Program for the Funeral Mass for Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI
  • GerardH
    Posts: 307
    Interesting (and pleasing) to see that
    • Mass is in Latin (excluding the readings and universal prayer)
    • the Penitential Act and Kyrie included. The usual interpretation I've encountered is that they are omitted in the Funeral Mass because of the sprinkling of the coffin at the beginning, but that seems to be omitted here instead. Any guesses why?
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,690
    OCF 158. If the rite of reception of the body takes place at the beginning of the funeral Mass, the introductory rites are those given here and the usual introductory rites for Mass, including the penitential rite, are omitted. *If the rite of reception of the body has already taken place, the Mass begins in the usual way.*

    (emphasis added)

    More background: https://catholicsensibility.wordpress.com/2010/10/23/ocf-158-164-funeral-mass-introductory-rites/
  • MarkB
    Posts: 878
    The penitential act and Kyrie are omitted when the funeral Mass begins with the reception of the body. However, the reception of Benedict's body at the church has already occurred, as Benedict's body is lying in state in St. Peter's. Since Benedict's funeral Mass will not begin with the reception of the body, the penitential act and Kyrie will not be omitted.
  • NihilNominisNihilNominis
    Posts: 876
    As a friend pointed out... no Roman Canon?
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,139
    I noticed that too. It was one of the first things that jumped out to me actually.
    Thanked by 1trentonjconn
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,690
    Probably because the text of EP3 has an option for the funeral Mass for this passage, which has made that EP a favored one for funeral Masses:

    Remember your servant Pope Emeritus Benedict whom you have called from
    this world to yourself. Grant that he who was united with your Son in a death like
    his, may also be one with him in his Resurrection, when from the earth he will
    raise up in the flesh those who have died, and transform our lowly body after the
    pattern of his own glorious body.
  • trentonjconn
    Posts: 383
    The penitential act and Kyrie are omitted when the funeral Mass begins with the reception of the body.


    I have always found it very strange (disturbing?) that the Kyrie is omitted at the vast majority of OF funerals. Could there be a more appropriate time to plead for and proclaim God's mercy? Yet we are left hanging...
    Thanked by 2tomjaw GerardH
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,139
    On the face of it, it does seem odd, until you realize that the other rites at the beginning (particularly the prayers and sprinkling of the casket) take the place of the penitential rite, similar to how the Kyrie is not sung if a sprinkling rite is done at a normal Sunday Mass.

    (Besides, we aren't lamenting their death, we are celebrating their life!) [purple]
    Thanked by 2tomjaw LauraKaz
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,690
    The Kyrie itself is not penitential per se. [not purple]
  • It's nice to see the Graduale Simplex represented at the Funeral. The Psalm is from P. 131.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,155
    Yes, unlike most resources the Graduale Simplex does provide responsorial psalms. as responsaries.
  • nknutson
    Posts: 15
    The Vatican has gratefully retained the Kyrie as exterior to the Penitential Act for quite some time.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw NihilNominis
  • Jehan_Boutte
    Posts: 260
    The Mass was very reverent, Deo gratias.

    May Pope Benedict rest in peace, and may he be rewarded for everything he did to the Holy Church.
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,139
    According to one news report I just watched, this was the first time that the Roman Canon has not been used at a papal funeral since the year 604ad. Yikes.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • Can anyone identify the setting(s) used by the schola?

    Edit: I suspect Palestrina, at least for the Ordinary.
  • smvanroodesmvanroode
    Posts: 935
    According to one news report I just watched, this was the first time that the Roman Canon has not been used at a papal funeral since the year 604ad. Yikes.


    It wasn't a papal funeral, wasn't it?
  • Andrew_Malton
    Posts: 1,090
    I think it's pretty unlikely that Pope St Gregory (+604) had a Requiem Mass at which the Roman canon (which is very likely centuries older, but clear evidence is lacking) was not used. What else would they have used?

    Then after that, what else? Until Pope St Paul VI's in 1978. So there only have been three papal funerals that even had a chance of using one of the Novus canons. Since, of course, he wasn't the Pope; there is no ritual tradition for the funeral of an ex-Pope.

    Benedict/Ratzinger was wholly favorable towards the Novus rite, and spent more than half his life immersed in it; we know he loved it and celebrated it with great care; and he was no trad, even though he certainly wanted the Roman rite to continue in use.

    He wanted a low key funeral and said so. The preces eucharisticæ of the Novus rite all have (young, ok) traditions regarding their use in various contexts, and #1 (i.e. the Novus recension of the traditional Canon) doesn't especially recommend itself for Requiems. But #3 does, as mentioned above. So it was ritually very appropriate, in my view, to use #3.

    The history from the sixth century or earlier: it's a different rite.
    Thanked by 1Joseph Michael
  • Double check on what Eucharistic Prayer was used for the funeral of John Paul I.
    Thanked by 2Andrew_Malton Liam
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,690
    Excellent idea. It was Eucharistic Prayer III:

    https://youtu.be/r-HklLgTu6E?t=113

    Vere Sanctus es, Dómine,
    et mérito te laudat omnis a te cóndita creatúra,
    quia per Fílium tuum,
    Dóminum nostrum Iesum Christum,
    Spíritus Sancti operánte virtúte,
    vivíficas et sanctíficas univérsa,
    et pópulum tibi congregáre non désinis,

    et cet.

    The rain (and wind) had started (I remember the visuals of this Mass), and this was before the pontificate of S John Paul II when a fixed canopy was designed for use at liturgies being celebrated in the Piazza S Pietro.
    Thanked by 1Andrew_Malton
  • Andrew_Malton
    Posts: 1,090
    So the "one news report" was probably wrong at both ends.

    Reporters make things up.. what a surprise.
    Thanked by 1Liam
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,690
    If you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,149
    NihilNominis January 3 Thanks
    Posts: 869
    As a friend pointed out... no Roman Canon?
    Thanked by 5CHGiffen tomjaw trentonjconn ServiamScores LauraKaz
    ServiamScores January 4 Thanks
    Posts: 2,073
    I noticed that too. It was one of the first things that jumped out to me actually.
    Thanked by 1trentonjconn
    brace yourself... soon... no Roman Mass.

    https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2017/09/09/170909a.html

    more here...

    https://www.reuters.com/world/book-by-benedicts-top-aide-reveals-tensions-vatican-2023-01-06/
  • francis
    Posts: 10,149
    in other words:

    (the very end of the document reads thus:)

    A key to reading the Motu Proprio “Magnum principium”

    The new Motu Proprio Magnum principium has altered the formulation of some norms of the Codex iuris canonici regarding the translation of liturgical books into modern languages.

    Pope Francis has introduced some modifications to the text of canon 838 in this Motu Proprio, dated 3 September 2017 and entering into force from 1st October 2017. The reason for these changes is explained in the papal text itself, which recalls and explicates the principles which underlie translations of the Latin typical editions as well as the delicacy required by those who undertake such work. Because the Liturgy is the prayer of the Church it is regulated by ecclesial authority.

    Given the importance of this work, the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council had already considered the question of the roles of both the Apostolic See and the Episcopal Conferences in this regard (cf. Sacrosanctum concilium, nn.36, 40 & 36). In effect the great task of providing for liturgical translations was guided by norms and by specific Instructions from the competent Dicastery, in particular Comme le prévoit (25 January 1969) and then, after the Codex iuris canonici of 1983, by Liturgiam authenticam (28 March 2001), both published at different stages with the goal of responding to concrete problems which had become evident over the course of time and which had arisen as a result of the complex work that is involved in the translation of liturgical texts. The material relating to the whole field of inculturation was, on the other hand, regulated by the Instruction Varietates legitimae (25 January 1994).

    Taking into account the experience of these years, the Pope writes that now “it seemed opportune that some principles handed on since the time of the Council should be more clearly reaffirmed and put into practice”. Thus, taking account of the experience during the course of these years and with an eye to the future based on the liturgical constitution of Vatican II, Sacrosanctum concilium, the Pope intends to clarify the current discipline by introducing some changes to canon 838 of the Codex iuris canonici.

    The object of the changes is to define better the roles of the Apostolic See and the Conferences of Bishops in respect to their proper competencies which are different yet remain complementary. They are called to work in a spirit of dialogue regarding the translation of the typical Latin books as well as for any eventual adaptations that could touch on rites and texts. All of this is at the service of the Liturgical Prayer of the People of God.

    In particular, in the new formulation of the said canon, there is a more adequate distinction, as far as the role of the Apostolic See is concerned, between the scope of the recognitio and that of the confirmatio in respect of what belongs to the Episcopal Conferences, taking account of their pastoral and doctrinal responsibility as well as the limits to their actions.

    The recognitio, mentioned in canon 838 §2, implies the process of recognising on the part of the Apostolic See legitimate liturgical adaptations, including those that are “more radical” (Sacrosanctum concilium 40), which the Episcopal Conferences can establish and approve for their territories within defined limits. In the encounter between liturgy and culture the Apostolic See is called to recognoscere, that is, to review and evaluate such adaptations in order to safeguard the substantial unity of the Roman Rite: the references for this material are Sacrosanctum concilium nn. 39-40; and its application, when indicated in the liturgical books and elsewhere, is regulated by the Instruction Varietates legitimae.

    The confirmatio – terminology already adopted in the motu proprio Sacram Liturgiam n. IX (25 January 1964) – pertains instead to the translations of liturgical texts which, on the basis of Sacrosanctum concilium (n.36, §4), are within the competency of the Episcopal Conferences to prepare and approve; canon 838 §3 clarifies that the translations must be completed fideliter according to the original texts, thus acknowledging the principal preoccupation of the Instruction Liturgiam authenticam. Indeed, recalling the right, and the grave responsibility of translation entrusted to the Episcopal Conferences, the motu proprio also points out that the Conferences “must ensure and establish that, while the character of each language is safeguarded, the sense of the original text should be rendered fully and faithfully”.

    The confirmatio of the Apostolic See is therefore not to be considered as an alternative intervention in the process of translation, but rather as an authoritative act by which the competent Dicastery ratifies the approval of the bishops. Obviously, this presupposes a positive evaluation of the fidelity and congruence of the texts produced in respect to the typical editions on which the unity of the Rite is founded, and, above all, taking account of the texts of greatest importance, in particular the Sacramental formulae, the Eucharistic Prayers, the prayers of Ordination, the Order of Mass and so on.

    Naturally, this modification to the Codex iuris canonici entails an adjustment to the Apostolic Constitution Pastor bonus n.64 §3, as well as to the norms surrounding translations. This means, for example, that it will be necessary to readjust some numbers of the Institutio generalis missalis Romani and of the Praenotanda of the liturgical books. The Instruction Liturgiam authenticam itself, which is to be appreciated for the attention it brings to bear on this complicated work and its implications, must be interpreted in the light of the new formulation of canon 838 when it speaks about seeking the recognitio. Finally, the motu proprio provides that the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments will also “modify its own Regolamento on the basis of the new discipline and help the Episcopal Conferences to fulfil their task”.

    X Arthur Roche
    Archbishop Secretary
    Congregation for Divine Worship
    & the Discipline of the Sacraments

    The "lawyerspeak" is incontestable, and will change everything...
  • francis
    Posts: 10,149
    If you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
    and the nail will always run like h... from the hammer.
  • must be interpreted in the light of the new formulation of


    Is it standard policy in law (canon law or civil law) to re-read historical documents like this?
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,453
    @francis
    Reading that I immediately thought of Deck chairs and Titanic... What is the point of official translations when you have no priests?

    Once Christ had cursed the fig tree no efforts of men could possibly ever get it to bear fruit.
  • Patrick
    Posts: 2
    @Andrew_Malton argues that "Benedict/Ratzinger was wholly favorable towards the Novus rite ...". This is really not the case. After an initial period of enthusiasm he began to have grave doubts about the extent to which the reforms went well beyond the principles in Sacrosanctum Concilium and the extent (and destructiveness) of the rupture in liturgical tradition stretching back not just to Trent but to Gregory the Great. By the time he wrote The Spirit of the Liturgy in 2000, it is clear that he would - in retrospect - have made only one significant change in the traditional liturgy, namely the translation of the Liturgy of the Word to the vernacular. In particular he would have retained Latin for the Liturgy of the Eucharist (including a silent canon) and - a point he felt particularly strongly about - would have retained ad orientem. He believed that turning the celebrant around to face the people was a profound error. He was critical of what he saw as a shallow and superficial understanding of congregational participation - essentially just giving lay people "stuff to do" (my words). When Summorum Pontificum was promulgated he spoke of his hope that the NO and the extraordinary form would be mutually enriching. But when you take this in the broader context of his writings on liturgy, it seems clear that if a synthesis were to be arrived at, it would be very much closer to the EF than the NO.
  • Patrick
    Posts: 2
    @RomanticStrings. Yes, the Ordinary was Palestrina. Missa Pro Defunctis
  • PaxTecum
    Posts: 277
    Can anyone identify the setting(s) used by the schola?

    Edit: I suspect Palestrina, at least for the Ordinary.


    Kyrie and Offertory were Palestrina - Missa Pro Defunctis a 5.
    The rest of the Mass was plainchant with the exception of a Benedictus added on to Mass XVIII which was unfamiliar to me.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,155
    he spoke of his hope that the NO and the extraordinary form would be mutually enriching
    Indeed, but he failed to remove the legislative blocks that "there must be no mingling of rites".
  • francis
    Posts: 10,149
    ...and if you are a nail, you will always run from the hammer.