That sister is flat-out wrong. The cantor (or choir) may intone the Kyrie, period.

Might the good sister be afraid of what musical setting you might use, and deploying the "liturgical minister" argument as a stop-gap?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

I'm hoping for an agreed clear communiqué at the end of this thread. Even one that just defers to the clearest rubric.

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.)

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

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'.)

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.

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."

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.)

(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.

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?

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"

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.

@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!

...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?)