FR JOE GRAYLAND THUMBING HIS NOSE AT THE BISHOPS

To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address, FB or Messenger. Scroll down for other comments.

Father Joe Grayland is thumbing his nose at the NZ Conference of Catholic Bishops, and making the most of his status as parish priest at a cathedral which after 18 months still has no bishop to sit on its cathedra or rein in this errant priest.

And here's the thing: after years of existing in the modernist miasma induced and encouraged by our bishops, we are drastically short of priests and Fr Grayland knows he can't be spared. He can say what he likes and he'll get away with it.

He's also peddling his latest book (no apologies for not telling its title) so he coaxes more column inches out of that Masonic 'Marist' publication, Cathnews - who are surely more than happy to accommodate his views, which are right up their street. 

Like all modernist masonic priests, Fr Grayland wants to be popular. To be admired by the world instead of persecuted by the world as Jesus was, and faithful priests, bishops and cardinals are still. Going by his recent homilies, he's not too thrilled with the reception his peculiar brand of liberal theology/ideology has had on 'social media' and certain 'websites'. But once again, in Monday's edition of Cathnews he was asking for it:  

 

Fr Thomas J Reese’s article ‘Vatican II made changes to the liturgy. It’s time to think about making more’ (America, April 16, 2021) generously invites others into a conversation on a ‘second phase’ of liturgical reform, where consensus is transparent, collegial and synodal.

Fr Reese is, of course, a Jesuit. Let me remind you that Fr Reese thinks the Traditional Latin Mass should be limited to the elderly, and that children should be banned from attending. The first phase of 'liturgical reform' has already paralyzed the Church and Fr Reese wants more of the same. Doh.

'Collegial and synodal' means driven by bishops, not by the Vatican. In these parlous times that means choosing the lesser of two evils, but with NZ's bishops the way they are we should perhaps plump for the Vatican.

This conversation in the English-speaking churches needs to be globally diverse, not least of all, because the United States Catholic worldview is deeply fractured and politically segregated.

In other words don't go by the US, where the Catholic right would have succeeded against all the media odds in getting Donald Trump re-elected, were it not for the demonic forces of the Democrats led by the fake Catholic and babykiller supremo, Joe Biden. 

Context

The Catholic mission to Aotearoa New Zealand was established in 1838 by French missionaries for Māori, the Tāngata Whenua.

During his political career 'im indoors was assured by Māori that he is 'tangata whenua' because he was born here. He's tangata whenua, and so is everyone who was born here and has stayed here.

From 1840 on, the impact of Irish, Scots, and English immigrants changed the mission’s outlook. By 1870 the mission had become an Irish settler church that by 1877 had a church school system.

There was also a Protestant, Danish Lutheran 'settler church' to which my ancestors belonged. And others, of course, particularly Anglican.

Throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Eurocentric colonial frameworks of worship and ecclesiology formed structures and attitudes, which we are now shedding.

Which Fr Grayland would dearly love us to shed, he means. And we've been shedding them since Vat II, and look at the results. We have to put up with a parish priest like Fr Grayland at our cathedral because there's no one else to replace him.

Since the 1970s, we have been rediscovering the ancient language and tradition of Te Reo Māori.

Not so ancient. Māori have been in New Zealand about 700 years. Compare that with the Australian aboriginals. Their 'ancient' name of Māori was given them by the Europeans when they turned up.

We have become a bi-cultural and tri-lingual nation, and the Church has been changed through these strong, social forces.

If you're puzzled about 'tri-lingual', Fr Grayland is proving his wokeness once more. NZ's third language is sign language - which no one except Fr Grayland would call a strong social force. 

This is true for many churches of the previous English Empire, which is now the Commonwealth of Nations.

If you're puzzled about the 'English Empire' ask a Scot by heritage like 'im indoors, and he'll tell you it was the British Empire. And that's correct.

Enculturation

Enculturation is a complex but not an ‘unanswered question’ as Fr Reese suggests; it is an ongoing discovery. Two points of difference between the churches of Aotearoa New Zealand the United States, apart from the size, wealth, and international influence, are the indigenous voice and the exercise of patriotism. When I was a visiting scholar at Notre Dame University in 2000, I was asked to preside at Eucharist in the basilica. I would have readily accepted but for one thing, the United States National flag in the sanctuary. The flag, I explained, is a nationalist emblem which, at that time, was an international symbol of oppression and militarism.

Patriotism, of which 'a nationalist emblem' like a flag is a symbol, is detested by modernists. But the sanctuary is not the place for flags of whatever.  

Along with the Vatican flag on the other side of the sanctuary, I explained that baptism into Christ and not into the United States or the Vatican should mark liturgical buildings.

Well it was a Vatican flag, but even its religiosity would surely not have endowed a flag with the power of speech and explanations about baptism. Fr Grayland could exercise more care in his sentence construction.

Needless to say, the flags were not removed, and I did not preside. National flags in churches seem to say: “here’s proof we belong” and reflect the need for social acceptance.

National flags say "we're proud of our country" but they have no place in a church. 

In Aotearoa New Zealand, nationalism of another sort is seen in civic religion when it co-opts Christian prayer forms to create civic religion for its own ends.

This is arrant nonsense. For a Catholic, especially a Catholic priest, what other sort of prayer is there, but Christian?  

Our challenge—and wherever ancient pre-European traditions are re-emerging from under the gloss of imposed European cultural catholicisms—is to discern if there is a theological difference between the ancient rituals and theologies of pre-missionary Aotearoa and the Roman liturgical rites that trace their origins to Indo-European pagan rites, Byzantine vesture, inter-Germanic tribal conflicts, and medieval European society.

So Fr Grayland - a Catholic priest - is asking if there's a difference between Maori 'ancient rituals and theologies' and Christianity. He finds that question a 'challenge'. This is a man who acts like he's lost his way. He's a living example of St Teresa of Jesus' warning that prayer is not a matter of thinking much, but of loving much. 

This is a liturgical problem that needs to be discussed in creative detail.

Father Grayland's problem is not liturgical but vocational, a problem that needs to be examined and settled by the NZCBC and failing that, by the Papal Nuncio. 

Justifying one set of rites as sacred and the other as in need of evangelisation is difficult.

No Fr Grayland, it's easy-peasy. But only if one has faith in Christ. 

While the Gospel is accepted as the Word that critiques human society, it is delivered in very strong social-cultural wrappings.

Jesus spoke in parables for the sake not just of peasants but of the scribes and pharisees whom Fr Grayland resembles; in parables whose simplicity is readily understood and applied universally.  

As indigenous  language and cultural expression re-emerge, liturgical practices and rites must be capable of sometimes rapid adaptation.

Fr Grayland is so woke, can he sleep at night? When's he going to get facial tattoos? And a greenstone amulet? Liturgical practices and rites in the Catholic Church can only evolve - and slowly evolve - from doctrine and tradition.  

The demand to reform colonialist, Eurocentric concepts of God has an immediate impact on liturgical texts, rituals, and architecture.

Whose demand? Oh, excuse me, it's Father Grayland's of course. His demand should effect immediate change in every aspect of the life of the Church. Was Father Grayland an only child, perhaps? 

In our parish, we begin the Easter Vigil at 5 am, not only because the rites direct that it should take place during the night, but because the ritual of Māori life begins at dawn with Karakia (prayer) that addresses God, the people, and the day in the Mihi Whakatau or speech of greeting.

So "God, the people and the day" are to be addressed as equals? 

Liturgical enculturation challenges us to encounter the voice of the First Peoples and the Latin liturgical tradition. Authentic enculturation moves us beyond nationalism to deeper, more profound expressions of our shared humanity than nationalism can provide.

Yeah, we just listen to the Gospels and obey the Commandment to "love one another as I have loved you". Jesus Christ sees souls who need saving. There's nothing more profound than that. And we know it already.

Or we should know it, but modernism says we're all going to heaven and there's nothing we can do to deserve salvation. Modernism has forgotten the rich young man who wanted to know how he could enter heaven. Maybe he was rich in the sense that Fr Grayland is rich - in academic learning. Maybe he went away sad because he couldn't give up his academic learning and follow Christ completely. 

I would offer this as a key element of the conversation into which Fr Reese is welcoming us.

Ministry

Fr Reese raises the question of clergy shortage on the one hand and the availability of lay ministers on the other. I think his references to reconciliation and anointing are red herrings because these sacraments are related to presbyterial ministry and the forgiveness of sin, which are not, essentially, gender-specific.

Father Grayland is saying the priesthood and the power to forgive sin is not reserved to men. That's heresy. 

Perhaps the point he is raising is how sacramental ministry—and its theology—is too often used in the construct of power and exclusion?

Too bad, Father Grayland, but to err is human. It's unavoidable, but your power as a priest to forgive is divine. You make me think of Stalinda, wanting to eliminate terrorism.  

 

The way we use sacramental rites to demarcate people, places, and rights flow over into the discussion of liturgical practice. Sacramental rites are ritual constructs that did not fall from heaven; they have evolved over time through multiple influences, not all of which are Gospel-based.

Fr Grayland, first you sound like Stalinda and now you sound like a bible-bashing Protestant. The sacraments have evolved over time from the Gospels, the Magisterium and sacred tradition.  

Our contemporary scarcity of presbyterial ministers is not a liturgical problem; it is an ecclesial one. The liturgical rite of ordination does not create the theology of priesthood; it reflects it; it reflects the concepts of power and authority and their delegation to legitimated recipients. In this, it is not a liturgical problem.

The liturgical question concerning the shortage of presbyters is the—pre-Covid—commodification and international trafficking of clergy and seminarians.

Well there you are. Fr Grayland confirms he is a Presbyterian.   

A priest from Africa is commodified when he is used by his own diocese as a source of international income and commodified by his host diocese when he is used as a stop-gap solution for a reality they refuse to face. The commodification of clergy is indicative of a deeper functionalist understanding of presbyterial ministry—dislocated from context—where a ritualistic approach to worship is operative (through a legitimated person), often at the expense of parishioners. The liturgical problem is: the local community is inhibited from worshipping to the fullest extent of its baptismal call because their gathering is not driven by the value of their full, conscious, and active participation but by their own commodification.

If parishioners' gathering is not 'driven by the value of their full, conscious and active participation' (and there we were, thinking that particular manifestation of the 'Spirit of Vatican II' had died a natural death) the fault lies with their parish priest who has not catechised them on the stupendous power of the Sacrifice of Calvary and their part in that Sacrifice of Holy Mass.  

Globalisation

The impact of globalisation is observable in competing cultural catholicisms. Cultural catholicisms that are based on popular religiosity are challenged by more rational catholicisms and vice versa. As a result, established cultural catholicisms are left feeling battered, and “new” cultural catholicisms feel unwanted. Where piety ends and superstition begins is often hard to judge in many cultural catholicisms. Where popular religion is too heavily used worship is compromised because culture is used as a proxy for salvation and ritualism is too easily confused for liturgy.

Dealing with cultural catholicism transmission while fostering unity within a parish is the daily reality of many pastors. We know that parishes do not change; parishioners do. Nothing is static and dealing with change is exhausting.

Diddums. If you're exhausted, Father, you're not spending enough time in prayer with Jesus. Like a couple of hours a day. At least.   

For the most part, we have to work out for ourselves what to do next.

No Father, you have to ask the Holy Spirit what to do next. Often you have to ask that literally. 

Diversity in worship is a hallmark of our contemporary experience. A topic for Fr Reese’s conversation is whether the single presumptive Latin Rite is ended—replaced by many local rites in the catholicity of the “Western Church”—and if this justifies creating new rites and Eucharistic Prayers that are expressive of their Local Church’s, languages, and customs?

O me miserum. Spare us, Father. What a call for returning holus-bolus to the traditional Latin Mass. 

Eucharistic Prayer

The ancient tradition of “praying as best as one can” is long gone, and the reason for this lies in an over-reliance on the notion of illicit and licit ways of praying.

I do not believe we need more Eucharistic Prayers, as Fr Reese suggests, but we do need prayers written in the language of the Local Church. The nonsense of the Swiss Eucharistic Prayers being translated from German into Latin, only to be translated back into German, is indicative of the problem we face.

More proof of our need to return to the traditional Latin Mass. 

This ecclesial problem is also a liturgical one. Fr Reese has identified a key problem for liturgical prayer that bears greater discussion: if the liturgical prayer of the assembly is not ‘transformative of the community’ then it is inauthentic. 

The evidence all points to the traditional Latin Mass as being more transformative of the community, from their fallen human nature to the divine (think of all those saints) than any liturgical prayer post-Vatican II.  

Translations

Fr Reese’s comments are totally in order. The present English translation is barely English! It has all the hallmarks of an ideological, Stalinist approach to language that defines a period of Church and liturgical history.

Thank you Father; more arguments for the Latin Mass. 

Into this period of history goes Summorum Pontificum and its explanatory note.

Yes, we get it that Summorum Pontificum is an embarrassment to modernists and heretics. Absolutely.

They are indicative of what happens when the relationship between lex orandi and lex credendi becomes politicised.

Once again it's frail human nature that's at fault, not the law of lex orandi, lex credendi. 

Those who celebrate both the ordinary and extraordinary forms do so, only, because they understand the ecclesiology of neither. This not a liturgical problem, but it is exploited liturgically.

'Ordinary' and 'extraordinary' forms is a misnomer the use of which suggests Fr Grayland understands 'the ecclesiology of neither', either.  

The key issue with the translation is not the translation itself but the process of its creation. The bullying by large, powerful, wealthy episcopal conferences and individuals is part of the story, as is the acquiesce by smaller, poorer, and less skilled episcopates. The translation is an example of theopolitics, not liturgy.

The solution is simple. Revert to Latin! But simplicity being truth, and truth simplicity, that bold leap may be beyond Fr Grayland. 

Kiss of Peace and Fermentum

The first was discussed during the pontificate of Benedict XVI with a view to moving it before the preparation rites.

That would be an improvement. Best to abolish it altogether. The 'Kiss of Peace' is what all those expensive 'gathering spaces' were built for. 

Because its original place in the Roman rite was more likely before communion (though is not absolutely clear) the decision was to keep it there. I think the Fermentum is a superseded sign of union.

Well, yes. 

A richer sign would be the sharing of the Eucharist itself and a new Good Friday service designed to bring all Christian communities together.

Here we go again: heresy. Non-Catholics may not receive the Eucharist except in extraordinary, grave circumstances. 

Ecumenism

Practical ecumenism is already operative. In the German parishes where I ministered pre-covid there were weekly religious services—alternatively Lutheran and Catholic—in local rest homes and in specific communities. In the rest homes, all the residents attended and received communion, irrespective of their baptismal denomination. These octogenarians seemed to be quite pleased with this arrangement; it is only priests—like me—that got a little unsettled. Laity leading clergy and changing the Church and liturgy is not new; I rather think it is the norm.

If laity are leading clergy it's because clergy are not living their vocation to the priesthood: for example, proving themselves wolves in shepherd's clothing by being only 'a little unsettled' by the sacrilege of giving Communion to Protestants.  

How ecumenism is understood depends on how baptism is understood.

 

Next phase

A second phase needs a language change. “Liturgy”, for too many people, means ritual entertainment, which is incapable of leading to full, conscious, active participation in God’s saving work, or Leitourgia. Liturgy is entertainment when equated to nice singing, beautiful artistry, snappy vestments, clouds of incense, super homilies or traditional sermons, eucharistic piety, and cool or conservative presiders. Most of our “liturgical arguments” are over this “stuff” and we debate elements that are essentially ritualistic, functionalist and consumerist. As a result, our worship is transactional and not transformative, just like our ecclesiology. Where ecclesiology and liturgy do not grow out of Leitourgia, Martyria and Diakonia, we only have rituals.

Oh thank you Father Grayland for arguing so persuasively in favour of the traditional Latin Mass. 

The profundity of leitourgia forces us below the veneer of ritual prancing, pointy hats and all that silly stuff that passes for “liturgy” to the place that enables worship to be “God-service” (service-of-God, service-by-God, service-to-God). 

Yes indeed. The Immemorial Mass prohibits all that silly stuff and makes worship the service of God offered to God by His Son on Calvary.

Christ on the Cross 
Eugene Delacroix