastors are going to get people killed.
Probably - but they won't be among that number, because they are Blessed by God...
The Church has the mission to bless and to encourage but by the same token the Church at times has to reprove. What is the point of trying to encourage the lapsed to return to the fold,as we are told is the case when someone's name has been removed from the supplementary roll , if the Church doesn't think that it is better to be 'in' the Church rather than 'out'.
These days that is better done , and I fully agree, by encouragement rather than by censure.
We recognise that there are many people who are on the fringes of Church life, but we also recognise the work done nobly by so many people and I salute Arethosemyfeet for all his input into the life of his Church of Scotland parish. Somewhat tongue in cheek as he tells us, his being 'dragooned' into doing things for the Church, is the same for a good number of people gladly accept the 'onerous' burden of attending Mass on Sundays. And it is even greater for those who really do find it an 'onerous' burden but who nevertheless make that generous sacrifice.
Makes sense.
There was an article on the BBC this morning about a (German?) Church that had opened it's doors for the Eid service as they could conduct it more safely there.
Normally I have contradictory views strongly for and against, but in this case feel the case for is much stronger than usual.
In any case it got me wondering, in the case of such an eventuality and assuming the hosts and guests want to be extremely good hosts and guests...
What's the most Islamic (or similarly Jewish, and differently Hindu etc...) friendly a Christian service can be and still be meaningful according to the different Christian denominations. What would they desire of us and what could we offer.
And conversely how Christian friendly could the other religions make their service. What bits of their normal service do they think would cross our lines (and are they right) and can these be reworked.
Extreme circumstances can in my experience make for some good and meaningful multi- / interfaith events. In my experience the meaningfulness gets a lot trickier once you get beyond the three major monotheistic religions. Might be worth a separate thread to discuss?
This seems pretty pathetic after their earlier lobbying. It seems like the government called their bluff.
At the same time, it wasn't them that brought the action leading up to the Council of State decision (it was mostly more fundamentalist Catholics AIUI).
And I'm quite glad to have that decision: it's established some important legal precedent and in its ruling, gone so far as to explicitly exonerate the French evangelical church in Mulhouse, where there was an early and critical hotspot, from responsibility (the hotspot happened before any official guidelines or recognition of the epidemic). Again, I guess it is best taken as a good legal victory, but not as a good basis for public health policy.
I am happy to accept your estimation of the French Catholic bishops as 'pathetic'
Can you let me know if they made any statements blaming the French Evangelical church in Mulhouse for the spread of the virus ?
The bishops have made no comment on the Mulhouse church that I know of - either way. Their claim to speak for those of all faiths in their demands does not give a voice to the protestants, evangelicals, and muslims urging more caution.
I have a certain grudging admiration for the way that they appear to have obtained a good legal (not public health) precedent by proxy, by creating enough of a fuss to get others to bring a case, but much less admiration for the hierarchy refusing to accept any liability for any even of their own flock who take advantage of the legal ruling thus obtained.
It should be noted that according to @ruth, in California it is a section of evangelicalism that is acting moronically in this respect while the Catholics appear, in my estimation, to be behaving sensibly. Despite your attempts to turn this into a religious war, @Forthview, my opposition to what I see as cyncism and stupidity on the part of religious leaders is fully ecumenical.
[edited for clarity]
I have absolutely no desire to turn this into a religious war. If you knew me personally you would know this.
I have felt sorry for the Christians from the Evangelical Church in Mulhouse as I have felt sorry for the Catholics who have been unable for so long to participate communally in religious rites. This has been a difficult time for them ,as indeed for us all.
I did some poking around on the internet and learned that the churches in California who want to re-open before health officials say it is safe to do so are represented by a law firm that operates a subsidiary non-profit law firm called Advocates for Faith and Freedom, which says in its mission statement:
They are representing a church that has had its videos in favor of gay "conversion therapy" taken down by Vimeo; the church lost their discrimination lawsuit and is appealing. The law firm had the minister of that church speak at their "Ministry under Fire" conference in February of this year: "Navigating the threats to your ministry's religious liberty."
The whole thing is just one more battle in the culture wars being fought here. And seriously: fuck these people.
We've had a rather sensible-looking set of instructions from the diocese describing all the things we have to do and plan before physical reopening; the diocese wants to approve a detailed plan from each church before it may reopen its building. I expect we'll re-start limited physical services late July or August, unless things take a turn for the worse before then.
Like others have said, the church isn't closed. I've actually got to know several fellow parishioners better while we've been all-virtual, because zoom services offer different opportunities for interaction. Plus we've had several visitors at our services (some ex-parishioners who have moved away, some friends of current parishioners who live elsewhere).
In many ways I agree that the risk at a mass is less than in a supermarket, especially in a larger building - although a recent visit to Leroy Merlin (local equivalent of Home Depot) was like going through TSA airport screening, I can't imagine churchwardens of any faith being so fiercely enforcing.....
It's more complicated for religious groups that tend to sing/have smaller premises/have longer services/have a strong community angle. Muslims and evangelicals are going to struggle and African churches here especially so I think. We reckon we can now legally fit 42 people into a building otherwise compliant for 150. The Baptist church in Frankfurt that has become a post-lockdown hotspot appears to consist of ethnic Russians who tend to have large extended family meals after worship. I expect all religious groups to get blowback from the development of any post-lockdown hotspot related to a religious gathering. I found about about the one in Frankfurt from Le Parisien news site.
@Ruth I think the official Catholic response here is at least in part a culture wars thing too, albeit with the lines drawn rather differently. Many more traditional believers of all faiths see the secular state as the enemy of religion (mostly, so far as I can see, because they ultimately aspire to theocracy, although perhaps not consciously), whereas more liberal minds of all faiths see it as a basically sensible solution that, rightly dealt with, can be an ally and not an enemy.
I'd say the recent Council of State ruling demonstrates everything I find good about French secularity (laïcité) but again, it does not address the health issue directly.
Hear, hear.
Thanks for the info.
Just curious. I've occasionally heard of fund/evo churches celebrating Advent, but nothing else except Christmas and Easter.
Thx.
If whoever/whatever is trying to eliminate Christianity, then mightn't they want Christians to go back to church, catch the virus, spread it around to other Christians, and die off?
Not saying any of the above is remotely true. Just occurred to me as a possible plot/strategy twist.
- in France I'd say a majority of mainstream evangelical churches commemorate anything in the liturgical calendar that still has a public holiday attached - Christmas, Easter, Ascension, Pentecost (they of course won't celebrate the Feast of the Assumption...). Advent would be rarer.
- in France the highest civil court of appeal in the land has decided that the government's initial complete shutdown of any form of gathering in a place of worship caused prejudice to the constitutional freedom of religion that was disproportionately severe, and excessive in view of the health risks.
On the one hand, this says to me that from a legal and constitutional point of view, religious freedoms are well-protected in this country, certainly much better than conspiracy theorists would have you believe.
On the other hand, the fact that it took a court case to establish this and enforce a ruling indicates that government overreach in precisely the direction the conspiracy theorists fear is a reality. It's no secret that our current Interior Minister is a secularist in all the wrong sorts of ways and it shows in his policymaking.
The prisons here in France have had a relatively good pandemic in terms of keeping case numbers impressively low, but there is concern from plenty of people not noted for their tinfoil hattery that the pandemic (already used to lock chaplains out whereas in many neighbouring countries they have been among the rare people let in throughout lockdowns), will be the next pretext after terrorism to restrict chaplains' access and further marginalise their important role (which to my mind, matters of faith aside, includes the role of outside observer of how prisoners are being treated). There has been talk in some regions of banning all religious gatherings in prisons until at least September. This now looks illegal, but I'm sure many prison authorities would love an excuse to prevent Muslims in particular gathering in jail to pray. (I should know more about how things might pan out for chaplains by the end of this week).
And also backed up by senior clergy in the Catholic and Anglican churches, at least in Sydney (don't know details elsewhere).
In consultation with Purgatory and Ecclesiantics hosts I've split the Communion tangent from this thread and moved it to Ecclesiantics (unfortunately, mere hosts can't move threads in this incarnation of the forums).
Please take further discussion of "treading Jesus into the carpet" (sic) and similar matters there.
/admin note