Double Memorial Acclamation?
  • I have fallen into being the Sunday morning coordinator for my parish, and of course I’m still learning things. The priest who will be our primary celebrant for a while ran into me in the street and I finally got a chance to talk about what he would like. He was a little bothered because the mass setting that we use, a contemporary one that actually has some very pretty elements in it, has a repeated Memorial Acclamation. To be honest, I’m not sure I’ve encountered one in the other settings I have heard.

    I learned a new word – –anamnesis—from the GIRM but I see no instruction about its form. I am not at home so don’t have my altar missal, if it says anything.

    Does anyone know if there is a rule about the Memorial acclamation – – that it should just be said one time?

    But then there’s the overriding rule, which is that we do whatever Fr wants, So I asked the music ministry to chop it in half. It’s just a repeated melody, although a very pretty one, and so it should be easily done.

    Thanks. Kenneth
  • MarkB
    Posts: 878
    You won't find a rubric prohibiting repeating the Mystery of Faith, just as you won't find one prohibiting repeating the Lord's Prayer. Shouldn't have to be stated.

    Some composers of Mass ordinaries don't respect the ritual purpose of the text. Repeating an acclamation is an example.
  • That’s my general take, although it’s a hard point to argue if others aren’t liturgically well formed. Good point about the Our Father. However, “Father would like…” is a highly effective argument and I used it here.

    The setting of the Ordinary was approved before either of us showed up. I’ve already told the music people to just chop it in half.

    Kenneth
    Thanked by 2ServiamScores tomjaw
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,155
    Such common sense never inhibited composers of polyphonic settings.
    Thanked by 2hilluminar GerardH
  • smvanroodesmvanroode
    Posts: 935
    Rubrics are generally prescriptive and not proscriptive. They tell you what to do and what you shouldn't do isn't usually mentioned. Just follow the rubrics.

    I know of a Dutch composer who tends to repeat the refrain of a responsorial psalm if it is short. They can't be cut in half, because the melody of the two parts is slightly different. His sole reasoning: otherwise they're so short.
    800 x 377 - 569K
  • Elmar
    Posts: 467
    ... composer who tends to repeat the refrain of a responsorial psalm if it is short.
    Well, you can still use these in the 'normal' way:
    1st time sing both lines, where you usually have the cantor sing the response once and the congregation repeats; after the verses, only the second line (with congregation). Both lines always start identically, so the transition verse-response remains as the composer intended.
    It helps that the missalettes only show the melody for the 2nd line; in case someone can read music.

    But I agree that repeating an acclamation (in contrast to a response, which occurs several times in normal use) is rather odd.
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 2,605
    respect the ritual purpose of the text.
    I keep getting hints that Fr. would like to bring back the 'great' threefold Amen.
  • Andrew_Malton
    Posts: 1,089
    The repeated Memorial Acclamation I can remember, from back in the day, was Christ has died allelu-uia Christ is ri-isen allelu-uia Christ will come agaiiiiin allelu-uia alLEluia, repeat. It goes with the "threefold great amen", at least.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • bhcordovabhcordova
    Posts: 1,112
    I miss 'Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again'. It was my favorite Memorial Acclimation.
  • Schönbergian
    Posts: 1,063
    Together with Salvator mundi, it was the only one that was an actual acclamation rather than just us talking about what we do.
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,146
    (Aside: the Memorial Acclamation was a missed opportunity for legitimate, organic development, based on Diocesan and Order Missals in use thru the 20th century: the Acclamations should have been: O salutaris Hostia (Per annum); Ave Verum Corpus (Advent, Christmas, Corpus Christi, and BVM); Salvator mundi (Lent & Easter); and Pie Jesu (Requiems). Or the separated Benedictus could have been restored to its position after the consecration, as it had been, even in chant, until the mid-20th century.)
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,155
    Well, there are several problems about the Memorial Acclamations.
    1) only one of the current three is an acclamation
    2) in English there is nothing to tell the congregation which of the three is to be used (I believe in Polish there is a prompt built into the "translation " of Mysteriun fidei, an exception allowed at a moment when the pope was Polish)
    3) It is illogical for us to say "Save us ..." and the priest to follow with "Therefore ..."
    4) Gelineau, who had pushed strongly for acclamations during the EP, said placing an acclamation in that spot was absurd.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw GregoryWeber
  • Gelineau, who had pushed strongly for acclamations during the EP, said placing an acclamation in that spot was absurd.


