Novus Ordo: Singing Introit & Kyrie BEFORE the priest begins
  • TRR
    Posts: 4
    I’ve searched all around the forum and internet in general, but I haven’t found an answer.

    Is it possible, as we do in the TLM, to sing the introit and kyrie during the procession and insence of the altar, i.e. Before the priest begins the Mass with the sign of the Cross and ‘the lord be with you’. And then, since we of course have to follow the rubrics, let the ‘real’ Kyrie only be said by the priest and congregation – like at a low Mass.

    When we sing requiems (mozart / bruckner etc) the introit and kyrie are always one piece, and it really destroys the music to seperate them like we have done in the past. And also when we sing a choral, medium length Kyrie, it’s always a drag because the priest is waiting at the altar for it to be over, and the congregation is standing in their pews doing the same. It’s never an organic / dynamic thing to sing even the most beautiful polyphonic Kyrie at the new Mass. It’s like «the lord be with you. Lets confess our sins and then stand and listen to a Kyrie together».

    If we could’ve sung both the introit and kyrie during the procession most of the ‘waiting’ would’ve disappeared. And I’m not saying that Mass in general is a drag and goes on for too long. I play the organ and sing the tlm once a month in a hideous modernist church, with a tiny congregation, and a priest who struggles both with latin and with singing, and a simple Missa cantata with a short communion line always takes 1,5h+. But it’s never a drag, because I sing WHILE the priest is praying. Introit and Kyrie during the priests introibo and insence. Partly the Gradual while the priest is reciting it, allthough there’s a little wait (but the gradual is made to be a melismatic meditative piece anyways) Offertory, Sanctus and Agnus Dei are also sung while the priest is praying / doing stuff. The priest’s work and my work are in harmony, and it’s all just very very beautiful, even at this ugly church with a tone deaf celebrant! Now, in the Novus Ordo the priest always has to wait for the chants to be over before he continues. And it just makes it all very horizontal and staccato, especially when we sing, as I mentioned, 200 year old requiems.

    Sorry for my rambling by the way. I hope someone has an answer to my question! Thanks.
  • PaxTecum
    Posts: 314
    - At a Novus Ordo funeral (ie: with the body present) there is no "penitential act" so there is no need for anyone to recite anything afterward, however you can sing the introit followed by kyrie (it is permitted by the rubrics) as you describe

    -At a regular Novus Ordo Mass you could not do that

    -At a Novus Ordo "Mass for the Dead" which is not a funeral (ie: without the body present) you could also not do that
  • MarkB
    Posts: 1,084
    Perhaps what you are beginning to realize is that some of the music composed for the preconciliar liturgy is not suitable for use in the reformed, postconciliar liturgy.

    It is not ideal to use musical settings of the Mass ordinary that the congregation will stand and listen to instead of sing. That worked and was acceptable in the preconciliar liturgy because the singing of the schola was parallel to the liturgical action instead of being the liturgical action.

    Now, in the reformed liturgy, the sung ordinary is not parallel to the liturgy, the sung ordinary is the unified liturgical action at that moment. If you are using settings of the Mass ordinary for which "the priest is waiting at the altar for it to be over, and the congregation is standing in their pews doing the same," instead of the priest and the congregation singing those texts, which belong to them to sing at Mass, then you have chosen an unsuitable musical setting for the postconciliar liturgy.

    "Now, in the Novus Ordo the priest always has to wait for the chants to be over before he continues." That's because the sung ordinary is the unified liturgical action at that moment. Musical settings of the ordinary should be sung by all, as a general rule and as an ideal. If a musical setting of the ordinary cannot be sung by all, it is probably unsuitable for frequent use in the new Mass.
    Thanked by 1hilluminar
  • FSSPmusic
    Posts: 285
    in the preconciliar liturgy because the singing of the schola was parallel to the liturgical action instead of being the liturgical action
    As though the celebrant sitting at the sedilia were the liturgical action rather than the sung proclamation of a sacred text...
    If a musical setting of the ordinary cannot be sung by all, it is probably unsuitable for frequent use in the new Mass.
    I have never attended a Catholic funeral where this "ideal" was realized. The substitute for real congregational singing is typically an amplified cantor and a mostly silent congregation, which they call active participation.
    Thanked by 4tomjaw trentonjconn CHGiffen BGP
  • CantorCole
    Posts: 65
    @FSSPmusic

    According to the Tridentine rubrics, I would say the actual liturgical action is the quiet recitation of the ordinary by the celebrant, since, due to complex historical processes, the rubrics of the low Mass were inserted into the Solemn High Mass and became the norm.
    Thanked by 2a_f_hawkins MarkB
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 2,311
    it's both, obviously, in the 1570 as such, keeping in mind that what was going on elsewhere and much later is not the same thing.

    I agree with Patrick though about the ideal versus, err, reality.

    To Mark's point, I hate to be rude, but the Gloria is explicitly permitted to be polyphonic according to the GIRM, but even beyond that: the priest stands around for the Sanctus, and priests, particularly bishops, are not only not musically skilled as they perhaps ought to be, but they don't need to be. Yes, i've run into many who are musically trained with beautiful voices and who sing beautifully at the altar, but why do they in particular need to sing the Sanctus before beginning the Canon (anaphora)? You also have to, in the US at least, sing, stop, fuss with the kneeler, and then the priest can continue aloud (or sung, but probably aloud). The rubrical ban on the fluidity present in the TLM is a problem — it's not like we'd miss the consecration anyway, since you have to wait in case the choir doesn't finish before you get to that point, which is rarely a problem with chant but may happen with polyphony.

    Plus, even as I don't even like the whole repertoire (I've made my point here and elsewhere about the Mozart and Fauré Requiem masses, to the great displeasure of some), I do think it absurd to just trash, in particular, the Renaissance masters… and I don't even like that week in and week out or even on the major feasts (but not Sundays unless those coincide). I'm too much in the Ward-Bellin-Lebon school of chant for that. But once in a while, maybe a few times a year, I really enjoy a polyphonic Mass, and I hope that Our Lord is worshipped properly when we sing these settings. It's ridiculous that we can't use even the Kyrie, Gloria (when there is one in the given setting), Sanctus, and Agnus without someone accusing us of trying to shoehorn it in or feeling like we're being naughty, and it's doubly ridiculous when people say that this isn't an argument, that we have to prove that it's ridiculous.

    I mean, I can read VII, and it says that there is a treasury of sacred polyphony that has a special place, but apparently we can't use it.
    Thanked by 4NihilNominis tomjaw FSSPmusic BGP
  • NihilNominisNihilNominis
    Posts: 1,021
    Perhaps what you are beginning to realize is that some of the music composed for the preconciliar liturgy is not suitable for use in the reformed, postconciliar liturgy.

    It is not ideal to use musical settings of the Mass ordinary that the congregation will stand and listen to instead of sing. That worked and was acceptable in the preconciliar liturgy because the singing of the schola was parallel to the liturgical action instead of being the liturgical action.

    Now, in the reformed liturgy, the sung ordinary is not parallel to the liturgy, the sung ordinary is the unified liturgical action at that moment. If you are using settings of the Mass ordinary for which "the priest is waiting at the altar for it to be over, and the congregation is standing in their pews doing the same," instead of the priest and the congregation singing those texts, which belong to them to sing at Mass, then you have chosen an unsuitable musical setting for the postconciliar liturgy.

    "Now, in the Novus Ordo the priest always has to wait for the chants to be over before he continues." That's because the sung ordinary is the unified liturgical action at that moment. Musical settings of the ordinary should be sung by all, as a general rule and as an ideal. If a musical setting of the ordinary cannot be sung by all, it is probably unsuitable for frequent use in the new Mass.


    It’s not “parallel” to the “real” liturgical action. Indeed, without a choir there can be no Solemn Mass. Even Vatican II, which did not know the Missal of 1970, says this. Rather, the liturgical actions are layered. Yes, the priest also reads texts, but that’s not creating a “real” and “fake” Gloria or Credo or what have you... ask Pius X!

    The treasury of sacred music is not some foreign import to the liturgy to be tolerated but awkwardly. It existed at the time of the reform and was explicitly valued by the conciliar documents. Congregational song is also valued. These values do not need to be in tension — they were placed in tension by narrow-minded rubricists with an agenda.

    I direct at a TLM where the congregation more often than not sing the whole Ordinary in plainsong. But we can use polyphony too, without any difficulty. Congregational singing and polyphony are served equally well by the old rubrics. Thus I can realize the musical vision of Vatican II, a vision crafted with the old Mass in mind.

    We go from a liturgy in which the Consecration can be surrounded entirely by sublime music receding into prayerful silence, leveraging the artistry of the music to focus on the centrality of the Eucharist, to a liturgy in which that same work of religious art becomes awkward while everyone waits for it to stop, so we can resume the act of reading prayers through a microphone, making best use of exactly none of the resources at hand to craft a moment that is neither aesthetically satisfying, consistent, nor inducing inward prayer.

    Palestrina didn’t change. The rubrics surrounding this moment were revised by narrow-minded activists, and so the music of the liturgy suffers.
    Thanked by 7trentonjconn tomjaw rich_enough CHGiffen Charging3296 ServiamScores BGP
  • smvanroodesmvanroode
    Posts: 997
    - At a Novus Ordo funeral (ie: with the body present) there is no "penitential act" so there is no need for anyone to recite anything afterward, however you can sing the introit followed by kyrie (it is permitted by the rubrics) as you describe


    There are two statements for which I would like to see a reference to a source (from the Ordo exsequiarum for instance):
    - that at a funeral there is not supposed to be a Penitential act
    - that it is allowed to sing the Kyrie directly following the Introit, i.e. before the Sign of the Cross
    Thanked by 1irishtenor
  • trentonjconn
    Posts: 622
    Odd as it may seem, alius cantus aptus could be read to permit, if not THE kyrie of the Mass, at least A kyrie during the procession, no?
  • smvanroodesmvanroode
    Posts: 997
    The ‘alius cantus congruus’ (mind the change in wording in the 2002 GIRM) is not an excuse to sing anything you want. ‘Congruus’ means that the alternative chant should at least correspond to the liturgical characteristics of the chant it replaces (without stretching its qualities too much to satisfy arbitrary wishes).
    Thanked by 2Paul F. Ford ServiamScores
  • trentonjconn
    Posts: 622
    Doesn't replacing a proper text chosen by the Church with something a particular community/individual considers more appropriate always involve a certain degree of subjective/arbitrary decision-making?
    Thanked by 3francis tomjaw ServiamScores
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,467
    It’s not “parallel” to the “real” liturgical action. Indeed, without a choir there can be no Solemn Mass. Even Vatican II, which did not know the Missal of 1970, says this.
    Right from Pius X the congregation could, if capable, constitute the schola. SC§50 calls for the elimination of unnecessary duplication, and when the 1965 rubrics applied that to the Gloria etc. Abp Lefebvre wrote
    ... the priest singing in the traditional melodies the Kyrie, the Gloria, the creed with the faithful; these are so many good reforms ...
  • rich_enough
    Posts: 1,048
    Order of Christian Funerals, 158: "if the rite of reception of the body takes place at the beginning of the funeral Mass . . . the usual introductory rites for Mass, including the penitential rite, are omitted." The Kyrie is still sung, however, as provided in the Graduale Romanum. If there is a "rite of reception" (of the body), the Sign of the Cross is done to open this rite, prior to the Introit.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw PaxTecum
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 2,311
    Reforms which the archbishop was willing to go back on — at least on paper.

    Also, the rubric as applied to the 1962 is problematic because the deacon is doing something during the Credo.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • smvanroodesmvanroode
    Posts: 997
    Order of Christian Funerals, 158: "if the rite of reception of the body takes place at the beginning of the funeral Mass . . . the usual introductory rites for Mass, including the penitential rite, are omitted." The Kyrie is still sung, however, as provided in the Graduale Romanum. If there is a "rite of reception" (of the body), the Sign of the Cross is done to open this rite, prior to the Introit.


    Is the Order of Christian Funerals different from the Ordo exsequiarum? Because in the Latin editio typica, I cannot find this. The Dutch translation also doesn’t have this.

