The Ash Wednesday Liturgy, Propers, Rubrics and Obligations

Two days ago, we began our long Lent, made longer this year no doubt because of the renouncement by our beloved Holy Father of the See of Peter. We owe much to this man who walks in the Shoes of the Fisherman and one is a new awareness of the Church's liturgy both through Summorum Pontificum and the beginnings of what he called in The Spirit of the Liturgy, the reform of the reform.  We have, by the grace of his predecessor Blessed John Paul II and his own work, a new Missal. 

On Ash Wednesday evening, I was once again privileged to be able to sing the Holy Mass at the parish where I serve as Cantor each Saturday at the Anticipated Sunday Mass in northwest Toronto. The Mass there is well celebrated in the Ordinary Form.

Let us take a little look of the liturgical music which we put together for that Mass.

Lenten Prose: ATTENDE DOMINE (please join in singing the refrain in Latin, verses in English)
Entrance Antiphon: You are merciful - Cantor
Processional Hymn: O MERCIFUL REDEEMER, CBW #484
Responsorial Psalm: HAVE MERCY ON US LORD, FOR WE HAVE SINNED, CBW #134
Gospel Acclamation: PRAISE TO YOU, O CHRIST, KING OF ETERNAL GLORY

+ + +

Blessing and Distribution of Ashes

Antiphons I: Let us changeAntiphon II: Let the priestsAntiphon III: Blot outResponsory: Let us correct (Emendemus)Another chant: TAKE UP YOUR CROSS (if necessary)

+ + +

Offertory Antiphon: Let us exult - Cantor
Offertory Hymn: PARCE DOMINE (please join in sing refrain in Latin and verses in English)
SANCTUS Mass XVIII: Roman Missal Chant
MEMORIAL ACCLAMATION: SAVE US, SAVIOUR OF THE WORLD, FOR BY YOUR CROSS AND RESURRECTION YOU HAVE SET US  FREE.
AGNUS DEI Mass XVIII: Roman Missal Chant
Communion Antiphon: He who meditates - Cantor
Communion Hymn: LORD JESUS, THINK ON ME
Recessional Hymn: FROM THE DEPTHS OF SIN AND SADNESS, CBW #487

Note in the Mass that the proper liturgical chants; the Entrance and Offertory Antiphons and the Communion Antiphon with its Psalm were sung. At the same time, the congregation had a Processional Hymn, an Offertory Hymn, a Communion Hymn and one at the Recessional. They sang the Sanctus, Agnus and Memorial Acclamation according to the Roman Missal Chants. This is acutoso participatio or actual/active participation. Listening is also, "participation." What else is noted? The Antiphons and Responsory for Ash Wednesday were chanted by the Cantor and then, as there were so many people and more on that at the end, there was another appropriate "chant" or hymn and this involved the singing with the congregation of Take Up Your Cross.

Now, let us take a look at what is below. What follows is taken directly from the page 20 of Antiphonary - Excerpted from the Roman Missal - English Translation of the Third Roman Missal, which we have been blest to have been using thanks to our current and previous Holy Fathers since the Advent of 2011.

Blessing and Distribution of Ashes 

While the Priest places ashes on the head of all those present who come to him, the following are sung:

Antiphon 1:  Let us change our garments to sackcloth and ashes, let us fast and weep before the Lord, that our God, rich in mercy, might forgive us our sins.

Antiphon 2 Cf. Jl 2: 17; Est 4: 17:  Let the priests, the ministers of the Lord, stand between the porch and the altar and weep and cry out: Spare, O Lord, spare your people; do not close the mouths of those who sing your praise, O Lord.

Antiphon 3 Ps 50: 3:  Blot out my transgressions, O Lord.

This may be repeated after each verse of Psalm 50 (Have mercy on me, O God).

Responsory Cf. Bar 3: 2; Ps 78: 9:  R. Let us correct our faults which we have committed in ignorance, let us not be taken unawares by the day of our death, looking in vain for leisure to repent. * Hear us, O Lord, and show us your mercy, for we have sinned against you. V. Help us, O God our Savior; for the sake of your name, O Lord, set us free. * Hear us, O Lord . . .

Another appropriate chant may also be sung.

What do we notice between the two? The red in what was done corresponds directly to the red in the Missal, commonly referred to as "the rubrics." What else do we notice?  "While the Priest places ashes on the head of all those present who come to him, the following are sung:" In other words, this is not an option. There is no "or other suitable song" substituted. Note as well at the end it adds,  "Another appropriate chant may also be sung". As in the case above, we added a hymn, Take Up Your Cross as permitted. By this time, most people were back in the pew and it nicely covered the final imposition of ashes and the washing after the distribution.

This is what the Church expects for Her liturgy. This is what she expected on Wednesday. Now it refers specifically to this being "sung" it is not intended to be read; therefore if the Mass was read, then these would not normally be said, though there would be nothing preventing them being recited by a Lector but the norm for Mass in the Ordinary Form is that it be sung - solemn just as the norm in the Extraordinary Form is that it be Solemn. It is not being a rubrical stickler or liturgical cop to ask these questions. In fact, let us look further now at this direct quotation in the original Italian and atranslation with my bolding from the bulletin,  Notitiae 5 (1969) 406 published by the Concilium set up to implement Sacrosanctam Concilium:

CANTARE LA MESSA, DUNQUE, E NON SOLO CANTARE DURANTE LA MESSA
Da più parti è stato chiesto se è ancora valida la formula della Istruzione sulla Musica sacra e la Sacra Liturgia, del 3 sett. 1958, al n. 33: “In Missis lectis cantus populares religiosi a fidelibus cantari possunt, servata tamen hac lege ut singulis Missae partibus plane congruant.”La formula è superata.È la Messa, Ordinario e Proprio, che si deve cantare, e non “qualcosa,” anche se plane congruit, che si sovrappone alla Messa. Perché l’azione è unica, ha un solo volto, un solo accento, una sola voce: la voce della Chiesa. Continuare a cantare mottetti, sia pure devoti e pii (come il Lauda Sion all’offertorio nella festa di un santo), ma estranei alla Messa, in luogo dei testi della Messa che si celebra, significa continuare un’ambiguita inammissibile: dare crusca invece di buon frumento, vinello annacquato invece di vine generoso.Perché non solo la melodia ci interessa nel canto liturgico, ma le parole, il testo, il pensiero, i sentimenti rivestiti di poesia e di melodia. Ora, questi testi devono essere quelli della Messa, non altri. Cantare la Messa, dunque, e non solo cantare durante la Messa. Documents on the Liturgy 1963–1975: Conciliar, Papal, and Curial Texts (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1982), edited and translated by Thomas C. O’Brien of the International Commission on English in the Liturgy, 4154 (p. 1299):
Query: Many have inquired whether the rule still applies that appears in the Instruction on sacred music and the liturgy, 3 Sept. 1958, no. 33: “In low Masses religious songs of the people may be sung by the congregation, without prejudice, however, to the principle that they be entirely consistent with the particular parts of the Mass.”  Reply: That rule has been superseded. What must be sung is the Mass, its Ordinary and Proper, not “something,” no matter how consistent, that is imposed on the Mass. Because the liturgical service is one, it has only one countenance, one motif, one voice, the voice of the Church. To continue to replace the texts of the Mass being celebrated with motets that are reverent and devout, yet out of keeping with the Mass of the day (for example, the Lauda Sion on a saint’s feast) amounts to continuing an unacceptable ambiguity: it is to cheat the people. Liturgical song involves not mere melody, but words, text, thought, and the sentiments that the poetry and music contain. Thus texts must be those of the Mass, not others, and singing means singing the Mass not just singing at Mass. 

Whether we be priest or layman, bishop or liturgist, the question we need to ask ourselves, if the Mass we attended on Ash Wednesday last, if sung, was in accord with the rubrics of the Missal and if not, why not?" 

At you parish, did the heretical song "Ashes" make its way into the Mass you attended? George Weigel, catholic theologian, commentator and author wrote with my emphasis:

Thus, with tongue only half in cheek, I propose the Index Canticorum Prohibitorum, the "Index of Forbidden Hymns." Herewith, some examples.The first hymns to go should be hymns that teach heresy. If hymns are more than liturgical filler, hymns that teach ideas contrary to Christian truth have no business in the liturgy. "Ashes" is the prime example here: "We rise again from ashes to create ourselves anew." No, we don't. Christ creates us anew. (Unless Augustine was wrong and Pelagius right). ... What's a text that flatly contradicts that teaching doing in hymnals published with official approval?

So, what are we to do? As priests, liturgists, church musicians, the answer is clear. As laity the answer is obvious too. It is our duty to be educated. If the bishops' conferences fail in this, if the chanceries fail in this, we must take it up ourselves. We don't have excuses anymore. We have the Missal, the resources widely available on the Internet, much of it free. 

Let this be our gift of thanksgiving to God, our “Te Deum” for Pope Benedict XVI for all that he has done for us and to whom we owe so much. Let us remember this Lent, our Holy Father and Christ's Holy Church. Let us pray, not for the Pope we deserve, but for the Pope we need.

+ + +

As a postscript  I've sung the Ash Wednesday Mass at the Toronto parish for, I think, four years now. I am always impressed at the numbers of Catholics which attend. This year, they were even standing at the back, there were so many. Men were in great number as well which is always important to see and this was the parish's third Mass and it is not by any means a large suburban parish with thousands of registered parishioners  It was a cold February night, snow on the ground, damp and miserable as Toronto winters are, yet people came. Ash Wednesday is not a Holy Day of Obligation in Canada, not anywhere I expect. Yet, people come. Why? What is it that will bring us out on a weeknight in the middle of a Canadian winter?  It begs the question. What of the Holy Days of Obligation? In Canada, there are two, Christmas and the Octave Day of Christmas-Mary, Mother of God, that's it. When the Vatican allowed the local determination in 1969, we Canadians went for the lowest common denominator. How sad. Perhaps the people have a greater Catholic heart than the bishops think, even though they've known no different. Perhaps there is something that is awakening that desires us to live the liturgical life, the liturgical year. Could we at least see a return to Epiphany and Ascension of the LORD, if not to Holy Days of Obligation then at least to their proper celebration on January 6 and the Thursday, forty days past the Sunday of the Resurrection?  

How do we know the people won't come?

They came on Wednesday.

Put the last year in the trash bin along with Celebrate in Song!

For those of you in liturgical work in the Ordinary Form in many parts of Canada where for the last year you've been saddled with Mass A, Mass B or Mass C in Celibate in Song under pain of disobedience of the High Priests of Liturgy at the CCCB and the perceived,  conflict of interest of two of the composers of the trite banality passed off as sacred music and a Gloria that is not the Roman Missal Gloria, there is great news.

THE YEAR IS OVER!

From the new and improved ICEL

A Facebook friend posted a column by Father Raymond J. de Souza in the Catholic Register. In a manner we've come to appreciate from Father Z, Father de Souza remnds us what the prayer really says.

This coming Sunday, the Fourth Sunday of Advent has a very special Collect in both the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms of the Roman Rite

Last year and for the forty-one years before, in the Novus Ordo Missae, this is what we heard:

Lord,
Fill our hearts with your love,
and as you revealed to us by an angel
the coming of your Son as man,
so lead us through His suffering and death
to the glory of His resurrection,
for He lives and reigns…

This Sunday coming, we will hear this:

Pour forth, we beseech you, O Lord,
your grace into our hearts,
that we, to whom the Incarnation of Christ your Son
was made known by the message of an Angel,
may by His Passion and Cross
be brought to the glory of the Resurrection.
Who lives and reigns…

Does it sound familiar?

It should as it is commonly known as the Angelus Prayer said three times a day.

What the translators at ICEL did to the Mass in English and us was a crime and a pretty blatant one at that, too!

That Blessed John Paul II rectified this not only with the Third Typical Edtion of the Roman Missal but more importantly, Liturgiam Authenticum and the Vox Clara Commission is one more reason why he his Blessed.

How many more nice surprises in the new Roman Missal are in store for us?

Scarboro Foreign Mission Syncretism

One post below is the evidence of liturgical abuse of the Holy Mass in the new Roman Missal translation by the Superior General of the Scarboro Foreign Missions, once known as the China Mission" a Society of Apostolic Life in the Archdiocese of Toronto.

Based on their infamous "Golden Rule" poster where Catholicism is just one of a number of options, what else can we expect?

I wonder what Monsignor Fraser would think?



"The Golden Rule" poster promulgated by the Scarboro Foreign Missions

"For All" or "For Many"...whatever

I have said it before and I will say it again.

A corrected translation is not enough.

Why does this priest change the words of the Opening Greeting, the Penitential Rite, the Offertory, the Consecration?

He chooses not to say "for many" but does not say "for all" just, "for you."
We have a mixing of the old and new.When is this going to end?

Why does Salt + Light TV which broadcasts this daily, not deal with this problem?  Can they even? I appreciate that this is again, not a Salt + Light production but surely over the years, they've known about this kind of liturgical carelessness and innovation. I feel for them; they need to broadcast the Mass and they buy it from the National Catholic Broadcasting Council.

Well, who exactly are they?

The priest here is Father Jack Lynch, Superior General of the Scarboro Foreign Missions once known as the China Mission.

Father Lynch, this is causing great distress amongst the faithful, read the comments on Youtube. This is a against Sacrosanctam Concilium the teachings of Blessed John Paul II and the GIRM. Please stop changing the words. Please celebrate the Mass according to the words.

The one above, the first week of the new Roman Missal was no mistake or accident. He does it again below:

jlynch@scarboromissions.ca

National Catholic Broadcasting Council

1-888-383-6277

Salt + Light Your Catholic Channel of Hope

(416) 971-5353 or toll free 1-888-302-7181

52. All of this makes clear the great responsibility which belongs to priests in particular for the celebration of the Eucharist. It is their responsibility to preside at the Eucharist in persona Christi and to provide a witness to and a service of communion not only for the community directly taking part in the celebration, but also for the universal Church, which is a part of every Eucharist. It must be lamented that, especially in the years following the post-conciliar liturgical reform, as a result of a misguided sense of creativity and adaptation there have been a number of abuses which have been a source of suffering for many. A certain reaction against “formalism” has led some, especially in certain regions, to consider the “forms” chosen by the Church's great liturgical tradition and her Magisterium as non-binding and to introduce unauthorized innovations which are often completely inappropriate. 

I consider it my duty, therefore to appeal urgently that the liturgical norms for the celebration of the Eucharist be observed with great fidelity. These norms are a concrete expression of the authentically ecclesial nature of the Eucharist; this is their deepest meaning. Liturgy is never anyone's private property, be it of the celebrant or of the community in which the mysteries are celebrated. The Apostle Paul had to address fiery words to the community of Corinth because of grave shortcomings in their celebration of the Eucharist resulting in divisions (schismata) and the emergence of factions (haireseis) (cf. 1 Cor 11:17-34). Our time, too, calls for a renewed awareness and appreciation of liturgical norms as a reflection of, and a witness to, the one universal Church made present in every celebration of the Eucharist. Priests who faithfully celebrate Mass according to the liturgical norms, and communities which conform to those norms, quietly but eloquently demonstrate their love for the Church. Precisely to bring out more clearly this deeper meaning of liturgical norms, I have asked the competent offices of the Roman Curia to prepare a more specific document, including prescriptions of a juridical nature, on this very important subject. No one is permitted to undervalue the mystery entrusted to our hands: it is too great for anyone to feel free to treat it lightly and with disregard for its sacredness and its universality. Blessed John Paul II, ENCYCLICAL LETTERECCLESIA DE EUCHARISTIA

What Arinze said...

What is Rome's position on forcing people to stand after recieving Holy Communion?

Question: Does everybody have to stand until the last person has received Holy Communion?

Francis Cardinal Arinze: "There is no rule from Rome that everybody must stand during Holy Communion. There is no such rule from Rome. So, after people have received Communion, they can stand, they can kneel, they can sit. But a bishop in his diocese or bishops in a country could say that they recommend standing or kneeling. They could. It is not a law from Rome. They could -- but not impose it. Perhaps they could propose. But those who want to sit or kneel or stand should be left reasonable freedom."

http://www.adoremus.org/1003Arinze.html


 

Hey Moncton: Stand Up for Yourselves and Kneel Down!

Here we have news reaching us today from Moncton giving me another reason to publicly thank Archbishop Thomas Collins.

I imagine the "link" will only work for a few more days. Catholics in the Maritimes have sure had their pain to endure not the least of which has been the preying on their children by wicked homosexual priests. The liturgy is a mess, church attendance is poor and vocations are almost non-existent.

6. Posture of the Communion Rite: The time of receiving communion is a sign that unites us as we all come to be fed at the Lord’s table. This is not about a private, devotional time between me and Jesus. It is a time that we, the Body of Christ, come to share in the Body of Christ, and so to go out to be the Body of Christ to the world. We do this as a community of faithful disciples. This is also another time in the liturgy when we take the same posture as the presider. And so we remain standing until the last person has received communion. At this time we will all then be seated for sacred silence, a time to give thanks for this blessing that God offers us. Of course, there are those in our midst who would not be able to stand for this period of time. It is most acceptable that they are seated as they need. The rest of the community remains standing as we sing together, notice our sisters and brothers who approach to receive the Body and Blood of Christ. We stand with our music ministry who lead us in song during this time. We stand as resurrected people. We stand in unity with all who come to the table. And we sit to give thanks in silent prayer once all have been fed.

Hey Moncton; any vocations?

When was your last ordination?

Let's remember our Catholic brothers and sisters in Moncton and Saint John and Halifax, and Antigonish and Newfoundland in prayer that they will soon have priests who will work to rebuilt His Church there.
Now, good people in Moncton; from a half Maritimer (my late mother was born in Fredericton) go and sit down and write, then stand up for your rights and kneel down for your LORD, if you choose to do so.

Antonio Cardinal Cañizares Llovera
Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments
Palazzo delle Congregazioni,
00193 Roma,
Piazza Pio XII, 10
Vatican City

It's "my church" you silly cookie worshipper!

The news from London Diocese headed by Basilian, Bishop Ronald Fabbro just keep coming. There is no doubt that those who serve and advise the Bishop in liturgy have to give an accounting to him, to the people and most of all, to the LORD.

Members of my family, in the London diocese, were all commanded to stand for the reception of Holy Communion; their parish priest berated them that such behaviour would not be tolerated in "his church." As if that were not shocking enough he labelled them, "cookie worshipers"! This latest proscription on kneeling after communion does suggest this may not have been an "isolated incidence." Although this case was the most egregious of many, it does suggest organic growth from a corrupted tree. "No one eats this flesh without having first adored it...and not only do we not sin in thus adoring it, but we would be sinning if we did not do so." St. Augustine on The Sin of "Spiritual Pride" in the Diocese of London!

Your Excellency; I know this is not what you intended.

Elizabeth at 10:02 who left this; please write to me privately and urgently at voxcantoris (at) rogers (dot) com

Catholics in Canada: Rise Up and Kneel Down!

Go here, my Canadians sisters and brothers, and join Canadian Catholic Preserving the Custom of Kneeling after Communion!

A Metropolitan See and its Wayward London Child

Thank you and a prayer for God's abundant blessings on Archbishop Thomas Collins of Toronto for having the grace, faith and pastoral sensitivity to recognise the "laudable practice" in the GIRM that the kneeling custom in Toronto is to be maintained. That is, from the end of the Sanctus to the end of the Doxology and from the beginning of the Ecce Agnus Dei. After Communion, the faithful may kneel or sit. as they are inclinded, as is their personal choice.

Our grown up American brothers and sisters are much more fortunate that the Holy See has already ruled on ths ludicrous behaviour by episcopal dictators. Gee, they seem to find something in the GIRM to enforce that isn't there but they can't enforce the minimal use of Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion or Gregorian chant?

Meanwhile, the poor people of the See of Toronto's wayward child have had gestapo like "ministers of uniformity" going around telling them to get off of their knees. The Diocese of London under Bishop Ronald Fabbro of the Congregation of St. Basil as High Priest of liturgy has ordered under the rubric of "obedience" that people must all stand after Holy Communion until all have received and returned to their pews as a sign of "unity" and "community."

Woe too, to those in Calgary who suffer from a bishop who states, "The GIRM says this...In Calgary, we do this..."

Reports are reaching us today from Calgary, Antigonish, Halifax, Winnipeg and other places of this rudeness and intrusion on the part of some of Canada's high priests of liturgy.

God bless Archbishop Michael Miller of Vancouver for recognising "laudable practice.'

As referred to in the link above, this little matter has been dealt with by Rome previously and quite effectively at that same link by Francis Cardinal Arinze, whlilst he was Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. Letters will be written. Rome will be called in to intervene.

Look at this from a Facebook feed about the situation in London today:

Sadly, in my diocese last evening, some left Holy Mass in tears and angry after being forced to stand after receiving Our precious Lord in the Eucharist and were prohibited from kneeling. Shame on the priest and our bishop!

I just knelt anyway, the liturgy belongs to all of us, and the Holy See said we can kneel if we wish. I have never like bullies. The priest and I had a good discussion afterward and he at least seemed interested in finding out what Rome has said about this "no kneeling" after Communion liturgical fad. I'll be emailing the documents to him today.

One parishioner, in his 70's, was so upset at Holy Mass after being told the bishop said we can't kneel after Communion anymore, he yelled out during the priest's homily, "Father, why can't we keep kneeling together as a sign of unity?" The priest just responded, "This is what the bishop said we have to do for unity." Unity? Give me a break. Ripping away a centuries old custom from people, which takes place during a most miraculous moment in their lives, does not create unity. It creates harm through division, anger, and deep hurt. God save us!

Gentle Reader, this is not what the GIRM requires. This is not in the new Roman Missal. The bishops who do this are being insensitive and cruel. They are not doing what the Church wants. It is an ugly power-play.

It is my view that many, many bishops, priests and professional Catholics and liturgists resent in every way the Third Edition of the Roman Missal and the translation mandated by Liturgicam Authenticum. They were forced to implement it when as recently as last February they denied any sense of urgency when the Recognitio was still not granted. Some will stop at nothing to ensure that that which is to surround the Missal  to increase reverence and holiness does not happen.

If they are so eager to interpret what is not in the GIRM when will they actually interpret correctly what is in there such as Gregorian chant?

Dear Reader, you have a responsibility to stand up get in the battle in a way that our parents and grandparents were not out of blind obedience and ignorance.

Here is one way.

CANADIAN CATHOLICS PRESERVING THE CUSTOM OF

KNEELING AFTER HOLY COMMUNION

Celebrate in Song: Two critiques of the new CCCB booklet

Here is my article from the December 2011 edition of Catholic Insight. Permission has been granted for a reprint at http://www.canticanova.com/.

You can read it all, here:

Celebrate in Song: Two critiques of the new CCCB booklet
By Raymond Lévesque and David Domet
Issue: December 2011

Attending one of the workshops in Toronto at Annunciation parish on the music for the new Missal I was amused to find that one of the presenters, a "professional liturgist" in front of over 400 people would say; "they (ICEL) have even set the Nicene Creed to music; why anyone would want to sing the Creed is beyond me."

Indeed.

When questioned as to the Propers, she responded, "What are they?"

This from one of Canada's professional liturgists does not speak well for the rest of Celebrate in Song.

The three settings composed by Canadian composers are no closer to the ideal of what the Church expects and calls Sacred Music than that which is mostly now tolerated.

Celebrate in Song---Conflicted Interest

Well, well well...isn't this interesting.  It seems that two of three composers of the less than appropriate Mass settings in Celebrate in Song are actually on the National Council of Liturgical Music under the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. Now, how much did your parish pay for this? Um, did the Bishops not command that you "only" sing these? Does all this seem a little out of the ordinary?

Nah, it must be just me.

Nota bene: Perhaps those who have foisted upon Catholic in Canada the banality of Celibate in Song might be interested in this:

Vatican instructions on liturgical music, architecture coming soon

November 22, 2011

The Vatican will soon unveil a “liturgical art and sacred music commission,” and issue new guidelines for the construction of churches and the renewal of liturgical music, according to Andrea Tornielli of La Stampa.
Tornielli—who has compiled an enviable record for predicting new developments in the pontificate of Benedict XVI—says that the new commission will mark an important step in the Pontiff’s long-cherished plan for a “reform of the reform” in the liturgy.
 
The commission will be part of the Congregation for Divine Worship, Tornielli reports. He notes that in September, Pope Benedict relieved that congregation of its responsibility for several canonical issues, explaining that the Congregation for Divine Worship should devote its energies primarily to “giving fresh impetus to the promotion of the Church’s sacred liturgy.”
 
That congregation, under the leadership of Cardinal Antonio Cañizares Llovera, will now issue instructions on liturgical music, architecture, and art, Tornielli reports. These instructions will be designed to insure that all artistic elements are oriented toward a reverent celebration of the liturgy.

On the Corrected Translaton of the Roman Missal

Courtesy of The Chant Cafe and FaithUK is this important article from Father Tim Finigan writing in the September/October edition of Faith Magazine. As approach the last week of a translation of the Holy Mass in the Ordinary Form (Novus Ordo Missae) which has been a destruction to the faith Father Finigan brilliantly summarises its deficiencies and what it has meant. It is important that you make your friends aware of not only what is coming but the history and outright consipiracy to destroy the liturgy.

The New (corrected) ICEL Translation

Tim Finigan FAITH Magazine September – October 2011

Fr Timothy Finigan, Parish Priest of Blackfen, sketches the slow process, following Christopher Monckton's 1979 expose in this magazine, of correcting the 1970s mistranslation of the text of the liturgy. He also touches upon the opportunities offered by the translation for healing some of the deep ecclesial wounds of recent decades. Fr Finigan has a popular blog, The Hermeneutic of Continuity.

People have grown old and died waiting for an accurate English translation of the Missal of Pope Paul VI. Most Catholics under 40 years of age have never been able to participate at Mass said according to a faithful rendering of the official Latin text. This injustice to the People of God is now being rectified, and not before time.

The imprimatur for the first full ICEL Missal in England was given by Cardinal Heenan in October 1974. The introduction of the whole Missal was not necessarily immediate. In England and Wales, the former, and much better translation of the National Liturgical Commission (NLC), known colloquially as the "Wheeler Missal" after Bishop Wheeler who played a significant part in producing it, remained legitimate as an alternative. In the September-October 1975 issue of Faith Magazine, Fr Holloway wrote: "To my mind, it is a blessing that our Bishops have not yet allowed ICEL complete and total dominion, although for how long can NLC hold out?" In fact, it did gradually fall into general disuse, although some priests carefully retained copies of the Wheeler Missal. In recent years, they have become as gold dust for younger clergy. (It is still legitimate, I suppose, until the first Sunday of Advent, though I wonder whether anyone has even remembered to mandate its suppression.)

Early Criticisms of the Old ICEL

Though the NLC Propers could be used, the Ordinary of the Mass had to be ICEL. Criticisms of ICEL in the early days therefore often focussed on the texts of the Creed or the Eucharistic Prayers. Even so, this was in the days long before the first web browser was invented, and the reaction was slower than we are accustomed to now. People did complain about the translation, focussing on its banality and lack of a sense of the sacred. Latin Mass (even in the new rite) had become a rarity by the mid 1970s and so it required an effort to get hold of a Latin Missal to compare the texts. As more and more interested Catholics did so, there was a sense of outrage at what was missing, changed or simply invented. In 1979, Christopher Monckton, then Editor of the Universe, focussed the complaints of many of us in his widely influential paper for the Association of English Worship, published in this magazine (Dec 1979) as "Caught in the Act. A Conspiracy of Errors." (He compiled a list of over 400 such errors.)

The main point of his article was that the ICEL translation (of the Ordinary of the Mass) was not only banal, nor even simply erroneous; Monckton demonstrated that it was marred by systematic omissions, and systematic doctrinal defects. The words sanctus and beatus had been passed over in almost every place where they occur in the text. As he observed, "there was only one point at which the translators must have found it all but impossible to omit the word "Sanctus" and that is in the SANCTUS itself." They could hardly have expected the priest and people to say: "____,____,____," My own favourite example of desacralising is the translation of the text in the Roman Canon "accipiens et hunc praeclarum calicem in sanctas et venerabiles manus suas" which is properly translated in the new ICEL as "he took this precious chalice in his holy and venerable hands." The old ICEL has "he took the cup."

Monckton also drew attention to the theologically grave problem of the text's playing-down of sacrificial language, eliminating the distinction between the offering made by the priest and that made by the people, and losing the notion of Christ as victim. The most glaring example is the phrase ''sanctum sacrificium, immaculatam hostiam" in the Roman Canon, which is simply omitted.

Ever since Monckton's article and others like it in the late seventies, it has been an open secret that the translation was bad, and needed to be replaced. Even at that time, with the text not six years old, the Chairman of ICEL indicated that it was to be subject to a careful and painstaking re-evaluation; it took eighteen years for a new text to be presented to the Holy See. By 1998, however, many things had changed: Pope John Paul's papacy had matured, and the Congregation for Divine Worship, after a series of other good prefects, was now run by Cardinal Estevez. In his letter to ICEL, the Cardinal gave 114 examples of specific flaws in the proposed text, saying that the list "cannot be considered in any way exhaustive." He specifically noted "It appears, indeed, consciously or unconsciously to promote a view of sacramental and ecclesiological theology that contrasts with the intentions of the Holy See." Among the many defects, he noted the dropping of the words sanctus and beatus: the "careful and painstaking" eighteen year re-evaluation did not seem to have achieved very much.

Before offering his cordial good wishes in Christ the Lord, Cardinal Estevez wrote:

"... this Congregation considers it may be helpful to recommend that there be a complete change of translators on this project and that a new, independent and definitive English version be made afresh from the Latin texts."

Not long afterwards, in 2001, the instruction Liturgiam Authenticam was issued, insisting that

"the original text, insofar as possible, must be translated integrally and in the most exact manner, without omissions or additions in terms of their content, and without paraphrases or glosses. Any adaptation to the characteristics or the nature of the various vernacular languages is to be sober and discreet."

The following year, ICEL was reconstituted with due acknowledgement of the competence of the Congregation for Divine Worship, and the process of translation began for a third time. The growing use of the internet, especially in social networking, meant that through the debates of the US Bishops' Conference (commendably held in public session) the general Catholic public became increasingly aware of just what thinking was behind what was coming to be known by consensus as the "lame-duck translation", an expression popularised by Fr Zuhlsdorf who has spent many years analysing "What does the prayer really say?" both in his column for The Wanderer and on his popular blog. When Bishop Trautman of Erie complained about unfamiliar words being used, bloggers jokingly vied with each other to include the words "ineffable", "wrought" and "gibbet" into ordinary posts. The opposition to the more sacral language was characterised as objecting to "them fancy words."

A Great Relief for Priests and People

Now, after several decades, we finally have an accurate translation of the Roman Missal to use for the celebration of Mass. During the lead-up to its introduction, some of the liberal Catholic press has been acting in a way reminiscent of the "phony war" of 1939. They have not been issuing gas masks and practising air raid drills, but from the hysteria of some articles, you would think that extra first-aiders should be trained. I am not exaggerating here. The Tablet actually posted an article on its website in which the author suggested that asking children to say in The Confiteor "through my fault, through my fault, through my own most grievous fault" while beating their breasts, was a form of psychological child abuse. Wisely (perhaps realising that this foolish comment trivialised real child abuse) The Tablet took the article down.

Most ordinary Catholics who are still actually going to Mass will not be troubled by the changes to the text, except for stumbling a bit for the first few weeks and accidentally falling into the old ICEL from time to time. The priest can do a lot to help in the reception of this change. If he is obviously enthusiastic and positive, the people will be encouraged in their faith, and can benefit from the catechesis that he gives in his ordinary preaching, looking at topics like sacrifice, grace, humility, and the sacredness of the Liturgy, to give a few examples of doctrines that show out much more clearly in the new texts.

For the minority who take an active interest in the Liturgy, read Catholic articles and follow news within the Church, I suspect that the people who are delighted by the new ICEL will far outnumber those who are opposed to it. For priests who are faithful to the Church, and have been aware of the errors and deficiencies of the old ICEL, it will be a relief and a joy to be able to use a worthy text for the celebration of Mass in English. For the 27 years of my priestly life, I have been using a lame-duck text that dumbs down the theology of the Mass and prevents me from giving to God the reverence due to Him in the words of the prayers prescribed by the Church. I rejoice that the students I have taught, who are being ordained this year will begin their priestly ministry with a worthy text.

Unfortunately, there has been little progress on the question of copyright to the text, which belongs to the local Bishops' Conferences. The cards which have been produced by the major publishers have various problems because of conditions imposed by the National Liturgical Committee. They imply or state that the offertory prayers must be said out loud, that the sign of peace is compulsory, and that Holy Communion must be received standing. They are also unwieldy because of ICEL's insistence that the texts must be printed according to "sense lines." (This constraint also make the Missal itself waste acres of white space.) Last year, when the "phony war" ponderously urged elaborate preparation for priests to be able to use the new texts, I pointed out at one clergy meeting that I had done the preparation many years ago by taking English O-Level. The stubborn insistence on "sense lines" is surely a form of that "infantilisation" which was fostered by the collaborative ministry enthusiasts but is so decried nowadays.

Paradoxically, since Summorum Pontificum, it is easier to obtain high quality pdfs of the texts and music for the extraordinary form of the Mass and the Divine Office than for the ordinary form in English. There will undoubtedly be an underground movement to share electronic versions of the text so that booklets and leaflets can be produced and distributed on the internet free of charge. (There is already a text of the newly-translated Missal available on Wikispooks) It would make sense for ICEL and the English speaking Bishops' Conferences (or any one of them) or the Holy See itself to put an official version of the text out into the wild under a licence that allowed non-commercial copying with the caveat that the text itself should not be modified (it is in fact much easier to verify the integrity of an electronic text.) Hunting people down for copyright violations is a waste of time that could be better spent supporting the work done by enthusiastic Catholics free of charge for the love of God.

In a way, the liberals are right to fear the new (corrected) ICEL text. They do not want any change in the status quo because it will inevitably provide an opportunity to make other changes, most notably to the music that is used for the Mass. If parishes begin to recover the idea of a sung Mass, rather than a Mass at which things are sung, that will be a great improvement to the celebration of the Liturgy. Once bumped out of the groove in which we have been stuck for decades, it will be easier for parish priests to take up some of the reforms which have been encouraged gently by Pope Benedict, to be frightened no longer by traditional vestments and vessels for Mass, by the possibility of at least some celebrations of Mass being ad orientem, or by gently moving away from anti-liturgical informality.

During the decades in which we have been lumbered with the lame-duck translation, much has changed in the Church: some of the changes have ironically been a matter of people continuing to do the same thing. Those who as youngsters were attracted by the folk choir and have remained in it, can sometimes now look like the ageing rockers who play at teatime in seaside pavilions in the summer. They may still harbour the pious hope that young people will be attracted by matey liturgy and jolly tunes. The sad reality is that in most parishes there are hardly any young people left after the Confirmation course has finished. The ones who do remain will stay because either through a miracle or the providence of God they have received some formation in the faith: they want the truth and they want to worship God. Some school chaplains or diocesan youth centres have tried hard to move towards better and more catechetical music for worship but the danger remains that this is of transient appeal and can become quickly outdated and a source of amusement unlike the perennial sacred music of the Church which was actually mandated by Vatican II.

The debate over whether liturgy or catechesis is most important for saving the faith of the young has taken a new turn in the recent revival of the Liturgical movement. The Liturgy has been rediscovered as itself a source for theology, and therefore also for catechesis. This certainly does not mean that the Liturgy is primarily a school assembly: making it such is one of the problems that we have to overcome. Rather, the priest in his preaching, and the catechist in sacramental preparation can use the texts of the Liturgy to illustrate the faith. This will be much easier with the new (corrected) translation which succeeds in preserving the dogmatic content of the prayers. Shortly after the time of the publication of the lame-duck translation, Faith movement produced a pamphlet called "The Liturgy: a catechism of Catholic doctrine." This showed that even in what was a bad translation, the basic doctrines of the faith could be found in the text. Now everyone is talking about the opportunity for catechesis that the new text presents.

Important though this is, it must be accompanied by a recovery of the sacred in the Liturgy: especially in the celebration of Sunday Mass, and even more crucially in the celebration of the school Mass. Many active young Catholics have found the numinous in the usus antiquior and have become attached to it, much to the bewilderment of older Catholics who remember the heady days of the seventies with nostalgia. Whatever the process of mutual enrichment between the Extraordinary and Ordinary Forms of Mass (as desired by Pope Benedict) will hold for the future, the present position of young Catholics is that they are going to keep or lose the faith through what they experience in the Mass celebrated at their parish and at their school. The new (corrected) translation offers us a definitive moment of action (the local centre of spirituality would doubtless call it kairos.) Archbishop Nichols told the clergy of Westminster on the 9th of June last, that "the Liturgy forms us, not us the Liturgy." I agree with him and would add that right now, we need to seize the opportunity to change more than simply the translation: clergy of orthodox faith who love the Church must take the risk of insisting that they will submit themselves to the Liturgy, eradicate informality, correct abuses and (if not literally then at least symbolically) turn towards the Lord. Whether in English or in Latin, we are in fact going up to the altar of God. And He is the one who gives joy to our youth.

Fighting Back With Truth and Clarity

How amazing is the internet for our ability to communicate and cooperate and spread the truth. No wonder they have closed the CCCB Plenary to everyone but Salt + Light and Father Rosica's media interpretation. Why is LifeSiteNews banned from the plenary? 

What is it that they are afraid of?

Have they not yet figured it out that they cannot stop people from communicating or spreading the truth?

Didn't they want an educated laity. Is there arrogance not the height of the clericalism that they profess to detest?

In a post below, I point out two letters about regimented standing orders in conjunction with the new GIRM. This is occurring in two separate dioceses 2,000kms apart. Antigonish and Sault Ste. Marie. There is a common denominator though, the current Bishop of Antigonish is the former Bishop of Sault Ste. Marie.

Before you go any further, take a few moments and watch this video of the former Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Francis Cardinal Arinze. Watch all of it, but particularly the points referred to about standing whilst everyone is receiving communion in a regimented fashios is addresesd at 3:00

Now, back to the Internet and communications.

Gaby, a regular reader left a note in the combox of We've Got Mail. In it, she left a dubium, a doubt or question, asked by none other than the Archbishop of Chicago, Cardinal George and it is posted at Adoremus. The dubium was answered in what is a called a Responsum by Cardinal Arinze on this very topic. 

Here is the main point:

At the time Cardinal Francis George, of Chicago, was Chairman of the Bishops' Committee of the Liturgy, and the question was raised due to this habit by liturgists developing in the United States forcing the people into this regimented posture. The new GIRM was issued and the Cardinal asks if the "long-standing practices of individuals kneeling upon returning to their places after having received Holy Communion is somehow prohbitited. It was noted that there is  "controversy ... over the proper posture of the faithful at Mass after receiving Holy Communion. In several dioceses people have been instructed that they must stand until the last person has received Communion, despite the long-standing custom that people knelt during the distribution of Communion"
 

Dubium: In many places, the faithful are accustomed to kneeling or sitting in personal prayer upon returning to their places after having individually received Holy Communion during Mass. Is it the intention of the Missale Romanum, editio typica tertia, to forbid this practice?

Cardinal Francis Arinze, Prefect of the CDW, responded to the question on June 5, 2003 (Prot. N. 855/03/L):

Responsum: Negative, et ad mensum [No, for this reason]. The mens [reasoning] is that the prescription of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, no. 43, is intended, on the one hand, to ensure within broad limits a certain uniformity of posture within the congregation for the various parts of the celebration of Holy Mass, and on the other, to not regulate posture rigidly in such a way that those who wish to kneel or sit would no longer be free.

Isn't the Internet wonderful?

We've got mail...

How is it that people are so distressed by what is being caused in their parishes that to get an answer they need to write to a blogger.

Truly, I am humbled. More, I am saddened.

Letter 1 from Antigonish:

Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 3:04:30 PM
To: voxcantoris@rogers.com
Subject: New Missal & Unity of Posture

Good Afternoon,

I have been following your blog for a while now, particularly you posts on the new missal which are very informative. Thank you!

I am in the Diocese of Antigonish and this weekend one of the local bulletins had an insert on the new missal and unity of posture. One of the changes stated was:

In our diocese, the people will continue standing, even at their pew, until the last person in the communion procession receives communion. The hymn will not end until the last person receives, then the people may kneel. (The full bulletin can be viewed here:

http://www.cansoparishes.org/bulletin.html

I find it hard to believe that this is an actual change but I am no expert! Do you know anything about this?

Thank you for your time.

Letter 2 from another forlorn place in Canada, the Diocese of Sault Ste. Marie 

Sent: October 17, 2011 4:42 PM
To: voxcantoris@rogers.com
Subject: communion

Hello,

Can you help me? My mom called me this afternoon. She was told that the GIRM 2011 indicated that the congregation must remain STANDING after communion until everyone has received? I am surprised. I've been to a CMAA conference, read quite a bit, perused the new GIRM for Canada, but have never heard this. I hope it's not true! Do you know of any such instruction?

Thank you.

Dear my fellow suffering Canadian Catholics,

The GIRM indicates two things. We must kneel at the Consecration, so all those churches that pulled out their kneelers will have to put them back in. Second, those places where kneeling is from the end of the Sanctus to the Doxology and from the Agnus Dei, that is a “laudable” practice to be maintained. Once you return to the pew from Communion the decision on whether to kneel, sit or stand is yours and yours alone. The GIRM is silent here thought there is reference that the priest and faithful “may pray quietly for a time.


Nobody has the right to tell you what your posture is at this point. The decision is yours. If anyone harasses you for kneeling or orders you up on your knees then that is an action straight out of Hell.

Perhaps you might have you expert liturgists consider what Cardinal Arinze has to say.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cc0g3UMRtMM

The good news?

In 20 years, the people that are doing this will all be retired or dead and before the judgement seat of God.

The other good news?

The “FOURTH TYPICAL EDITION” will be upon us before you know it, after all, its rubrics next and praxis, not translation; and the sound which you hear is the death knell of the cabal of modernists, feminists, homosexualits, socialists and fascists dressed up as catholics with a small "c" as they try to persecute you one more time.

Be strong friend, Jesus has already won it for us.
God bless.

Vox Cantoris

The Gloria you should all be singing!

If you have not yet discovered the really fine work done by Jeff Ostrowski and the other good folks at the Corpus Christi Watershed, then I urge you to do so. Their work along with that of Jeffrey Tucker and Adam Bartlett at The Chant Cafe and Church Music Association of America is critically important right now. The change to the Third Typical Edition of the Roman Missal is a great opportunity but if the beauty is to be realised fully, then  you are going to have to spread this news in your parish to affect real change.

Here is the setting of the Roman Missal Gloria based on Mass XV, Missa Dominator Deus which dates from at least the 9th century. It is presented here with an organ accompaniement. This Gloria was deemed by Father Bill Burke of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops to be "too hard" for Canadians and has been scandalously left out of the so-called "Chant Setting" in the Canadian hymnal supplement.

Father Burke, with all due respect, I have more confidence in my fellow Catholic Canadians than you do.

I have used this Gloria for the past two weeks at the Vigil Mass on Saturdays and it will take some time but I fully expect the congregation will learn this and come to appreciate its prayerfullness and ethereal beauty.

Considering the GIRM II: Posture for Holy Communion

Some may think that standing for Holy Communion began with the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae in 1970. For those of us over 50, the Novus Ordo is the "New, New Mass." We had the "New Mass" -the 1965 Roman Missal and it was then that standing began, though Holy Communion was still on the tongue and patens were still used. It was considered a vile abuse in Holland and Belgium where experimentation gave way to the almost universal dissent of commuion-in-the-hand prompting Pope Paul VI to issue Memoriale Domini which was promptly ignored and which he was too weak to enforce.
It was not long after this, and certainly even before 1970, that Communion Rails - the last remaining part of the Rood in the West, which in the Byzantine is the Iconostasis and in the Syriac the Veil, were by and large, removed and some rather sadly and unceremoniously ending up as parking curbs.

Truly, the Byzantine and Syriac manner of receiving the Eucharist is standing. In fact, they don't kneel at all in the Divine Liturgy or Qurbono as it is known in the Syriac Church.  It was in the west that kneeling became the norm as a response to heresy and doubt in the Real Presence - not so much a problem in either Eastern Churches. Along with this destruction of Communion Rails of course came the Magdalene moment of searching for the Tabernacle. It was a debate between the "dynamic" verses the "static" presence. We simple Catholics knew nothing of dynamic or static, only Real.

This debate still rages, though it is changing for the better as the generation that did all this dies off. They left few children literally or spiritually and in a decade's time they will be all be gone to their particular judgement or resting in nursing homes. It will be up to us to ensure that they are not euthanised even though they did not fight the early fight against the slaughter of the innocents as they were too busy with coke and pizza Masses. The churches will be emptier but they will be filled with Catholics who will strive for something better and they will be filled with fewer but holier and zealous young priests that are not masculine and not emasculated.

The facts are that no order from the Second Vatican Council ever provided for Communion Rails to be ripped out or Tabernacles to be displaced. This came later by "expert liturgists." Official documents referred to new constructioin and in fact, architectural or artistic significance was to be retained.

However, keeping these rails or barriers, as these experts would claim would have prevented the universal adoption of standing for Holy Communion and create a barrier to the Table. Despite this, individual Catholics chose to reject this posture and in its wisdom, Holy Mother Church issued a document called Redemptions Sacramentum in which, the Communicants right to not only receive communion kneeling was enshrined but the restating that Communion-on-the-tongue is the norm and always remains the universal law of the Church, notwithstanding what individula Ordinaries did in my town during SARS or H1N1. They were wrong, I said it then and I repeat it now, both of them.

So, what does the GIRM for Canada and other countries say?

160. The Priest then takes the paten or ciborium and approaches the communicants,  who usually come up in procession.

It is not permitted for the faithful to take the consecrated Bread or the sacred chalice by themselves and, still less, to hand them on from one to another among themselves. In the Dioceses of Canada, Holy Communion is to be received standing, though individual members of the faithful may choose to receive Communion while kneeling. When standing before the minister to receive Holy Communion, the faithful should make a simple bow of the head. When receiving Holy Communion on the tongue, they reverently join their hands; when receiving Holy Communion in the hand, they reverently open their hands placing one beneath the other, and they consume the host immediately upon receiving it.

Did you read that?

In Canada, the norm is standing as we know, but "individual members of the faithful may choose to receive Communion while kneeling!"

A few other points in the paragraph above. "It is not permitted for the faithful to take the consecrated Bread or the sacred chalice by themselves and, still less, to hand them on from one to another among themselves." If you do this, stop. If you see it being done, file a complaint and refer to the paragraph in the GIRM.

Note this too: "When standing before the minister to receive Holy Communion, the faithful should make a simple bow of the head."

And this: "When receiving Holy Communion on the tongue, they reverently join their hands; when receiving Holy Communion in the hand, they reverently open their hands placing one beneath the other, and they consume the host immediately upon receiving it." This is so the Priest, or Deacon or EMHC if absolutely necessary knows how to approach you with the Host. But also be aware, you are to place one hand beneath the other (as a throne) and you "consume the host immediately upon receiving it" you do not walk away and pop Him in your mouth as if He is a nacho chip. You bring your hands to your mouth!

Of course, you should simply receive on the tongue and then all the EMHC would go away because they find it repulsive.

So, in the matter of kneeling for Holy Communion; unless the church has a communion rail which they promote and utilise and you are in the McDonald's line, then let common sense and charity prevail. If you choose to avail yourself of your right granted to you by Holy Mother Church do so at the end of the line anbe d humble about it.

But know this!


The priest cannot refuse you and the bishop cannot drag you to your feet nor can he have you arrested.

Now, you don't have to pay attention to me, but you might want to watch what the man who some day could be the first Pope from America has to say...or then again, it might be a bishop from Kazakhstan who has called for a new Syllabus of Errors.


Friends, every Catholic needs to read and study the GIRM.


Spread the Good News!

Considering the GIRM I: The Kyrie

In the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite the Kyrie is considered to be "nine-fold" that is three times Kyrie eleison, three times Christe eleison and three times Kyrie eleison. There are two times in the Roman Rite, Extraordinary and Ordinary that the people can proclaim in Greek, the other is on Good Friday with the Trisagion, Holy God, Holy Mighty One, Holy Immortal One, Hagios O Theos, Hagios Ischyros, Hagios Athanatos. This dear readers, is in Greek and is in the Graduale Romanum 1974 for the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite.


But, back to our Kyrie and the nine-fold.


The fabricators (a descriptive used in the Spirit of the Liturgy by Pope Benedict XVI) of the Novus Ordo Missae cut this to a simple response "six-fold." In doing so, they eliminated the awesome mystery of this penitential beseeching in its Trinitarian formula of three for the Three Persons of the Most Holy Trinity and the symbolism of the chanting of the Nine Choirs of Angels.


Consistently then, the result has been that "Gregorian" Kyries were modified as six-fold. But this was not always necessary. In fact, some of them cannot be done in six-fold as they were musically composed as nine-fold, they were not simple repetitions, for example the Kyrie from Missa Cum Jubilo, Mass IX. The former GIRM permitted this. In fact, the previously referred to Graduale Romanum for the Novus Ordo published in 1974 included this Kyrie. If it was not meant to be sung nine-fold, why as it included? For your information, the signatory in the GM was Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, the lead "fabricator!"


Let us look at what the new GIRM approved for use in Canada and elsewhere states with the point to which I wish to draw your attention in bold:


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.


            Each acclamation is usually pronounced twice, though it is not to be excluded that it 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 Penitential Act, a “trope” precedes each acclamation.

Now, let us be clear. In a Read Mass, the six-fold Kyrie is the Law of the Church and the GIRM is liturgical law. But if the Kyrie is sung in Greek or in English (as there were some fine ones composed for 1965), these can be freely done.


Here then, is the Kyrie from Missa Cum Jubilo, Gregorian Mass IX.