What does "Kyrie eleison" mean?

Just by way of comment on Songbird's answer: "Kyrie eleison" is not restricted to the Roman Catholic church - it's also used in the Anglican liturgy.

**Footnote added by CKDextHavn, Board Moderator: the link to the original Mailbag item is http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mkyrie.html

[Note: This message has been edited by CKDextHavn]

Absolutely! But which came first,
the Catholics or the Anglicans? ;)

SDStaffSongbird

The Anglicans. Glastonbury was often adjudicated during the middle ages to be the oldest church in Christendom. After all, it was founded by Joseph of Arimathea.

------------------
John W. Kennedy
"Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays."
-- Charles Williams

... and, of course, the only real difference between them from my perspective is that one says the Pope is head of the Church, and the other says the Queen is head of the Church. I forget which is which.

Well, the RC goes into a lot of hoo-hah about the BVM and the other saints that most Anglicans don't much like and all Anglicans think really ought not to be de fide. (Which is Latin for "the stuff that, if you don't believe it, you're a heretic.") Ditto for Purgatory.

But, apart from that, yes, most of the differences are political (or even just ethnic).

Of course, as an actor, I had to learn the Rosary this spring, anyway.

------------------
John W. Kennedy
"Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays."
-- Charles Williams

I've been away from my computer for a while, so am just now replying to the comments.

Absolutely! But which came first,
the Catholics or the Anglicans?

I'm not sure what the RC theologians would say, but it's my understanding that the Anglican view is that the Anglican church is part of the catholic (i.e. universal) church, an offshoot from the RC church, and therefore has the same claims to antiquity. For example, the Anglican communion uses the Nicene Creed, with its references to the catholic church and the apostolic succession.

As for the Queen, I believe she's only the head of the C of E; Anglican churches in other nations have their own hierarchy. (For example, I'd be very surprised if the U.S. Episcopalian Church has Queen Elizabeth as its Supreme Head.)

jti is correct.

Notwithstanding legends of Joseph of Arimethea and the Holy Grail winding up in a place convenient for Arthur's knights to find it; by the accounts of accepted history, both Christianity itself and the C of E decidedly came later than the founding of Christianity in Rome.

The split from Rome is a complicated tale of a king wanting a divorce. And so, independence from Rome was declared. Those who wanted to remain in union with Rome continued to be Roman Catholic and were generally persecuted. Those who wanted to remain Catholic in the way they were brought up, but wanted political freedom from Rome, became the 'high church' followers of the new C of E (they consider themselves to be 'Catholic Reformers' and not 'Protestants'). Those who wanted to revamp the whole system, like the Protestants on the Continent, became the 'low church' of the C of E, and they most definitely viewed themselves as Protestants.

To this day, there are high church Anglicans who are more Roman than the Pope (high liturgy, sacraments, lots of incense, Marian devotions, deference to clergy and bishops, etc...). They call themselves 'Catholic' (and the RCCs 'Romans'). And a significant number nostalgically long for reunion with the RCC.

The low church Anglicans, however, still consider themselves 'Protestant.' Their worship is virtually non-sacramental and their outlook is more akin to the Methodists or Calvinists. The can tend to be fundamentalist and only reluctantly consider RCCs to be actual Christians.

Keep in mind these are gross generalizations. People can vary greatly and be all in between on these issues.

The RCC's view on Anglicanism is just as schizophrenic (to incorrectly use that psych term to mean 'of two radically different views'). The RCC has made major overtures to Ecumenism (i.e., Christian unity), especially in not condemning non-Catholics to hell anymore. Theologically, and on the issues of Church governance (i.e., the authority of the Pope), the theologians of the two denominations are nearing complete agreement. Looks rosy, eh? Not so fast. Rome's #2 man, Cardinal Ratzinger, just reiterated Rome's opinion of Angligan orders (i.e., the status of their clergy) -- not valid. That's like the U.S. telling England, "We don't recognize the authority of your Prime Minister or Queen to govern your people." Ouch.

Of course, the whole relationship is much thornier than presented when you consider: Anglican clergy going to schismatic (yet valid, in the eyes of the RCC) bishops in order to get valid orders; lots of RCCs becoming Anglican and vice versa (including each other's clergy); Anglican ordination of women (Rome hates that); and all those low church Anglican who hate Rome.

Peace.

Moriah,

I thought the issue of Anglican orders got settled by a bull of Leo XIII about 100 years ago. Has Cardinal Ratzinger found a way around it somehow?

A) Henry VIII didn't want a divorce; he wanted an annulment on the grounds that the Pope had had no right, years before, to give him a special dispensation to marry his brother's widow. The legal issues involved were 1) whether the law forbidding such a marriage came from God (in which case the Pope had no such right) or was merely a law of the Church (which the Pope could set aside) and 2) whether the Bishop of Rome, as such, legitimately exercised ultimate authority over the entire church. Apart from declaring himself the Head of the Church in England (for which there is a better argument in history than most people nowadays think), and shutting down the monastaries, Henry made no real changes, but in his son's time, the Church of England made some moves toward Protestantism. Mary I tried to take things back, but then Elizabeth, even though showing considerable RC tendencies personally, restored the Protestant order, partly because the Pope insisted she was a bastard, and consequently not the legitimate Queen.

2) Yes, Pope Leo, in the early years of this century, declared Anglican orders "absolutely null and utterly void". It's a touchy situation, because modern research has clearly demonstrated that at every factual point of history and tradition in his argument, he was dead wrong (he did not know so at the time). So now it's dat ol' debbil Papal Infallibility that seems to be at stake. (Before jumping on me about "faith and morals," please note my use of the word seems.) The only semi-cogent arguments left are, "Well, the early Anglicans did everything right, but they weren't sincere," and "Pope Leo said so."

------------------
John W. Kennedy
"Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays."
-- Charles Williams

By the way, the "Kyrie eleison" means "Lord, have mercy", but it is traditionally interpreted "Lord have mercy upon us," because Thomas Cranmer, although one of the two or three greatest and most influential prose stylists in the history of the English tongue, utterly sucked when it came to poetry, and thought, poor dear, that "Lord have mercy upon us" could be sung to the same tunes as "Kyrie eleison" because it had the same number of syllables. (I have yet to see a setting of both lyrics to the same music that does not distribute the syllables differently.)

------------------
John W. Kennedy
"Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays."
-- Charles Williams

(Caution: newbie post below)

Since this thread has returned to the inspiration for the original question, musical settings, I thought I'd mention the wide range of styles the Kyrie has been done in. I've heard at least two different medieval-church settings, and the strange (but catchy) marching-song version in the movie of Golding's Lord of the Flies. I haven't heard the song mentioned in the original post, but it sounds like rock, or even (Lord, have mercy!) rap. has anybody actually heard it?

------------------

I don't know this rap version, but for many years at my church I was the soloist for Beaumont's 1954 "20th-century Folk Mass", in which the Kyrie and the Agnus Dei are beguines.

------------------
John W. Kennedy
"Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays."
-- Charles Williams

I didn't see the original question, but the 80s two-hit wonder Mr. Mister had a song called "Kyrie," in which the chorus was:

Kyrie eleison down the road that I must travel,
Kyrie eleison through the highway in the night...

And so on. It was your typical mid-80s light-rock radio dreck.

Why does the corollary of 'I like one kind of music' always seem to be 'all other music sucks'? The fact that a lot of music I like isn't in the mainstream doesn't make me feel like I have to look down my nose at mainstream pop; yeah, some of it's formulaic dreck, but that's also true of everything from rap to country to what's played on alternative rock stations. But some of it's genuinely good, and since mainstream pop doesn't take itself too seriously, a lot of it is listenable and (dare I say it?) fun. Which, imo, includes Mr. Mister's "Kyrie", to get back on topic at last.

[glee]

Sorry to branch off the thread, but I've got a compilation of rock hits ('Precious Metal'), and I particularly like the track 'Broken Wings' by Mr. Mister.
PLDennison: Is this one of their two hits - and what was the other?

[RTFirefly]

It was. And 'Kyrie' was the other. (I believe they had a third song that had airplay, but I can't remember which.)

[Ennius]

Sorry to get us back on track, but it's always been the Catholic church's view that they are the "One True Church" anyway, so to some the question os moot...

[m anderson]

I attended a U.S. Catholic school & we were taught that papal infallibility basically meant even if the pope was wrong, he wasn't. (Another of the R.C.'s contradictions that they like to call unfathomable mysteries.)
Therefor, any Pope before or after Leo XIII could declare the Anglicans NOT null & void. Each pope would be correct & would not be declaring the other wrong. The status of Anglicans would concur with whatever pronouncement was presently in effect. An example of this would be the subject of indulgences. While the Church now forbids their sale, this does not render those previously dispensed invalid, nor the
popes granting them to have been corrupt.
I believe the whole concept of infalability was adopted to excuse the Church of it's many earlier transgressions (many popes commonly known to have kept "wives" * had children, The Crusades, The Inquisition, ,ect.)& also to allow it to change it's stance on various issues. All to justify the claim of course, that the Church is the embodiment of unchanging truth.
M Anderson

[mr john]

Be sure and tune in next week when our panel of expert plumbers will answer the question, "What is a polarized outlet?" , comment on the answer by a licensed electrician, and discuss home wiring, and the principals of electricity.

------------------

"Pardon me while I have a strange interlude."-Marx

[tomndebb]

m anderson,
I'm afraid that your education indicates another failure of Catholic Primary education. (If you heard what you posted while in high school, go back and sue them for giving you a bad education.)

The pope cannot simply declare something as infallibly true and have another pope declare the reverse as infallibly true. The RCC has only had the doctrine of infallibility for 130 years and infallibility has only been invoked twice.

Leo XIII's pronouncements on the Anglican Communion were not put forth as infallible. As an inherently conservative institution, the RCC would publish lots of re-analysis of Leo's position and would probably attempt to put it all "in context." However, there would be no "infallible" pronouncement that overruled but did not do away with Leo's pronouncement.

Two years ago, when JP II declared that the discussion regarding women as priests was "closed" some twits in the Curia tried to declare his statement as infallible. He refused to back them up on this.

------------------
Tom~

[Pickman's Model]

Just thought I'd throw my 2 cents in and mention that the Kyrie ("Kyrie eleison, Christe eleison, Kyrie eleison", literally, "Lord have mercy, Christ have mercy, Lord have mercy") came right between the Introit and the Gloria in the old Tridentine Mass, and it was the only part of the Latin Mass that was actually not Latin at all, but Greek.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Sona Si Latine Loqueris!

[dougie_monty]

FYI: "Kyrie eleison" and "Lord have mercy upon us" don't match--I don't know whether the first syllable of "upon" was accented in Cranmer's day but it sure isn't now. I agree he couldnt write verse for sour beans if he trried to make those lines scan the same. Compare them:
KY- ri- e e- LEI-i-son
LORD have mer-cy up-ON us.
I prefer what Tom Lehrer did to it:
Ev'rybody say his own
Kyrie eleison
Doin' the Vatican Rag! ;) ;)

------------------
"If you drive an automobile, please drive carefully--because I walk in my sleep."--Victor Borge

[tomndebb]

No. No. No. You have to remember that the choir in those old cathedrals sat up in the sanctuary (raised above the level of the nave) in pews that went up fom the sanctuary.

The phrasing is:

KY- ri- e e- LEI-i-son

LORD have mer cy UP on us

In fact, the original verses spelled "upon" as two words. Only later did curmudgeonly types try to bring the translation back in line with the text, ruining the meter of the song.

------------------
Tom~

[John W. Kennedy]

The explanation is simply that Cranmer sucked as a poet. Look at his version of the "Veni Creator Spiritus", the one piece of verse that he couldn't avoid. (You won't find it in any reasonably recent U.S. Prayer Book, but I think it survived into the 1666 English Book, which is still easy to find.)

Fortunately for the BCP, Cranmer knew that he had no talent for verse (he says so).

------------------
John W. Kennedy
"Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays."
-- Charles Williams

[Songbird]

So glad to see this mailbag question has generated so much discussion. For the record, there are an amazing number of musical settings for the Kyrie Eleison ranging from Gregorian chant all the way to rock (I've heard a psuedo-rap version locally). The Catholic Church (in it innumerable documents as well as Vatican II) calls for the Church to foster "full, active and conscious participation" of all its faithful ... and they highly suggest using the music and art of the culture so that most people can relate well. There is a very active Life Teen movement in the Catholic Church which specializes in using not-your-typical-Sunday-Mass-music. Teen mass attendance is up as a result.

