Double or triple Kyrie in Ordinary Form?
  • Bob_Nardo
    Posts: 19
    Hello everyone,

    When using a Gregorian Mass setting in an Ordinary Form Mass, should we do a double or triple Kyrie? (I'm sorry to ask such a novice question, but I am most accustomed to the Extraordinary form, and I have been asked to help organize some music for an OF Mass.)

    Here's what I found in the GIRM, which seems to suggest double is customary but triple would be fine, if I'm reading this correctly:

    The Kyrie, Eleison

    52. After the Penitential Act, the Kyrie, eleison (Lord, have mercy), is always begun, unless it has already been part of the Penitential Act. Since it is a chant by which the faithful acclaim the Lord and implore his mercy, it is usually executed by everyone, that is to say, with the people and the choir or cantor taking part in it.

    Each acclamation is usually pronounced twice, though it is not to be excluded that it be repeated several times, by reason of the character of the various languages, as well as of the artistry of the music or of other circumstances. When the Kyrie is sung as a part of the Penitential Act, a “trope” precedes each acclamation.
  • ClemensRomanusClemensRomanus
    Posts: 1,023
    Yep, double is the norm, but triple is fine, especially if the musical setting calls for it.
    Thanked by 1Ben
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,471
    Two, cantor and congregation alternating, works fairly well. Westminster cathedral, for example, with Kyrie VIII does this and then adds the last (extended) Kyrie with the cantor intoning and then the congregation taking it up. If the congregation is able to start the Christe to a different tune, then why not do three of each? Westminster can't expect this from casual visitors, many of them tourists. I am assuming that congregational involvement is intended.
  • Andrew_Malton
    Posts: 1,187
    But you will encounter those, including clergy, who will reject the iii and insist on only ii, even to the point of (a) we can't use that Kyrie because it's triple, (b) we can't use the ornate ending because that would be a second repetition, or (c) we have to sing the ornate ending twice as ii, so the congregation can hear it once and imitate.

    So be prepared.
    Thanked by 2Liam CCooze
  • noel jones, aagonoel jones, aago
    Posts: 6,611
    When did the traditional triple Kyrie get slashed and why?

    Prior to the NO priests did everything possible they could to shorten the daily Mass, but the Kyrie was always triple. There were no homilies. Noon Masses made it possible to attend Mass get lunch and be back at work in 60'.
  • BenBen
    Posts: 3,114
    When did the traditional triple Kyrie get slashed and why?


    Vatican II. Because they wanted to.

    I have yet to see a good explanation of the change....
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • quilisma
    Posts: 136
    To sing a Gregorian Kyrie in triple form, even if it is a "binary" one, respects the original musical form of the composition and should be done whenever possible.
    Thanked by 6Ben CHGiffen Jahaza M. Jackson Osborn CCooze noel jones, aago
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,414
    Is there not permission (as if any should be needed in a sane world) for singing triple kyries triply if the form of the chant does not submit to 'binary' treatment? It seems to me that I have read such in the past. In fact, is there actually a law which requires kyrie ever to be sung in cantor-people form?
  • BenBen
    Posts: 3,114
    That is correct, MJO. The GR contains that rubric.
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • johnmann
    Posts: 175
    Possible reasons for the change:
    1. It's unnecessary repetition.
    2. It better mirrors the litany from whence it came.
    3. It's easier for the people, fostering participation.
    4. An ecumenical compromise with the Lutherans.

    Frankly, the whole development of the Penitential Rite / Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, Kyrie (troped or not), Collect, and Universal Prayer is such that one can cite a point in history to justify many different permutations.

    Yes, yes, antiquarianism is condemned. But the liturgical reform was also to restore rites that suffered injury through accidents of history.
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • BenBen
    Posts: 3,114
    It's unnecessary repetition.


    image
  • johnmann
    Posts: 175
    FYI, I don't necessarily subscribe to the idea that it's unnecessary repetition but is there a reason to consider the priest's sign of the cross useless repetition but not the 9-fold Kyrie? One could argue that it's not useless because it's necessary for all those 9-fold settings but that's putting the cart before the horse.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • MichaelDickson
    Posts: 419
    So, I'm recently back from a visit to St. Bernard's Abbey (Benedictine), where I spent much time in my youth. (I was related, and close, to the former Abbot Hilary Draper, r.i.p.) All visitors are handed a bit of information about life in the Abbey, and although I've read it many times, I read it again this last time. I'm going to post, separately, something that they say about singing that I think bears repeating (uh oh, did I say 'repeat'??), but in light of this conversation, I thought this passage also interesting, which is part of a much longer explanation of the point of the Divine Office, at least in their perspective:

    To repeat is to learn. To experience over and over again is to know a thing, and to live it. This is primary in the liturgy which is, of its essence, repetition.


