Archbishop Viganò: Don’t Leave the Church – Stay and Fight the Modernists! 

This new statement is important, inasmuch as in recent days, both Father Thomas Weinandy, as well as Father Raymond de Souza, spread the suspicion that the Italian prelate might be “schismatic,” thus intending to leave the Catholic Church. This suspicion had arisen because of Viganò’s critique of the Second Vatican Council and its detrimental effects on the life of the faith in the Church. For example, de Souza’s article is entitled: “Is Archbishop Viganò’s Rejection of the Second Vatican Council Promoting Schism?” And Weinandy stated: “My concern is that, in his radical reading of the Council, the archbishop is spawning his own schism.”

In an August 22 article published by the traditional Catholic newspaper Catholic Family News, Kokx had asked Viganò a set of questions with regard to what faithful laity can do in the midst of this Church crisis that is going back to the Council. 

Kokx suggested Viganò needs to give more advice to laity and priests on what to do next: “He’s certainly diagnosed the problem, but what are his solutions, if any? What, in other words, is it that he believes Catholics in the 21st century should do in response to the crisis?”

Archbishop Viganò’s response as published on September 1 by Catholic Family News (see full text below) is clear: it is not the faithful Catholics who oppose the changing of the faith, but those who perpetrate these changes that ought to be questioned. He writes that we need to discuss “the position of those who, declaring themselves Catholic, embrace the heterodox doctrines that have spread over these decades, with the awareness that these represent a rupture with the preceding Magisterium. In this case it is licit to doubt their real adherence to the Catholic Church, in which however they hold official roles that confer authority on them.”

If people who hold heterodox views are in positions of authority in the Church, he continues, “It is an illicitly exercised authority, if its purpose is to force the faithful to accept the revolution imposed since the Council.”

In addition and on a practical level, the Italian prelate gives us advice on how to live and grow in the faith, working on our sanctification and remaining in the state of “sanctifying grace.” But at the same time, we are to assist and “comfort” good priests and bishops, seeking out reverent Masses. 

“Faithful laity have the right and the duty to find priests, communities, and institutes that are faithful to the perennial Magisterium,” Viganò explains. “And may they know how to accompany the laudable celebration of the liturgy in the Ancient Rite with adherence to sound doctrine and morals, without any subsidence on the front of the Council.”

Finally, Archbishop Viganò also praises the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), which has defended the traditional faith for decades now. They “deserve recognition” for their work of preserving the Catholic faith, he says, and adds that he considers Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the founder of this Society, to be a “confessor of the Faith.”

Here we might remember that just recently, a cardinal stated that Lefebvre will one day be declared a “Doctor of the Church” and that he was “prophetic.”

Let us close with Viganò’s last words of his response to Kokx’s questions:

“The cure for rebellion is obedience. The cure for heresy is faithfulness to the teaching of Tradition. The cure for schism is filial devotion for the Sacred Pastors. The cure for apostasy is love for God and His Most Holy Mother. The cure for vice is the humble practice of virtue. The cure for the corruption of morals is to live constantly in the presence of God. But obedience cannot be perverted into stolid servility; respect for authority cannot be perverted into the obeisance of the court. And let’s not forget that if it is the duty of the laity to obey their Pastors, it is even a more grave duty of the Pastors to obey God, usque ad effusionem sanguinis.”

Below is the full statement by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, reprinted with permission:

Disclaimer: The following positions adopted and advice offered by Archbishop Viganò do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews and are presented only for your information.

Dear Mr. Kokx,

I read with lively interest your article “Questions for Viganò: His Excellency is Right about Vatican II, But What Does He Think Catholic Should Do Now?” which was published by Catholic Family News on August 22 (here). I am happy to respond to your questions, which address matters that are very important for the faithful.

