Invocations of the Penitential Act
  • MaestroMark32MaestroMark32
    Posts: 66
    In my new parish, I've been tasked with preparing the Invocations for the third form of the Penitential Act. The Roman Missal gives invocations on p. 519 in The Order of Mass section, and in Appendix VI on pp. 1474-1480.

    My situation is this: I have deacons composing invocations and sending them to me. And previously, they were collected from some sort of online subscription service that also included the Prayer of the Faithful petitions.

    What exactly are the parameters for sourcing the invocations?

    I feel like I should stick to the options that are printed in the Roman Missal. After all, Sancrosanctam Concilium 22.3 says: "Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority." And Redemptionis Sacramentum goes even further to call that a "reprobated practice" that "must cease" in paragraph 59!

    The GIRM and the Roman Missal are quite silent in this regard. The only thing it says is "then says the following or other invocations" and "Sample invocations are found in Appendix VII..."

    I know that it is a dangerous practice to come up with our own texts for Mass. I'm curious if there are other liturgical documents that I'm unaware of that address specifically the sourcing of invocations of the third form of the penitential act.
  • smvanroodesmvanroode
    Posts: 966
    I think it's quite simple is this case: the Missal gives a standard set of invocations, but the priest or deacon can use other invocations, of which samples are given in the Appendix.

    That means, that priests or deacons are free to compose invocations of their own. The samples in the Appendix are also meant to make clear the standard of their form: [Qui + amplification], Kyrie/Christe eleison.

    The amplifications, however, should be soteriological sound invocations!
    Thanked by 3a_f_hawkins Liam ServiamScores
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,371
    For the 3rd form Penitential Act my English hand Missal rubric is Invocations naming the gracious works of the Lord may be made as in .... The official Missal/Sacramentary has that appendix. One thing I think is clear - that "For the times when we ..." is not appropriate, I used to hear that a lot before the current GIRM.
    [RANT]The Penitential Act was not properly constructed. This third form should not have been included, eleison is not penitential, despite the misleading translation. AFAIK tropes have never been penitential. [/RANT]
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen Caleferink
  • MaestroMark32MaestroMark32
    Posts: 66
    agree 100% with your rant. It should be Confiteor + Kyrie 100% of the time.
    Thanked by 1PaxTecum
  • GerardH
    Posts: 411
    So something like:

    You drove the sellers from the temple: Kyrie eleison.
    You cursed the fig tree and made it wither away: Christe eleison.
    You will come again in majesty to judge the world by fire: Kyrie eleison.

    would be entirely rubrical?

    /purple
    Thanked by 4canadash Chaswjd MaestroMark32 MNadalin
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,371
    Well, I haven't found anything yet in the directives to say otherwise.
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,177
    This is where I will agree with some that the failed 1998 Sacramentary got it right, calling this a "Litany of Praise" to replace the Gloria, ad lib., after all, the tropes in the main body of the Missal are basically the "qui tollis" invocations of the Gloria.
  • Caleferink
    Posts: 429
    I once worked with a deacon who obviously hated this form of the Penitential Act, because nearly every time he assisted and the priest asked him to to this, I'd see the two glancing back and forth at each other before the deacon would blurt out "I confess..." and off everyone would go (I know this is illicit; the priest is supposed to start it, but it was nice to have a deacon with some traditional sensibility).
    Thanked by 1ServiamScores
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,157
    I'm curious if there are other liturgical documents that I'm unaware of that address specifically the sourcing of invocations of the third form of the penitential act.


    I've looked in Documents on the Liturgy 1963-1979 and not found anything on the subject, but that does not include the contents of Notitiae. Also, I did not find the subject addressed in 35 Years of the BCL Newsletter, which spans 1965-2000.

    For what it's worth, I found the topic addressed by two liturgy experts. Fr. Dennis Smolarski, SJ, in his How Not to Say Mass, writes (first edition, p. 40):
    When using the third penitential rite, (1) do not speak to the Father, the Spirit, or anyone other than Christ, and (2) do not dwell on human failures, but rather proclaim Christ's mercy and saving qualities. [...]

    In practice, this means that the "invocations" should never include the word "we" although they might occasionally tolerate the word "us" or "our". For example, it is incorrect to say: "Lord, for the times we have ignored our sisters and brothers and looked at our own needs: Lord, have mercy." [...]

    Rather, the Sacramentary always focuses on Christ, and any innovative invocations for the penitential rite should do likewise. For example:
    Lord Jesus, Son of God: Lord, have mercy.
    Lord Jesus, you are the Way: Lord, have mercy.
    Lord Jesus, you heal our sins: Lord, have mercy.

    Bishop Peter Elliott, in his Ceremonies of the Modern Roman Rite, says (p. 94, in a footnote):
    the three invocations in option (c) never take the form of "For the times we have been selfish, Lord have mercy", etc.
    Thanked by 2a_f_hawkins CHGiffen
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Is there ever a bleat that ordinary sensible people can, in fact, cope with appositives, or subordinate clauses?

    QUI TOLLIS PECCATA MUNDI shouldn't be rendered "you take away....", and likewise here.
    Thanked by 2chonak Salieri
  • fcbfcb
    Posts: 331
    agree 100% with your rant. It should be Confiteor + Kyrie 100% of the time.

    Why would this be so? A congregational Confiteor at the beginning of Mass is really no more traditional than the Kyrie with invocations--both are innovations. The congregational Confiteor is slightly earlier, being a result of the "dialogue" Masses of the mid-20th century, and then only at Low Masses. But there is nothing particularly traditional about the congregation saying it as part of the entrance rite.

    I think if I could re-reform any part of the Mass it would be to restore the sequence Introit-->Kyrie-->[Gloria-->]Salutation & Collect. If we need a congregational Confiteor (and I'm not convinced we do) I suppose it could come at the end of the Universal Prayer.
    Thanked by 2PaxTecum Salieri
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,177
    The Congregational Confiteor should come at Compline.

    Actually, if the order was: Gospel-->[Homily-->][Credo-->]Universal Prayer-->Confiteor-->Invitation & Sign of Peace-->Offertory, &c. That would work very well, IMHO: "Make peace with your brother before going to offer your gifts at the altar", and all.

    Which, incidentally is what the BCP has.
    Thanked by 1MNadalin
  • pfreese
    Posts: 147
    For those outside North America, how often is Option III said at mass? From time to time I’ve watched online masses at the Vatican, World Youth Day, papal visits, and various overseas cathedrals such as Westminster, Cologne, or Notre Dame. Not a terribly representative sample, but for the life of me I can’t recall even once hearing Option III. 100% agree it should just be done away with completely, it invites catechetical confusion on the not infrequent occasion that it’s abused.
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,177
    In my area (Western Massachusetts, USA) only the "rigid" priests ever use the Confiteor+Kyrie; most use option three, and then only ever recited, never sung, because "it give the Deacon something to do".
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,371
    1/ In our parish (Archdiocese of Liverpool) we frequently use option 3, irrespective of celebrant, pastor or visitor.
    2) the Ordinariate, DW: the Missal has a collective Penitential Act after the Universal Prayer. They also have the option of saying the preparatory prayers either in the sacristy or at the foot of the altar, but do NOT class this as part of Mass. I think Sarum had the flexibility for saying the confiteor either before, during (at a stational altar), or after the entrance procession.
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,721
    I’m pleased to report the only time we don’t use confiteor+kyrie are the handful of time we have a sprinkling rite. Otherwise we use the former exclusively. (And the latter only about two times a year).
  • GerardH
    Posts: 411
    [T]he only time we don’t use confiteor+kyrie are the handful of time we have a sprinkling rite.

    Same here, but this is because the choir always sings the Kyrie, so the clergy have to allow for it. Occasionally a visiting priest will jump the gun and use option 3.
  • Nathan_the_Organist
    Posts: 434
    In my area, I think Option 3 is the most common followed by Option 1. I've only ever heard one priest, my current pastor, do Option 2. We always do 1 or 2 on Sundays since we sing the Kyrie. Weekday masses are pretty evenly split between the three.
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,177
    I should add that in my parish we only use Option 1, because we've had 30+ years or "rigid" priests, and the choir always sings the Kyrie. However, we are the only parish in the deanery, and I expect in the Diocese, that sings the Kyrie---except, of course, at the 1 Sunday sung TLM in the Diocese. Even the Cathedral always seems to use Option 3.
  • fcbfcb
    Posts: 331
    In my previous parish we always used Option 3 outside of Advent and Lent (when we used the Confiteor) and Easter (when we used the sprinkling rite). But I always sang option 3. No good reason not to.

    So is the perception that Option 1 is more traditional based on being able to sing the Kyrie? Option 2 also uses a bit of the old prayers at the foot of the altar and allows for the sung Kyrie. I wonder why it is not more favored by tradition-minded folks?
  • trentonjconn
    Posts: 541
    We always use option I, but tradition-wise option II has always seemed more naturally connected to the Tridentine way of doing things, especially if the dialogue is sung. The idea of omitting the Kyrie, which is basically what happens if option III is used, seems rather jarring.
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,943
    I think Option 2 is beautiful, but I can't remember the last time I encountered it in the wild, as it were.
    Thanked by 2trentonjconn Salieri
Add a Comment