  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,980
    It's unfortunate, I think, that the reformers didn't restore the Kyrie to the litany it once was and still should be. In many parishes it is never sung. I use it when the priest says the Confiteor - one does, the other doesn't. When not sung, we get the wretched tripe along the lines of;

    The weather is sunny and warm
    Lord have mercy,
    Thanked by 4CHGiffen CCooze tomjaw Blaise
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,471
    Given that tropes are allowed, is it permissible to use the nine-fold form of the Latin tropes as they are presented by Anton Stingl? (Tropen zum Kyrie im Graduale Romanum; EOS verlag 2011)
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,782
    @a_f_hawkins

    In the E.F. Tridentine Rite No... other opinions can be found!
    Sarum Rite, Yes.
    In the N.O. possibly?

    Anyway it is a very interesting book!
  • quilisma
    Posts: 136
    To those of you who cite of unnecessary repetition to justify not adding a couple of Kyries and a Christe, I ask you: How many Alleluias did you hear sung before the Gospel at your Sunday Mass? Was it 2 before the verse and 1 after as written in the Missal/Lectionary, and duly respected by Gregorian alleluias from the Gradual or was it 4, 6, 8 or some multiple thereof?
    Thanked by 2M. Jackson Osborn CCooze
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,414
    'How many Alleluias did you hear sung before the Gospel...'

    Hear! Hear!

    (If you heard more than one by cantor, plus the same one with jubilus by people, you heard too many.)
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 2,315
    I hear as many as twelve sometimes.
  • MichaelDickson
    Posts: 419
    I hear as many as twelve sometimes.


    A few extra 'Alleluias' is very far down my list of disconcerting liturgical irregularities, but you've piqued my curiosity. 12? Can you elaborate a bit? Because...12?
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,216
    In Easter Season:

    Vidi aquam: 3 Alleluias each time; thus 6.

    Introit: 2 Alleluias for each repetition of the antiphon; thus 4-6.

    1st Alleluia (after first reading): one, possibly repeated, thus 2.

    2nd Alleluia (after second reading): 2

    Thanked by 1Richard Mix
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 2,799
    Bravo Chonak; what leapt to my mind instead was in 12/8.
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,414
    In Easter Season:

    I really really do hate to engage in that highly questionable matter of undue repetition which gets repetitive attention here, but Chonak has put his finger squarely on The Acceptable Time for multiple alleluyas. And, one will note that while introits, communios, and penitential antiphons do carry multiple alleluyas during Eastertide, the alleluya verse itself Does Not. A hasty qualification - during Eastertide there are two alleluya verses, each with its own alleluya, but neither of them call for multiple alleluyas to be sung with them - only the normal One. A triple alleluya at the gospel remains unique to the Easter Vigil.

    In fact, there is a beautiful symmetry involved here. The Easter Vigil's triple alleluya answers in a profound and remarkable way the triple ecce lignum of Good Friday. This is reason enough to retain this historic liturgical usage. As is all too common in 'our Church' such niceties are meaningless to all but a few. Triple alleluyas do not belong as 'gospel acclamations' at any time outside the Easter Vigil.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 2,315
    I meant at the Gospel...“Alleluia” is sung by the leader of the musicians three times. We then repeat it three times. The leader sings the verse. Someone sings “Alleluia” on another pitch as the musicians and congregations sing it to the original melody.

    I'll have to count the next time I hear this. We either sing “Alleluia” six or nine times after the verse, and the sort-of harmony is at least three times, which are sung separately from the rest. But when I wrote my above comment I was very sure it was twelve.
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 1,259
    I think it should be 3-fold. Surely, even in a spoken OF Mass the congregation would still be able to work out the way it works, just as an EF congregation knows that they begin the "Christe eleison" instead of continually repeating what the priest says. ..right?

    Easter Season:
    Vidi aquam: 3 Alleluias each time; thus 6


    + the 2 said immediately after, in the "Ostende nobis...."


    Technically the OF Mass at my parish sings the (word) Alleluia 19 times.
    It's one from the St. Michael hymnal, which is a 3-fold with a 2nd ending, thus being 6-fold. So the choir sings it (6), the congregation then joins in and repeats (6), then there is a verse which always ends with 1 of its own followed by one last repetition (6). = 19. I believe we've been singing it since we returned to Ordinary time.

    Is it overly repetitious; sure. Does it take longer than just chanting a Gregorian Alleluia; probably.

    Are there better OF Alleluias out there that stick more to how a Gregorian one works, without being a psalm-tone of some sort?
    Thanked by 1chonak
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 2,315
    There are some in the Parish Book of Chant. The problem is that the simple ones are threefold. My suggestion is to take a simple Gregorian Alleluia (XIX Sunday after Pentecost, for example) and sing the verse to the matching Psalm tone. It isn't ideal, because it reinforces that the Alleluia is a part of the Ordinary, even if the text of the verse changes. But I think that is the best one can do if they aren't able to chant the proper Gregorian Alleluia. It allows the congregation to sing as is required in the revised form, and you can even do the iubilus both times.
  • ClemensRomanusClemensRomanus
    Posts: 1,023
    The Graduale Simplex only gives 3-fold Alleluias. There's always the ones in Chants Abrégés.
Add a Comment