    If there were made adaptations in the English translation, I'm not sure if provisions in the Graduale Romanum, which takes the Latin editio typica as point of reference, still apply.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,467
    The rubric as described in that text is not 'applied to the 1962', the Ordo Missae and Ritus Servandus were changed by decree Nuper edita Instructione, AAS 57 (1965) 408-409, and published in editio typica as detailed in this advert in Notitiae #12 1965.
    LIBRERIA EDITRICE VATICANA
    Ordo Missae
    et Ritus servandus
    in celebratione Missae Editio typica
    In-16°, pp. 72, L. 800 ($ 1,40)
    Recens Instructio de sacra Liturgia quasdam induxit variationes rituales in Missam,
    integra atque immutata manente eius generali structura. Revisio proinde sive Ordinis
    Missae, sive Ritus servandi omnino necessaria erat, ut omnia in cultu divino secundum
    ordinem fiant.
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 2,311
    I understand that. I am fairly irritated by what is a really bewildering misunderstanding of my words. My point is that I don’t especially care for the 1965 practice and that it’d be a bad idea to do it in the 1962. I know that the French monasteries do, but they have always insisted that their practice is sui generis and not to be taken as more than what it is.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • Paul F. Ford
    Posts: 864
    smvanroode, you wrote:

    The ‘alius cantus congruus’ (mind the change in wording in the 2002 GIRM) is not an excuse to sing anything you want. ‘Congruus’ means that the alternative chant should at least correspond to the liturgical characteristics of the chant it replaces (without stretching its qualities too much to satisfy arbitrary wishes).


    I just compared the 1969 text with the 2002 text; and they seem to be identical. What is the precise change in wording?

    Thank you.
  • NihilNominisNihilNominis
    Posts: 1,021
    Right from Pius X the congregation could, if capable, constitute the schola. SC§50 calls for the elimination of unnecessary duplication, and when the 1965 rubrics applied that to the Gloria etc. Abp Lefebvre wrote


    I don’t think that changes the fact that one still needs a schola for a solemn Mass no matter who.

    I have no investment in Lefebvre’s opinions.
    Thanked by 2MatthewRoth tomjaw
  • smvanroodesmvanroode
    Posts: 997
    @Paul F. Ford
    I just compared the 1969 text with the 2002 text; and they seem to be identical. What is the precise change in wording?

    Thank you.


    You are right, the wording didn’t even change between 1969 and 2002. I always assumed that in the 1969 text there was ‘alius cantus aptus’ because everybody is used to talk about it. A reminder for myself: always check the original source!

    Nevertheless: ‘congruus’ links the alternative chant much stronger to the liturgical action or liturgical season and the musical genre than ‘aptus’ does, i.e. you can’t sing a Kyrie before the Sign of the Cross and delude yourself to belief that that’s ok.
    Thanked by 1Paul F. Ford
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,467
    MatthewRoth I can only apologize for reading more into your statement than it said. I have some experience of how infuriating it can be and can only repeat "I am sorry". Especially as I agree with the statement,
    Thanked by 1ServiamScores
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 2,311
    It’s all good.
  • fcbfcb
    Posts: 338
    I think if I could undo one reform of the 1969 Order of Mass it would be to go back to Introit, Kyrie, [Gloria,], Salutation, Collect. It seems to me that (particularly, but not exclusively, in sung Masses) this allows a sufficient "Godward" momentum to develop before the "horizontal" element enters in with the Salutation.
    Thanked by 5Liam GerardH trentonjconn NihilNominis tomjaw
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 2,311
    You have written elsewhere about the loss of fluidity specific to breaking up the introit and Kyrie, but you hold this position consistently, and this theme comes up here for example.
    Thanked by 2NihilNominis tomjaw
  • NihilNominisNihilNominis
    Posts: 1,021
    @fcb -

    Most jarringly, at a large diocesan liturgy... huge choir, brass, organ. Nice prelude, magnificent processional hymn, Introit. Last note still hanging in the air:

    Bishop: “Good evening, I’m so glad you all could join us tonight. Before we begin our celebration, I’d like to say a few words [...]”

    Funnily enough, couldn’t tell you why, I had gotten the distinct impression that we *had* begun our celebration already...
    Thanked by 9CHGiffen MarkB Liam tomjaw trentonjconn ServiamScores lmassery Elmar LauraKaz
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 2,311
    Yes. I have been lucky that even if the priest won’t sing, they go to the sign of the cross etc. and Confiteor immediately on the occasions in the last decade or so where the NO is the liturgy du jour.
  • trentonjconn
    Posts: 622
    Nice prelude, magnificent processional hymn, Introit. Last note still hanging in the air:

    Bishop: “Good evening, I’m so glad you all could join us tonight. Before we begin our celebration, I’d like to say a few words [...]”


    Makes me shudder...
    Thanked by 3tomjaw LauraKaz ServiamScores
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,467
    Collecta - the prayer said by the presiding bishop when all are assembled and he has arrived.
    Thanked by 2NihilNominis Elmar
  • CantorCole
    Posts: 65
    @NihilNominis

    To be fair, I attended a Byzantine Liturgy once, and the priest gave his introduction before the main part of the Liturgy started (i.e. before the Litanies and readings, but after the introductory rites)*. So such a liturgical flow is not unheard of in other liturgical families. However, I agree the way that some celebrants go about it is not the most ideal...

    *This experience did not seem unnatural or forced
    Thanked by 1NihilNominis
  • trentonjconn
    Posts: 622
    But why is it necessary? We managed to get on just fine without it for ~1900 years.
    Thanked by 1ServiamScores
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,467
    trentonjconn - it is a mistake to suppose that liturgical practice before 1570 at parish Masses, or indeed at any Mass with a congregation, had a rule of ignoring the congregation.
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,782
    @a_f_hawkins
    trentonjconn - it is a mistake to suppose that liturgical practice before 1570 at parish Masses, or indeed at any Mass with a congregation, had a rule of ignoring the congregation.


    Firstly it is a mistake to assume that the 1570 Missal was a novelty.
    Secondly it is a mistake to suggest that 'ignoring the congregation' as you put it is a bad thing.
    Thirdly it can safely be demonstrated that regulating the devotion and actions of the congregation has been partly responsible for the emptying of our churches. I for one could not stand being elbowed to stand up, sit down, shake hands and sing a silly song by someone who thinks following the actions in time to everyone else is the only way you can participate.
    Thanked by 1ServiamScores
  • trentonjconn
    Posts: 622
    For clarity, I'm not referring to "ignoring the congregation" in general, whatever that might mean. I'm referring specifically to inserting ad libbed announcements/conversation into the beginning of Mass.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,467
    As I already indicated, technically/historically at an event at which the Bishop presides the opening greeting/remarks of the Bishop when he has arrived at his cathedra are the beginning. Regrettably, not all bishops can avoid bathos at this point. Public presiding skills seem not to be automatically infused by episcopal consecration.
    Thanked by 4Paul F. Ford tomjaw Liam ServiamScores
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,092
    There may be evidence that such skills may be challenged by such consecration.
    Thanked by 3trentonjconn tomjaw Paul F. Ford
  • MarthaNowik
    Posts: 6
    Back to TRR and the original question/comment re Novus Ordo Masses:

    1. How many hymns, substituted for the introit chant, include "Lord have mercy"? Many. (Think, in particular, of the German hymns that end with the tag, "Kyrie eleis".) This is not thought of as displacing nor duplicating the Kyrie, and is certainly allowed. Why could a kyrie not be added to the introit?

    2.Why not think (particularly at a funeral) as the Kyrie as a tag on the introit? If I were to write a new best selling "Funeral song" with the text, "Grant her eternal rest, O Lord have mercy, Let your let shine on her O Christ have mercy"", no one would even blink if it were sung during the entrance procession at your average funeral [The kyrie being almost never sung at a funeral, it would not be a "displaced" part of the Mass if it were sung during the procession. Considering the kind of funeral drivel I've had play over the last half century, this sounds refreshing, and not "wrong"]

    3. How many times does the organist play solo as the procession begins, leading into the sung introit, sometimes replacing the introit? Quite common (think of weddings), so it isn't a stretch to think that the choir could be singing some kind of prelude music as the procession wends its way to the altar. If this "Prelude music" included the proper introit and kyrie, why would it be wrong?

    4. I've heard - but don't know - about something that might be called the Regensberger solution: apparently, at Regensburg under Domkapellmeister Msgr Georg Ratzinger, the people would sing a simple chant Agnus Dei before the communion, and the choir would sing a polyphonic one during the communion, after the proper communio. Repeating the same text seemed okay, with one rationale being that historically, most of the Agnus ended up being sung during the people's communion, and would have been written with that in mind. I don't see why this would not be also applicable (in reverse) to the Introit/Kyrie: even if the choir has sung the polyphonic kyrie beforehand, the people could sing a simple one right before the Gloria.

    5. Concerning the "waiting for the choir to stop singing": our problem is not the structure of the Mass. Our problem is that we don't know how to participate in the Mass. As Msgr Schuler, of happy memory, was wont to remind us, we don't participate in the liturgy by virtue of what we do at it, but by virtue of our baptism into Christ. Basil Cardinal Hume said that the choir gives us the opportunity to "pray with our ears". Dr. Mahrt reminds us that we need time for meditation during the liturgy,and that the music, sung beautifully, allows us that. We should never be "waiting" for the choir to finish. We should be approaching God through the music that they sing.

    Sorry to go on so long. Too much coffee this morning...buzz...
    Thanked by 6NihilNominis tomjaw ServiamScores DavidOLGC LauraKaz Nisi
  • smvanroodesmvanroode
    Posts: 997
    What we seem to forget is that the Kyrie is not just some sort of spiritual text, but a very specific chant, proper to the Order of Mass. See for example GIRM 52, 53, 79b, 83: ‘the Kyrie’, ‘the Gloria’, ‘the Sanctus’, ‘the…Agnus Dei’ (emphasis mine).

    The given arguments to sing the Kyrie outside of its proper place during Mass are either anecdotal (Regensburger solution) or disregarding the prescriptive nature of liturgical law (as in: ‘if it’s not specifically forbidden by the rubrics, it’s probably allowed’).
    Thanked by 1Roborgelmeister
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 2,311
    In this case I agree that we don’t need a rule to tell us that it’s forbidden to sing a part of the Ordinary in the wrong place.

    Also, as to the length of a polyphonic Agnus: before the council, and this is widely ignored today, but it is in the traditional ceremonial of bishops (I need to check to see if Rome changed the order in 1960 but anyway…) the deacon and subdeacon actually received before the Confiteor and Ecce Agnus Dei at the pontifical Mass sung by the bishop on Easter. This was to be followed on other days, so there was already somewhat more time for the choir to sing the Agnus. Now, I imagine that the people did not ordinarily commune in large numbers at the conventual Mass of the chapter and so on, so the Agnus didn’t have exactly the same constraints, unlike today where every solemn (sung) Mass has a general communion with many faithful communing, so the priest could just wait for the choir to finish everything including the communion proper before proceeding to the postcommunion prayer.

    But really, we need more research because it’s easy for me to project based on the rubrics…
    Thanked by 2NihilNominis tomjaw
  • NihilNominisNihilNominis
    Posts: 1,021
    Thanks for the coffee-buzzed insights, Martha!

    The only issue I take at all is with #5 -- While I agree there is space to meditate with the choir, when the music of the treasury was written with a built-in liturgical space to fill in mind (the first or second half of the silent Canon), with the understanding that waiting on top of that might be necessary, that's a different world than taking a piece written for that environment, waiting for the whole thing to finish, and then proceeding.

    At some point, timing (no matter how beautiful the piece) does begin to supervene on elegance, in my humble opinion.

    To be clear, there are certain extant polyphonic settings, notable for their brevity, that I would feel comfortable, on your rationale, using in the New Rite. We can wait for that. But much of the inheritance we have received is excluded.
    Thanked by 3tomjaw ServiamScores CHGiffen
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 2,311
    I am a big fan of using for example an Agnus where only one strophe is set, allowing you to do the other two in chant. But that does limit your options even further, although maybe more typical parish wouldn’t ever run out of options (a cathedral or very large parish regularly exposed to polyphonic masses would, however).
  • davido
    Posts: 942
    Thank you Martha. I think #2 is very insightful.

    I would point out that the clergy don’t care to sing the Kyrie. Usually option C with tropes are muttered and the whole business is breezed through as quickly as possible, with no mind given to the melodies of the Kyriale which even in their truncated 6 iterations would take a couple of minutes to sing.

    Only one priest I know ever seemed to care. I asked him once of he wanted I should stop singing the Kyrie so that he could use the tropes, but he said, no keep singing it, “God likes the Kyrie.”
    Thanked by 2ServiamScores CHGiffen
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,886
    Basil Cardinal Hume said that the choir gives us the opportunity to "pray with our ears".
    I’ll file that one away. This is a great way to explain what I’ve long intuited but didn’t know how to properly express.
  • PeterJ
    Posts: 90
    In relation to the original question by TRR, I defer to others with greater expertise but I do not see a reason to regard TRR’s NO musical proposal as problematic. The “Entrance Chant” for the Mass is used. To the Entrance Chant is then added a sung Kyrie as a sort of bonus that extends the Entrance Chant: one might add that the Kyrie is obviously an approved text. The Kyrie is still recited by priest and congregation in its proper place in the liturgical action. Genuinely keen to be corrected by those with greater expertise/authority here, but I’m struggling to see a conflict with either the spirit or the letter of the GIRM.
  • smvanroodesmvanroode
    Posts: 997
    To the Entrance Chant is then added a sung Kyrie as a sort of bonus that extends the Entrance Chant … The Kyrie is still recited by priest and congregation in its proper place in the liturgical action.


    But why sing the Kyrie as an extension of the entrance chant, if it is still recited at its proper place? Why not sing it there, as the letter and spirit of the GIRM demand? Why does the entrance chant need a bonus at all, if it’s very well capable of fulfilling its liturgical function already by itself?

    one might add that the Kyrie is obviously an approved text


    It’s not about the text being approved, but about the text being ‘congruus’ (cf. GIRM 48), that is, suited to the sacred action. The Kyrie has another function in the liturgy than the entrance chant. Hence, you shouldn’t sing the Kyrie at any other place than at or after the penitential act.
    Thanked by 3MarkB hilluminar Elmar
  • PeterJ
    Posts: 90
    smvanroode - thanks but I think your first q re why is addressed in TRRs first post. Re your second q - I don’t see the incongruity since the text in question, “Lord have mercy”, is a theme constantly repeated in the Mass in one way or another. I think you would have a point about incongruity if the proposal was to say, sing the Gloria after the Entrance Chant only to then recite it again later (which would be incongruous!).
  • smvanroodesmvanroode
    Posts: 997
    PeterJ, the original question was about singing the Introit and Kyrie right after oneother:

    Is it possible, as we do in the TLM, to sing the introit and kyrie during the procession and insence of the altar,


    So, it’s not about a random text that just references or sounds like ‘Lord have mercy’, we’re instead talking about the Kyrie. Whatever justification one could come up with, the fact that the Kyrie has its proper place in the Order of Mass is undeniable. If it would be done this way at Mass, I at least would raise an eyebrow and think: ‘That’s odd.’

    I don’t see the incongruity since the text in question, “Lord have mercy”, is a theme constantly repeated in the Mass in one way or another.


    That the Kyrie has a general Mass-ish theme doesn’t make it ‘congruus’. This reasoning comes down to another way to say: ‘anything goes.’ ‘Congruus’ actually means something, ritually. It means that the alternative chant must at least have the same purpose and end as the entrance chant it is replacing.

    By the way, the original question raises another: were Requiems like that of Mozart and Bruckner ever intended to be sung at an actual Mass, or were they written to be performed as a concert?
    Thanked by 2MarkB Elmar
  • MarkB
    Posts: 1,084
    smvanroode is correct. The reason it's not suitable to sing a liturgical setting of the Kyrie at another moment other than its proper place is because it's incongruent to do so.

    To the attempted rebuttal that singing about the Lord's mercy occurs at other times during the liturgy, including during the entrance, therefore it's okay to sing a liturgical Kyrie at the entrance, the proper response is: singing thematically about the Lord's mercy is not the same as singing a liturgical setting of the Kyrie; you can sing about the Lord's mercy at the entrance, but you should not do so using a liturgical Kyrie because it's incongruent. The only instance I'm aware of when it would be permitted is when the Litany of Saints, which begins with a form of the Kyrie, is permitted to be sung as the entrance music; but in that case the Kyrie is a component of the entire litany.

    I return to the point I made earlier: some settings of the Mass ordinary composed for the preconciliar liturgy are not suitable for use in the postconciliar liturgy because the Mass is now properly dialogical between priest celebrant and assembly, and the Mass ordinary is a liturgical act properly said or sung by all simultaneously in unity, not an overlay to or parallel duplication by the schola or assembly of what the priest prays by himself separately.

    Addendum:
    The Circular Letter on Preparing and Celebrating the Paschal Feasts (Congregation for Divine Worship, 1988, #23) recommends a penitential procession to open the Mass for the First Sunday of Lent. The Ceremonial of Bishops (#261) suggests a procession for all the lenten Sundays wherever the bishop presides. The community gathers someplace outside the church and a procession forms. The presider may wear a violet cope. During the procession the Litany of the Saints is sung. Upon entering the church, all take their places, the presider reverences the altar and then goes to the chair. The opening prayer for Mass follows immediately. If the Kyrie was not incorporated into the litany, it may precede the opening prayer.

    Source: here.

    Since the instruction is that the Kyrie, if it was not incorporated in the litany sung during the entrance procession, may precede the opening prayer, the inference is that the Kyrie is omitted if it is sung during the entrance at the beginning of the litany.

    That quite strongly suggests that the Kyrie should only be sung once at Mass in its proper place; but if, in a rare, exceptional, and specifically authorized circumstance, the Kyrie is sung during the entrance procession, then it is omitted from the Introductory Rites.
    Thanked by 1Elmar
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 2,311
    because the Mass is now properly dialogical between priest celebrant and assembly.


    Except when it is not. The introduction to the penitential act is bad even if you don’t add anything. Why is there only one Dominus vobiscum at the beginning, displaced from the collect, cut from the postcommunion? The Ecce Agnus Dei is longer! Even at Masses without or with limited music there is no dialogue as the penitential act is unified unlike the prayers at the foot of the altar.

    Also, I vastly prefer alternatim for the Gloria and Credo, and Sequences, ubiquitous in France but not so in the US, where people don’t really sing the Sequence much even in trad land; this dialogue is not between priest and congregation but it is still dialogue more or less absent even where the NO is celebrated with chant ordinaries.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • CantorCole
    Posts: 65
    @MatthewRoth

    Not sure why you are hung up on the introduction to the penitential act. I'm fairly certain that every Eastern liturgy has an introduction to the penitential rite. For example, the East Syriac Rite:

    "Let us approach the mysteries of the
    precious Body and Blood of our Savior with
    reverence and respect. With the hope
    arising from repentance, let us turn away
    from wrongdoing, repent of our sins, and
    forgive the trespasses of our Brothers and
    Sisters. Let us pray to God, the Lord of all,
    for mercy and forgiveness. "

    Additionally, I'm not sure what the longer Ecce Agnus Dei has to do with the discussion of dialogue in the Mass.
  • trentonjconn
    Posts: 622
    Simply because the East does this or that does not ipso facto make it suitable for the Roman liturgy.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • PeterJ
    Posts: 90
    Thank you to smvanroode and MarkB - interesting and thank you for setting that out.

    Perhaps an alternative way of putting the congruity problem is not so much to say that adding a Kyrie to the Entrance Chant messes up the Entrance Chant as such (I’m afraid I don’t see that) but more on the potential adverse impact on the actual Kyrie itself when it occurs in the rite and appears to be being so quickly repeated (particularly in a rite designed to remove supposedly unnecessary repetitions).

    A final question for people who might advise TRR against their idea: is this a “black and white” no-no or just “that seems like sailing rather close to the wind”? In all honesty I too would have the “that’s odd” reaction but wouldn’t necessarily have put that down as an obvious absolute no-no.
Add a Comment