Christ has died

[Nick Baty]

There's one thing I don't understand about the new translation – or the old one, for that matter – why is Christ has Died... no longer permitted in England & Wales?

It is the most acclamatory of the acclamations. Also, it's the only one which really fits, referring to Christ in the third person, as does the rest of the Eucharistic Prayer. Whenever the priest says "you" he means God. Apart from Christ has Died, we then join in with "you", meaning Christ.

In balance, must say that the new translation Save us, Saviour of the world, moves me far more than Lord by your Cross and Resurrection. I suspect it will inspire some rather singable music.

And did anyone ever see a musical setting of the fifth acclamation, for Ireland only, My Lord and my God.

[docmattc]

There's one thing I don't understand about the new translation – or the old one, for that matter – why is Christ has Died... no longer permitted in England & Wales?

You won't find it in the Missale Romanum, of which the new translation is a translation.

[JW]

And did anyone ever see a musical setting of the fifth acclamation, for Ireland only, My Lord and my God.

Not living in Ireland, I haven't, but how about: mi, re, soh, mi, doh, (all quavers except for a crotchet on soh)

[alan29]

Does this help from the Guide for composers
Eucharistic Prayer — Use of Additional Acclamations
84. When approved by the Bishops’ Conference additional acclamations may be included in the complete musical settings of the Eucharistic Prayers, found in the Roman Missal, for optional use when the prayer is sung. (GIRM 147)

[docmattc]

84. When approved by the Bishops’ Conference additional acclamations may be included in the complete musical settings of the Eucharistic Prayers, found in the Roman Missal, for optional use when the prayer is sung. (GIRM 147)

I've not yet looked at the document, but I suspect that this section is refering to those other acclamations for which there is provision to sprinkle through certain Eucharistic Prayers, for instance "We praise you we bless you we thank you" in the children's EP

[Nick Baty]

So noone really knows.
I'm presuming that the E&W bishops various requests – including the retention of Christ has died – were turned down.
So very sad.

[Southern Comfort]

I'm presuming that the E&W bishops various requests – including the retention of Christ has died – were turned down.
So very sad.

Actually, Rome has not yet responded to those requests.

[Nick Baty]

And yet the Missal is going to press?

[Southern Comfort]

And yet the Missal is going to press?

Again, not yet. For one thing, we don't have our National Propers back from Rome. For another thing, our Missal is also for Scotland and Australia, and they don't have all the answers they need from Rome either. That's why the Advent 2011 date for the complete Missal seems over-optimistic. It's more likely to be sometime in 2012. The official line is "probably from Advent 2011", which can be interpreted to mean "anytime from Advent 2011 onwards, whenever it's ready".

But the Order of Mass in September 2011 does seem to be a fixed date, even if we don't yet have a definitive answer on Christ has died, additional texts for the Penitential Rite, etc. It's a much smaller enterprise and so can take last-minute changes more easily.

[Nick Baty]

Even so, there are many setting in the pipeline – parish music groups who invest in them are unlikely to buy again if Christ has died is eventually approved! There again, those more white-whiskered than I will remember similar scenarios in a previous age!

[FrGareth]

Notably, unlike the other 3 acclamations in the current Missal (and the 'Irish option'), "Christ Has Died" is a proclamation ABOUT the Lord rather than an acclamation addressed TO him.

While that may seem even more fitting if we were indeed "proclaiming" the mystery of faith, the Latin just says "Mystery of Faith" and there was a serious proposal it might have been rendered in English as "Great is the Mystery of Faith".

The practice of the Roman Rite is clearly that in the midst of the PRIEST'S Eucharistic Prayer of praise to the Father, immediately following the words of institution, the PEOPLE of God make an act of homage and faith to the Son (prescinding from the vexed question of whether the Son has 'just arrived' in sacramental form at that moment, or whether the whole prayer is consecratory rather than the words of institution!)

FrGareth

[nazard]

Does any precedent exist historically for the memorial acclamation? Did it exist in any pre-trent rite?

