Beginning of a nuptial Mass (OF)
  • jpal
    Posts: 365
    I know that the question of whether the Kyrie is always part of the Penitential Act is not quite settled for many people (cf. this discussion, and this one, and this one as well). Although I tend to think it is distinct (based on indications in the GIRM), the opinion of our diocesan liturgical guru (whose judgment I regard highly and hold above my own, in liturgical matters) is the opposite, so that settles that for me.

    The more important concern is simply the awkwardness, in practice, of beginning a nuptial Mass according to the rubrics in the Missal. It does say "The Penitential Act is omitted. The Gloria is said." It does not say (as it does in certain other rituals) that the introductory rites are omitted. This means that, according to the Missal, it goes like this:

    -Entrance
    -Sign of the Cross
    -Greeting
    -(Optional "off-book" introduction to the Mass by the priest (see GIRM 50))
    -Gloria
    -Collect, etc.

    Have you/your priests been following this format?

    If yes, does it feel as strange to you as it does to us?
    If no, why not? (Other than ignorance of the rubrics -- which may be the case for most priests in America. I have yet to speak to a priest who isn't surprised at what the Missal actually says here.)
  • Earl_GreyEarl_Grey
    Posts: 890
    My pastor doesn't like it so we omit the Gloria. although I agree it's award. I don't think rubrics should be casually disregarded. The few nuptial Masses where we have sung the Gloria (before the pastoral ban) the presider would tie it in to his opening comments. Something like, we welcome you, yadda yadda...now lets offer glory to God. Even before formally banning it at the parish it was often forgotten (allegedly).

    Part of the awkwardness, in my estimation is the fact that they have the wedding party line up across the front of the church during the introductory rites rather than processing in directly to their seats. What could work, though it's never done this way locally would be to have the procession, extemporaneous comments and then wilts the wedding party move to their seats, chant the introit of the Mass followed by the sign of the cross and greeting and Gloria. Otherwise it does feel awkward.

    Here's one example where I think the EF works better. Process in, marry the couple, blessing, prayer and then...begin Mass as usual.
    Thanked by 2jpal CHGiffen
  • Caleferink
    Posts: 429
    I just stumbled across the Ritual Mass for the Conferral of Baptism while looking for a different Mass. In the introduction to it, it says in part:

    "In this Mass, the Penitential Act, the Kyrie (emphasis added), and the Creed are omitted. The Gloria in excelsis..., however, is said."

    I believe this is because, in the current Baptismal Rite, there are specific rites tied to the one(s) being baptized (reception at the door of the church, anointing with Oil of Catechumens, etc.). Interestingly enough, the Kyrie is mentioned as a separate act (to be omitted in this case) from the Penitential Act.

    So, applying this to the nuptial Mass, it seems as if the Confiteor or "Miserere nostri, Domine..." would not be said, but the Kyrie might be, just before the Gloria as usual.

    These are simply my thoughts as I read another ritual Mass and then came across this thread. It might or might not alleviate some of the awkwardness.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • Andrew Motyka
    Posts: 944
    That's actually a big help, Caleferink. If there's a specific reference to the Penitential Act and the Kyrie being omitted elsewhere, it stands to reason that a directive to omit the Penitential Act, without mention of the Kyrie, means a Kyrie is sung.

    Because when have the ritual books ever been ambiguous? /sarcasm
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen melofluent
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    I'm a broken record:
    Celebrate Nuptial Masses at the Saturday Vigil. All others could simply be services + Holy Communion.
    This is just me talking, no sources or "authority" involved. Wedding Masses are more problematic than are necessary I'm thinking in this century. At my joint for 22 Jahren is a long line of celebrants who are "pro forma" about preparation for the liturgy of a couple. You take a congregation (audience) of about 125-400 that will meet once, and given the proclivities I mentioned above, the "presider" may or may not be inclined to do mini-catechesis for both Catholics and non-C's alike. But that is counter-productive/intuitive to ritual action. And, IMHO, even well-formed Catholics sometimes forget they're actually CATHOLICS at weddings based upon the inaudible or tepid responses. I can count on one hand the number of truly liturgical weddings I've done in 43 years. Rarely do these witness to the faith and the liturgy well for ourselves and our guests. And daresay this opinion argues in favor of EF Nuptial Masses, where accomodation has no purchase.
    Funerals, another item entirely. There, we can shine!
  • WendiWendi
    Posts: 638
    I have been to exactly ONE well done OF Nuptial Mass.

    And even that one had elements that I personally would have changed...for instance the whole procession of the wedding party idea. We even punted that idea to the bride...who threw a fit and fell in it...she wanted her daddy to walk her down the aisle, and BY GOD that is what was going to happen. Since I wanted a relationship with my daughter after the ceremony, I chose NOT to die on that hill. The music was almost perfect though. It would have been perfect but the Bride also insisted on the Pachabel Canon...darn bride...you'd think it was HER wedding. ;)

    Question...in the OF does the marriage right have to take place during the Mass, or can it take place before the Mass and then Mass be celebrated as usual?
  • jpal
    Posts: 365
    If you first have a celebration of marriage outside of Mass, and then have a Mass, it would be the Mass of the day and not a nuptial Mass.
  • WendiWendi
    Posts: 638
    Ok. Thank you. I thought so, but wasn't 100% sure.
  • matthewjmatthewj
    Posts: 2,694
    On Charles' point... if you're celebrating an OF wedding at a Saturday anticipated Mass, the Credo and Intercessions get flipped (in an odd rubric that only occurs in this one situation that I know of).

    So the order would be:
    Vows (and rings, if there are rings)
    Intercessions
    Creed
    Offertory.
    Thanked by 1melofluent
  • hartleymartin
    Posts: 1,447
    I refer you to the GIRM: GIRM - The Introductory Rites

    The Kyrie Eleison:

    52. After the Act of Penitence, the Kyrie is always begun, unless it has already been included as part of the Act of Penitence. Since it is a chant by which the faithful acclaim the Lord and implore his mercy, it is ordinarily done by all, that is, by the people and the choir or cantor having a part in it.

    As a rule, each acclamation is sung or said twice, though it may be repeated several times, by reason of the character of the various languages, as well as of the artistry of the music or of other circumstances. When the Kyrie is sung as a part of the Act of Penitence, a trope may precede each acclamation.

    The Gloria:

    53. The Gloria is a very ancient and venerable hymn in which the Church, gathered together in the Holy Spirit, glorifies and entreats God the Father and the Lamb. The text of this hymn may not be replaced by any other text. The Gloria is intoned by the priest or, if appropriate, by a cantor or by the choir; but it is sung either by everyone together, or by the people alternately with the choir, or by the choir alone. If not sung, it is to be recited either by all together or by two parts of the congregation responding one to the other.

    It is sung or said on Sundays outside the Seasons of Advent and Lent, on solemnities and feasts, and at special celebrations of a more solemn character.


    So, according to the GIRM:

    1.) The Kyrie is NOT part of the act of penitence, but indeed comes AFTER this act.
    2.) It must be remembered that the Nuptial is a VOTIVE MASS. It isn't a solemnity or feast. It is required if on a Sunday or Solemnity or Feast day, in which case it isn't a nuptial mass, but mass of the day with the wedding rites.
    3.) It is arguable that there should be a Gloria, if you consider the nuptial mass a "celebration of a more solemn character. However, by this same clause, it is arguable that the Gloria is an optional part of this liturgy.
    4.) In the body of the missal itself it does say that the Gloria is said or sung, but it is unclear whether this is meant to indicate the place where the Gloria is said or sung, or if it is intended to indicate that the Gloria is required.

    I am currently having headaches over this very issue with certain clergymen over a wedding that I am heading to (I am writing this at the airport terminal waiting for my flight to get there!)
  • hartleymartin
    Posts: 1,447
    I might mention that the wedding I am doing is on a feria in ordinary time, and the way I read the GIRM, missal, other relevant church documents in the light of tradition of the church, I see no case for the Gloria to be a requirement, but I understand that it is an option.
  • Andrew Motyka
    Posts: 944
    Almost all of the ritual Masses in the new Missal prescribe the Gloria. I believe you are mistaken in thinking it optional.
    Thanked by 3Earl_Grey CHGiffen Spriggo
  • jpal
    Posts: 365
    I am not sure about other ritual Masses, but I know the Gloria is specifically required for all nuptial Masses.

    The original question was about the strangeness of going straight from the greeting to the Kyrie or Gloria with not Penitential Act. Anyone else have comments on that?
  • Ignoto
    Posts: 126
    This is from the USCCB: http://www.foryourmarriage.org/rite-for-celebrating-marriage-within-mass/

    The structure for the Rite that is detailed there does seem to indicate that the Gloria immediately follows the Greeting.
    Thanked by 3Earl_Grey CHGiffen jpal
  • marajoymarajoy
    Posts: 781
    No comments other than, yes, it's awkward. Of the weddings I've had recently, some priests have done it, and some haven't. The ones who do have introduced it by saying something cheesy but still helpful (IMHO - by helping it flow a bit better,) "And now let us give glory to God..."
    Thanked by 2Earl_Grey jpal
  • BenBen
    Posts: 3,114
    I don't think anyone is saying it's optional. They're just saying their pastors decide to skip it anyways.
    Thanked by 3marajoy jpal Earl_Grey
  • hartleymartin
    Posts: 1,447
    In which case this makes the nuptial mass the same as a feast day mass.
  • marajoymarajoy
    Posts: 781
    Actually, the past couple weddings, the visiting priests have *omitted* the Gloria, but included the penitential rite and kyrie!
    Thanked by 1jpal
  • jpal
    Posts: 365
    marajoy, that was what I was accustomed to before the new translation.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,934
    For any practical purpose, it depends on the individual priest as to whether or not the Gloria is said/sung.
  • Andrew Motyka
    Posts: 944
    Ignoto,

    That's a really good explanation of the order of Marriage, but I have a gripe with the source. It says:

    Gloria (even on a Sunday during Advent and Lent; choice of musical settings)


    I do not believe ritual Masses are even allowed on Sundays of Advent or Lent. You would, however, have a Gloria even on an Advent weekday, or if you receive permission to have a wedding on a Lenten weekday.
    Thanked by 1jpal
Add a Comment