You ask: “What would ‘separating’ from the Conciliar Church look like in Archbishop Viganò’s opinion?” I respond to you with another question: “What does it mean to separate from the Catholic Church according to the supporters of the Council?” While it is clear that no admixture is possible with those who propose adulterated doctrines of the conciliar ideological manifesto, it should be noted that the simple fact of being baptized and of being living members of the Church of Christ does not imply adherence to the conciliar team; this is true above all for the simple faithful and also for secular and regular clerics who, for various reasons, sincerely consider themselves Catholics and recognize the Hierarchy.

Instead, what needs to be clarified is the position of those who, declaring themselves Catholic, embrace the heterodox doctrines that have spread over these decades, with the awareness that these represent a rupture with the preceding Magisterium. In this case it is licit to doubt their real adherence to the Catholic Church, in which however they hold official roles that confer authority on them. It is an illicitly exercised authority, if its purpose is to force the faithful to accept the revolution imposed since the Council.

Once this point has been clarified, it is evident that it is not the traditional faithful – that is, true Catholics, in the words of Saint Pius X – that must abandon the Church in which they have the full right to remain and from which it would be unfortunate to separate; but rather the Modernists who usurp the Catholic name, precisely because it is only the bureaucratic element that permits them not to be considered on a par with any heretical sect. This claim of theirs serves in fact to prevent them from ending up among the hundreds of heretical movements that over the course of the centuries have believed to be able to reform the Church at their own pleasure, placing their pride ahead of humbly guarding the teaching of Our Lord. But just as it is not possible to claim citizenship in a homeland in which one does not know its language, law, faith and tradition; so it is impossible that those who do not share the faith, morals, liturgy, and discipline of the Catholic Church can arrogate to themselves the right to remain within her and even to ascend the levels of the hierarchy.

The situation is certainly more complex for clerics, who depend hierarchically on their bishop or religious superior, but who at the same time have the right to remain Catholic and be able to celebrate according to the Catholic Rite. On the one hand laity have more freedom of movement in choosing the community to which they turn for Mass, the Sacraments, and religious instruction, but less autonomy because of the fact that they still have to depend on a priest; on the other hand, clerics have less freedom of movement, since they are incardinated in a diocese or order and are subject to ecclesiastical authority, but they have more autonomy because of the fact that they can legitimately decide to celebrate the Mass and administer the Sacraments in the Tridentine Rite and to preach in conformity with sound doctrine. The Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum reaffirmed that faithful and priests have the inalienable right – which cannot be denied – to avail themselves of the liturgy that more perfectly expresses their Catholic Faith. But this right must be used today not only and not so much to preserve the extraordinary form of the rite, but to testify to adherence to the depositum fidei that finds perfect correspondence only in the Ancient Rite.

I daily receive heartfelt letters from priests and religious who are marginalized or transferred or ostracized because of their fidelity to the Church: the temptation to find an ubi consistam [a place to stand] far from the clamor of the Innovators is strong, but we ought to take an example from the persecutions that many saints have undergone, including Saint Athanasius, who offers us a model of how to behave in the face of widespread heresy and persecuting fury. As my venerable brother Bishop Athanasius Schneider has many times recalled, the Arianism that afflicted the Church at the time of the Holy Doctor of Alexandria in Egypt was so widespread among the bishops that it leaves one almost to believe that Catholic orthodoxy had completely disappeared. But it was thanks to the fidelity and heroic testimony of the few bishops who remained faithful that the Church knew how to get back up again. Without this testimony, Arianism would not have been defeated; without our testimony today, Modernism and the globalist apostasy of this pontificate will not be defeated.

It is therefore not a question of working from within the Church or outside it: the winemakers are called to work in the Lord’s Vineyard, and it is there that they must remain even at the cost of their lives; the pastors are called to pastor the Lord’s Flock, to keep the ravenous wolves at bay and to drive away the mercenaries who are not concerned with the salvation of the sheep and lambs.

This hidden and often silent work has been carried out by the Society of Saint Pius X, which deserves recognition for not having allowed the flame of Tradition to be extinguished at a moment in which celebrating the ancient Mass was considered subversive and a reason for excommunication. Its priests have been a healthy thorn in the side for a hierarchy that has seen in them an unacceptable point of comparison for the faithful, a constant reproach for the betrayal committed against the people of God, an inadmissible alternative to the new conciliar path. And if their fidelity made disobedience to the pope inevitable with the episcopal consecrations, thanks to them the Society was able to protect herself from the furious attack of the Innovators and by its very existence it allowed the possibility of the liberalization of the Ancient Rite, which until then was prohibited. Its presence also allowed the contradictions and errors of the conciliar sect to emerge, always winking at heretics and idolaters but implacably rigid and intolerant towards Catholic Truth.

I consider Archbishop Lefebvre an exemplary confessor of the Faith, and I think that by now it is obvious that his denunciation of the Council and the modernist apostasy is more relevant than ever. It should not be forgotten that the persecution to which Archbishop Lefebvre was subjected by the Holy See and the world episcopate served above all as a deterrent for Catholics who were refractory toward the conciliar revolution.

I also agree with the observation of His Excellency Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais about the co-presence of two entities in Rome: the Church of Christ has been occupied and eclipsed by the modernist conciliar structure, which has established itself in the same hierarchy and uses the authority of its ministers to prevail over the Spouse of Christ and our Mother.

The Church of Christ – which not only subsists in the Catholic Church, but is exclusively the Catholic Church – is only obscured and eclipsed by a strange extravagant Church established in Rome, according to the vision of Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich. It coexists, like wheat with the tare, in the Roman Curia, in dioceses, in parishes. We cannot judge our pastors for their intentions, nor suppose that all of them are corrupt in faith and morals; on the contrary, we can hope that many of them, hitherto intimidated and silent, will understand, as confusion and apostasy continue to spread, the deception to which they have been subjected and will finally shake off their slumber. There are many laity who are raising their voice; others will necessarily follow, together with good priests, certainly present in every diocese. This awakening of the Church militant – I would dare to call it almost a resurrection – is necessary, urgent and inevitable: no son tolerates his mother being outraged by the servants, or his father being tyrannized by the administrators of his goods. The Lord offers us, in these painful situations, the possibility of being His allies in fighting this holy battle under His banner: the King Who is victorious over error and death permits us to share the honor of triumphal victory and the eternal reward that derives from it, after having endured and suffered with Him.

But in order to deserve the immortal glory of Heaven we are called to rediscover – in an emasculated age devoid of values such as honor, faithfulness to one’s word, and heroism – a fundamental aspect of the faith of every baptized person: the Christian life is a militia, and with the Sacrament of Confirmation we are called to be soldiers of Christ, under whose insignia we must fight. Of course, in most cases it is essentially a spiritual battle, but over the course of history we have seen how often, faced with the violation of the sovereign rights of God and the liberty of the Church, it was also necessary to take up arms: we are taught this by the strenuous resistance to repel the Islamic invasions in Lepanto and on the outskirts of Vienna, the persecution of the Cristeros in Mexico, of the Catholics in Spain, and even today by the cruel war against Christians throughout the world. Never as today can we understand the theological hatred coming from the enemies of God, inspired by Satan. The attack on everything that recalls the Cross of Christ – on Virtue, on the Good and the Beautiful, on purity – must spur us to get up, in a leap of pride, in order to claim our right not only not to be persecuted by our external enemies but also and above all to have strong and courageous pastors, holy and God-fearing, who will do exactly what their predecessors have done for centuries: preach the Gospel of Christ, convert individuals and nations, and expand the Kingdom of the living and true God throughout the world.

We are all called to make an act of Fortitude – a forgotten cardinal virtue, which not by chance in Greek recalls virile strength, ἀνδρεία – in knowing how to resist the Modernists: a resistance that is rooted in Charity and Truth, which are attributes of God.

If you only celebrate the Tridentine Mass and preach sound doctrine without ever mentioning the Council, what can they ever do to you? Throw you out of your churches, perhaps, and then what? No one can ever prevent you from renewing the Holy Sacrifice, even if it is on a makeshift altar in a cellar or an attic, as the refractory priests did during the French Revolution, or as happens still today in China. And if they try to distance you, resist: canon law serves to guarantee the government of the Church in the pursuit of its primary purposes, not to demolish it. Let’s stop fearing that the fault of the schism lies with those who denounce it, and not, instead, with those who carry it out: the ones who are schismatics and heretics are those who wound and crucify the Mystical Body of Christ, not those who defend it by denouncing the executioners!

The laity can expect their ministers to behave as such, preferring those who prove that they are not contaminated by present errors. If a Mass becomes an occasion of torture for the faithful, if they are forced to assist at sacrileges or to support heresies and ramblings unworthy of the House of the Lord, it is a thousand times preferable to go to a church where the priest celebrates the Holy Sacrifice worthily, in the rite given to us by Tradition, with preaching in conformity with sound doctrine. When parish priests and bishops realize that the Christian people demand the Bread of Faith, and not the stones and scorpions of the neo-church, they will lay aside their fears and comply with the legitimate requests of the faithful. The others, true mercenaries, will show themselves for what they are and will be able to gather around them only those who share their errors and perversions. They will be extinguished by themselves: the Lord dries up the swamp and makes the land on which brambles grow arid; he extinguishes vocations in corrupt seminaries and in convents rebellious to the Rule.

The lay faithful today have a sacred task: to comfort good priests and good bishops, gathering like sheep around their shepherds. Give them hospitality, help them, console them in their trials. Create community in which murmuring and division do not predominate, but rather fraternal charity in the bond of Faith. And since in the order established by God – κόσμος – subjects owe obedience to authority and cannot do otherwise than resist it when it abuses its power, no fault will be attributed to them for the infidelity of their leaders, on whom rests the very serious responsibility for the way in which they exercise the vicarious power which has been given to them. We must not rebel, but oppose; we must not be pleased with the errors of our pastors, but pray for them and admonish them respectfully; we must not question their authority but the way in which they use it.

I am certain, with a certainty that comes to me from Faith, that the Lord will not fail to reward our fidelity, after having punished us for the faults of the men of the Church, granting us holy priests, holy bishops, holy cardinals, and above all a holy Pope. But these saints will arise from our families, from our communities, from our churches: families, communities, and churches in which the grace of God must be cultivated with constant prayer, with the frequenting of Holy Mass and the Sacraments, with the offering of sacrifices and penances that the Communion of Saints permits us to offer to the Divine Majesty in order to expiate our sins and those of our brethren, including those who exercise authority. The laity have a fundamental role in this, guarding the Faith within their families, in such a way that our young people who are educated in love and in the fear of God may one day be responsible fathers and mothers, but also worthy ministers of the Lord, His heralds in the male and female religious orders, and His apostles in civil society.

The cure for rebellion is obedience. The cure for heresy is faithfulness to the teaching of Tradition. The cure for schism is filial devotion for the Sacred Pastors. The cure for apostasy is love for God and His Most Holy Mother.

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!

The cure for vice is the humble practice of virtue. The cure for the corruption of morals is to live constantly in the presence of God. But obedience cannot be perverted into stolid servility; respect for authority cannot be perverted into the obeisance of the court. And let’s not forget that if it is the duty of the laity to obey their Pastors, it is even a more grave duty of the Pastors to obey God, usque ad effusionem sanguinis.

+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop
September 1, 2020               

Source               

Comments invited…                                    

36 responses

  1. I didn’t leave, and with God’s grace I will never leave, however the new novus ordo left the Church, by breaking the First Commandment with pagan gods, and interfaith. The Great Apostasy!

