Sprinkling Rite or Penitential Rite on Divine Mercy Sunday of the Jubilee of Mercy?
  • VilyanorVilyanor
    Posts: 383
    Which would be a better way of calling to mind the superabundant mercy for which Christ was made obedient unto death? I feel like it would be a tragedy to omit the Kyrie on that day. One might hope there could be permission given to do both given the occasion. Could the Kyrie be sung during the Sprinkling rite?
  • At Walsingham we perform the vidi aquam and attendant psalm (in English to Anglican chant) throughout Eastertide. This does not exclude kyrie.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,371
    We also use "vidi aquam" rather than the Kyrie during sprinkling. For an English setting, look at the ICEL site. They have one and it is free.
  • VilyanorVilyanor
    Posts: 383
    I mean, I know the Vidi Aquam is preferred for Music. I was thinking perhaps the Kyrie could be fit in too. Since the option doesn't allow for the use of both in the Ordinary Form, which would be preferable?
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,371
    The one the priest directs you to do, assuming he specifies one over the other.
    Thanked by 2Liam PaxMelodious
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,392
    Fortunately, the Church itself does not conceive that omitting the Kyrie in this context to be a tragedy.
  • According to the rubrics, it's impossible to have both the sprinkling rite ánd the Kyrie. The sprinkling rite starts right after the greeting, and after it, the Gloria is sung (if it is prescribed).

    Another suggestion made above is to sing the Kyrie during the sprinkling. While de rubrics indicate that, next to the suggested antiphons, "alius cantus aptus" can be sung, I wouldn't consider the Kyrie a suitable song in this case.

    If your intention is to "call to mind the superabundant mercy for which Christ was made obedient unto death", I would suggest the fifth antiphon for the Easter Season from the Missal:

    E látere tuo, Christe, fons aquae prorúmpit,
    quo abluúntur mundi sordes et vita renovátur, allelúia.

    From your side, o Christ,
    bursts forth a spring of water,
    by which the squalor of the world is washed away
    and life is made new again, alleluia.


    ... at least, if someone has already set it to music ...
    Thanked by 1Vilyanor
  • RevAMG
    Posts: 154
    One could always set antiphons 2–5 of the Sprinkling Rite during Easter Time to a psalm tone, with organ accompaniment. Using a more modern tone (Conception Abbey, Meinrad, Bévenot, etc.) would work nicely, in my mind. You could sing verses of Psalm 117 (Confitémini Dómino) with one of the antiphons.

    For a Latin chant, the Graduale Simplex has a nice setting of antiphon 3 (cf. Dn. 3:77, 79). It should also be sung with Psalm 117.

    I should also mention that the late Fr. Chrysogonus Waddell, OCSO composed some very beautiful antiphons for the Sprinkling Rite. They are available from WLP/J.S. Paluch (product no. 005260). His "All You Who Have Been Baptized" would certainly be appropriate for the Easter Season. There is some sample audio available here and some sample pages here.
    557 x 273 - 36K
    Thanked by 1Vilyanor
  • Ben YankeBen Yanke
    Posts: 3,115
    Well, just use the EF and do both :)
  • VilyanorVilyanor
    Posts: 383
    The one the priest directs you to do, assuming he specifies one over the other.


    http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MathematiciansAnswer

    It might fall to me to decide, but regardless, my question is if either way is necessarily better.

    Fortunately, the Church itself does not conceive that omitting the Kyrie in this context to be a tragedy.


    Though I meant here merely that given the fact that it's Divine Mercy Sunday, leaving out the invocation of Mercy doesn't seem right, I do think omitting the first among the Mass propers, and one of the very oldest prayers, is an unfortunate practice in the OF. As much as I love the OF, I wouldn't love it as much if I were unable to see and criticize it's shortcomings. Whether I'm right or not in feeling so is a different question :P

    I would suggest the fifth antiphon for the Easter Season from the Missal

    Wow, that text is lovely. I haven't found any musical setting though :/

    Well, just use the EF and do both :)

