Private Divine Liturgies...

AMM said:

I have heard before some very strong criticism against the (particularly medieval) Latin practice of "private masses", where the only people present are the priest and an acolyte. Not open to the public. (Sometimes the priest is alone, but I believe the this usually occurred with an acolyte assisting.)

Now, I know that part of the criticism was related to these masses being performed only for monetary gain. But that's not the only criticism.

So what are we to make of the decisions to hold the Divine Liturgy in private, with only the priest and a chanter present? The latest example of this is in Australia, where Archbishop Makarios said:

This means that from today our Churches will remain closed to the faithful. However, all Services, the feast days of the Saints, and the Divine Liturgies will be conducted only by the Priest and the Chanter.
​

I understand the severity of the pandemic. I understand that we must take steps to protect the faithful (as HAH Bartholomew stated, it is not the faith that is at stake, but the lives of the faithful). But at what cost? The Divine Liturgy is the "work of the people." So how can the people work at the liturgy, if they're not allowed to be present?

Click to expand...

AMM said:

So can two priests serve alone? A bishop and a priest? A priest and a deacon?

Click to expand...

ArmyMatt said:

there needs to be one celebrant and one communicant. private masses in the Roman tradition I believe can be done with only the priest.

Click to expand...

Euodius said:

I think all of this virus stuff is absurd. I mean, the world economy has essentially been shut down. The finance speculators will game this to increase their wealth while the common people decrease in wealth - perhaps this is why the government response has been as it has. Beyond the fear mongering, the information released to the public do not justify such drastic response, and certainly this is being used as a cybernetic (science of governance) experiment to study media impact on civil obedience and the control of the masses through information.

The church's response causes me doubt. The RCC already operates as a purely secular NGO, but does the Orthodox Church really act any different? I toss the response into the same category that I toss the problematic dealings of the Orthodox Church with the WCC (and other blasphemous and antichrist organizations - and nobody in the Church is willing to give a rational response that would be accepted by a mature adult), the Bishop's Conference endorsing anti-Orthodox organizations (including ones primarily concerned with the creation of a female priesthood) and purely worldly politicking (like the Athenagoras awards.) And why does the Church behave in ways that is absolutely callous to the salvation of people (like the tolerance to divorce, the lack of seriousness applied to things like the rite of entry to the catechumen, the delaying of baptism, etc.) I might also point to the popularity and marketing/promotion of problematic contemporary figures (who do not receive correction despite tending ever more towards heresy), instead of the promotion of resources which are better tested by time.

Okay, so now just prevent all the faithful from attending services during lent. Basically a defacto excommunication of the laity (if we are consistent with our own polemics against the Roman Catholics), and for the most vague reasons reliant on the assumption of an integral information ecology that should not be assumed (if we are consistent with out own theory of knowledge.) This whole don't attend liturgy thing, just let a few select people attend, is not consistent with the rejection of the private mass. The televised/streaming liturgy falls into the same failure of the RCC with religious art (icons to be used, but not venerated - only for looking) and the gnostic implications of 'worship of the screen.'

So, what does the virus even mean to me? Nothing, because it is all absurd and there is no means for determining the reality of the virus. Maybe it's really bad? Maybe it'll kill everyone I love and myself? That doesn't change anything to me. It is ridiculously absurd and my reaction is to laugh. Everything says, "be afraid," but there is no "Why be afraid?" Then there's the "Stay calm" dialectic reaction, but there is no "why stay calm?" or even "why be not afraid?" It's absurd. All of the responses are fake and gay. Where is the normal human response? It does not exist. There is only senseless and meaningless chatter over unrealities.

And what is the difference between right obedience vs. traitorous bootlicking towards a system that is openly hostile and consistently exploring new ways to try to snuff out the Church and giving into the systematic traumatization of the people?

What trust I had left in the hierarchy is gone. I do not believe those above me are really concerned at all with my salvation, or anyone's, because the actions are consistently inconsistent with that. Why should I stay? I say 'screw it all - screw everything' - nothing is enough.

This is a flood. 2019 was clown world. 2020 is flood world. Everything is fake and gay.

Click to expand...

nutroll said:

I don't want to comment on what happens in other churches, but in my parish we are looking to add another liturgy and another presanctified so that Father David's and I are less likely to both get sick, do we can keep lower numbers at each service, but still minister to our whole flock in any given week. This is all very tricky and made more so by civil mandates depending on the area.

I think that those who are cancelling services mean well even if I disagree with them, I just think there are important things at risk either way.

I freely admit that this virus scares me, and I hope that it ends up being no big deal, but I can't be sure until it hits out community. I want to lower the risk, but still make sure that my parish is will provided for to the best of my ability.

Click to expand...

All4Christ said:

Do you know if the government state shutdowns apply to churches as well legally? Are churches in violation of it if they have more than the 10 people (as it is in PA and many other states) in the same place at one time?

Click to expand...

AMM said:

I'm not entirely convinced that this is a fair response, either. Certainly, there is a lot of unnecessary panic being spread. But I think the virus is serious - after all, between 2% and 8% of those who contract the virus are dying, in different parts of the world. That's a tragedy, whether it's 1 person or 1,000,000 people. We can stay calm and be at peace as we are in Christ, while also recognizing the severity of the virus, for death is an unnatural thing.

And, I trust that are bishops are acting as best as they can. After all, we are taught to be subject to the governing authorities. Of course, there is a line that should not be crossed. I have also heard that in the past, when plagues afflicted the Church, the response was the same: to close churches and only have 1:1 pastoral care until the crisis was resolved. I have yet to hear a bishop forbidding his priests from visiting the sick, taking communion to the dying, or going to a parishioner's home to hear confession.




Interesting. I was thinking that's how the Roman tradition was, too. That it was just a priest and a server/acolyte, and only in exceptional situations could the priest serve truly alone.

It still seems to me like this might be a change from the historic practice nonetheless. That is, initially it was, "if none of the faithful show up, then we can still serve the liturgy but one of the clergy must act as the laity" (an exception), and now it's becoming more of a rule, "none of the faithful are allowed to show up, but we will still serve the liturgy". But I don't know enough of the history, so I may be wrong.

Click to expand...