There is a widely repeated anecdote that when the proposed text for the new mass was shown to Pope Paul VI he was disturbed by the ommission of the words "Mysterium Fidei" from the Consecration. Those present made up the idea of the acclamation on the spot to calm the Pope down. Does anyone know if there is any truth in this anecdote?

I personally feel that it is one of the unhappier changes of the Pauline reform and that it would be best if it were quietly dropped.

[John Ainslie]

The words 'mysterium fidei' used to occur (EF: occur) in the words of consecration of the wine, where they are a sixth-century interpolation into the scriptural text. The Consilium wanted to remove the interpolation but not lose the words, so came up with the solution of making them into an introduction to a post-consecration acclamation. Pope Paul was satisfied with this. Thus Bugnini in his memoirs: see pp. 352, 365.

[Southern Comfort]

Thus Bugnini in his memoirs: see pp. 352, 365.

Thus also Joseph Gelineau in the interview with Paul Inwood published in M&L several years ago. The problem was that no one knows what on earth the words "the mystery of faith" actually meant in the consecration formula, which was why the Consilium working group at first thought of leaving them out altogether. Paul VI was unhappy about doing this, even though he admitted that no one knew what they meant, so Gelineau had the bright idea of using the words as the introduction to an acclamation after the institution narrative. The Consilium adopted his proposal and Paul VI approved it.

Gelineau also says in the interview that what the working group really wanted to do was insert a number of other acclamations in the Eucharistic Prayer as well, but thought that starting with just one was more likely to get the approval of the bishops (and the pope) than asking for several at once. The implication behind that aspect of the story, of course, is that the Consilium's plan was to introduce additional acclamations further down the road. This has happened with EPs for Masses with Children, but the only episcopal conference to have gone anywhere with extra acclamations in EPs with adults is the Canadians, who for a long time have recommended that additional acclamations in those Prayers would improve adult's engagement in the rite. They even provided some sample texts, if I recall. I don't suppose in the current climate that anyone will be revisiting this question, even though additional acclamations have in fact been provided on a wide variety of special occasions during the past 30 years.

Picking up Fr Gareth's point, Gelineau in the same interview was asked by Paul Inwood about precisely this: many liturgists say that having the Prayer addressed to the Father 'interrupted' by acclamations addressed to the Son is not a good thing to do. Gelineau's reply was along the lines that the people feel 'closer' to Jesus, so it's easier for them to address him. Inwood then pressed him and asked if there would have been anything wrong with "We proclaim his death and profess his resurrection, until he comes again" instead of using "your" and "you", thus satisfying the liturgists' objections. Gelineau said no, that would have been fine. They just didn't think of doing that — a remarkably honest admission from someone who was part of the working group.

I don't have his text in front of me, but I believe Gelineau made reference to what they had found in the traditions they had looked at. I am not an expert in this area, but this might mean that there were indeed memorial acclamations in other traditions before the modern era (to answer nazard's questions). In this connection it might also be worth remembering that the Amens in parentheses which punctuate the Roman Canon are considered by some liturgists to be vestigial remnants of acclamations for the assembly, rather like the Orthodox practice of acclaiming Amen, Amen after both parts of the Institution Narrative.

Finally, I think Gelineau speaks about the acclamation actually being in the wrong place in the Prayer. This, too, was done for political expediency. The correct place for the acclamation would have been after the anamnesis, not after the Institution Narrative. But this would have separated the words Mysterium fidei too far from the consecration formula for Paul VI's comfort, so they contented themselves with a position before the anamnesis — for the time being. Once again, I don't suppose in the current climate that anyone will be looking at this question again in the near future!

[nazard]

Thank you for that most informative reply. I find it fascinating to get an insight into the thought processes and the design aims of the reformers.

Your final point about the current climate is interesting. I am familiar with both the EF and the OF of the Roman Rite, and I feel that some of the changes were very successful, some show promise and need another major workover, and some are disastrous and should be reversed. Forty years into the use of the new missal I would hope that some sort of consensus would be emerging. This does not seem to be the case. The only viewpoints I come across are three more or less incompatible ones: (1) forget it and go back, (2) stay where we are, and (3) set it free and have lots more new options and/or responses. What do you mean by "the current climate"? Is there any sort of debate going on in the curia, and if so, where?