The Creed and Gloria are said on Feasts of the Lord. Presentation is a Feast of The Lord (which is also why it has precedence over Sundays of Ordinary Time; the propers for Mass this evening should still be of the Presentation).

Ah, but this Mass was offered on Saturday evening in Rome....

Chris you are correct about what should have happened this morning.

WLP reflects continued misunderstanding due to years of USCCB error that was only corrected in 2010. The USCCB used to get this wrong for many years when preparing the US calendar (based on an overinterpretation of what the liturgical day is vs how the table of precedence governs the selection of propers), but finally got it right since 2010, a year when Christmas fell on a Saturday, and the USCCB finally fixed its long-standing erroneous instructions about the the propers of that Saturday evening: the corrected answer is that Saturday evening is still Christmas, and the propers are of Christmas, not of the Holy Family. (Now, it's unusual for parishes to have Masses on Christmas evening - it's the one Saturday evening every 5-6-11 yrs where there tends to be no Mass. But, if you can find a Mass on that evening, it fulfills your preceptual obligation for Sunday Mass (if you've gone to Mass for Christmas earlier in the same day or on the Eve) even though the propers are for Christmas.) The same reasoning applies to today.

I think this discussion is happening in several threads, but the Creed was probably said in Rome because it was liturgically Sunday. Although the Mass of the Feast of the Presentation normally doesn't have a Creed in the OF, because it was celebrated at the time when the observance of the Lord's Day has begun (in current understanding) the Sunday rules apply, which include the saying/singing of the Creed, the Prayer of the Faithful, and the requirement of a homily.

Paul D wrote: One does not just “up” and sing the Kyrie.

From the demise of the Deprecatio Gelasii (an intercessory litany that followed the introit and replaced the old biddings and collects at the end of the LIturgy of the Word), shortly before the reign of Gregory the Great, until the 20th century post-Conciliar reform, Roman rite worshippers did just that.

Some liturgists, pointing out that the Kyrie was introduced to the Roman Mass as a response to a litany, think that in its vestigial form the Kyrie is pointless. But Jungmann tells us the "Kyrie eleison" was used in the secular sphere as an acclamationfor the emperor before it was used in Christian rites as a litany response. For about 1300 years the Kyrie was the "opening acclamation" of the Roman Mass, sung right after the introit.

"Kyrie eleison" does not necessarily have a penitential connotation. It is used constantly in the Byzantine rite as a litany response and is so used in some of the model intercessions included in the modern Roman Missal. "For...let us pray to the Lord. R. Lord have mercy."

The rubrics of the current Roman Missal do not imply to me that the Kyrie is dependent upon the penitential act. But my interpretation is irrelevant.

.

"Kyrie eleison" does not necessarily have a penitential connotation.

I have heard it compared more than a few times to the Southern/African-American exclamation of the same literal meaning:

"Lawd ha' mussy!"

My grandmother (po' white folk) uses this exclamation. I have never heard her say it in a "penitential" context.

Hello, all. I recently was provided with the following information about this topic from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Secretariat of Divine Worship:

The Secretariat of Divine Worship holds that, in general, when the rubrics of the Missal state that the Penitential Act is omitted this includes the omission of the Kyrie. The clearest indication of this is found in the Rite for the Blessing and Sprinkling of Water (found in Appendix II), where the Kyrie is clearly omitted. The examples of Ash Wednesday and Passion (Palm) Sunday do not apply because the Kyrie is employed (optionally) because of the solemn procession from another station to the church of celebration. The example of the Mass For the Conferral of Baptism names both the Penitential Act and the Kyrie for omission because normally one would have the possibility of including a Kyrie following a solemn procession (the baptismal rites begin at the doors of the church followed by a solemn procession into the church and later a solemn procession to the baptismal font). In this case, however, when a litany of the saints will be sung (as well as a prayer of exorcism offered), the possibility of the Kyrie is omitted altogether. It follows, then, that when the rubrics for the Mass For the Celebration of Marriage state that the Penitential Act is omitted, this includes the omission of the Kyrie (especially when no rubric similar to that for Ash Wednesday or Passion (Palm) Sunday is added giving the option of the Kyrie). While this omission strikes us as a bit awkward--at least in our normal experience--the second edition of the Order of Celebrating Marriage does include two sample introductions prior to the singing of the Gloria. These ease the transition from the procession and welcome of the couple. Adding a simple phrase such as, "And so let us sing our joy in the Gloria" or something similar could be added at the end of the prescribed introduction to introduce the Gloria itself.

Perhaps it's just me, but it seems that the plain language, based on the GIRM, is that the Kyrie is not a part of the penitential rite. If it were, then any and all references to it would be embodied within that paragraph wherein the rubrics for the penitential rite are explained. As it stands, the Kyrie is described in full detail as a separate and discrete liturgical event.

I'm not convinced that simply because one of the options for the penitential rite includes a conflation of the Kyrie ipso facto the Kyrie is a part of the penitential rite. It would be an application of post hoc ergo propter hoc.

The USCCB's recent statement notwithstanding, the only clarification that will hold credibility with me is one from the CDW of the Holy See.

And in the spirit of full disclosure, the Kyrie was omitted at our Ash Wednesday Masses, per the priests, including at the EF Masses.

NOTE: In reviewing various sources for the EF, it is interesting to note that there is no mention of omitting the Kyrie. Only the Gloria is mentioned specifically as being omitted, together with any occurrence of the word "Alleluia." While not conclusive, it's certainly informative.

Ben Yanke, when you include the Rite for Blessing and Sprinkling of Water during Mass, do you sing a Kyrie following the Rite? Nowhere in the rubrics of Appendix II does it say that the Kyrie is omitted. It only says the Gloria is sung following the Rite "when it is prescribed". According to your interpretation that the Kyrie is separate from the Penitential Act and therefore not omitted unless explicitly stated, the Gloria would be prescribed only after the Kyrie is sung after the Rite for Blessing and Sprinkling of Water. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't sing a Kyrie at that time. As the USCCB said, the clearest indication of the intent of the phrase "the Penitential Act is omitted" comes from Appendix II of the Roman Missal, and the Kyrie is allowed as an option during Ash Wednesday Mass (notice rubric 1 in the Roman Missal on the page right before the page with the proper for the Ash Wednesday Mass) and other times when Mass begins with the conclusion of a solemn procession. That's why its omission is not explicitly stated in the Ash Wednesday proper--because there are certain rare situations that allow it as an option. A parish Mass that begins with the Introit and a simple or no procession is not one of them.

David Andrew, Papal Mass liturgical practice coincides fully with the USCCB's statement, so I won't be waiting for any sort of confirmation from the Congregation for Divine Worship. I believe any continued confusion lies in the fact that each Mass is imbued with its own character and rituals, and the rubrics for it must be read in light of these, including all available liturgical options and all subtleties and nuances inherent to them.

ClemensRomanus, the Penitential Act is omitted and the Kyrie is optional during the Extended Vigil Mass of Pentecost when First Vespers (Evening Prayer I) is joined to the Mass because the General Instruction of the Liturgy of the Hours provides for the option in GILH 94 and 96. Otherwise, the Penitential Act and Kyrie are included as usual.

94. When morning prayer, celebrated in choir or in common, comes immediately before Mass, the whole celebration may begin either with the introductory verse and hymn of morning prayer, especially on weekdays, or with the entrance song, procession, and celebrant's greeting, especially on Sundays and holydays; one of the introductory rites is thus omitted.

The psalmody of morning prayer follows as usual, up to, but excluding, the reading. After the psalmody the penitential rite is omitted and, as circumstances suggest, the Kyrie; the Gloria then follows, if required by the rubrics, and the celebrant says the opening prayer of the Mass. The liturgy of the word follows as usual...

96. Evening prayer, celebrated immediately before Mass, is joined to it in the same way as morning prayer. Evening prayer I of solemnities, Sundays, or feasts of the Lord falling on Sundays may not be celebrated until after Mass of the preceding day or Saturday.

Part of this is confusion that the Kyrie (without tropes) is a penitential litany. Invoking God's mercy is not *necessarily* penitential in quality, but can ALSO betoken a request for a blessing - it's in this usage that the same words would be used in Byzantine-style general intercessions.

SWM,

It should be noted that in the Appendix in which the Sprinkling Rite is included, there is no mention of the omission of the Kyrie.

However, the text does specifically indicate that the Collect is said immediately after the priest has returned to his chair. This is at least an implicit omission of the Kyrie. The other sections have no such implicit omission.

I would trust the USCCB's interpretation (with reservation) only because I have no better interpretation. I still don't think it's a very good explanation, though.

SWM,

Given what it says in the missal, I would omit the kyrie when the sprinkling rite is done (in normal circumstances). But not because I'm inconsistent or believe the kyrie is at all linked to the penitential act, because if you read the GIRM and Missal honestly, it's not. I would omit it because that's what the rite says. In simple terms, the rite says:

At the time of the penitential act, go to the water blessing instead.
[Sprinkling rite]
After the sprinkling rite, go to the gloria.

So while it doesn't say anything about omitting it, simply following the instructions literally results in it. It says to "skip forward" to the gloria, so naturally, the kyrie is omitted, because it is before the gloria.

That's not at all the same thing as when it say "omit the penitential act." The penitential act and Kyrie are not linked!

Why is this so complicated... I think the USCCB's interpretation still doesn't make sense.

Everywhere else assumes the kyrie is separate from the penitential act. This isn't complicated.

GIRM 258: "Then the penitential act takes place, and, in accordance with the rubrics, the Kyrie and Gloria are said." (They are separate)

Missal pg. 447: "After the Psalmody, omitting the penitential act, and if appropriate, the Kyrie..." (again, they are separate.)

Missal pg. 520: "The Kyrie invocations follow, unless they have just occurred in a formula of the penitential act." (ie, when a kyrie is used without tropes it is outside of the penitential act)

The USCCB explanation makes perfect sense to me, and is a good model of how we answer questions when the rubrics in a particular place are vague: by examining more explicit instructions in all forms of the rite, which shows the expectations of the general rubric.

I don’t see how we can insist that the rubrics as given in the Missal make the Kyrie an element which is always said unless explicitly omitted -- that is an interpretation which now appears to be incorrect given the study of all related situations. We don’t just “move on to the next part of the Mass” when that “part” is clearly dependent on what has happened before it. The rubrics for the Kyrie indicate that its use depends on what precedes it. They are two related elements within that part of the Mass, i.e. the Opening Rites.

The Penitential Act and Kyrie are two different elements, but they are related. The Kyrie follows the Penitential Act. No Penitential Act, no Kyrie. Makes perfect sense to me.

So a penitential act bombinating in a vacuum _can_ devour a subsequent kyrie.

Bombinating? I'm intrigued, Andrew.

The obvious answer is to stop celebrating the Ordinary Form.







;-0

Ben Yanke, you're right, it's not complicated. So according to your requirement that the Kyrie must be specifically mentioned in order to admit it, you are in fact being inconsistent when you do not play a Kyrie after the Rite of Blessing and Sprinkling of Water. You conveniently omitted the phrase "when it is prescribed" from your simplified version of the rubric for how the Gloria follows the Rite of Blessing and Sprinkling of Water. The Gloria is prescribed after the Kyrie on days in which a Gloria is permitted according to GIRM. Since there is no omission of the Kyrie, the Kyrie, too, is prescribed, by your logic of literal interpretation of the rubrics and the GIRM. I'm not stating this because I actually believe the Kyrie should follow the Rite of Blessing and Sprinkling of Water, but because I believe it is, at this point, flawed and a waste of all of our time to continue this debate.

You'll notice that I did not post anything in this discussion thread until the information from the Secretariat of Divine Worship was provided. I found the thread a few days ago even though it has been open for over a year because I had the same questions as the rest of you. The questions and concerns that were discussed and debated before my first post are all valid. The post of the information from the Secretariat is meant to advise all of us of how we should be celebrating the Roman Rite liturgy in the United States in whatever capacity we are meant to serve it. I'm guessing that most of us are organists and directors of music or involved in liturgical music in some way based on the nature of this website and the organization that maintains it. Now we have heard from the Secretariat of Divine Worship of the Bishops Conference that has jurisdiction in the United States, which is where, I'm guessing, most of us carry out our liturgical duties. Therefore, whether or not some of us disagree with the Secretariat's interpretation of the rubrics, far be it for any of us to individually claim that we somehow possess a knowledge of the liturgy and the meaning of the rubrics in the Roman Missal superior to that of the Committee on Divine Worship of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, which is charged with the care of the liturgy in the United States, and perhaps to act on that knowledge in a way that conflicts with the wishes of our Bishops. I know I'm not willing to do that, because I'm not a liturgical protestant. Anyone is free to continue the debate, but no amount of debate and disagreement with the advisement is going to change my mind or practice. The Secretariat of Divine Worship has spoken. I will be carrying out the wishes of the Secretariat to the best of my ability in the parishes in which I am charged with directing liturgical music.

If that's the case, then why would the missal say to omit both in some places, and to only omit the Penitential Act in other places?

Because the committee that devised the rubrics for the Missal was not composed of geniuses who crossed every t, dotted every i, and anticipated every possible interpretation and misinterpretation. If that were the case, perhaps you could tell me when to blow out the candles on the Feast of the Presentation of the Lord. It’s March 12, and mine is still burning, because I am waiting for the explicit instruction to extinguish the candle.

With the many different things that replace the opening of Mass in the various rites and occasions, I can understand that the general rubrics for Mass do not attempt to cover all circumstances, and are worded only generally.

You literally just have to know already what to do (or make it up).

There is some speculation (whether or not it is accurate, I don't know), that this is one reason why the Words of Institution are missing from Addai and Mari.

I think Ben Yanke would make an excellent computer programmer. Also, if Common Sense were a thing, he would have it.

As Adam suggests, Ben, I think you are approaching the Missal rubrics as if they were written by a computer programmer.

That is not what I was suggesting.

If the pastor says to sing the Kyrie, sing it. If he says to not sing it, don't.

The USCCB Committee on Divine Worship Newsletter has a pretty big entry about this topic in this month's edition. Their conclusion:

The following principles may be gleaned from this brief survey of the Penitential Act and Kyrie:

- Normally, when something additional takes place at the beginning of the Mass, then the Penitential Act is omitted, including the Kyrie, unless the rubrics provide otherwise;
- the Kyrie may be used without the Penitential Act in some circumstances, such as the conclusion of a solemn procession (normally only when a Kyrie was not included in the processional chant itself);
- Psalmody in the Mass may be concluded by a Kyrie; and
- when the Rite for the Blessing and Sprinkling of Water is used in place of the Penitential Act at the beginning of Mass, the Kyrie is always omitted.

This seems like the closest we're going to get to a "definitive ruling" on the issue, I would say.

Is this referring to when the psalmody of the Office replaces the entrance rite of the Mass?

Yes. There is a pretty lengthy discussion of the whole topic in the Newsletter, including when Mass is preceded by the Office. That's exactly what this is in reference to.

The newsletter with the full discussion is up: http://www.usccb.org/about/divine-worship/newsletter/upload/newsletter-2014-02-and-03.pdf

As much as I would like the Kyrie to be said at every Mass (unless already included in another part), except in uncommon circumstances most of us will rarely, if ever, encounter, it seems the rubrics envision that when the Penitential Act is omitted, the Kyrie is also.