The GIRM states that "these or other similar words are acceptable."

[John_Hiner]

Laudatur Iesus Christus.

A poster in another thread repeated the oft asserted: “The GIRM states that ‘these or other similar words are acceptable.’” What is the substance behind this? Is this a sort of “urban legend?” To what, if anything, in the General Instruction for the Roman Missal does this claim refer?

I searched the electronic copy of the GIRM that I have, dated 2003. The phrase “similar words” does not appear at all. The word “similar” appears only three (3) times, and none of these are remotely related to changing the words in the text of the Liturgy. The phrase “other words” does not appear at all.

The only reference which I have come across which seems a candidate to give rise to this rumored assertion is a footnote in my Daily Roman Missal. In the English version of the section called “Liturgy of the Eucharist,” page 691 in my copy, this appears:

Pray Brethren,* that our sacrifice may be acceptable to God, the almighty Father.

The footnote reads:

• At the discretion of the priest, other words which seem more suitable under the circumstances, such as friends, dearly beloved, my brothers and sisters, may be used.

It seems clear that this footnote only permits changes to the form of *greeting *which might be used rather than “brethren.”

Is this footnote the source of the claim that the GIRM permits creative re-wording?

Am I missing something? Is there something else or is this claim just false when used to justify changes in the text other than the very narrow permission to change “brethren” for another greeting? I do not have a “computer searchable” copy of the Roman Missal; if anyone has a citation to the Missal or the GIRM to nail down the basis for this claim, please share it.

Any insights into the source or basis of this claimed discretion to re-word the Liturgy will be appreciated.

Pax Christi nobiscum.

John Hiner

 

[jprioli]

The ritual books contain numerous instances of "these or similar"s

Opening at random:

Christian Initiation of Adults n.504:

“After the concluding prayer of the intercessions, the celebrant introduces the Lord’s Prayer, in the following or similar words.”

Also from Christian Initiation of Adults n.508:

“The celebrant greets the candidates in a friendly manner. He speaks to them, their sponsors, and all present, pointing out the joy and happiness of the Church. He may also recall for the sponsors and friends the particular experience and religious response by which the candidates, following their own spiritual path, have come to this celebration. He uses these or similar words.” (N.B. the sample greeting is three paragraphs long.)

From the Rite of Baptism for One Child n.76:

First the celebrant questions the parents: [a dialogue follows] The celebrant may choose other words for this dialogue…

Likewise in nn. 77, 78.

From the Rite of Reconciliation of Individual Penitents, n.42:

The priest invites the penitent to have trust in God, in these or similar words:

(As a side note, the famous “Bless me + Father, for I have sinned. It has been x (days, weeks, etc) since my last confession” script is absent from the Rite. It is still a fine formula to follow, and I do so myself, but it is not actually the specified Rite, now.)

From the Rite of Holy Communion Outside of Mass, n.43

Any other customary forms of greeting from scripture may be used.

From Pastoral Care of the Sick: Anointing Outside Mass n.121:

The priest may adapt or shorten the litany according to the condition of the sick person.

Now… I have not been taking these from the Sacramentary, but from* The Rites*. I don’t have my Sacramentary at hand. Most of the times when the “these or similars” occur are in the rubrics, not in the Instruction.

Regards,
Joe

 

[jprioli]

OK… glancing in my Sacramentary:

Rite of Blessing and Sprinkling Holy Water:

Facing the people, he invites them to pray, using these or similar words:

Penitential Rite:

After the introduction to the day’s Mass, the priest invites the people to recall their sins and to repent of them in silence. He may use these or similar words:

NB: Form C of the Invitation to Penance begins, “My brothers and sisters…” and a footnote indicates what the OP found in his pew missal, adding “This also applies to parallel instances in the liturgy.”

Penitential Rite, form C:
This is the invocation/kyrie/response form

The priest (or other suitable minister) makes the following or other invocations:

I am not going any further along with this.

I don’t think that this gives carte blanche to Catholic ministers to “roll their own” – I am a Catholic Deacon, and I try to follow the books as closely as I can.

However…

The longstanding custom in my parish is for the deacon dismiss the faithful with the words, “The Mass is ended. Go in peace to love and to serve the Lord.” Now, this is not one of the choices. Actually, it is the merging of two of the choices, and no “these or similar” is mentioned here.