  2. I cannot, for the life of me, see why Lifesitenews had to put the following disclaimer above the Archbishop’s interview:

    Disclaimer: The following positions adopted and advice offered by Archbishop Viganò do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews and are presented only for your information.

    To which “positions” and “advice” could Lifesitenews possibly object or wish to dissociate itself?

    Any ideas, folks?

    • Editor

      What you ask concerning the LifeSiteNews discalimer is very interesting. If you recall a few months back they refused to publish my Open Letter to the Bishops, which I suspected then was to do with their “broad Church” readership policy. It’s a good website for information but sadly compromised by its desire to sit on the fence in the matter of Modernism and the Modernist hierarchy. That’s no good to anyone!

      As regards Archbishop Vigano’s interview, I think he got it absolutely right. It’s the Modernist destroyers of the Church who should leave (as they already have supernaturally), not the Traditional Catholics. He’s also right about Archbishop Lefebvre being a prophetic prelate who will one day be named a Confessor of the Faith. His words put paid to any lingering idiocy that the Archbishop and his Society of St. Pius X are or were in schism. My only concern these days with the SSPX is that it has gone very quiet on possibly the worst Pontificate in history. It has also greatly failed the faithful in the matter of official compliance with government lockdowns against Church teaching. But then, it’s not the saintly Archbishop whose running affairs any more, it’s lesser clergy.

      • Athanasius,

        I totally agree about Lifesitenews – they’re a great source of information and petitions, but too keen to appease the middle-of-the-road diocesan Catholics in the pew. It’s a great pity.

        • Dear Madame Editor,

          I posted my reply to Athanasius twice (IDK how that happened).

          Please forgive me for being away so long. It’s been very busy between church, work & moving into a new place (which is still incomplete 😱).

          Re LSN: imo the disclaimer is probably related to +Vigano’s praise of +Lefebvre, who will be deceased 30 years on the Feast of the Annunciation 2021. He still inspires terror in the hearts of modernists all these years later. That’s my two pence for today.

          Btw, it keeps telling me I’m making duplicate comments. I never had this problem before on CT.

          • Margaret USA,

            I’ve no idea what causes that “duplicate comments” issue – there’s always something new with WordPress. I’d move to another provider but I’m told they each have their own problems, so we’ll stick with the devil we know, for now at least. Sorry about that – I’ve now deleted the duplicate comments.

            Nice to have you back – welcome!

      • Athanasius,

        Your Open Letter was marvelous. You should come to our side of the pond more often provided Madame Editor can spare you. We need a good Scotsman who wields his pen like a true swordsman over here.

        Sorry I’ve been away so long!

    • Editor,

      I believe LifeSite comes under the heading of “conservative Novus Ordo,” which generally translates as the slow road to revolution, rather than the road that takes you off a cliff.

      • Editor & RCAVictor

        Absolutely agreed. It’s so sad beacuse it is a good information/petition site, but we are not at liberty to appease revolutionaries in the Church. The success of Modernism in the Church these past 5 decades is partly due to sites like LifeSiteNews being afraid to offend theologically deviant hierarchs.

        • Athanasius,
          I think funding is also an issue which comes into play here. Business / people’s jobs / livelihoods and traditional Catholic apostolates seldom, if ever, make comfortable bedfellows. Even if it is only subconsciously, I suppose there’s always the decision that they don’t want to push the envelope too far in case they lose donators. Which is why I’ve always preferred magazines/apostolates that just come out and say the truth, regardless of whether they lose popularity or income.

      • WF, Athanasius & RCA Victor,

        We need to remember that until Pope Francis came along, Lifesitenews completely ignored all things liturgical, theological and papal. Since Popes John Paul II and Benedict spoke out about the evil of abortion, that suited the LSN agenda perfectly. They were not interested in anything else.