    That's one way to do it :) but wait… wouldn't it not be Divine Mercy Sunday in the EF? That might ruin the point XP
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,382
    For the Nth time, the missal says it is the 2nd Sunday of Easter, Divine Mercy Sunday or something thereabouts. In a sense, it is an extraliturgical liturgical addition. Nothing to the liturgy itself was changed (other than the changes in 1969 of the unfortunate deletion of the Johannine Comma to the Epistle, and a reading from Acts, I believe, for the 1st reading), as the texts were already so appropriate. St. Faustina of course had her visions when that was the principal form of worship in the Roman Rite, and the promises apply generally; the FSSP Ordo mentions them.
  • Technically, in the OF, you can't do both: it's in the rubrics. The Kyrie is also not the proper text for the Rite of Sprinkling: either Asperges Me, or during Eastertide, Vidi Aquam. Technically speaking, the Rite of Sprinkling wasn't part of the Mass, it occurred before, and was a completely separate rite. I believe the OF puts it as part of the Mass, which is a shame because they removed the Penitential Rite in order to include it, which might be why the Rite of Sprinkling isn't performed on a more regular basis. For me, there is no reason to exclude the Penitential Rite when the Rite of Sprinkling is performed: the Rite of Sprinkling is not a suitable substitute for the Penitential Rite. However, that's not what the rubrics say, that's just my own view on the topic.

    Anyway, if you're doing the Rite of Sprinkling during Easter, the correct text is Vidi Aquam, or "I Saw Water Flowing" if you're looking for an English version. The Kyrie is not part of the Rite of Sprinkling, and its text should not be sung during. Whichever Rite is performed is technically not your choice: it's the priest's. It's his responsibility to make that call. Another example of the confusion caused by the many options and opportunities for clericalism that the OF provides. As Ben Yanke mentioned above, the EF would allow for both.
    Thanked by 1Ben Yanke
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,768
    I agree it's complicated, I was told by someone with a degree in liturgy that she had counted a very large number of possible arrangements of allowable ways of starting Mass, I think it was 64.
    However a case could be made that the nine-fold, or six-fold, Kyrie is not part of the peniential rite, it comes after the 'absolution', and could be legitimately still be used between aspersion and Gloria. At least that's just looking at the missal, there may be clearer rubrics elsewhere.
  • The Kyrie is not part of the penitential rite, it comes after the 'absolution', and could be legitimately still be used between aspersion and Gloria. At least that's just looking at the missal, there may be clearer rubrics elsewhere.

    The Missal is very clear: after the absolution ("May almighty God cleanse us of our sins, ...") the rubric indicates: "Then, when it is prescribed, the hymn Gloria in excelsis (Glory to God in the highest) is sung or said."

    So, there's no room to legitimately sing the Kyrie between the sprinkling and the Gloria; the Gloria starts right after the absolution.
    Thanked by 1Ben Yanke
  • VilyanorVilyanor
    Posts: 383
    What's strange is that Papal masses have an aspersion and a Kyrie. Perhaps it's related to how a visiting Bishop can do an aspersion preceding Mass.

    For the Nth time …

    It could be thought of as providential that no changes were needed, the locus of that Liturgy and of the Triduum and Octave of Easter is mercy. The Church has decided to recognize this in a particular way that is already so true, no other changes were made.

    Whichever Rite is performed is technically not your choice: it's the priest's. It's his responsibility to make that call.

    But I'm the one who will be providing him with the information to make the decision.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,768
    The Missal is very clear

    But notice the semper early in no. 52 of the following
    Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani 2002

    Actus pænitentialis

    51. Postea sacerdos invitat ad actum pænitentialem, qui, post brevem pausam silentii, a tota communitate formula confessionis generalis perficitur, et sacerdotis absolutione concluditur, quæ tamen efficacia sacramenti Pænitentiæ caret.

    Die dominica, præsertim tempore paschali, loco consueti actus pænitentialis, quandoque fieri potest benedictio et aspersio aquæ in memoriam baptismi.

    Kyrie, eleison

    52. Post actum pænitentialem incipitur semper Kýrie eléison, nisi forte locum iam habuerit in ipso actu pænitentiali. Cum sit cantus quo fideles Dominum acclamant eiusque misericordiam implorant, peragitur de more ab omnibus, partem nempe in eo habentibus populo atque schola vel cantore.

    Acclamatio quæque de more bis repetitur, maiore tamen numero non excluso, ratione ingenii diversarum linguarum necnon musicæ artis vel rerum adiunctorum. Quando Kýrie cantatur ut pars actus pænitentialis, singulis acclamationibus « tropus » præponitur.

    What seems clear to me is that "they" are muddled.
  • Still very clear to me. The Sprinkling Rite takes the place of the Penitential Rite ("loco consueti actus pænitentialis", "instead of the customary Penitential Act"). Hence, the 'semper' of no. 52 refers only to the Penitential Act, not the Sprinkling Rite which takes place instead of it.
  • Yes, but I stand corrected on my original statement. The Kyrie is, indeed, not a part of the Penitential Rite, but occurs afterward. This is reflected in the quotation above from the GIRM. Now, the Kyrie can be included in the penitential act, as when it is troped, also as evidenced from the above quote, but I'm not necessarily sure that it necessitates its omission when the Penitential Rite is omitted. After looking at that quotation from the GIRM again, it seems that the two are separate and that even if you do a Rite of Sprinkling, the Kyrie eleison would follow immediately, and then the Gloria in excelsis.

    But I'm the one who will be providing him with the information to make the decision.


    My apologies, but perhaps I am misunderstanding, unless the priest wants to know which music will be sung, he should be able to make that decision without input from anyone else.
  • The Kyrie is, indeed, not a part of the Penitential Rite, but occurs afterward.

    That's correct. But the two are closely related: the Kyrie is never sung without having the Penitential Rite. If there's no Penitential Rite (because another rite took its place), there's no Kyrie.

    After looking at that quotation from the GIRM again, it seems that the two are separate and that even if you do a Rite of Sprinkling, the Kyrie eleison would follow immediately, and then the Gloria in excelsis.

    ??? The Sprinkling Rite is not just another form of the Penitential Act. It replaces the Penitential Act. See GIRM 51, footnote in the Ordo Missae, and Appendix II, no. 1: "If this rite is celebrated during Mass, it takes the place of the usual Penitential Act at the beginning of Mass."

    Only the Penitential Act is followed by the Kyrie (GIRM 52) if it wasn't already a part of the Penitential Rite itself. If, however, the Sprinkling Rite is used instead, it is followed immediately by the Gloria (Appendix II, no. 6).
    Thanked by 1ClergetKubisz
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,382
    This might be clear, but it isn’t followed, and I wouldn’t be annoyed if I had to go to the OF (I rarely do so on Sundays) and the Kyrie was sung after the aspersion. Fr. Kocik also says it can be done before Mass...

    Vilyanor, I also didn’t mean to be so testy. It just is a pet peeve of mine that the promotion of the mercy of the Lord and the practices recommended for such devotion on the Sunday following the Easter Octave via St. Faustina are automatically consigned to OF-land just because John Paul II made a slight change to the Sunday’s name, which, as it happens, is the sixth way to refer to it (1st Sunday after Easter, 2nd Sunday of Easter, Low Sunday, Bright Sunday, Dominica in albis, Divine Mercy Sunday).

    I absolutely agree it is providential. I think this is why the Lord made such a request, for although the whole calendar is about his mercy, that Sunday focuses on it especially.

    As far as the priest making the decision, priests don’t always make the most well-informed decision, nor do they necessarily make the best decision. If say the choir and a few parishioners were the driving forces for chant but the priest wanted another chant (instead of Vidi aquam), one recognizes he has the option and power, but that’s a poor decision for those expecting the traditional chant and who would actually care.
    Thanked by 1Vilyanor
  • fcbfcb
    Posts: 283
    they removed the Penitential Rite in order to include it

    There is no "Penitential Rite" in the 1962 Missal. There are prayers of preparation for the ministers that include the Confiteor (twice) but these would never be heard at High Mass (which the Asperges would precede) in any case, since the choir would be singing the introit.
  • As far as the priest making the decision, priests don’t always make the most well-informed decision, nor do they necessarily make the best decision. If say the choir and a few parishioners were the driving forces for chant but the priest wanted another chant (instead of Vidi aquam), one recognizes he has the option and power, but that’s a poor decision for those expecting the traditional chant and who would actually care.


    Yes, that's true, that priests don't always make the best or most-informed decisions, but they are still the parochial authorities and can override any request or preference with his own. The priest is the boss: it's his decision to make. If he asks for input, okay then, you can give your input, but it is still his decision to make. I stand by my original comment that the priest should not require outside input to make this decision, but that doesn't mean he is prohibited from seeking it.

    @smvanroode: That whole thing is just so confusing to me. Thank you for your insight and clearing some of it up. I never understood why the Kyrie was omitted when the Penitential Rite was, because they are separate. Where does the rubric say that the Kyrie only follows the Penitential Rite? I'm not arguing, as I believe you, but I just want to know for future reference.
  • RevAMG
    Posts: 154
    There has always been much discussion about whether the Kyrie is a part of the Penitential Rite or not (most, if not all, would say no) and whether-or-not the Kyrie should be omitted if the Penitential Rite is omitted. Corpus Christi Watershed gives several "proofs" here.

    The USCCB also treated the matter in its February–March 2014 CDW Newsletter available here (beginning on page 8). The USCCB looks at three distinct situations: (1) Omitting the Penitential Act but Keeping the Kyrie as an Option; (2) Omitting Both the Penitential Act and the Kyrie; and (3) Omitting the Penitential Act, but Unclear Rubrics Regarding the Kyrie.

    Andrew R. Motyka also treated the issue when he wrote about the Kyrie on Ash Wednesday. If looking to Rome is any help, the Mass always includes the Kyrie (2016, 2015, 2014, 2013—both with and without the stational procession.).
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,371
    The problem with the Kyrie in the west is that all you have left are the responses. Where is the rest of the litany? Go to an eastern church and listen to what it is supposed to be.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • VilyanorVilyanor
    Posts: 383
    Are we justified in following the example of Rome in including the Kyrie, or is that their prerogative under local use or the power of the Pope?
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,382
    I would say follow it. The papal Mass is no longer distinct. Rather certain usages were carried over, e.g. the Greek Gospel.
    Thanked by 1Vilyanor
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,768
    Yes to returning to the litanic form of the Kyrie. Step one: restore the tropes to the EF (organic development/convergence!).
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,371
    Yes to returning to the litanic form of the Kyrie. Step one: restore the tropes to the EF (organic development/convergence!).


    Exactly. No wonder the question comes up each year about whether or not it is penitential or where to put it. So many don't even know what it is, or is supposed to be.
  • VilyanorVilyanor
    Posts: 383
    I think it'd be more in keeping with the Roman Rite's organic development to rediscover why the tropes were dropped and what significance the Kyrie has without them.

    To the Library!
    Thanked by 2CCooze CHGiffen
  • kenstb
    Posts: 364
    Do we have the original tropes anywhere on this site? If not, would one of our colleagues direct me to where I might find them?
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,382
    You can find them on Google.

    They were beautiful, but because they were additions to the Mass spread by the printing press and contrary to the usage of Rome, they were eliminated in 1570. The Marian tropes in the Gloria were eliminated, and until the 19th century missal said that the text given was to be
    used for feasts of the Virgin. Sequences and other texts (office readings, though I suspect there were hagiographical tropes also) contained legendary material to the point of being fictitious and superstitious.

    The tropes and the Litany as it developed in the Divine Liturgy really are unrelated.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,371
    Those liturgies were more alike than different before the barbarians invaded Rome. Afterwards, they drifted apart. The liturgies celebrated by St. Patrick and contemporaries were more like the eastern liturgy than the later Roman liturgy. Given the chaos and culture disintegration after the fall of Rome, it is amazing anything survived.
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • RevAMG
    Posts: 154
    In 1981, ICEL published a resource collection of music for the Mass and the various rites (still available at GIA). In it is a composition by Robert Kreutz for one of the Easter Sprinkling Rite antiphons. The music is below, although it uses the old (1973) Roman Missal translation.
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,174
    @kenstb
    This book will be of interest, Tropen zum Gloria, Sanctus und Agnus Dei im Graduale Romanum hg. von Anton Stingl jun., 2012, EOS Verlag Sankt Ottilien

    The Sarum Chants can be found here,
    https://macsphere.mcmaster.ca/bitstream/11375/16331/6/SM-kyriale.pdf

    Also 2 volumes of the Analecta Hymnica are on Tropes,
    https://archive.org/stream/analectahymnica47drevuoft#page/n1/mode/2up
    and
    https://archive.org/stream/analectahymnica49drevuoft#page/n5/mode/2up

    As far as I understand Tropes can now only be used as part of the Sarum Rite, and only those found in the last edition of the Sarum Graduale. While Tropes were popular across northern Europe, they don't seem to have been used in Rome. With the gradual take up of the Trent Missal (based on earlier Roman? usage) Tropes (and most of the Sequences) fell into disuse. I am convinced that Troped chants can only be used as motets or as music outside the liturgy.

    N.B. I have not read the above two volumes of the Analecta but doing so will clearly show those places that used Tropes and those that did not.
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,382
    Tomjaw, I would say you could also use tropes in liturgies revived based on their status under Quo Primum. :)
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,174
    @MatthewRoth
    I would say you could also use tropes in liturgies revived based on their status under Quo Primum


    Now that would be an interesting list...
  • Ben YankeBen Yanke
    Posts: 3,115
    Lord Jesus, I guess we say something here, Lord have mercy.
    Christ Jesus, whatever the priest says here is a mixed bag, Christ have mercy.
    Lord Jesus, save us from awful improvised tropes, Lord have mercy.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,371
    Lord Jesus, save us from guitarists and liturgists, Lord have mercy.
    Lord Jesus, restore to us lost chimes, Christ have mercy.
    Lord Jesus, save us from NPM, GIA, and OCP, Lord have mercy.
  • .
  • By way of a trope on what Charles said above: In the popular mind all of western Europe was, naturally(!), evangelised by or from Rome. The truth is that there was as much as, if not more, influence from the East, particularly in Gaul; and, eastern elements in Gallican chant and liturgy bear witness to this. Add to that that most of the southern half of Italy was Greek, not Latin. Until Charlemagne (whose motives were purely political and dynastic) there was no universal feeling that the usage of the Roman church should have pre-eminence. It was given respect in varying degrees, but few saw any reason at all to substitute Roman practice for their own. And, as we know, Augustine of Canterbury found a vibrant Christian tradition already flourishing in the England that he was sent to 'evangelise'.

    And, Vilyanor asks why the (kyrie) tropes were dropped and what sense kyrie makes without them. Going further back than the era of tropes, kyrie was, centuries before, the people's response to something akin to our modern 'universal prayers'. This happened at the beginning of the liturgy, more or less where kyrie remains. Well, saving time and shortening stuff is nothing new to our age. It has a very ancient pedigree, which is evidenced by the elimination of the prayers to which kyrie eleison was the people's supplication. It may have been Gregory the Great (I really don't remember right now) who added Christe to the ancient kyries sans petitions. So now, after a few hundred years the kyrie melismas were graced with words (tropes!), which really sort of made 'propers' out of the kyrie itself. (In fact, due to its tropes, kyrie was considered a part of the propers in the Sarum Use - which is why kyrie remained in chant in England throughout the 'polyphonic era'.) Some hundreds of years further along, and the tropes were suppressed, leaving the original kyries with their melismas.
    All this is, admittedly, sketchy, but, hopefully, gives some bit of perspective.
    And, as far as what sense does kyrie have without tropes OR petitions? I think that, in itself, it is a petition that is appropriate at the beginning of mass. It is as much an exclamatory acclamation of God's greatness and power (why else would we say 'have mercy upon us'?) as it is a supplication. So, it makes sense, leading from the poenitential rite to the Angelic Hymn of Gloria. Too, we may, privately and mentally, have in mind certain petitions (or even laudatory tropes!) of our own - so long as they don't add a flicker of time to the mass. That's why we just say 'kyrie'.
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,911
    @MJO: the average lay Catholic likely doesn't understand all of that: they're on autopilot most of the Mass, which is another problem entirely. The PIPs would likely have a greater appreciation for the melismatic Kyries if they understood even some of the history you presented us.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,371
    Ben and I were obviously joking above, but it does make a point. For all practical purposes, the tropes have been reestablished in the west. Unfortunately, they are not always very good tropes, but are made up on the spur of the moment. I have heard some that were not only outlandish but skirting heresy.
    Thanked by 1a_f_hawkins
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,768
    The vibrant christianity Augustine found already converting the Anglo-Saxons was also establishing monasteries across western europe. Columbanus and his companions travelled across the Frankish and Lombard lands founding many of the communities which (later) provide the earliest records of the tropes.
  • Steve CollinsSteve Collins
    Posts: 1,021
    To the original point, I would not be comfortable with a form of "Kyrie" as the music for the Sprinkling Rite, nor would I push for "Kyrie" to be included before singing the "Gloria". For better or for worse, the Liturgies of the Western Church have lost the multiple litanies that still exist in the Eastern Church and the Ambrosian Rite. We've lost the tropes to all the parts of the Ordinary, and those that are being reintroduced are sub-standard. We are left with four very minor litanies: the "Kyrie", the restored triple petitions within the "Gloria", the Prayers of the Faithful/General Intentions, and the "Agnus Dei". That's really not bad, considering the overall history. Meanwhile, both of the musical settings for the Sprinkling Rite speak directly to water, "Wash me thoroughly with hysop" and "I saw water flowing". The former includes a verse from a penitential Psalm that speaks of "mercy", the latter from a more upbeat Psalm that praises God for his mercy. IMO this makes the alternative "Springs of water, bless the Lord" a poor substitute for what Holy Mother Church has given us, and that we have used consistently for centuries.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,768
    The Church also provides the antiphon in GS, Fontes et omnia with selected verses from Psalm 118/117v (in English BFW #636). Ps 118:1 invokes the eleos of the Lord, though this tricky word has many translations. "Springs of water" is loosely based on this antiphon and neighbouring verses from Daniel 3, IMHO it is rather low on the awe appropriate in the face of the Lord's mercy.