Yet when I try to go by the book, it confuses the people. Which is worse? Introducing a graceless confusion, or adapting to slightly eccentric use? (Sure, there is always the third option: teach the people the correct forms. But there is little momentum in that direction, and there is only so much I can do on my own.)

Regards,
Joe

 

[SacredHeartFan]

This only applies to certain parts of the mass. I was mistaken whenever I said that in another thread.

 

[jdnrite01]

This is one of the problems confronting the Church today. There is too much variety tolerated. The Mass of Paul VI, as it is celebrated in the United States, serves as an example. If the rubrics are followed with fidelity to VCII, it is beautiful. However, the greater amount of options granted to the celebrant have unfortunately resulted in abuse. We only have to look at the “Clown Mass” video on Youtube to see the results.

I would prefer a more detailed GIRM, as well as all of the other liturgical books.

 

[jprioli]

This is one of the problems confronting the Church today. There is too much variety tolerated. The Mass of Paul VI, as it is celebrated in the United States, serves as an example. If the rubrics are followed with fidelity to VCII, it is beautiful. However, the greater amount of options granted to the celebrant have unfortunately resulted in abuse. We only have to look at the “Clown Mass” video on Youtube to see the results.

I would prefer a more detailed GIRM, as well as all of the other liturgical books.

The greater number of options does not result in the “Clown Mass” – which is not one of the options. The “Clown Mass” comes from a sense of liturgical propriety that is not aligned with the historical and traditional sense of liturgical propriety.

Liturgical abuse was not invented in the 1960s. Each time the Church has reformed her liturgies, whether in large ways or in small, it was corrective of something.

The mindset that would inflict a “clown Mass” on us would have inflicted it on us even if the Missal of 1962 had been used. They would have found a way. It’s not the Missal that misfires!

Regards,
Joe

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Laudatur Iesus Christus.

A poster in another thread repeated the oft asserted: “The GIRM states that ‘these or other similar words are acceptable.’” What is the substance behind this? Is this a sort of “urban legend?” To what, if anything, in the General Instruction for the Roman Missal does this claim refer?

I searched the electronic copy of the GIRM that I have, dated 2003. The phrase “similar words” does not appear at all. The word “similar” appears only three (3) times, and none of these are remotely related to changing the words in the text of the Liturgy. The phrase “other words” does not appear at all.

The only reference which I have come across which seems a candidate to give rise to this rumored assertion is a footnote in my Daily Roman Missal. In the English version of the section called “Liturgy of the Eucharist,” page 691 in my copy, this appears:

Pray Brethren,* that our sacrifice may be acceptable to God, the almighty Father.
The footnote reads:

• At the discretion of the priest, other words which seem more suitable under the circumstances, such as friends, dearly beloved, my brothers and sisters, may be used.
  It seems clear that this footnote only permits changes to the form of *greeting *which might be used rather than “brethren.”

Is this footnote the source of the claim that the GIRM permits creative re-wording?

Am I missing something? Is there something else or is this claim just false when used to justify changes in the text other than the very narrow permission to change “brethren” for another greeting? I do not have a “computer searchable” copy of the Roman Missal; if anyone has a citation to the Missal or the GIRM to nail down the basis for this claim, please share it.

Any insights into the source or basis of this claimed discretion to re-word the Liturgy will be appreciated.

Pax Christi nobiscum.

John Hiner

There are some places where this is printed. It means that other words can be used. Words however that clearly carry the meaning. " Pray, brethren that our Sacrifice may be acceptable…" cannot be replaced with “Pray brethren, that our home team may win the championship tomorrow night”

 

[benedictgal]

First of all, the poster made an honest mistake in another thread. The words “these or other similar words” are actually found in the Roman Missal (in red, beneath the actual text).

This occurs at the beginning of the Mass when the priest greets the people; when he invites us to call to mind our sins and at the offertory, as Brother Rich pointed out. However, these instances are not as widespread throughout the Mass, they only apply to certain instances.

For example, you cannot use “these or similar words” for the Preface, the Eucharistic Prayer and the Fraction Rite.

I hope this helps.

 

[John_Hiner]

Laudatur Iesus Christus.

Thanks to all, and especially to Joe and Benedictgal.

This raises two questions in my mind:

Can we pin down and clarify exactly where these permissions apply in the Mass, so that it is clear where objection to variations ought be taken? Is there an online copy of the Roman Missal which can be searched for these instances?

 and

Is this an “accommodation” for the United States or for English speakers? The Latin rubric in my Daily Roman Missal is much shorter than the English rubric at the beginning of the Penitential Rite, and the Latin does not seem to allow a similar variation in the words of the text – unless I am misunderstanding the Latin (which is within the range of possibility). The Latin in the Missal, provided with Biblia Clerus, reads at that point: “Deinde sequitur actus paenitentialis ad quem sacerdos fideles invitat, dicens: Fratres, agnoscámus peccáta nostra, ut apti simus ad sacra mystéria celebránda.” (Missale Romanum, (2002), 505)

Incidentally, I did not mean to focus on SacredHeartFan in this thread, both because he was gracious in response to the comments correcting his overstatement in the other thread, and because he was certainly not the first I have heard make this claim about the GIRM establishing a general principle of re-wording being allowed in the Liturgy.

Pax Christi nobiscum.

John Hiner

 

[japhy]

Can we pin down and clarify exactly where these permissions apply in the Mass, so that it is clear where objection to variations ought be taken? Is there an online copy of the Roman Missal which can be searched for these instances?

I have a 1985 English Missal and 2002 Latin Missal (the latter is also available online). The 1985 English version, in addition to having many options for texts not found in the Latin original (like the three introductions to the Penitential Rite) also has “… or similar words” far more often than the Latin Missal does. I can go through the English one and report to you where I see them.

I can’t remember the Latin wording… it’s something like “vel similia dicta”, but I’m not sure. Once I find it in the Latin Missal, I’ll let you know.

Is this an “accommodation” for the United States or for English speakers? The Latin rubric in my Daily Roman Missal is much shorter than the English rubric at the beginning of the Penitential Rite, and the Latin does not seem to allow a similar variation in the words of the text – unless I am misunderstanding the Latin (which is within the range of possibility). The Latin in the Missal, provided with Biblia Clerus, reads at that point: “Deinde sequitur actus paenitentialis ad quem sacerdos fideles invitat, dicens: Fratres, agnoscámus peccáta nostra, ut apti simus ad sacra mystéria celebránda.” (Missale Romanum, (2002), 505)

Ah, so you know about clerus.org’s online Missal. Good.

I would say it is definitely an accommodation provided by the ICEL for English speakers (if not specifically for Americans). I mean, since Vatican II, how many priests can ad lib an introduction to the Penitential Rite in Latin?

 

[John_Hiner]

I have a 1985 English Missal and 2002 Latin Missal (the latter is also available online). The 1985 English version, in addition to having many options for texts not found in the Latin original (like the three introductions to the Penitential Rite) also has “… or similar words” far more often than the Latin Missal does. I can go through the English one and report to you where I see them.

I can’t remember the Latin wording… it’s something like “vel similia dicta”, but I’m not sure. Once I find it in the Latin Missal, I’ll let you know.

. . .

Ah, so you know about clerus.org’s online Missal. Good.

I would say it is definitely an accommodation provided by the ICEL for English speakers (if not specifically for Americans). I mean, since Vatican II, how many priests can ad lib an introduction to the Penitential Rite in Latin?

Laudatur Iesus Christus.

Dear japhy:

Thank you for your very helpful post.

I would like to take you up on your offer to “go through the English one and report.” That would be helpful to me. I will also look through the English version of the Ordinary in my Daily Roman Missal.

Using your comments as a clue, I found the following phrase in the *Missale Romanum *(2002): “his vel similibus verbis.” I searched Biblia Clerus’s copy of the *Missale *and found only six instances of this phrase, none of which appear to be within the ordinary of the Mass. Rather they appear in the rubrics for (1) the Commemoration for the Lord’s entry into Jerusalem, (2) the renewal of the promises of the priests, (3) the blessing of the fire at the Easter vigil, (4) the Easter vigil again, at the beginning of the readings, (5) the Liturgy for baptism, and (6) the feast of the Presentation. I have not found any other similar wording, but of course that is not to say that there is no alternative phrase which should also be searched.

If anyone knows of any other phrases used in the Missale Romanum which are used to allow the sort of variation of text that we are discussing, please let me know.

As a personal thought: this sort of thing seems strange to me regarding the English translation of the Missal. One is tempted to see in this an abdication of the duty to translate. It might be that the Latin is so rich that a single English translation is insufficient to capture all of its meaning, and so several alternative English renderings might be given to capture the range of how the Latin could be understood. However, this does not seem to be what was done in the translation of the Missal into English. Certainly, merely inserting “or similar words” in the text where the Latin has no such instruction is a sort of abdication of the job of translation, saying something like “you know what it means,” rather than rendering the Latin text into English. It gives one pause.

Does anyone know whether these variations are among the things that can be expected to be changed in the new English rendering of the Missal?

Pax Christi nobiscum.

John Hiner

 

[japhy]

I would like to take you up on your offer to “go through the English one and report.” That would be helpful to me. I will also look through the English version of the Ordinary in my Daily Roman Missal.

I’ll try to complete the task this evening, after work and evening prayer. I’ll look at the Ordinary, particular Solemnities (Palm Sunday, Triduum, Easter, Pentecost, etc.), and some of the additional rites found in the Sacramentary.

Using your comments as a clue, I found the following phrase in the *Missale Romanum *(2002): “his vel similibus verbis.” I searched Biblia Clerus’s copy of the Missale and found only six instances of this phrase, none of which appear to be within the ordinary of the Mass.

Ah! I knew I was close, and now it occurs to me that, somewhere, I’d done that very same examination and come to similar conclusions… now, if only I can figure out where I’d done that! For the curious, here are the locations.

In the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults: nn. 76-77, 80-81, 83-84, 90, 96; nn. 143-148, 150; n. 162; n. 169; n. 176; nn. 186-187, 191-192, 229.

In the Roman Missal: Palm Sunday, nn. 2, 8; Renewal of Priestly Promises, n. 9; Easter Vigil: Blessing of the Fire, the Liturgy of the Word, the Rite of Baptism, and the Renewal of Baptismal Promises, nn. 9, 22, 40, 55; and finally on the Feast of the Presentation of Our Lord: Procession, n. 4.

I’m pretty sure this is exhaustive.

As a personal thought: this sort of thing seems strange to me regarding the English translation of the Missal. One is tempted to see in this an abdication of the duty to translate. It might be that the Latin is so rich that a single English translation is insufficient to capture all of its meaning, and so several alternative English renderings might be given to capture the range of how the Latin could be understood. However, this does not seem to be what was done in the translation of the Missal into English. Certainly, merely inserting “or similar words” in the text where the Latin has no such instruction is a sort of abdication of the job of translation, saying something like “you know what it means,” rather than rendering the Latin text into English. It gives one pause.

I think, quite, simply, it reduces the actual universality of the Mass. No longer are priests, when praying the Mass in the vernacular, simply speaking the same words in a different language. They are saying whatever they choose (at least in English). Instead of hearing “This is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world: happy are those who are called to His supper” right before Communion (words right out of Scripture – moreso if the translation were better!), how many of us hear the words being made “more relevant” by changing them to refer to the Scripture of the day… to the detriment of reminding us that, first and foremost, this is the Sacrificial Paschal Lamb of God who takes away our sins?! Worse, the second half often because “happy are we who are called to this supper”. What about those of us who aren’t receiving? And saying “this” instead of “his” eliminates the eschatological dimension of Holy Communion!

Does anyone know whether these variations are among the things that can be expected to be changed in the new English rendering of the Missal?

I’d hope to see less invitation to creativity, and more faithful translations of the Latin.

 

[japhy]

Laudatur Iesus Christus.

Is that “Praised [be] Jesus Christ”?

I would like to take you up on your offer to “go through the English one and report.” That would be helpful to me.

Here are my findings (from 6:50 PM through 7:00 PM… sorry such a short window, but I was at work late, and I’m going out for Bible Study soon… I’ll do more later).

My resource is the 1985 English Sacramentary (Catholic Book Publishing Corp, New York).

Page 358: Ordinary, Rite of Blessing and Sprinkling Holy Water: “Facing the people, he invites them to pray, using these or similar words:”

Page 360: Ordinary, Penitential Rite: “He may use these or similar words:”

Page 361: Ordinary, Penitential Rite C: “The priest … makes the following or other invocations:”

There is absolutely no allowance for creativity in the entirety of the Liturgy of the Eucharist! Specifically, the Eucharistic Prayer, the introduction to the Our Father, and the “This is the Lamb of God”. Even the dismissal only provides three options (none of which is “The Mass is ended, go in peace to love and serve the Lord [and each other]”, which is an amalgamation of the three options).

Page 569: Solemn Blessings: “Another form of invitation [other than 'Bow your heads and pray for God’s blessing] may be used.”

Page 579: Prayers Over the People: “Another form of invitation [other than 'Bow your heads and pray for God’s blessing] may be used.”

More later, I promise!

 

[benedictgal]

One evening, I was preparing the Bishop’s Roman Pontifical for use in our first diaconate ordination. Within the Rite, there are prepared remarks that the Bishop uses to address the ordinand. Of course, in the rubrics, it also read: “these or similar words.”

I don’t have the exact page because only my bishop has the Roman Pontifical. I’ve tried to find one online for my own reference, but, it seems that, for obvious reasons, publication of this books is very limited.

 

[japhy]

More later, I promise!

(As a side note, the 1985 Sacramentary includes information about “rogation” and “ember days”! What a shock!)

Page 122: Passion Sunday, Introduction for the Procession: “He may use these or similar words:”

Page 123: Passion Sunday, Address after the opening Gospel: “the celebrant … may address the people in these or similar words:”

Page 131: Chrism Mass, Renewal of Commitment to Priestly Service: “the bishops speaks to the priests in these or similar words:”

Page 171: Easter Vigil, Blessing of the Fire (n. 8): “The priest … briefly instructs them about the vigil in these or similar words:”

Page 187: Easter Vigil, Liturgy of the Word, before the readings (n. 22): “the priest speaks to the people in these or similar words:”

Page 193: Easter Vigil, Liturgy of Baptism (n. 38): “the priest speaks to the people in these or similar words:”

Page 204: Easter Vigil, Liturgy of Baptism, Renewal of Baptismal Promises (n. 46): “The priest speaks to the people in these or similar words:”

Page 207: Easter Sunday, Renewal of Baptismal Promises: “The priest speaks to the people in these or similar words:”

Page 608: Presentation of the Lord, Procession: “He may uses these or similar words:”

All but the one on 207 are found in the Latin Missal; the reason 207 isn’t found in the Latin Missal is because it’s an adaptation for dioceses in the United States.

 

[John_Hiner]

Is that “Praised [be] Jesus Christ”?

Laudatur Iesus Christus.

Dear japhy:

Thank you for your help. I am digesting the details and comparing them to my Daily Roman Missal, (2003).

I wanted to quickly say thanks and to respond to your question about the phrase I use to open my posts. I use two forms of this phrase:

“Laudetur Iesus Christus” is the subjunctive form (third-person, singular, passive); it would be rendered “[Let] Jesus Christ [be] praised” or “Praised [be] Jesus Christ.” I use this form as an exhortation. (It is the customary form and has been used at various times as a common greeting in parts of the Church.)

The other form, “Laudatur Iesus Christus,” is present *indicative *(third-person, singular, passive) and would be rendered “Jesus Christ [is] praised” or “Jesus Christ [is being] praised.” I use this second form as a sort of reminder to myself that the final draft of posts should be of service to Christ, rather than tainted by any glib or harsh urges – occasional temptations of mine.

A question: In your most recent post (no. 15), you said, “All but the one on 207 are found in the Latin Missal.” Does this include the reference in your previous post (no. 13) to “Page 360: Ordinary, Penitential Rite: ‘He may use these or similar words?’” Was this variation in the Penitential Rite included in the Latin rubrics of the 1985 Missal?

Pax Christi tecum.

John Hiner

 

[japhy]

“Laudetur Iesus Christus” is the subjunctive form (third-person, singular, passive); it would be rendered “[Let] Jesus Christ [be] praised” or “Praised [be] Jesus Christ.” … The other form, “Laudatur Iesus Christus,” is present *indicative *(third-person, singular, passive) and would be rendered “Jesus Christ [is] praised” or “Jesus Christ [is being] praised.”

Thank you! I am slowly building my Latin comprehension.

A question: In your most recent post (no. 15), you said, “All but the one on 207 are found in the Latin Missal.” Does this include the reference in your previous post (no. 13) to “Page 360: Ordinary, Penitential Rite: ‘He may use these or similar words?’” Was this variation in the Penitential Rite included in the Latin rubrics of the 1985 Missal?

No; in post 15, I was referring only to the instances in that single post (all of which are outside the Ordinary of the Mass).

 

[John_Hiner]

Laudatur Iesus Christus.

I am trying to get all of this straight, so that I can sum up what I have learned from this discussion. However, there is a point that I need to clarify about the meaning of the rubrics in Penitential Rite C (page 361 in japhy’s notes above).

Incidentally, I am primarily using the Daily Roman Missal, (Sixth Edition, 2003), edited by Fr. James Socias, published by Midwest Theological Forum Inc., Scepter Publishers, Inc., and Our Sunday Visitor, in making my comments and conclusions.

Latin

In the Actus Paenitentialis, the Latin rubrics seem to allow only two options, with no invitation for variation in wording, and they do this in the following way:

The Actus begins:

Deinde sequitur actus paenitentialis ad quem sacerdos fideles invitat dicens:

Fratres, agnoscamus peccata nostra, ut apti simus ad sacra mysteria celebranda.

Fit brevis pausa silentii. Postea omnes simul formulam confessions generalis perficiunt.

Confiteor Deo omnipotenti . . .

After the Confiteor, the rubrics continue:

1. Sacerdos fideles invitat ad actum paenitentialem:

Fratres, agnoscams peccata nostra . . .

This continues with an exchange between the Priest and the People, where the people respond: “Quia peccavimus tibi,” and “Et salutare tuum da nobis.”

After this sequence, which ends with “Populus respondet: Amen,” there is a line dividing the page, followed by the Latin word “vel,” meaning “or.” There follows a form of the exchange between the Priest and the People including the Greek, “Kyrie, eleison; Christe . . .” and so forth.

This form of the instructions seems to leave only two options in the Latin; both include the Confiteor, and both require the Priest to follow the specified text, either with “Quia peccavimus,” or with “Kyrie, eleison,” as the people’s response.

English

The English rubrics are quite different and take a different approach to specifying the options available. Rather than setting out the Confiteor and then offering one option, followed by “or” and then a second option, the English rubrics begin with instructions for the invitation to penance, ending with the sentence, “He may use these or similar words:” This is followed by three choices for the invitation to penance, separated by “or.”

After these options there is an instruction for silence, followed by the phrase, “After the silence, one of the following three forms is chosen:”

After this there are three sections, labeled “A.” “B.” and “C.” The first of these is the Confiteor in English. The second is and exchange where the people say, “Lord, have mercy,” and “and grant us your salvation.”

However, it is option C that I am trying to clarify. This option begins with the following sentence, and it is this sentence which I am unsure how to read:

“The priest (or other suitable minister) makes the following or other invocations:”

This is followed by eight options, numbered “i” through “viii.” These options are not separated by the word “or.”

Here is my question: Should this reference to “other invocations” be taken to include only the eight options which follow or does it allow for other invocations beyond the eight listed forms?

To take it as limited to the given eight, one would have to understand “the following” to mean option “i”, and “other invocations” to refer to options “ii” through “vii.” To take it as allowing more than the eight options, one would take “the following” to refer to all eight options, “i” through “viii,” and “other invocations” to refer to something else.

The first reading seems to strain the natural meaning of the English text, but to be more in line with the Latin “original.”

If one reads it as allowing more than eight options, where are the “other invocations” to be drawn from? Is there a list of invocations somewhere or is the priest or other minister invited to frame the invocation himself?

How do y’all read this? Is there a way to decide on the correct reading?

Thanks for all the help.

Pax Christi nobiscum.

John Hiner

 

[japhy]

I am primarily using the Daily Roman Missal, (Sixth Edition, 2003), edited by Fr. James Socias, published by Midwest Theological Forum Inc., Scepter Publishers, Inc., and Our Sunday Visitor, in making my comments and conclusions.

My Latin text is the 2007 printing of the 2002 Missale Romanum (chapel-sized) by the Midwest Theological Forum. My English text is the 1985 ICEL translation of the 1975 Missale Romanum (chapel-sized) printed by the Catholic Book Publishing Corporation.

In the quotes below from you (and the quotes I make from the two Missals) rubrics will be in red.

In the Actus Paenitentialis, the Latin rubrics seem to allow only two options, with no invitation for variation in wording, and they do this in the following way:
4. Deinde sequitur actus paenitentialis ad quem sacerdos fideles invitat dicens:

Fratres, agnoscamus peccata nostra, ut apti simus ad sacra mysteria celebranda.

Fit brevis pausa silentii. Postea omnes simul formulam confessions generalis perficiunt.

Confiteor Deo omnipotenti . . .
After the Confiteor, the rubrics continue:

Here is where your report disagrees with my Latin Missal. Just before n. 5, there is a dividing line and “Vel:” (just like there is between n. 5 and n. 6).

1. Sacerdos fideles invitat ad actum paenitentialem:

Fratres, agnoscams peccata nostra . . .

This continues with an exchange between the Priest and the People, where the people respond: “Quia peccavimus tibi,” and “Et salutare tuum da nobis.”

After this sequence, which ends with “Populus respondet: Amen,” there is a line dividing the page, followed by the Latin word “vel,” meaning “or.” There follows a form of the exchange between the Priest and the People including the Greek, “Kyrie, eleison; Christe . . .” and so forth.

This form of the instructions seems to leave only two options in the Latin; both include the Confiteor, and both require the Priest to follow the specified text, either with “Quia peccavimus,” or with “Kyrie, eleison,” as the people’s response.

In my Latin Missal, there are three rubrics (4, 5, and 6 – these correspond to options “A”, “B”, and “C” in the English text) separated from each other with “vel:”. 4 is the Confiteor, 5 is the Miserere nobis dialog (very rarely used), and 6 is a form of the Kyrie which includes three invocations (“Qui missus es sanare contritos corde: Kyrie eleison”, etc.).

Something interesting here: the instructions for n. 6 say “Postae sacerdos … sequentes, vel alias, invocationes cum Kyrie, eleison profert:”. That is, “Afterwards the priest … presents the following, or other, invocations with Kyrie, eleison.” What is curious is that I cannot find in the Latin Missal a listing of alias invocationes (unlike the English text which has eight sets to choose from).

After this is rubric n. 7, which is the traditional Kyrie (“Kyrie, eleison. / Kyrie, eleison.”, etc.); it is used after rubrics 4 or 5, but not after rubric 6 (which already incorporates the Kyrie).

However, it is option C that I am trying to clarify. This option begins with the following sentence, and it is this sentence which I am unsure how to read:
The priest (or other suitable minister) makes the following or other invocations:
This is followed by eight options, numbered “i” through “viii.” These options are not separated by the word “or.”

Even though the Latin text only provides one set of invocations (although it admits the possibility of using others), and the English text does provide eight options, I have a feeling that the proper interpretation of the English rubric is “use one of the following sets of invocations, or others”. The reason I come to this conclusion (which I’m not a fan of, but I’m being impartial in my judgment here) is because of the wording. It doesn’t say “makes one of the following sets of invocations” or something like that. All eight sets are “following”, so they are not necessarily “other”.

If one reads it as allowing more than eight options, where are the “other invocations” to be drawn from? Is there a list of invocations somewhere or is the priest or other minister invited to frame the invocation himself?

I don’t know of any additional resource, but I’m pretty sure I’ve seen priests come up with invocations on the spot, often tied into the readings of the day. The English text is ambiguous here, but I’d bet the ICEL intention was to allow creativity here.

 

[John_Hiner]

Laudatur Iesus Christus.

I am collating the information gathered in this thread to attempt a summary. I have an additional question.

Are there any guidelines or rubrics specifying the form or content of the Prayers of the Faithful?

Pax Christi nobiscum.

John Hiner