From the Religion News Service, this transcribed interview of new CDF head Archbishop Müller with the Mittelbayerische Zeitung. (Cathcon, however, doesn’t provide links to the original. I would love to check the translation in a language I actually know.) They quiz him on the sticking points with conservatives: liberation theology, the SSPX, and the perception that he is a liberal. His response to the latter probe is hilarious, especially the Cathcon commentary:
You have been declared, in respect of such words, to be among the liberals. Did that surprise you?
Oh well. Saint Thomas Aquinas says, “Deus maxime liberalis est – God is the Greatest Liberal”. (Cathcon- normally translated as “God therefore is in the highest degree liberal” to ensure that there is no conflation of the ideas of liberality with the practice of liberalism in any sense). In the original sense is liberalis is liberally and generously. ” In this sense, I love being a liberal.
(Cathcon- one waits for years for the Head of the CDF to quote St Thomas and he is now used in such a poor way)
I wish they’d let the man finish his thought before they interrupt him with commentary.
Chuckle on this one, too:
The SSPX have just designated you again as a heretic, that is, as one who has fallen from the faith.
I must not give an answer to every stupidity. (Cathcon- image what the response had been if the SSPX had issued a press release calling the Archbishop dumb. Mutual respect is needed for dialogue, as the Vatican is only too quick to point out in other ecumenical dialogues).
Cathcon’s headline is “Head of CDF calls SSPX stupid …”
I should point out that what Archbishop Müller has done is to identify the designation as a heretic as a “stupidity.” Reading comprehension is not the strong suit of some Catholics.
John Paul II offers a look at the intersection of liturgical music and conciliar reform in section 6 of this document. When he writes “music and song,” what does he mean, do you suppose? Accompaniment and melody? Music and text?
6. The music and song requested by the liturgical reform – it is right to stress this point – must comply with the legitimate demands of adaptation and inculturation. It is clear, however, that any innovation in this sensitive matter must respect specific criteria such as the search for musical expressions which respond to the necessary involvement of the entire assembly in the celebration and which, at the same time, avoid any concessions to frivolity or superficiality. Likewise, on the whole, those elitist forms of “inculturation” which introduce into the Liturgy ancient or contemporary compositions of possible artistic value, but that indulge in a language that is incomprehensible to the majority, should be avoided.
Note the “necessary involvement of the entire assembly.” I’ve seen one or two reform2 mumblings objecting to that term. If they didn’t know this was from the late Holy Father’s pen, I’m sure that “necessary involvement” would be suspect, too. For that matter, what do you make of “elitist”? And the indulgence in “incomprehensional” language? I wonder what he would say about MR3.
In this regard St Pius X pointed out – using the term universal – a further prerequisite of music destined for worship: “…while every nation”, he noted, “is permitted to admit into its ecclesiastical compositions those special forms which may be said to constitute its native music, still these forms must be subordinate in such a manner to the general character of sacred music, that nobody of any nation may receive an impression other than good on hearing them”[TlS 2]. In other words, the sacred context of the celebration must never become a laboratory for experimentation or permit forms of composition and performance to be introduced without careful review.
Original compositions should have something of a universal quality. This is an interesting insight from a globe-trotting pope, who certainly experienced more than any human being ever, the widest range of those “special forms.” That careful review sounds very much like the three judgments. CCTLS covered the musical and liturgical. Today’s section strongly implies the pastoral judgment: what will edify and be fruitful in the ears and on the lips of particular worshipers.
The rest of the rite for the dedication of an altar consists of the Liturgy of the Word (40-42) followed by the extended rituals of dedication and anointings. I won’t belabor the particulars until we get to the dedication prayer, which has not yet appeared in these rites. Please refer to the commentary on RDCA Chapter II, if you wish.
Prayer of Dedication and the Anointings
- Invitation to Prayer (43)
- Litany of the Saints and its concluding prayer (44-46)
- Depositing of the Relics (47)
- Prayer of Dedication (48)
This is where the chapter IV rite deviates from chapter II, giving an extended prayer. Here, I will depart from the approved rite and provide the 2003 draft translation, which will give you a sense of the text (and spare me from typing out or scanning and editing the prayer currently in use):
We glorify you, Lord, and we bless you,
for by the ineffable sacrament of your love,
you have decreed that the mystery of the altar,
with its many foreshadowings ended,
should be brought to completion in Christ.
Noah, the second father of the human race,
once the waters had receded,
erected an altar to you and offered a sacrifice,
which you, Father, renewing your covenant of love with humankind,
accepted as a fragrant offering.
Abraham, father of our faith,
clinging with all his heart to your word,
constructed an altar,
so that by not withholding Isaac, his beloved son,
he might be pleasing to you.
Moses too, the mediator of the old Law,
built an altar, which, sprinkling with the blood of a lamb,
would mystically prefigure the altar of the cross.
All these things, Christ has fulfilled in the paschal mystery:
for by ascending the tree of the cross as priest and victim
he gave himself over to you, Father, as a pure blessing,
by which the sins of the world might be blotted out
and a new and eternal covenant made with you.
Therefore, Lord, we humbly pray to you:
pour forth your heavenly blessing
upon this altar, built in the house of your Church,
that is may be an altar dedicated for ever
by the sacrifice of Christ,
and stand as the Lord’s table
where your people are refreshed by the divine banquet.
Let this stone, cut and shaped, be for us a sign of Christ,
out of whose pierced side flowed blood and water
from which spring the sacraments of the Church.
Let it be a table of feasting,
to which the guests of Christ may hasten with joy,
so that, casting on you their cares and burdens,
they main gain new vigor of spirit for the onward journey.
Let it be a place of profound communion and peace with you,
where those who feed on the Body and Blood of your Son
may be filled with his Spirit and grow in your love.
Let it be a source of the Church’s unity
and of harmony among its members,
so that your faithful, gathered here as one,
may drink from the spirit of mutual charity.
Let this altar be the center of our praise and thanksgiving,
until we arrive rejoicing at the eternal dwelling place,
where we will offer you the unending sacrifice of praise
together with Christ, the high Priest and living Altar,
who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
God for ever and ever.
Noah, Abraham, and Moses, but not Abel.
Note the “Let” clauses. They are more insistent in the 1978 translation: make. Still, they provide important formation on what the altar is supposed to be: sign of Christ, table of feasting, place of profound communion and peace, source of unity and harmony, center of praise and thanksgiving.
Please offer more substantive commentary, if you wish. What do you see?
Who is this guy?
Australia’s CathNews cites “fury” as it links The Tablet. One blogger (who persists in calling bishops “Msgr”) seems to be happy about it.
If I follow the whole line of reasoning … the previous archbishop was sympathetic to conservative concerns. So any financial mismanagement can be overlooked as “tradition.” The media hated the prevoius prelate and liked the new.
So who knows? Archbishop Bezák could be a charmer. Protests and outrage have followed the travails of molesters and scammers–until they were outed.
I have greatly sinned,
in my thoughts and in my words,
in what I have done and in what I have failed to do
Many are praising Pope Benedict for finally pulling the trigger. But he’s going to have to do this with bishops convicted (not just suspected) of personnel blunders, not just (suspected, but unproven) financial mismanagement and inappropriate dialogue. If not, it’s going to go much worse if we get to the point of bishops like Robert Finn being convicted of child endangerment.