    And yet, to quote Jean-Luc Picard, "There it sits!"
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,155
    I read that the USCCB Spanish Missal also has different prompts for the Memorial Acclamation.
    CGZ - alas, although Bugnini expected the 1969 missal to be revised within 20 years, the world's bishops were terrified of further change. BXVI had no luck with his "cross-fertilisation".
    Thanked by 2tomjaw GregoryWeber
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,146
    BXVI had no luck with his "cross-fertilisation".

    Because the partisans of the Novus Ordo ut jacet, whether "progressive" or "conservative" (some of the latter even considering themselves "reform of the reform") consider(ed) any change to the Novus Ordo as an affront to and a rejection of Vatican II: which is why I believe that, if things in the Vatican don't change soon, the next thing that will be gone after will be the reform of the reform "unicorn" Masses. The new dogma is that the Novus Ordo is perfect, inspired and more unerring than holy writ, having come down from heaven on golden mimeograph sheets; it doesn't need reform, and to suggest such is not only heresy, but also blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw ServiamScores
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,452
    @Salieri Can those golden mimeograph sheets find a home with the Golden plates found by made up by Joseph Smith Jr?
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,134
    Unfortunately, they were lost. We just have to take Bugnini’s word for it.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw Salieri
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,452
    @ServiamScores Left in a bar in Trastevere?
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,155
    It's a great shame Bugnini was sacked before he had a chance to get reform of the 1969 Missal underway.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • This is an old reply I apparently forgot to send as it was waiting for me when I logged on:

    a_f_jawkins, that’s kind of what I was getting at. There have been violations long before us—huge symphonies at Masses. Even some of the verses in the Offertoriale seemto have been written more with the singer’s skills in mind than the ritual purpose of the verse. I once found a free-standing Mozart Kyrie on CPdL or IMSLP and my thought was “never in a Mass.”Way over the top.


    And with such over-exuberance come rules, so I was wondering if some composer way overdid it and somebody somewhere said something about it.

    Kenneth
    Thanked by 1LauraKaz
  • New reply: I had forgotten about this post because I have gotten the answer I wanted and the priest told us what he wanted anyway. I did remember to look it up in my altar missile at home. Of course I am now on the road so I can’t double check the exact words. It says something like , “the people continue, “ clearly indicating that it is part of the Eucharistic prayer and the people are joining with the priest. As you all indicated, it makes a little sense to repeat the lines, so the intention is very clear. On the other hand, this particular mass setting has some very nice moments, and this is one of them. So if you are using a modern musical ordinary, And there’s a double acclamation, you could either ask the priest for guidance, or just keep using it until a priest says something on the ground that the people are used to it.

    In my case, that was solved easily because the priest spoke clearly.
    Kenneth

  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,134
    “Missile” is one of my favorite typos in a while. The 62 does appear to be a “missile” though. It’s dangerous, which is why they are attempting a very aggressive disarmament.
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,452
    “Missile” is one of my favorite typos in a while. The 62 does appear to be a “missile” though. It’s dangerous, which is why they are attempting a very aggressive disarmament.
    I am currently in Switzerland, and the N.O. Missal is close to extinction. The place I went to Mass has daily Latin Masses said by the FSSP, for the N.O. Mass they have one per month, when the one priest they have for the large area comes around on his regular monthly tour of the churches. Mostly they have N.O. services, lead by a women on a certain age.

    The N.O. priests are ageing, they have no local vocations and rely on missionaries, who are not popular as they bring Traditional practices to the N.O. The Bishops know that if they ban the TLM, they will have no Masses. So here the future is the TLM.
  • Yes I corrected the typo but it reverted so spellcheck is quite the comedian.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw