Cantor Singing of the Kyrie Eleison
  • Pertinent to the 3rd Penitential Rite option, following the Celebrant's introduction (Brethren, let us acknowledge our sins, . . . ) and a brief silence, is the Cantor allowed to sing the Kyrie Eleison and the invocations? I am considering using the Kyrie Eleison composed by Fr. Michael Joncas during the Sundays during Lent. I know I have done it before at one of the parishes in our Archdiocese (prior to 2011), but when I announced that I would like to do that here at our convent for this Lenten season, one Sister is pretty insistent that it must be a minister of the altar -- and that a Cantor is not considered such a minister. Can anyone share anything regarding this?
  • matthewjmatthewj
    Posts: 2,641
    It’s fine to do so...

    I would, however, say that using either the first or second option is, entirely in my personal opinion, much better.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • irishtenoririshtenor
    Posts: 1,142
    That sister is flat-out wrong. The cantor (or choir) may intone the Kyrie, period.
  • One finds the relevant section on pp. 516-520 of my copy of the Roman Missal. For option C, specific reference is made to the "Priest, or Deacon, or another suitable minister" which to my knowledge would not include a lay musician. (This phraseology and layout is consistently used for ritual parts of the Mass which nobody would claim might be served by laity, including most of the dialogues and the Canon.) However, for the "standalone" Kyrie which follows options A and B, no such language is used, and there is obviously a tradition of Kyries entrusted to the schola or the congregation.

    "Deacon or another minister" is used in these other parts of the Roman Missal that I found: introduction of the faithful to the Mass of the Day, the priest being incensed during the Offertory, and other instances where the deacon, priest, acolytes, and other liturgical ministers are gathered together in the sanctuary.

    While technically in certain cases a cantor may be considered a liturgical minister (and certainly exercises a liturgical ministry if in lieu of the schola), it seems conclusive to me that it would not be entirely licit for a cantor to sing the entirety of option C. At a minimum, it was entirely unforeseen and not intended by the liturgical authorities.
  • Might the good sister be afraid of what musical setting you might use, and deploying the "liturgical minister" argument as a stop-gap?
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 1,984
    GIRM §100 to §106 give a comprehensive broad list of those exercising a liturgical ministry, including cantors and §107 says any of these functions not proper to Priest or Deacon may be delegated to suitable lay persons.
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • It is my understanding a cantor may intone the Kyrie, but it is also my understanding that the preference is for the priest and if not then the deacon to intone.

    It is funny you mention this: this past Advent, my pastor asked me to sing the Joncas Kyrie for Advent and again in Lent. It is not particularly easy with the ranges. He sings much of the mass but doesn't want to sing that.
  • In my experience and understanding, the only parts of the ordinary which are the sole prerogative of the priest (though he may and often does delegate them to the cantor or choirmaster) are gloria and credo. I have never directed or attended a mass at which kyrie, sanctus, or Agnus Dei were intoned by the celebrant.
  • Thank you all for your input; I can see that this is apparently a rather controversial subject. I can only say that my intentions were/are good and honorable. When I did it before at the parish, I was one of the Cantors following the direction of the Music/Liturgy Director at the time. I might also mention that the Pastor of that parish was a recognized Liturgist in his own right; obviously, I mean no harm, disrespect or challenge of any sort, and until the one Sister kind of protested, I had no qualms about doing it during this Lent. I prefer that particular setting -- it just feels so appropriate for the Lenten season. At this point, I'm not certain what I'm going to do. Again, thank you all for your input, and God bless you all.
  • The listed arrangement doesn't seem to respect the division of invocations, which makes me even more wary of its use by a cantor. This seems to be missing the point of option C to me. It's like naming off all the saints in directum and then repeating "pray for us" a million times.


    I mean, if you have a full wind band and half an hour for the penitential rite, might as well go for this.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 1,984
    mmrosberg - Clearly the answer to "is the Cantor allowed to sing the Kyrie Eleison and the invocations?" is YES, as GIRM§107 shows. The controversy is really about liturgical style and taste in music.
    Schönbergian - It is only 7'20" for the Bruckner Kyrie.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 1,984
    It is interesting to read Father Joncas introduction and analysis of the revised work, which can be found at
    https://www.giamusic.com/store/resource/no-greater-love-mass-cd-recording-g8789cd by clicking on the preview of full score. This masterly understatement sums up my problem :
    [It was] difficult for many smaller communities to use the compositions. Thus I have scored the new compositions for organ with two woodwinds ... and string quartet as obbligato.
    Well since it is explicitly in "a classical or cathedral style" that is unsurprising. That is not to decry the intention of bringing an OF liturgical engagement of the congregation to the grandeur of previous ages. Or diminish my admiration of the adaptability to various resource levels. If I were in a place with the resources, I would prefer it to the Bruckner. But then despite having lived in the parishes of two Metropolitan Cathedrals, I prefer a parochial style of liturgy.
  • If this is what Fr. Joncas believes to be a "classical style", then I shudder to think of what his "popular" music might sound like...oh wait.

    Still looking for the "congregation" and "celebrant" scores on that page.
    Thanked by 1sergeantedward
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 4,370
    I love the Bruckner!! But I also love the Taverner:

    width="640" height="360">
  • There is no comparison.
    Yet, one of musicdom's greatest and saddest paradoxes is that Taverner repented of the day that he had composed 'popish ditties'. His ritual music is amongst the rarest gems of renaissance polyphony, and of any ecclesiastical music ever penned by man or woman before or after him.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,312
    Just to clarify a term: the General Instruction of the Roman Missal provides a discussion of the various roles encompassed by the term "ministers", starting at para. 91.

    Paragraphs 92-94 relate to those in holy orders; and starting at n. 98 are several paragraphs ("Particular Ministries") about roles assigned to "deputed lay ministers", including the altar servers. It goes on to treat of the psalmist (n. 102), choir (n. 103), and cantor (n. 104).

    How to apply this: the Missal tells us (for example on p. 518) that the Kyrie is to be intoned by the Priest, or a Deacon, or another minister. Based on all that description in the GIRM, it does seem that "another minister", in the context of the liturgy, is a broad term encompassing psalmists, cantors, the choir, even the "commentator", the sacristan, or the ushers! For the sake of prudence, I wouldn't go that far.

    In any case, the Missal does not appear to specify that the minister must be ordained or vested or in the sanctuary.
  • Chonak, while that may be legally allowed, I believe the parallel examples I cited of the specific phrase "priest, deacon, or other minister" are conclusive that it was not the intent of the Missal for eg. the cantor to lead the entirety of the Penitential Rite. Also see GIRM 51 vs. 52, and the explicit wording of GIRM 53/67 on precisely this point: "It is intoned by the Priest or, if appropriate, by a cantor or by the choir" vs. "the Priest calls upon the whole community to take part in the Penitential Act"

    If it were a purely musical delegation of responsibilities, one would expect to find "cantor/choir" listed somewhere as is the norm; one doesn't see "or other ministers" for any other musical delegation. However, I am open to correction on the grounds of possible mis-translation on ICEL's part, as I haven't studied the original Latin wording.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,312
    I don't think anyone is claiming that a layman can lead the whole of the Penitential Act. Isn't this discussion just about the Kyrie?
  • Correct me if I'm wrong, but what is being discussed is everything except the celebrant's introduction being subsumed by a cantor in option C. GIRM 52 seems to imply that the explicit delegation of that responsibility to a "cantor or choir" only applies if the Kyrie has not just occurred in a formula of the Penitential Act.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,312
    I don't think anyone is suggesting a lay-led Confiteor or second-form Penitential Act, just the Kyrie (either the Kyrie after the Confiteor, or the Kyrie with "invocations").

    N. 52 actually proves the point. It says the Kyrie is usually said/sung by everyone. What is sung by everyone can be started by everyone, or (if the priest so disposes for the sake of good order) by anyone.
    Thanked by 1ServiamScores
  • Chonak, I'm not sure if there's some break-down in communication between us or if I'm really tired (and if the latter, I will gladly apologize for any of this that seems hostile) The entire point of this thread is discussing whether it's licit for the cantor to also sing the invocations in option C, and I don't recall mentioning lay leadership of the Penitential Act in options A or B at all myself.

    I will admit a misunderstanding if there is a passage in the GIRM that refers to delegation of musical responsibilities with the phrase "or other ministers" as opposed to the specific "cantor/choir" (which is used every time there is an explicit option for lay singing of the priest's parts). Otherwise, I stand by my assertion that this kind of treatment of the Penitential Act is foreign to the conceptions of the liturgical authorities.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 1,984
    [EDITED]
    Schönbergian to whom could "or other ministers" apply? Other suggests other than Priest or Deacon, and ministers are listed at §100 to 106.
    In the particular case of this Joncas setting, his rubrics performance notes say the first and last eight measures are instrumental under the presiding Priest's text. And of course there is also the congregational response.
    [ADDED]A reason why it should not say Cantor/Choir is that that it allows for invocations spoken by 'a minister', so it would have to say Lector as well.
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 1,839
    In any Sung Mass the Cantor / choir sings (intones) the Kyrie... now just because someone invents a new Rite of service, and does not give clear instructions... Should we not look to the past and see what we did for 1000 years, or even 1500 years for clarification?
    Thanked by 1a_f_hawkins
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,312
    Sorry for the contention, Schönborgian, since it seems I've misunderstood part of your point.

    About the Kyrie after the Confiteor, the Latin edition of the Missale Romanum may be helpful. I'm looking at the text of the 2002 edition, which is not quite the latest, but someone can advise if the 2010 version is different.

    After the rubrics for the Kyrie-with-invocations, led by a priest or deacon or other minister, it says that if the Kyrie hasn't been done yet (e.g., in the case of the Confiteor), then: "7. Sequuntur invocationes Kyrie, eleison...", and it doesn't specify who is to intone the Kyrie. This corresponds to p. 520 of the English edition.

    The next Latin rubric adds more: it says that other melodies for the Kyrie are found in the Graduale Romanum. (This rubric is omitted in the US English edition.) The provision for using melodies in the GR seems hard to reconcile with the idea that this Kyrie may only be intoned by the priest or deacon.
    Thanked by 1ServiamScores
  • To diverge slightly from the technical nature of this conversation (which I find quite interesting), there is also the practical aspect that many priests do not / cannot sing well, in which case it seems prudent, on a merely practical level, to have a cantor intone the Kyrie. I would argue that it is preferable to be sung than recited, and if the cantor is the lynchpin for that to occur, then better the cantor than the priest.

    FWIW, at our parish, we have a very traditionally-oriented priest who says the TLM regularly, wears his cassock, and is a bit of a liturgical "nerd" (in the best sense; I'm learning a TON from him. Love it.) and he leads the confiteor and then I or a cantor intone the Kyrie. I'm quite certain—as technically minded as he is—that he would have changed this if it were incorrect, especially as he has a particularly fine singing voice and will chant the entire canon at the 10:30 mass.
  • Serviam,

    Musicians and anyone else should be extremely reticent to accept priestly roles, even when the cleric approves of the idea for whatever reason.
  • I'm hoping for an agreed clear communiqué at the end of this thread. Even one that just defers to the clearest rubric.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 1,984
    Musicians and anyone else should be extremely reticent to accept priestly roles
    I wholeheartedly agree, but I do not see it as relevant to the singing of the Kyrie. Can you explain, please.
    Even though the tropes were suppressed after the counter-reformation, restoring/reviving them does not call into question what has been Standard Operating Procedure, for all recorded centuries.
  • The idea of "intoning" the Kyrie is only relevant to option C in the first place (as a call-and-response/quasi-litany); to my knowledge, this distinction is not made in any other place and does not occur in current rubrics (vs. GIRM 53/67 which make explicit reference to an intonation by the priest/other suitable musician). In options A and B, the division of six-/nine-fold Kyrie between congregation, choir, and celebrant seems to be entirely ad libitum. (Within the confines of GIRM 52)

    With option C, the Kyrie is "contained" within what is laid out in GIRM 51, as GIRM 52 seems to only apply "if the Kyrie has not just occurred in an instance of the Penitential Act". Frustratingly, GIRM 51 provides few rubrics for the Penitential Act, but it seems obvious to me that GIRM 52 cannot be applied whole-sale to the Penitential Act (otherwise we could justify the congregation participating in both aspects of the dialogue).

    The justification that, because "another minister" is listed, that said minister can be anyone who holds a ministerial position seems to be based on the same logic that would permit the priest to sing the announcement of the Gospel while the deacon is at the ambo preparing to actually read the Gospel, just because both are listed as an option. The Penitential Act in option C is intended as a dialogue between clergy and congregation, and in my mind it would disrupt the unity of the introductory rites if a cantor could single-handedly assume that role in place of those in the sanctuary, out of continuity with the remainder of the liturgical action. (This does not apply to divisions of the Kyrie because that is purely musical rather than liturgical; as mentioned, there is no original intent of the "stand-alone" Kyrie as a dialogue, even in its six-fold form, just as alternatim Glorias between congregation/choir or two halves of the congregation are obviously not a dialogue)

    Lastly, I'm not sure where this discussion of intoning the Kyrie came from, since the original poster made reference specifically to option C and an arrangement that featured a soloistic version of the invocations. I was under the impression that any division of the Kyrie under options A and B was acceptable and not disputed, yet that seems to be where most are focusing in this thread. (Though correct me if I am out of line.)
    Thanked by 1CCooze
  • Hawkins,

    In the Ordo of Paul VI what had been SOP became something else. The Confiteor had been separate from the Kyrie for as long as I know anything about it. Under those conditions, of course the choir can sing the Kyrie, and of course the congregation can join in the singing of the Kyrie to the extent it is able to do so*. When the two (the general confession of sin and the Kyrie) became joined as they are in at least one form of the rite in the Ordo of Paul VI, confusion established herself as the rule by which decisions were to be made. (Please note, I don't intend this to be a diatribe against what some people call (disparagingly) the "Novus Ordo").
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 1,984
    I think this bit of the OF between Introit and Collect has a confused structure, and should be revised, but the particular rubric "Priest, or Deacon, or another suitable minister" is not itself confused. All ministers other than Priest or Deacon are lay ministers. The rubrics allows the possibilty that a lector might read the troped Kyrie or that a cantor might sing it, and that is the issue raised by the OP. (The Joncas piece raises other issues)
    CORRECTION the word suitable does not appear here
    Thanked by 2tomjaw PolskaPiano
  • Hawkins,

    A rubric which says "Priest,or Deacon, or another suitable minister" is, I grant, not confused. It leaves the door un-necessarily open to an ambiguous reading of "suitable".
  • So the rubric says 'Priest, or deacon, or another suitable minister'? Why didn't they just say 'somebody'? That seems to be the sense of it. (Granted, it doesn't sound as elegant - but at least it would relieve us from parsing just who is 'suitable' [and, who is a 'minister'.) (What this boils down to is 'you all work it out - we really don't care'.)
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen CCooze
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,312
    I don't think it says "suitable": if so, where?
  • The wording "suitable minister" was an unfortunate conflation of that section with others I referenced during my initial post. The relevant pages of the Order of Mass do not use that wording.

    It seems redundant to me; especially as the third-class option, one would hope that an unsuitable minister were not permitted, expressly or not.
  • Schoenbergian,

    The problem with "one would hope" is that common sense (or common Catholic sense) doesn't prevail among those who want to please Susan of the Parish Council, or whatever her name is.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 868
    I must say, this has been very interesting to follow.

    (Dumb question: ) Why not just not use option 3?
    It never felt quite "right" to me, at any parish that used such an option.

    Would you like to know what the Diocese of Springfield, IL (one of the top Google results) says about this option?


    Form 3 may be freely composed.
    Although the Missal provides patterns for form 3, the first in the Order of Mass and the remaining seven samples in Appendix VI, the rubrics permit local composition.
    This allows the local community to invoke the Risen Christ in particular ways suited to the day, the season, and the needs of those who gather on a given day for prayer.
    This litany, however, is not like an examination of conscience for sacramental Penance. It is not a listing of specific sins. It is always acclamation to Christ who is full of mercy.

    So, don’t get in a rut.
    Use the freedom that the Missal provides choose from the examples of the Missal a text . Carefully to suit the occasion. Carefully write other invocations to suit local need.

    Who is the minister of the tropes for form 3?
    It does not belong to the Deacon as does the Gospel, the Prayer of the Faithful, and the Dismissal.
    The rubric reads: The Priest, or a Deacon or another minister, then says the following or other invocations * with Kyrie, eleison (Lord, have mercy). It may also be sung.


    (https://www.dio.org/uploads/files/Worship/Mass_and_Roman_Missal/Using_Roman_Missal_3/Mass_and_Parts/MP_Penitential_Act_Form_3.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjwkMyWg-znAhVOm-AKHdACAt8QFjAPegQIChAB&usg=AOvVaw1Yu0cgLSuLrAkmcdJByuMN )

    So, don't get in a rut, because they seem to think literally anyone can say anything, so long as it's followed by "Lord, have mercy."
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,312
    Too many celebrants seem to think that the "tropes" can be texts about our sins: e.g., "For the times we have acted selfishly: Lord, have mercy", rather than texts about the greatness and mercy of Christ.

    I'm not sure that there is really much good to be sought in writing those texts according to local need: surely the need for our great God and Savior Jesus Christ does not change much from place to place.

  • To illustrate further Chonak's potent point just above here, here is a mediaeval troped kyrie, Kyrie cunctpotens genitor Deus, which illustrates nicely that a trope and a petition are not the same thing. The trope is a deep theological elaboration of a day's thematic significance. A petition, on the other hand, merely asks mercy for the expressed general sins of an individual or group, or for guidance, aid, healing, or other such favours. The focus of each is quite different.

    Here is a typical troped kyrie -
    Kyrie cunctipotens genitor Deus
    (Mass IV - In festis Apostolorum)

    Kyrie - cunctipotens genitor Deus omnicreator - eleison
    Kyrie - salvificet pietas tua nos bonae rector - eleison
    Kyrie - Fons et origo bone pie luxque perhennis - eleison

    Christe - Dei splendor virtus patrisque sophia - eleison
    Christe - Plasmatis humanis factor lapsis reparator - eleison
    Christe - Ne tua dampnatur Jhesu factura begnigne - eleison

    Kyrie - Amborum sacrum spiramen nexus amorque - eleison
    Kyrie - Procedens fomes vitae fons purificens via - eleison
    Kyrie - Indultor culpe venie largitor optime offensas dele sacro nos munere
    reple eleison spirite alme - eleison.


    It is clear from the above that a trope, as opposed to a mere petition, addreses Father, Son, or Holy Ghost (or the Trinitarian Godhead) in some aspect of divine attributes, and asks for that mercy which is one of those attributes. Mercy is not asked for specific or general individual or group sins; it is only asked of the 'Almighty father God, creator of all' that he have mercy. This is a trope, which inherently has theological depth. It is far more than a petition which focuses more on our sins than on the magnificence and munificence of God.

    Here are two typical petitions -
    O Lord, we have sinned against thee by our heedless waste of the resources of thy bountiful creation, have mercy.
    O Christ, we have been selfish in the use of our treasure and have been heedless of our less fortunate brethren, have mercy.
    Etc.

    One might be forgiven for observing that the place for such petitions is at the Prayers of the Faithful (the Universal Prayers). Kyrie, historically, is/was not a penitential act but an act of praise and awe at God's omnipotence and that mercy of which he is the source. It was the mistaken emphasis of Vatican II that made of it a novelty, a penitential act.

    The nature of trope and petition, then, could not be more starkly different.

    Each of the kyries of each Gregorian mass has its own distinctive tropes which add theological depth to the mass and to our worship. WHAT, O WHAT WE HAVE LOST! (And it wasn't Vatican II that took them away from us. It was Trent.)
  • Hear, hear.

    Too often, "tropes" become mere Universal Prayers and the liturgical Universal Prayers are the most asinine, faintly embarrassing concoctions imaginable. Unfortunately, the existing unwieldiness of the introductory rites seems to make expanding Penitential Act C (by maybe thirty seconds in total) to include proper tropes absolutely anathema.
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 1,839
    (And it wasn't Vatican II that took it away from us. It was Trent.)

    Trent did not take away the Sarum Use, so is not solely responsible for the loss of the Tropes. I am unsure as to which Uses / Missals that Trent banned under the new rules. Ideally I would like a list!

    I will concede that the formation of Seminaries, that then adopted the Trent Missal (The ancient Missal of the Canons of Rome), did cause the loss of Tropes.

    So I would blame the countless bishops that gave up their own ancient Missals / Graduale and started to use the Trent Missal.

    For those interested in the texts of the ancient Tropes,
    Analecta Hymnica Vol. 47, pg 43-216 Tropes of the Kyrie
    https://archive.org/details/analectahymnicam4647drev/page/44/mode/2up

    For each Trope you will find a list of manuscripts, these will give some guide as to those places that used Tropes.
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,052
    Perhaps it was a benefit and curse of centralization and technology that once the Roman Missal was transcribed and typeset and published with broad distribution, it may have been just that much easier to typeset again in the future rather than transcribing, typesetting and publishing a local manuscript - easier to do and sell. (IIRC, Victor Hugo, in the novel we know in English as The Hunchback of Notre Dame, made a similar point about printing would end up dissolving the world that preceded it.)
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • Trent did not take...
    Clarify for me - did not Trent specifically suppress all tropes and all sequences except five? Would or would not this have applied to all uses? It seems to me that it did or would have. Am I mistaken?
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 1,839
    @MJO From Quo Primum
    Let all everywhere adopt and observe what has been handed down by the Holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the other churches, and let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us. This ordinance applies henceforth, now, and forever, throughout all the provinces of the Christian world, to all patriarchs, cathedral churches, collegiate and parish churches, be they secular or religious, both of men and of women – even of military orders – and of churches or chapels without a specific congregation in which conventual Masses are sung aloud in choir or read privately in accord with the rites and customs of the Roman Church. This Missal is to be used by all churches, even by those which in their authorization are made exempt, whether by Apostolic indult, custom, or privilege, or even if by oath or official confirmation of the Holy See, or have their rights and faculties guaranteed to them by any other manner whatsoever.

    This new rite alone is to be used unless approval of the practice of saying Mass differently was given at the very time of the institution and confirmation of the church by Apostolic See at least 200 years ago, or unless there has prevailed a custom of a similar kind which has been continuously followed for a period of not less than 200 years, in which most cases We in no wise rescind their above-mentioned prerogative or custom. However, if this Missal, which we have seen fit to publish, be more agreeable to these latter, We grant them permission to celebrate Mass according to its rite, provided they have the consent of their bishop or prelate or of their whole Chapter, everything else to the contrary notwithstanding.


    Note this promulgation excludes the Ambrosian rite, the Mozarabic rite, the Carmelite, Carthusian and Dominican religious orders kept their rites, also the rite of Braga and the Use of Sarum. I also suspect that the conformity demanded above was more focused on the Ordinary of the Mass rather than the Proprium.

    The Trent Missal was not a new edition but effectively the Missal used by the Canons of Roman (see Quo Primum 2nd para.). While the Northern European Missals had many Sequences, other Missals had very few, it appears that the Missal of the Canons of Rome had only a few Sequences and no Tropes.

    As for Decrees of the Council of Trent, while a number of articles and books make reference when you look through the text I have not been able to find any decree, on Tropes or Sequences... https://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent.html
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 1,984
    One concern I have is that there is nothing inherently penetitential about this third form. When, in Matthew 15:22 the Canaanite woman cries out Ἐλέησόν με κύριε υἱὲ Δαβίδ she is not admitting a fault, she is begging a favour. The Church wisely left Κύριε, ἐλέησον in Greek because it is difficult to succinctly express an imperative demand for God's ἔλεος - loving kindness/everlasting love.
    The Consilium were aware of this:
    Hans Urs von Balthasar calls for a renewal in our whole focus at the Eucharist:
    We must make every effort to arouse the sense of community within the liturgy, to restore liturgy to the ecclesial plane, where individuals can take their proper place in it…. Liturgical piety involves a total turning from concern with one’s inner state to the attitude and feeling of the Church. It means enlarging the scope of prayer, so often narrow and selfish, to embrace the concerns of the whole Church and, indeed – as in the Our Father – of God.
    Church and World. Herder and Herder. 1967.
    I would be happy to see troped kyries after the "absolution". And I would be happy to see Balthasar's 'attitude and feeling of the church' expressed in "for we like lost sheep have gone astray ... there is no health in us"
  • Hawkins,

    One need look no further than Missa Cum Jubilo to see the non-dour, non-penitential quality of the Kyrie. When the penitential rite isn't conflated with the Kyrie, nothing is lost and nothing needs to be restored. When the two are conflated, or blended so as to make the "opening rites" less cumbersome or something, what is frequently lost is the sense of worship of God. When Mass is adapted to the needs of "modern man" of this decade, or even this Twitter Feed, the fundamentally transcendent quality is obscured.

    Given what
    to arouse the sense of community within the liturgy, to restore liturgy to the ecclesial plane, where individuals can take their proper place in it….
    came to mean once it had left Von Balthasar's pen, I'll take an unaroused Mass, thank you very much.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 1,984
    CGZ - I agree. Sorry if I did not make clear that I deplore this misuse of troped Kyries, and any attempt to eliminate my concern with my inner state. The widespread loss of the sense of sin is a calamity. My point was that they knew what they were doing, not that it was right.
  • Tomjaw -
    Many thanks for the clarification. I gather from this that those in Britain who occasionally celebrate mass according to Sarum usage fall short of their intent when (since) they do not sing sequences and troped kyries.

    And Mr Hawkins -
    Many thanks for the von Balthasar!
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 1,839
    @MJO
    occasionally celebrate mass according to Sarum usage fall short of their intent when (since) they do not sing sequences and troped kyries.


    Troped Kyrie are only used on some days, a look in the Sarum books will show the different options... I am surprised about the Sequences, because they are part of the Proper. Our plans are to sing in full the music in the Sarum books. Have just looked at the 'famous' Candlemas celebration on Youtube and they sang a Troped Kyrie and the Sequence!
    'famous' because people complained that we were not using 62! Fortunately the complainers have departed!
  • Tropes for all the kyries may be found in Tropen zum Kyrie im Graduale Romanum,
    ed., Anton Stingl jun., pub., 2011 by EOS Verlag Sankt Ottilien. (www.eos-verlag.de) -
    ISBN 978-3-8306-7468-9.
    Translations (unsingable) into German accompany each of the tropes
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen tomjaw
  • ...had only a few sequences and no tropes.
    It would seem, then, that Trent, in imposing (with a few exceptions) the trope-less Roman missal upon the Universal Church, did incidentally take tropes away from us. The loss of sequences is particularly to be mourned, for they are/were, in essence, hymn-like verse commentaries (homilies?) or exegeses upon the significance of the day's saint or theme, which they, often at great length, extol. A close investigation of Lauda Sion Salvatorem (the remaining sequence for Corpus Christi) will reveal the richness and theological depth of these regretfully bygone (except for a mere five four) spiritual, catechetical, and literary treasures. They were not, though, universal. From the Xth through the XIVth centuries they evolved mostly in northern centres, particularly at the hands of the Victorines, Benedictines, and Augustinian canons in the environs of Paris, including the cathedral of Notre Dame, St Denis, et al.

    (Tomjaw -
    You said that the Roman rite had 'few' sequences. Could those few be the five that Trent did not suppress when it imposed the Roman rite on most of the universal Church?)
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen