Kyrie Eleison: Its Liturgical Use and Theological Significance in the Roman, Ambrosian and Hispano-Mozarabic Rites: Via Participationis Sacra Liturgia

By Cyprian Kuupol SVD

There is no available information at this time. Author will provide once available.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Xlibris US
• Release date: Mar 26, 2019
• ISBN: 9781796022889

Book preview

CONTENTS

Acknowledgment

Abbreviations

General Introduction

0.1. The Status Quæstionis of the Kyrie Eleison

0.1.1. Introduction

0.1.2. Overview of Kyrie Eleison in the Post–Vatican II Missals

0.1.3. The Kyrie Eleison: A Penitential Chant in the RR?

0.1.4. The Kyrie Eleison: A Nonpenitential Chant in the RR?

0.1.5. Historicity: The Origin of the Kyrie Eleison in the RR

0.1.6. The Kyrie Eleison: A Nonpenitential Chant in the AR?

0.1.7. The Kyrie Eleison: A Penitential Chant in the AR?

0.1.8. Conclusion

CHAPTER ONE

Appraisal of the Use of the Words Kyrie and Eleison in Greek Culture and the Sacred Scripture

1.0. Introduction

1.1. Κύριε in the New Testament

1.1.1. κύριε in the Pauline Letters

1.1.2. κύριε in the Gospels

1.1.3. κύριε in the Non-Pauline Letters

1.2. The PsycO of the Word Ἐλέησον in Greek Culture

1.3. The Ἐλέησον in the General Context

1.4. The Addressee of Ἐλέησον in the OT

1.4.1. The Ἐλέησον in the Psalms

1.4.2. The Ἐλέησον in the Rest of the LXX

1.4.3. The Ἐλέησον in the Deuterocanonical Books

1.5. The Ἐλέησον in the NT

1.6. Conclusion

CHAPTER TWO

Historical development of the Kyrie eleison and its

preceding elements in the roman and ambrosian missals

2.0. Introduction

2.1. History of the Kyrie Eleison in the RI

2.1.1. The Kyrie Eleison before the Seventh Century

2.1.2. Adaptation and Adoption of the Kyrie Eleison before the Seventh Century

2.1.3. The Kyrie Eleison from the Seventh to Twentieth Century

2.1.4. The Kyrie Eleison from the Late Twentieth to the Twenty-First Century

2.2. Overview of the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar

2.3. The Entrance Chant

2.4. Salutatio Altaris: The Kissing of the Altar

2.4.1. The Act of Kissing: General Overview

2.4.2. The Kissing of the Altar in the RI

2.5. Incensing of the Altar

2.6. Sign of the Cross

2.7. The Greetings

2.8. Confiteor-Rite: Actus Paenitentialis

2.9. Conclusion

CHAPTER THREE

liturgical use and theological significance of kyrie

eleison in the post–vatican ii liturgy of the hours

3.0. Introduction

3.1. Kyrie Eleison: Its Use at JHOM and Compline in the RR

3.1.1 The Liturgical Use of Kyrie Eleison at JHOM

3.1.2. Liturgical Use of the Kyrie Eleison at Night Prayer

3.1.3. Theological Significance of the Kyrie Eleison at JHOM

3.1.4. Theological Significance of the Kyrie Eleison at Night Prayer

3.2. Liturgical Use of Kyrie Eleison in ALoHs

3.2.1. De Officio Lectionis

3.2.2. De Laudibus Matutinis et Vesperis

3.3. Theological Significance of Kyrie Eleison in ALoHs

3.4. Kyrie Eleison and the HMLoHs

3.4.1. Brief History of the HMLoHs

3.5. Liturgical Use of Kyrie Eleison in the HMLoHs

3.5.1. Kyrie Eleison in the Major Hours

3.5.2. Kyrie Eleison in the Minor Hours

3.5.3. Kyrie Eleison and Other Prayers

3.5.4. Synbook of the Liturgical Use of Kyrie Eleison

3.6. Theological Significance of Kyrie Eleison in HMLoHs

3.7. Conclusion

CHAPTER FOUR

Liturgical use and theological significance of Kyrie

eleison and its preceding elements in the RI of post–

Vatican II roman and ambrosian missals

4.0. Introduction

4.1. Liturgical Use of Kyrie Eleison in the RI

4.2. Liturgical Context to the Kyrie Eleison: A Key to Its Theological Significance

4.2.1. General Background

4.2.2. Liturgical Use of the Ingressa and the Introitus

4.2.3. Theological Significance of the Ingressa and Introitus

4.2.4. Theological Significance and Liturgical Use of the Salutatio Altaris

4.2.5. Theological Significance of the Sign of the Cross

4.2.6. Theological Significance of the Greetings

4.2.7. Theologial Significance of the Actus Paenitentialis

4.3. Theological Significance of the Kyrie Eleison in the RI

4.4. Conclusion

General Conclusion

Appendix I

Appendix II

Appendix III

Bibliography

Vidimus et approbamus ad normam

Statutorum Pontificium Instituti Liturgici

Moderator: R. D. N. Valli

Censor: R. P. I. A. Piquè I Collado, OSB

Censor: R. P. F. M. T Ryan, OP

Romae, die 20 iunii 2018

NIHIL OBSTAT

R. P. Stefano Visintin, OSB

Rector Magnificus

Pontificium Athenaei S. Anselmi

Roman, die 6 iulii 2018.

Ad Memoriam

Rosina Damnyag Kuupol, 1931–2017, who knowingly and unknowingly led me to the understanding of the ability to thrive: to speak the truth, to resist definitions attributed to me by the dominant other, and to communicate messages of hope.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Many have accompanied and helped me in diverse ways as I wrote this book. So I would like to acknowledge a debt of thanks to a number of people who have contributed to this work.

I thank my superiors and confreres in the Society of the Divine Word, who have encouraged me, supported my efforts, and made this study possible financially. I am also grateful to Most Reverend Gabriel Edoe Kumordji, SVD, bishop of the Catholic Diocese of Keta-Akatsi, who, during my seminary years, challenged me to love the sacred liturgy.

My deepest appreciation goes to my supervisor, Prof. Dr. Norberto Valli, for helping me present my ideas more clearly. His expertise, unwavering support, and prompt response have greatly enriched my work. To Prof. Dr. Jordi-Agustí Piqué i Collado, OSB, the first reader of the book, I express my sincerest gratitude for your keen interest and guidance. I admit that without the both of you, I could not have achieved this height. May God richly bless you.

I further say thank you to all whose guidance and encouragement have helped me considerably: the lecturers of the Pontifical Institute of Liturgy (PIL), Rome, for introducing me to the science of the sacred liturgy and Dr. Robert Kisala, SVD, vice superior general of the Divine Word Missionaries, whose diligent editing and creativity helped improve this work. I am equally grateful to my confreres from Ghana Province in Rome for the gift of friendship, brotherly support, and encouragement: to John Bissue, Madziar Wladyslaw, Augustine Kodo, Samuel Adu, David Salasie Agah, and Bernardus Blolong, I say your smiles and laughter kept me going. I appreciate the love and support of my aunt Mrs. Felicitas Damnyag Ahaligah and my brother confreres Patrick Kofi Kodom, Oswald Bangfo, George Clement Angmor, Samuel K. N. Balkono, and Samuel Elorm Dagadu; I will never fail to remember that we did this together.

Last but not least, I say God bless, my caring brother, Mr. P. K. Kuupol, and my lovely sisters Olivia, Prudence, Genevieve, Paulina, and Catherine, who have contributed immensely to my education and upbringing.

May 1, 2018

Feast of Saint Joseph the Worker

ABBREVIATIONS

Abreviations from the Sacred Scripture

Abreviations from the sacred scripture are taken from the New Jerusalem Bible (Standard Edition), London, 1985.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

The Kyrie eleison is not an unfamiliar liturgical feature among Catholics of many traditions in the Christian faith from the East to the West. Almost all classical OM have it inserted either prior to the anaphora¹ or within the anaphora.² In either case, the Kyrie eleison is regarded and treated in modern liturgical revisions as a fundamental constituent of the OM and other ordines, such as the ALoHs³ and HMLoHs.⁴ Though the written source of the Kyrie eleison seems to be associated with certain passages in the sacred scripture, the exact source of the phrase still remains a mystery among academicians. Thus, it has constantly been the subject of debate by both theological and liturgical scholars.

Moreover, from the viewpoint of history and theology of the Latin Catholic traditions—Roman, Ambrosian, and Hispano-Mozarabic liturgies—its occurrences at worship, especially within the Eucharistic celebration, remain a mystery. Fundamentally, why is this phrase (prayer) inserted in worship in which the people of God follow the command and example Jesus Christ gave at the Last Supper? There seem to be no categorical suggestions in the gospels that Jesus Christ ever proclaimed Kyrie eleison at the meal and instructed its recitation prior to or within its reenactment.

Similarly, there are neither historical sources nor evidences at present to suggest that the Kyrie eleison was ever an acknowledged component of the Jewish meal prayers at the time of Jesus Christ. Thus, it is noticeably absent from some significant early liturgical texts of the Eucharistic celebration prior to or within the various anaphora, namely, the text of Justin Martyr,⁵ the Apostolic Tradition,⁶ the Testamentum Domini Nostri Jesu Christi,⁷ the Didaché,⁸ etc. Although a majority of scholars agree on an earlier knowledge of the Kyrie eleison,⁹ a formidable number have regarded the phrase to be a later insertion in the Eucharistic celebration by Latin churches.¹⁰ A student of liturgy in such a context is left with a number of questions:¹¹ When, where, why, and how did this phrase become part of the liturgy? How was it originally used prior to its insertion into the Mass and the LoHs? And what exactly is the meaning, function, or theology of the phrase as presented in the Latin missals and the Divine Office? Inevitably, liturgical scholars have used a variety of theories to respond to the unavoidable questions but have always treated the Kyrie eleison in isolation.¹² Such scholarly contribution, though well appreciated, does not offer the faithful at the Mass and the LoHs the contextual understanding needed for active participation. This development results in an experience whose effects are foreign to the cultural and psychological makeup of the assembly.

Obviously, the lack of full appreciation and awareness of the liturgical use and theological content of the Kyrie eleison in reference to its preceding elements at the beginning of the celebration deprives the element of its purpose and intent, namely, having the ability to touch both the spiritual and psychological life of participants as expressed and expected by the SC, which states emphatically this:

Attamen Liturgia est culmen ad quod actio Ecclesiae tendit et simul fons unde omnis eius virtus emanat. Nam labores apostolici ad id ordinantur ut omnes, per fidem et Baptismum filii Dei facti, in unum conveniant, in medio Ecclesiae Deum laudent, Sacrificium participent et cenam dominicam manducent. Vicissim, ipsa Liturgia impellit fideles ut sacramentis paschalibus satiati fiant pietate concordes;¹³ orat ut vivendo teneant quod fide perceperunt;¹⁴ renovatio vero foederis Domini cum hominibus in Eucharistia fideles in urgentem caritatem Christi trahit et accendit. Ex Liturgia ergo, praecipue ex Eucharistia, ut e fonte, gratia in nos derivatur et maxima cum efficacia obtinetur illa in Christo hominum sanctificatio et Dei glorificatio, ad quam, uti ad finem, omnia alia Ecclesiae opera contendunt.¹⁵

Too often as observed, the lack of comprehension, coupled with frequent debates on the elements, does not draw (trahit) the participants into the compelling love of Christ and sets them on the fire (accendit) needed for the ritual or sacramental experience. It goes without saying that the Mass est culmen of the Christian life, thus, is difficult to understand as it should if not progressively examined. Rightly, the summit can only be understood if gradually the individual elements are methodically examined from different perspectives. Thus, a discussion of the Status Quæstionis of the Kyrie eleison is imperative for a research that has active participation as its ultimate aim. As a consequence, a liturgical celebration that trahit et accendit its celebrants through ritual experience, beginning within the RI and beyond, becomes a reality in action.

0.1. The Status Quæstionis of the Kyrie Eleison

0.1.1. Introduction

Liturgical celebration is a communicative process, a fact acknowledged by the Second Vatican Council’s mandate for the restoration of the liturgy: in the liturgy, per signa sensibilia significatur et modo singulis proprio efficitur sanctificatio hominis.¹⁶ Just as the sanctification is brought about in ways proper to each of these signs, it avoids ambiguity and improves clarity and active participation. To that effect, textus et ritus ita ordinari oportet, ut sancta, quae significant, clarius exprimant, eaque populus christianus, in quantum fieri potest, facile percipere atque plena, actuosa et communitatis propria celebratione participare possit.¹⁷ Besides these, an efficient communication is further achieved when the nature (origin) and purpose (liturgical use) of the elements of the liturgical celebration are undoubtedly articulated.¹⁸ Contrarily, the Kyrie eleison as an element still puzzles the minds of scholars, worshippers, and lovers of liturgy. Thus, the chapter sets off principally to explore the context of the Kyrie eleison with particular reference to the Mass of the three classical Latin rites: Roman, Ambrosian, and Hispano-Mozarabic.¹⁹

As part of the Status Quæstionis of the Kyrie eleison, its presentation in the post–Vatican II missals will precede the various contributions of the chosen authors. The intention is to show the immediate response of the official experts to the demand of the Constitutio De Sacra Liturgia. The aim of this constitution among others is to reform, renew, and promote the liturgical life of the church envisioned by the Sacrosanctum Concilium. Notwithstanding the effectiveness of the official understandings expressed in the editiones typicae, diverse interpretations make it still imperative for further discussion. Thus, the chapter will also discuss the general views of some authors on the Kyrie eleison under its theological, historical, spiritual, pastoral, and juridical aspects.²⁰ The selected articles will include both preconciliar and postconciliar scholars whose interest is the Kyrie eleison, particularly within the Roman and Ambrosian Masses.

The debates will indicate an overwhelming desire, interest, and eagerness for the effective and affective comprehension of the liturgical use and the theological significance of the Kyrie eleison—a need that has not been adhered to sufficiently. This quest for knowledge, though all-important, has not been adequately responded to either contextually or comparatively in the field of Inter-rites studies. Even though chronological order will be respected in the presentation of ideas, comparisons and references may occasionally be done to demonstrate the progress and retrogression of the subject matter vis-à-vis its ritual experience in the different rites. However, views on the RR would precede debates advanced in relation to the Kyrie eleison of the Ambrosian family. This book, however, proposes to go further to highlight significant points raised. Thus, a general summary table that would include authors’ source and the principal understanding of the Kyrie eleison shall be presented in appendix 1. Finally, the definitive presentation of the research’s aim, methodology, limits, contributions to liturgical science, and division of the study would mark the end of the chapter.

0.1.2. Overview of Kyrie Eleison in the Post–Vatican II Missals

The postconciliar revision of the OM for the MA, MR, and MHM was guided by the general principle of the fathers: Ordo Missae ita recognoscatur, ut singularum partium propria ratio necnon mutua connexio clarius pateant, atque pia et actuosa fidelium participatio facilior reddatur.²¹ Intending to fulfill this objective as a mandate inspired by the Holy Spirit, the principle explains that quamobrem ritus, probe servata eorum substantia, simpliciores fiant; ea omittantur quae temporum decursu duplicata fuerunt vel minus utiliter addita; restituantur vero ad pristinam.²²

Thus, applying the just-stated principle to the usage of the Kyrie eleison in the named missals and the LoHs before the Vatican II editions, it is obvious that the revisers undertook the task from four distinctive aspects: the evolution and application of new terminologies, formulation of new liturgical laws, the introduction of new ritual gestures, and the creation of alternative liturgical formulas or invocations.

The evolution and application of new terminologies is witnessed by the various RI. The IGMR 51 states, sacerdos invitat ad actum pænitentialem, qui, post brevem pausam silentii, a tota communitate formula confessionis generalis perficitur, et sacerdotis absolutione concluditur. The IMA 29 demands that sacerdos invitat actum paenitentialem, qui a tota communitate confessione generali perficitur, absolutioneque sacerdotis concluditur. On the contrary, this kind of invitation is apparently absent in the MHM.²³ However, their introduction in both the RR and AR is a novelty as compared to their predecessors.

Then the new liturgical law, the IGMR, specifically stresses that post actum pænitentialem incipitur semper Kyrie eleison nisi forte locum iam habuerit in ipso actu pænitentiali.²⁴ In view of the number of times the Kyrie eleison should be repeated, the new law expresses, acclamatio quaeque de more bis repetitur, maiore tamen numero non excluso, ratione ingenii diversarum linguarum necnon musicae artis vel rerum adiunctorum.²⁵ However, it is also emphasized in the RR that quando Kyrie cantatur ut pars actus paenitentialis, singulis acclamationibus "tropus" praeponitur.²⁶ Furthermore, the new principle explains, Cum sit cantus [Kyrie eleison] quo fideles Dominum acclamant eisque misericordiam implorant, peragitur de more ab omnibus, partem nempe in eo habentibus populo atque schola vel cantore.²⁷

This instructive mode of singing the Kyrie eleison and its explanation are, however, missing in the MA 1981 and MHM 1991. Moreover, as a new law, its repetition is determined by the character of the language, the artistry of the music, or other pertinent conditions as stated above. Interestingly, this is again exclusive to the RR and is completely missing in the MA 1981 and MHM 1991. However, in the MA 1981, the invocationes cum Kyrie eleison are proposed as the first option, without any reference to it being sung independently, namely, sine tropo.²⁸

Furthermore, IGMR 51 adds another ritual gesture and practice that die dominica, praeæsertim tempore paschali, loco consueti actus pænitentialis, quandoque fieri potest benedictio et aspersio aquæ in memoriam baptismi. The Ambrosian liturgy accentuates firmly that loco actus paenitentialis fieri potest ritus aspersionis aquae benedictae in omnibus missis dominicae, […] in omnibus ecclesiis et oratoriis.²⁹ The major difference is that while the Roman family emphasizes particularly the act within the season of Easter, the AR advocates it for all Sundays except Masses celebrated in vigilia, where the Nuntius Resurrectionis³⁰ is recommended. This option is again not found in the MHM 1991. However, the new alternative invocations introduced as a novelty in the Actus paenitentialis of MR 2008, MA 1981, and MA 1990 are the insistence on Christological tropes to precede Kyrie eleison within the Actus paenitentialis.³¹

Thus, an innovative way of active participation demanded in its performance expects sacerdos, vel diaconus vel alius minister, sequentes, vel alias, invocationes cum Kyrie eleison profert.³² An example is given to explain its Christological character as follows: S.: Qui missus es sanare contritos corde: Kyrie, eleison. PR.: Kyrie, eleison. S.: Qui peccatores vocare venisti: Christe, eleison. PR.: Christe, eleison. S.: Qui ad dexteram Patris sedes, ad interpellandum pro nobis: Kyrie, eleison. PR.: Kyrie, eleison. The AR remarks that sacerdos, vel alius minister idoneus, sequentes, vel alias, invocationes cum Kyrie eleison profert.³³ The variable invocations have the same characteristics as those in the RR. The exception is the exclusive use of only the title Kyrie (without Christe) and the pastoral caution regarding the suitability of the other minister (minister idoneus) in the AR.

Another principal difference is the complete absence of the entire Actus paenitentialis and the Kyrie eleison in the OM of the MHM 1991. The introduction of Actus paenitentialis as a communal gesture for the acknowledgment of sins is absolutely new in the post–Vatican II Ambrosian and Roman rites. Although the novelty may be of pastoral importance, its incorporation has no prototype in the rites that are being investigated. Thus, even when the Confiteor was used in the pre–Vatican II Mass, it was considered private devotional gesture between clergy and servers (laity).³⁴ Besides the above disparity, even though the OM of the MR does not restrict the repetition of the independent Kyrie eleison, its threefold repetitive patrimonial character of the Ambrosian family is carefully maintained in the MA 1981.³⁵ Likewise, the twelvefold Kyrie eleison is recommended in the Ambrosian family. It is explicitly recommended for Dominica in Palmis,³⁶ In Praesentatione Domini,³⁷ solemn episcopal Masses,³⁸ and in principle at all solemn processions to the Mass except that of funerals.³⁹

The dodici Kyrie eleison is sung at the end of the processional song but just before the Sallenda, where the servers with the lighted candles and the cross turn to face the congregation. The rest of the servers and the concelebrants in two lines turn to face one another. The principal celebrant stands at the center and turns toward the cross as the rest of the assembly. When this arrangement is set in gremio ecclesiae, the dodici Kyrie eleison is intoned and sung alternatively with the people having a part in it.⁴⁰ At its completion, the Sallenda, which is composed and adopted to suit the occasion, is sung. At the singing of the first part of the Trinitarian doxology Gloria Patri […], those in the procession turn and bow to the cross, but at the second part of the Gloria Patri, namely, the sicut erat […], the same reverence is given to the presider before they move up to the altar for the usual venerations of the altar.⁴¹ At the end of the Sallenda and during the veneration of the altar and the cross, another song, hymn, or chant similar to the Ingressa can still be sung to accompany the action.⁴²

Furthermore, at the Ritus Conclusionis of the MA 1981, the liturgical law exclusively still⁴³ demands that sacerdos, extendens manus, salutat populum, dicens: Dominus Vobiscum, cui respondetur a populo: Et cum spiritu tuo. Kyrie eleison, Kyrie eleison, Kyrie eleison.⁴⁴ The priest then imparts the blessing on the people before the dismissal. It is important to note that although this mode of application of the Kyrie eleison is not new to the liturgical family, it calls for particular investigation and possible interpretation vis-à-vis its theology and significant functions within the Ritus Conclusionis of the Mass of the AR.

An exclusive unique usage of the invocative expression Kyrie is observed in the OM of the MHM 1991 where after the Illatio,⁴⁵ Hàgios, Hàgios, Hàgios, Kyrie o Theós is added to the response Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus Dóminus […].⁴⁶ According to the patrimony of the Hispano-Mozarabic tradition, the exclamation Kyrie o Theós is Christological because "the Sanctus [Holy] is directed also to Christ, […] the Holy, the truly Blessed."⁴⁷ Likewise, the Trisagium, which is proper to the patrimony of the HMR, is characteristically Christological like the Kyrie eleison in the context of the post–Vatican II Mass as well.⁴⁸

Thus, while the Roman and the Ambrosian rites incorporate the Kyrie eleison into one of the newly created formulas of the Actus paenitentialis, the MHM 1991 has it dropped from the RI to keep to its original patrimony. However, the presence of similar Christological exclamations, the Hàgios, Hàgios, Hàgios, Kyrie o Theós⁴⁹ and the dialogic response to the Trisagium, Miserere nobis, alleluia, alleluia,⁵⁰ which seem to function like the Christological Kyrie eleison in the AR and RR, introduces further challenges and complexities that call for a new comprehensive and comparative study of the subject matter, the Kyrie eleison, and its related prior elements in the post–Vatican II missals.

All these innovations on the Kyrie eleison, the preceding elements, and its related expressions, which are made to involve the laity, are understood and intended to be fitting expressions of their active participation in the celebration of the Eucharist and the LoHs. Such great involvement and innovations ultimately testify to the departure from the pre–Vatican II practice, which either innocently or authoritatively left out the involvement of the entire congregation at the beginning of the Mass.⁵¹

However, critically examining the Kyrie eleison from the point of view of history, liturgical function, and theology, it appears the reception of the postconciliar revised versions of the various Ordines Missarum of the abovenamed rites has not been all that smooth and comprehensive vis-à-vis the Kyrie eleison. Authors differ greatly in tracing the history of the Kyrie eleison in the Eucharistic celebration. Consequently, the liturgical use and theology of the Kyrie eleison are least discussed, and even when considered, they are interpreted in isolation without much reference to the significance of its celebrative context. And occasionally, it is even relegated to the appendix for lack of interest.

Thus, the phrase (Kyrie eleison) opens up avenues for fundamental inquiries such as, What is the origin of the phrase? Why does the Kyrie eleison as liturgical element still use and prefer the Greek language?⁵² And why the threefold, sixfold, or ninefold repetition? Who is the original addressee or petitioner of the Kyrie? What are the psychological connotations or emotions behind the word ἐλέησον? Is the phrase a cry of exultation or an acknowledgment of sins or desolation? What is the quintessence of the theological and functional significance of the elements prior to the Kyrie eleison in the Vatican II Mass? Is the strictly chanted Ambrosian duodecim or dodici Kyrie eleison in gremio Ecclesiae⁵³ at Mass a variant or an equivalent to that of the Roman’s unrestricted⁵⁴ Kyrie/Christe eleison chant? Furthermore, why is the Kyrie eleison omitted in the Ambrosian Mass when II formula and III formula are used at the Actus paenitentialis but not in the RR with the same formula?⁵⁵ Why the silence of both IMA and PNUM on the description or definition of the Kyrie