I'm not going to call you dumb, but I do think that if you look at all the obvious double standards that surround Covid legislation/rules it seems pretty clear that this is a tool for fundamentally transforming world order, not just "keeping people safe."
To be honest, that's not to say that I actually resist this legislation constantly. Sometimes I just feel like its gonna be more trouble than its worth and I put up with it. I just won't bind anyone's conscience to put up with it. I don't think we have to.
As far as the Church "sticking out" a couple things
1: Cathy Caridi argues pretty convincingly that these requirements are canonically illegal https://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2020/07/30/can-we-be-required-to-wear-masks-at-mass/ Now I realize that this is 1983 canon law, so I don't know whether 1917 canon law would be different though I intuitively doubt it. Her arguments also might be incorrect.
2: If Cathy is right, the pope (if you believe there is one, which I do) could theoretically change canon law to allow this, but presumably individual bishops could not.
3: Leaving aside canonical illegality (or if Cathy is wrong on canon law), if the local bishop were to require masks at masses I think the SSPX could dissent from it on the grounds that its enabling NWO, however, if you don't agree that that's the purpose, you'd disagree with me on that point, and that's fine. I agree with the principle that we shouldn't be disobeying bishops just 'cause, without very good reason. All that said, I think there's good reason to ignore most of the current ones on political matters.
4: Leaving aside canonical illegality, I'd be more sympathetic to the plight churches were in if you actually had police going around enforcing this stuff. And maybe in some places that's the case, I can only speak for where I live... Long Island. For the most part the local police on Long Island and in NYC are not interested in enforcing mask orders, and social distancing, etc. At one point back in early may a police officer very reluctantly showed up at our local SSPX because someone reported them and the church was open (no masses at the time, just private prayer and holy communion). But all he did was speak with the priest, ask us how long we were staying, and took no further action. And it seemed pretty obvious that neither party really wanted any trouble. *in practice* the enforcers of mask/distancing mandates in New York tend to be private businesses. The Wal Mart I work at actually has security that won't let people into the building unless they "mask up." I was kicked out of a 711 back in May because I didn't have a mask on (I'd forgotten, it was 1 AM, etc.) but they don't really do that anymore.
5: even if masks marginally improve safety (which I am not convinced of) I don't see why private businesses/churches can't make these kinds of decisions for themselves, let people decide what risks they want to take. I'd be more sympathetic if this was actually an apocalyptic plague, but nah, the death rate is less than 1%. Why can't people who are scared/super concenred about safety pick stores that require it and people who aren't pick stores that aren't? Why does there have to be a government mandate? I'll grant this is the most subjective point on the list, but I'm not sure governments seriously have the authority to mandate face coverings for a disease that's more or less a more infectious flu.
6: Do we *seriously* take the concerns about safety seriously in a world of BLM/Antifa riots/protests being allowed and even encouraged by the same people that shuttered churches?
7: Does a government that does #6 even really have authority to tell us what to do in the first place? That's a question. I don't know.
1. I don't think that literally every right of the pastor has to be mentioned in the Canon law. For example, imagine that there is a terrible plague, much worse than covid, and that person who is actually ill from the plague wishes to come to Mass... Nobody would deny that pastor would have the right not to let him in, regardless of whether it is explicitly mention in the Canon law. So that particular argument, if I have understood it correctly, doesn't seem correct. Some of the syllogisms in the article already start with the premise that masks don't work, but that is the main controversy in the discussion...
3. It does seem that SSPX isn't bound even by legitimate orders of the local bishops, since, although it recognizes bishops as having territorial jurisdiction, it is materially independent of them and it seems that bishops themselves do not have the intention to bind SSPX chapels (since bishops consider them either as separate in a practical way (which they are) or as schismatics).
My SSPX priest (when I asked him in the context of some non-sinful covid measures imposed by bishops) even said that SSPX could be understood as personal prelature (although it isn't recognized as such by Rome), since such independence even in practical matters (where there is no obvious abuse of authority on the part of the bishop which would in itself justify the resistance) would be for the good of the Church (and the purpose for law is the good of the Church).
5. The argument could be (I am not saying I necessarily agree with it) that the people who wouldn't want to expose themselves to risk would be forced to do it, since there is no way you can distinguish people buying at mask-mandated stores and those buying in stores without mask-madnate. Thus, people who care wouldn't be able to avoid those who do not care much...
6. I don't think that this in itself is a conclusive argument because:
a) It was not precisely the epidemiologists who allowed BLM protests (although many of them were silent and they are to blame)
b) The fact that leftists ignore damage done by their fellow leftists doesn't mean that this demage doesn't exist. In the same way that the fact that they tolerated burning business (obviously) doesn't prove that the act of burning isn't seriously damaging people's property, so the fact that they are allowing mass gatherings of thugs (who usually aren't very hygienic anyways) doesn't prove that covid isn't to some extent dangerous (though I agree that it isn't as dangerous as some hysteric people claim).
c) Some RELATIVELY conservative authorities (such as Polish government - in Poland abortion is banned in most cases) also have mask-mandates (though not for churches).
Also, my mother who works in hospital told me that introducing face-masks in hospital for certain workers (much before covid) significantly helped reduce seasonal flu cases - previously the medical staff every year had serious problems with seasonal flu, but after the mask-mandate was introduced, the problem nearly disappeared. Now, if it works for flu, it could seem that it works (at least to some extent) for covid as well, but I could be wrong...
7. Evil authorities still have the authority to give lawful commands (evil father can still demand obedience in good/neutral matters), but the question may be broader - can we trust those degenerates at all? Well, in addition to what I mentioned in 6c about more conservative authorities prescribing face-masks, there is still another point - we have to admit that our degenerate age has produced admirably effective things... St. Thomas Aquinas, as wise and holy as he is, couldn't imagine marvels of technical computer age, age in which abortion is a right and sodomy a sɛҳuąƖ orientation... So if this degenerate age has done so good a job in creating technical innovations, increasing the average life expectancy, etc., it seems that, while making no compromise in exposing it's wickedness, admit that it has some credibility when it comes to being effective.
Actually, I think that there probably is a causal link here - the more and comfortable safe people feel, the less they think about God...
In any case, although I welcome scepticism and independent research about masks, I don't think that the fact that the authorities who gave the mask-mandate are evil is a sufficient proof.
Topic: SSPX Facemask Order in Minnesota (Read 4346 times)