BISHOP PETER HAS DONE CATHOLICS THE GREATEST CATECHETICAL HARM

To comment, please open your gmail account, use my email address, Facebook, Messenger or Twitter. Scroll down to see any comments.

Bishop Peter is absent from the Latin Mass and this possibly explains his (mis)understanding about those of us he has categorised as though ignorant, uneducated, and misinformed about Liturgy.

So says Sharon Crooks of Palmerston North, in comments on my post yesterday (The Statue the Chair and the Church Part II), which deserve a post to themselves. Sharon continues:

I take exception to +Peter’s comments because it is in the Latin Mass milieu, as you argue, Julia, that we are more appropriately formed and catechised.  

Whilst I cannot speak for the rest of 'the Latin Mass folk', as we are a diverse group, I can speak for myself.  I have been involved in the Novus Ordo Liturgy in NZ for about 25 years, serving on two Liturgy Committees consecutively for at least the last 10-12 years. 

I have been involved in other ministries, some daily, some on a Sunday: sacristan, reader, Extraordinary minister of Holy Communion etc, catechesis for Children’s Liturgy and Sacramental programs.  I have attended at least one course on liturgy in the diocese. I am not alone in being involved in the Novus Ordo Liturgy like this whilst also attending the Latin Mass.   

Over the last 25 years of involvement in Novus Ordo Parish life in NZ, I have been given various ‘liturgical documents’ to read as part of liturgical ‘education’ in these roles.  I have been privy to countless daily and Sunday homilies, and a number of training programs constructed, implemented, and validated by well-meaning priests.  By His Excellency’s standards, I should by now, be catechised.  

Yet, I would argue that all of this ‘education’ pales in comparison to what I pursued privately for interest because I loved Liturgy.  I read the NZ GIRM several times over, various liturgy-related encyclicals and items from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, as well as some classics, like the Catechism and Ratzinger's ‘The Spirit of the Liturgy’.

I learned from my interest in liturgy that there are very few priests in our diocese who even seem to understand the importance of liturgy, much less the spirit of the liturgy as expounded in the Church’s liturgical documents and the NZ GIRM. Yes, we miss Fr Bryan Buenger at the Novus Ordo for a reason!  

It’s the same reason why more and more faithful seem to be making their way out to Ashhurst for the Latin Mass. We know that without exception not only will this liturgy be sound, but we will be formed and catechised as Catholics should be, through exceptional and sound homilies.      

In the Latin Mass there is no room for liturgical abuse and I am yet to hear any maverick-style catechesis. Which brings me to the reason for my response to your article, Julia: to highlight again that of all the people in this diocese, it is Bishop Peter who has done Catholics the greatest harm through HIS catechesis, and the implementation of  liturgical practice blatantly at odds with every document on liturgy, including the NZ GIRM, which I have ever read.  

His resurrection theology resulted in the widespread, albeit incorrect, catechesis that we should stand before our Lord in the Mass.  As a result we have well-meaning Novus Ordo priests and other clergy telling parishioners who kneel before the Lord Jesus to receive His Body at Holy Communion, to get to their feet then too. These admonitions are clearly at odds with the foundational liturgical documents guiding liturgy practice in NZ and around the world.  

Bishop Charles has recently argued that it is customary to stand in various places; I would argue that custom does not make it any less of a liturgical or spiritual abuse and certainly does not make for a good reason to turn a blind eye to what he has inherited in this diocese as ‘custom’.  

I believe His Excellency Bishop Peter should do a little background check to find out who exactly it is that comprise 'the Latin Mass folk’ before he continues to make these inaccurate generalisations.  

Not only do 'the Latin Mass folk' comprise many people actively engaged in liturgy on many levels in this diocese, but they are probably better informed regarding Liturgy than any other congregation in Palmerston North. 

Hence they made their way back to the Latin Mass, where they realise that finally we have a liturgy that is timeless, beautiful, and protected from abuse.  

The fact that so many of us 'Latin Mass folk' realise the problems inherent in the 'resurrection theology', and are prepared to suffer the humiliation of being told to stand when we know we are permitted to kneel to receive our Lord Jesus in Holy Communion at a Novus Ordo Mass, should suggest that some of us have done sufficient homework on liturgy - perhaps more than you are giving us credit for, Bishop Peter.   

Paul Collits says:

Wonderful.

Bob Gill I understand that a priest wasn’t available to celebrate the Pahiatua Sunday Mass recently. I wondered when I was told, how many of the parishioners then had ventured over to the Ashhurst Latin Mass.
I pointed out to people in my Dannevirke parish today that if we were ever short of a priest here on a Sunday then I would be putting in a request for a Latin Mass to be said here. I wonder what the bishop’s response would be to my request?

I say:

Probably that there's only one priest in the diocese who can celebrate the Latin Mass and still drive a car.  And then you'd say well, we need more priests to be taught the Latin Mass. And amen to that.