        Once they realised that they just could not ignore Francis, things changed but not, we can see from that disclaimer, completely. They depend on the diocesan Catholics for financial and other support, so it seems that they do not want to rock the boat too much.

        Recommendations from the Archbishop such as attending (and for priests, offering) the traditional Latin Mass would be a step too far for many of their supporters (or so they think – I’m not so sure) and definitely his support for the SSPX would strike fear into the hearts of the LSN bosses. In fact, I give diocesan Catholics more credit – I think reading that interview with the Archbishop would make some, if not most of them think carefully about what he says. I’m sorry to see that reluctance on the part of LSN to fully embrace the significance of the crisis in the Church and the role of the SSPX in fighting it. Their refusal to publish Athanasius’s letter to the Scottish Bishops was an eye-opener at the time. I hadn’t expected that.

        It’s a real pity that they are so keen to distance themselves from the Archbishop’s comments; and, it seems to me, by that fact they diminish, to an extent, the good that LSN otherwise may do.

    • Based on my past experiences with them, I am suspicious of these neo-Traditionalist types such as JHW of LifeSite. I was formerly very fraternal towards these types, and there is a whole parish of them in my city, and I went there naïvely thinking that we were all on the same side. But when push comes to shove, they will always choose the Novus Ordo sect over Tradition. (Michael Voris). That’s why I have never gotten excited about +Schneider and +Burke, because they sit on the fence. But +Vigano, he excites me. He’s the only prelate who has spoken out and defended Archbishop Lefebvre.

      • Miles Immaculatae

        I would be careful about lumping Michael Voris in with LSN. Voris is a complete fraud and a mouthpiece for his financier Terry Carroll. He is no more interested in Tradition than Pope Francis. LSN, on the other hand, is genuinely interested in Tradition, though they seem to think of it as merely a more serious option for the faithful.

  3. I think His Excellency left out an important “cure” from his list – in fact, one that has almost disappeared since John XXIII inaugurated the era of “mercy” over discipline:

    The cure for Modernism is condemnation and excommunication.

    They are certainly not going to leave the Church of their own volition.

    • RCA Victor,

      Well spotted – some day, heads will roll under those headings: condemnation and excommunication. Let’s hope we don’t have too long to wait.

      A reader sent me a copy of an obituary in The Telegraph (which arrived in today’s post), oozing with pleasure over the life of one notorious (in England) dissenter Nicholas Lash, “Catholic theologian who gave up the priesthood and was a withering critic of successive popes” to quote the ignorant headline. They quote Lash castigating Pope Benedict in the most crude terms, with Lash remarking on his “come-to-bed eyes and cruel mouth”. What a nasty person, survived – the obituary records – by his wife Janet and their son, Dominic.

      As our reader had noted at the top of the page, “he’ll ken the noo” (tr. “he’ll know now.”) Sure thing. He’ll certainly know now just how skewed was his thinking in this life.

      Soon enough, the current crop of modernists, heretics and the rest will be faced with the damage they’ve done to the Church and thus to the world. God help them at their judgment. I mean, it’s one thing being a sinner facing judgment, but a heretic?

      • Editor

        We only have to look at the posthumous judgment of the Church on Pope Honorius I, a saint in comparison with the Vatican II succession, and it makes the blood run cold to think of how the Church will declare on them in the near future, especially Francis!

  4. Editor,

    I wish we could get Abp. Vigano to participate in this discussion, even on a limited basis. However, I don’t know of any way to contact him, other than carrier pigeon or smoke signal…

  5. Regarding the part of the article which references:

    The horrors that have been rampant for decades in many our parishes

    I was amazed this evening to discover that EMHC have a new role at the novus ordo (I learned this from a novus ordo going relative).

    Apparently now (at least in their parish) when going forward to receive in the hand from an EMHC, the novus ordo catholic must first pause at a preliminary EMHC who douses their hands with a spray bottle of disinfectant.

    You can imagine them all being thrilled with this “liturgical development”, thinking it a real hoot, and – of course – an example of the Holy Spirit at work, given its created another non-job for lay busybodies.

    • What?! Even if one agreed with all this coivid nonsense, what is the point in the recepient of Holy communion sanitising HIS OWN HANDS?!!!!

        • Editor,

          I think that word “illusion” is the key that unlocks and exposes many a satanic scheme, since the father of lies is also the master of illusions.

          As we’ve long seen, the scam-demic has been an illusion from A to Z. Even factors which should have destroyed the illusion have not (except for among those who use their reason), like :

          -allowing leftists to prance around in public shouting their idiotic militant slogans;
          -the suppression of information and analysis from honest doctors;
          -the suppression of effective treatments;
          -faked death counts;
          -the obvious double standards of the privileged bureaucrat classes, who don’t observe the “rules”;
          -the irrationality of lockdown regulations.

          Apparently something more dramatic is required to snap the sheeple out of their government/media/health system-induced fear. Pardon me for being morbid, but perhaps large numbers of people being carted off to the cemetery, having died from reactions to deadly vaccines, would be dramatic enough.

    • Gabriel Syme

      There is a spirit at work in this EMHC business, as well as the sanitzing of hands, but certainly isn’t the Holy Spirit. They become more sacrilegious by the day!

      • The novus ordo brigade ignore instructions that are binding on them in any event. The habitual use of EMHC’s – which is now the norm – was forbidden in the 1997 Vatican document ON CERTAIN QUESTIONS REGARDING THE COLLABORATION OF THE NON-ORDAINED
        FAITHFUL IN THE SACRED MINISTRY OF PRIEST. Which was signed ‘in forma specifica’ by Pope John Paul II and co-signed by no less than eight heads of other dicasteries. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/laity/documents/rc_con_interdic_doc_15081997_en.html
        “Extraordinary ministers may distribute Holy Communion at eucharistic celebrations ONLY when there are no ordained ministers present OR when those ordained ministers present at a liturgical celebration are truly unable to distribute Holy Communion.(99) They may also exercise this function at eucharistic celebrations where there are particularly large numbers of the faithful and which would be excessively prolonged because of an insufficient number of ordained ministers to distribute Holy Communion”. In my novus ordo days, I’ve seen EMHC’s used for just a handful of people in the congregation.
        I am open to correction on this, but I have read that these gels/sprays take a couple of minutes after use to actually kill off any bacteria/viruses, so that would mean having to have your hands sprayed, then waiting a couple of minutes, then receiving Holy Communion on the hand, which would prolong things to a ridiculous degree. Foolish and unecessary.

        • Things are going from bad to worse in Novus Ordo-Land due to the virus.

          I heard today about a parish in the Archdiocese of St Andrew’s & Edinburgh where the Gloria and the Creed were omitted to make the Mass shorter “due to Coronavirus” (as most telephone answering services in banks and business begin these days!)

          If only someone would come up with a believable rationale for continuing to attend the NO, I’d be interested to read it.

          • Editor,

            I believe that it is common almost everywhere for the Gloria and creed to be omitted at the present time. There is also no singing or sermon. The latter might not be a bad thing, LOL.

            • RCA Victor,

              Well, the person who was present at said Novus Ordo is actually someone who normally attends the TLM but in the present situation has been unable to get there.

              It astonishes me that anyone who understands the whole “Mass” issue would ever attend a Novus Ordo after moving to the TLM but there it is. Apparently, I’m told, this person felt obliged to attend the only Mass available.

              There’s no comprehending the way some think – or don’t think. Still, that person may not be too bothered about what I do or do not comprehend…

        • Westminsterfly

          Fr. Gruner RIP and John Vennari RIP did one of their “Your Questions Answered” videos on this subject According to Fr. Gruner, all the conditions in the indult were required to be met before EMHCs were allowed, and also according to Father, that has never happened! (I think there were 5 conditions, not sure)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: