Matt Maher's Kyrie

[mcb]

Surely the words acclaim the Lord and implore His mercy, the music is just meant to make the meaning more obvious. It is still a piece of perfectly good liturgy if the words are said.

Bit of a non-sequitur in the context of the discussion so far? The issue isn't whether you sing the Kyrie or not, but what its purpose and/or meaning might be.

To address your point, though: I think you're wrong. Some prayers in the liturgy are actually songs. If you recite them instead of singing them, they're incomplete. (They might still be valid, but 'valid' isn't the same as 'perfectly good'.) The words Alleluia, Hosanna and Gloria are all like that: biblically speaking, they're songs, and saying them instead of singing them is a bit like having everyone recite the words of the national anthem before a rugby international.

I think the Kyrie probably comes in the same category, though less compellingly, to my mind. (The bishops of England and Wales seem to agree: the Kyrie comes in the next category down from the Gloria in the scheme of items which it's important to sing.)

Historically speaking, by the way, I don't think the Kyrie is actually penitential in character at all. If memory serves, it's a vestige of the Prayer of the Faithful (i.e. it's the response to repeated invitations to petitionary prayer). Certainly in the eastern liturgy at around this point you still get a litany of petitions - for peace, for salvation, for the church - to which the (sung) response is Lord, have mercy. There are Taizé litanies that do the same thing.

[alan29]

Surely the words acclaim the Lord and implore His mercy, the music is just meant to make the meaning more obvious. It is still a piece of perfectly good liturgy if the words are said.

Bit of a non-sequitur in the context of the discussion so far? The issue isn't whether you sing the Kyrie or not, but what its purpose and/or meaning might be.

To address your point, though: I think you're wrong. Some prayers in the liturgy are actually songs. If you recite them instead of singing them, they're incomplete. (They might still be valid, but 'valid' isn't the same as 'perfectly good'.) The words Alleluia, Hosanna and Gloria are all like that: biblically speaking, they're songs, and saying them instead of singing them is a bit like having everyone recite the words of the national anthem before a rugby international.

I think the Kyrie probably comes in the same category, though less compellingly, to my mind. (The bishops of England and Wales seem to agree: the Kyrie comes in the next category down from the Gloria in the scheme of items which it's important to sing.)

Historically speaking, by the way, I don't think the Kyrie is actually penitential in character at all. If memory serves, it's a vestige of the Prayer of the Faithful (i.e. it's the response to repeated invitations to petitionary prayer). Certainly in the eastern liturgy at around this point you still get a litany of petitions - for peace, for salvation, for the church - to which the (sung) response is Lord, have mercy. There are Taizé litanies that do the same thing.

I've been pondering that in connection with the new "translation" of the Gloria and the stipulation that it must be sung "as is." I wonder how many parishes will stop singing a paraphrase/simplified version and start saying it instead because the new text would seem to be fundamentally unmusical. Would that be a loss or a gain from a liturgical viewpoint? Would that reflect the mind of the translators? (Slightly off-topic, I know.)

[johnquinn39]

I've been pondering that in connection with the new "translation" of the Gloria and the stipulation that it must be sung "as is." I wonder how many parishes will stop singing a paraphrase/simplified version and start saying it instead because the new text would seem to be fundamentally unmusical. Would that be a loss or a gain from a liturgical viewpoint? Would that reflect the mind of the translators? (Slightly off-topic, I know.)

- Catholics sing exactly what they want! I suspect the Salazar / Anderson / Israeli will go on being sung. I think that in reality the texts of the new translation will just be one way of singing the Mass, i.e. paraphrase / 'Old Mass' / 'New Mass'.

From a liturgical viewpoint this means more diversity, although I am not sure that the current translators have this in mind.

[Mithras]

I was discussing this just today with one of our priests. I am fortunate enough to run a 4-part choir and over many years we have acquired a lot of different setting of the Mass (from both Catholic and other resoucres). Our repetoire (including latin plainchant and polyphony and English unison and 2- 3- or 4 part settings) may consist of about 15-20 complete Mass setting (that would be one new setting per year for the length of time I have been in this post!) with individual movements in addition to these. In financial terms alone that is a big outlay - and in terms of personal investment of the part of the choir and me, a lot of hours and not a little blood sweat and tears went into getting this music up to an aceaptable standard. Does this mean that now all this emotional and monetary expenditure means nothing? That we have to start all over again? My guess that many DoMs will carry on with what they have, adding new text settings now and then (as long as they are quality - I dread a repetition of the post Vat II situation where some pretty grubby settings appeared in the shops and in the hymn books).



M

[FrGareth]

This Kyrie was sung at Mass at a parish I was visiting this morning:

http://www.spiritandsong.com/compositions/65154
The priest sang the cantor's part (very well), and the people joined in the response.

Does anyone have any views on this item, and of the use of CCM at Mass?

While I haven't used Maher's Kyrie, I often use the Lamb of God which comes from the same setting - http://www.spiritandsong.com/products/100032 - which I deploy together with Gaisford's setting of Eucharistic Prayer II to produce a Mass where the main people's parts are responsorial on solemnities or special occasions with lots of non-parish visitors.

I guess I am biased in favour of CCM since I celebrate a charismatic renewal Mass every month (and am chair of the Catholic Charismatic Service Team for my diocese). Personally, I find I can use CCM in a way to express praise and worship of God in a way I can't use classically beautiful music. For me the Maher Agnus Dei is a tune I can use without thinking about it too much to worship God, whereas the Missa de Angelis Kyrie requires so much concentration that I am not praying when I have to sing it - except in the sense that intense concentration to go up and down in the right way is a sacrificial offering!

Neither are "better" forms of worship. They suit different kind of worshippers. I agree there is a trap in that "me and Jesus" music doesn't belong in corporate liturgy. But when I read the Book of Revelation the heavenly liturgy feels like some of the best charismatic prayer meetings I've been to. For others, I'm sure it's redolent of the finest classical motets or Gregorian chant, too!

FrGareth

[gwyn]

Nazard mentioned

Surely, the real test is whether the music reinforces the message that the words are begging for mercy.

Is there ever an argument for reveling in the joy of God's infinite mercy as opposed to grovelling in our own unworthiness? There are some polyphonic setting of the Kyrie which have a celebratory spin rather than a pleading one.

What do we think?

I note that Penitential rite iii's petitions are always addressed to God the Father;
"YOU were sent to heal the contrite"
"YOU bring pardon an peace to the sinner"
"YOU raise the dead to life in the spirit"

These petitions seem to focus on God's infinite mercy rather than on our unworthiness to receive it.

How I love this forum. Once the dust has settled there is usually a clarity.

Gwyn.

[docmattc]

Is there ever an argument for reveling in the joy of God's infinite mercy as opposed to grovelling in our own unworthiness?

As we were reminded at Summer School, whilst the English word 'mercy' tends to have a meaning of 'please don't hit me even though I deserve it', 'eleison' comes from the same root as te word for olive oil, so has all the connotations of anointing, healing etc. So I would say yes, there is ever an argument for reveling in the joy of God's infinite mercy, at least some of the time.
There is a balance though, the if we're not careful the logical endpoint could be that we can be as bad as we like because God will let us off. (the opposing endpoint of course is that we are so wicked, God couldn't possibly let us in to heaven)

I note that Penitential rite iii's petitions are always addressed to God the Father;

Surely they're addressed to the Son? (as discussed above) Its what our bishops think anyway

The third form, although a Penitential Act, takes the form of a litany of praise...
In this litany the assembly addresses praise to Christ our Redeemer for his saving acts.
(CTM 145)

[alan29]

While I agree that "eleison" has a different emphasis from "mercy," I think we need to remember that the actual word we have is "mercy" and it will colour the way it is set to music - unless one is going for a deliberate GCSE fail style of contrast.

[gwyn]

Docmatic notes

Surely they're addressed to the Son? (as discussed above) Its what our bishops think anyway

So they are. Thanks Doc.

[FrGareth]

Docmatic notes

Surely they're addressed to the Son? (as discussed above) Its what our bishops think anyway

So they are. Thanks Doc.

Quite. If we said to the Father "You were sent to heal the contrite..." who'd be doing the sending?

[gwyn]

Fr. G quoted:

Quite. If we said to the Father "You were sent to heal the contrite..." who'd be doing the sending?

It's a good point Tad, 'twould make no sense at all now, would it?