I've actually found that the GIRM is quite clear that the Kyrie is after the penitential rite (which means it would NOT be part of the penitential rite).

It's not quite clear, but I'd argue that the kyrie should be done in cases when the penitential rite is omitted, since it was not included in the non-existent penitential rite.

Somebody get Pope Benedict to celebrate a Nuptial Mass and we'll take notes...

Or perhaps we should just look and see what he did last Ash Wednesday.

From the GIRM:
"The Penitential Act
51. After this, the Priest calls upon the whole community to take part in the Penitential Act, which, after a brief pause for silence, it does by means of a formula of general confession. The rite concludes with the Priest’s absolution, which, however, lacks the efficacy of the Sacrament of Penance.
From time to time on Sundays, especially in Easter Time, instead of the customary Penitential Act, the blessing and sprinkling of water may take place as a reminder of Baptism.

The Kyrie, Eleison
52. After the Penitential Act, the Kyrie, eleison (Lord, have mercy), is always begun, unless it has already been part of the Penitential Act. Since it is a chant by which the faithful acclaim the Lord and implore his mercy, it is usually executed by everyone, that is to say, with the people and the choir or cantor taking part in it."

Like I said, it seems either interpretation has merit, so without further clarification, go with what the Priest says, I guess. I know I've certainly done it both ways.

Thanks for the "clarification" ClemensRomanus.

Thanks to all.

I have a rule I follow. Ask the pastor. If in doubt, ask the pastor again. JMO, my understanding is that the option you have posted is correct and allowed.

Yes, Jeff, the kyrie with tropes can appear within the penitential act, but the standalone kyrie, without the tropes, is not part of the penitential act, the GIRM seems pretty clear.

That's where the question lies.

CHG-
The problem is that it's the Novus Ordo. We all know that none of the rubrics are clear in the Novus Ordo. You can do whatever you want in the Novus Ordo- so many options, it's just too confusing.

Because, substantively, #7 partakes of the character of #6, that's why.

Edited..

Perhaps my message was a bit testy :)

That being said... typically when the documents aren't clear (and they aren't in this case), I look at what Pope Benedict is doing and use that as my guide. This isn't World Youth Day in the 90s - Papal liturgies are well thought out and respect the Missal and GIRM. If the Papal MC thinks that the Kyrie is to be omitted on Ash Wednesday, I tend to follow his example.

Thank you all for clarifications regarding my initial answer to the OP. Here I was thinking I understood the liturgy....

Thank you all for the help. I buy the argument that the Penitential Act and Kyrie are separate. But how can I convince my priest in 1 minute or less that I should sing the Kyrie at the wedding this Saturday?

He is very conservative and wants to do things by the book, but from his reading, "no Penitential Act" also means "no Kyrie."

I'd be willing to bet most Diocesan Offices of Worship will say not to do the Kyrie.

1. To definitively answer one of cantorconvert’s points – on Ash Wednesday, the Kyrie may be sung (as you have phrased it). It may also be omitted. No ambiguity in the Missal (preamble to Ash Wednesday.) Do it or don’t do it, it’s up to the priest, who is custodian of the liturgy in the parish. Perfectly licit either way. No sense arguing over it.

2. If Mass begins with the Rite of Blessing and Sprinkling of Holy Water (as it may on any Sunday,) there is no Kyrie. Period. Missal is clear (Appendix II.) No Kyrie, straight to the Gloria afterwards (in season.)

3. If part of Vespers is combined with Mass, replacing the Penitential Act, the General Instruction on the Liturgy of the Hours says that “at choice” the Kyrie is omitted (GILH n.94). Clear: do it or don’t do it; the priest, who is custodian of the liturgy in the parish, gets to decide. Perfectly licit either way. (How often are you going to do this anyway?)

4. For the Rite of Marriage, ... I think there is a revised edition in the works, and I would expected some clarification of this issue, so wait and see.

The wording of the rubrics in situ before the Kyrie in the Order of Mass is probably a little vague because it’s not really the best place to list all the specific circumstances at that point in the Missal.

I don’t get the grousing about choices in the Novus Ordo. There are a small, finite number of choices, allowing for legitimate variety; a much better way than having the “liturgy committee” come up with their own “creative” variations that are not legitimate. That’s really been the source of problems, not the use of legitimate and worthy ritual variety.

On the other hand, The Kyrie follows the penitential act. Therefore, no penitential act, no Kyrie. (A hard act to follow, evidently.) Therein lies the problem – someone’s interpretation is required.

Claiming that the Kyrie is an independent ritual element, not dependent on what precedes it, is an interpretation which does not necessarily follow from the rubrics or any magisterial source. On the other hand, the rites themselves indicate that the Kyrie is related to whatever precedes it. Consider it a “penitential doxology”. Like the Gloria Patri, it is a ritual culmination and local climax of a liturgical element (in this case a corporate penitential act.) Like the Gloria Patri, it is also a prayer with its own internal logic. (One could pray the Gloria Patri on its own, though this does not occur in the liturgy. All analogies limp, but this is not intended to be a definitive analogy.)

The black-and-white conclusion that the Kyrie always stands on its own loses the nuances of its relation to what precedes it.

Final point: an interpretation of this nature is beyond the competence of an episcopal conference and requires clarification from the Congregation. Anyone want to send the letter? Until then, it is NOT a free-for-all. A temporary clarification must at least be requested from your local ordinary. This sort of thing should not vary from parish to parish.

Paul, I'm not sure if that follows logically. The GIRM presents the kyrie as quite separate from the penitential act. Indeed, it always follows the penitential act, but if the penitential act act is skipped, then one would just move on to the next part of the Mass, the kyrie.

There is a subtlety here that is being missed: the Kyrie has an identity of its own, but it is not independent of what has preceded it.

Ben claims, “The GIRM presents the Kyrie as quite separate from the Penitential Act.”

No, look at the whole picture: the Missal and GIRM present the Kyrie as an element which is incorporated into a Penitential Act, or follows a Penitential act, or is omitted entirely when the sprinkling rite is used; and in the funeral rites when the body is greeted at the door; and (likely) in the rite or marriage; and sometimes when the office is incorporated.

The rite of sprinkling is a guide: it “takes the place of the usual Penitential Act.” It does not include the Kyrie. This is perhaps the best ritual reference, because it is not drawn from another ceremony, but is part of the Mass itself.

The rites express our theology of worship. Whenever the Kyrie is used, there is some kind of related preparation. One does not just “up” and sing the Kyrie. One prepares by reflection (i.e. penitential act or the psalmody of the hours).

Likely this is why it does not say “The Kyrie is said;” rather, the Kyrie “follows”. It is interesting to note the use of this term elsewhere in the Missal, usually where a string of elements are grouped together.

Therefore, I am not convinced of your assertion that the Kyrie is said when the penitential act is omitted (unless specified otherwise). I think all the rites point to the contrary.

Per Dr. Mahrt’s comments, yes by all means remind priests of rubrics, but if you dealing in the realm of opinion as in this case, be sure to admit that. And by using the sprinkling rite, for example, what an excellent opportunity for all to sing the Vidi aquam or Asperges me!

HOWEVER, finally, I would not be surprised if the eventual revised rubrics for the Rite of Marriage says, “The Penitential Act is omitted, and, at choice, the Kyrie.” But until then, someone in authority needs to be consulted.

cantorconvert:

1. I am of the opinion that the Rubrics are clear in the current Missal (at least on this matter- but also on most others), as are other people. I find many of the above comments to be reading way too far into the instruction, trying to infer confusion where none exists.

2. The age of our venerable organization is likely to create more confusion, rather than give it time to settle down. In software we call this "cruft," and it is always in greater abundance on "legacy systems."

3. Have you had a great deal of experiencing planning weddings (and other liturgies) in accordance with the 1962 Missal? I don't know you at all, so I would not suggest that you don't have the credentials to call the older missal a "systematic approach to how to celebrate mass," and (in so doing) declare it to be drastically easier to understand and implement as compared to the current Missal. But at least some part of me thinks that perhaps if you did have such credentials, you wouldn't make such a statement.

If the rubrics for the 1962 Missal were so obvious and clear (as compared to the current), I should think that we would have no need for a specialist class of Latin-reading EF MCs. I would also expect there to be way fewer questions on this board and other places about how to do this or that thing in an EF liturgy.

4. English or Latin, clear or confusing- there is no rubricist in the world that can wield instruction manuals in a fight with a bride (and her mother) and hope for a victory based on the might of legislation.

Paul_D said:

1. To definitively answer one of cantorconvert’s points – on Ash Wednesday, the Kyrie may be sung (as you have phrased it). It may also be omitted. No ambiguity in the Missal (preamble to Ash Wednesday.) Do it or don’t do it, it’s up to the priest, who is custodian of the liturgy in the parish. Perfectly licit either way. No sense arguing over it.

When you refer to the preamble to Ash Wednesday, which language are you citing?

By the way, thanks to everyone for this enlightening thread. This issue has perplexed me from time to time.

I had beleived that the "Penitential Act" was either to recite the confiteor or the tropes used by the priest.

The "Penitential Rite" consists of of the examination of conscience, confiteor, absolution and kyrie.

Judging by some of the logic expressed earlier in this post, if the Kyrie is not intrinsically part of the "Penitential Act" except when you do it with tropes (instead of the Confiteor) then in those cases when the Penitential Act is to be omitted, one must know which form of the Pentitential Act would have been done to decide on whether to omit the Kyrie.

This is ludicrous. I understand tradition, and see the point in the wording of the documents, but it seems effectively clear to me that the Kyrie (for better or worse) in the OF is now considered part of the Penitential Act.

...to mean that the Kyrie itself is not part of the Penitential Act is no more "ludicrous" than reading "the Alleluia or the Verse before the Gospel, if not sung, may be omitted" and wondering whether the Alleluia or Verse before the Gospel may be omitted if sung.

You make my point.

Actually, in the rubric in the Order of Mass in the Missal is a shade clearer than that in the GIRM. It states, "The Kyrie, eleison (Lord, have mercy) invocations follow, unless they have just occurred in a formula of the Penitential Act." Calling them "Kyrie invocations" rather than "the Kyrie" seem to make it part of something greater.

Then again, I'm not sure how seriously to take this program. I thought today was a Feast without Creed, yet they have the Credo printed in the program. Maybe Presentation of the Lord has a different status in Rome.