After all, scripture says, "Make a joyful NOISE to the Lord!"



------------------
Tammy
"May your song always be sung."

[m anderson]

Tom-
I have not been able to find reference to a finding by the Church that the Bull of 1896 was or was not a declaration that was
infallible. Has there been such a finding? If not, upon what authority do you judge that the "Apostolicae Curae" does not meet
the conditions required to deem it an ex cathedra teaching? Also I take great exception to the maligning of the education
provided by the school of St. Frances Cabrini Parish, one of the oldest active parishes west of the Mississippi; and her former pastors, Rev A. J. McMahon and Rev. Val Peters, director of Boys Town. The instruction in all subjects was exemplary, and included custom curriculums for class sizes as small as 7 students. Any misconceptions I may hold are due entirely to my own inexact memory after 20 years outside the Catholic faith.

Your statement "The pope cannot simply declare something as infallibly true and have another pope declare the reverse as
infallibly true." is correct -IF- you subscribe to the R.C. belief that the Holy Spirit prevents the popes from issuing an infallible teaching that contradicts an earlier one. I however, do not & think this COULD happen and if it did, both popes would be correct under the doctrine of the infallibility of the papacy & the church.

The following heavily condensed information is taken directly from the Catholic Encyclopedia, published under the jurisdiction of the Most Reverend Archbishop Farley and edited by Prof. Charles G. Herbermann, Prof. Edward A. Pace, Condé B. Pallen, The Right Rev. Thomas J. Shahan, and John J. Wynne, S.J.

"Infallibility is not attributed to every doctrinal act of the pope, but only to his ex cathedra teaching; and the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are mentioned in the First Vatican decree:

'The pontiff must teach in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians, not merely in his private
capacity as a theologian, preacher ar allocutionist, nor in his capacity as a temporal prince or as a mere ordinary of the Diocese of Rome. It must be clear that he speaks as spiritual head of the Church universal.

Further it must be sufficiently evident that he intends to teach with all the fullness and finality of his supreme Apostolic authority, in other words that he wishes to determine some point of doctrine in an absolutely final and irrevocable way, or to define it in the technical sense.

Finally for an ex cathedra decision it must be clear that the pope intends to bind the whole Church. The presumption is that
unless the pope formally addresses the whole Church in the recognized official way, he does not intend his doctrinal teaching to
be held by all the faithful as ex cathedra and infallible.'

For practical purposes a bull may be conveniently defined to be "an Apostolic letter with a leaden seal," to which one may add that in its superscription the pope invariably takes the title of episcopus, servus servorum Dei. (servant of the servants of God)....it was in the ninth century that the phrase came to be used invariably in documents of moment."

Here is the sequence of events leading to the Bull of Leo XIII.
"The Pope determined that he would have the whole question re-investigated thoroughly. Accordingly, he selected eight divines
who had made a special study of the subject, and of whom four were known to be disposed to recognize Anglican orders and four to be disposed to reject them. These he summoned to Rome and formed into a consultative commission under the presidency of Cardinal Mazzella. They were given access to all documents from the archives of the Vatican and the Holy Office which would throw light upon the points at issue, and they were bidden to sift the evidence on either side with all possible fullness and care. After sessions which lasted six weeks, the Commission was dissolved, and the acta of its discussions were laid before a judicial committee of cardinals. These, after a two months'; study, in a special meeting under the presidency of the Pope, decided by a unanimous vote that Anglican orders were certainly invalid. After an interval for prayerful consideration of this vote, Leo XIII determined to adopt it and accordingly published his Bull "Apostolicae Curae" on the 18th of September, 1896.

"Apostolicæ Curæ" definitively decided against the validity of Anglican Orders. The Bull concludes with the usual declaration of
the authority of this Apostolic letter."

It appears to fall under the established requirements, however, an ecclesiastical commission and the current pope would make
any determination, not you or me. Of course, if status of an infallible teaching has never been attached to it, the Church can, at any time reverse it's position on the validity of the Anglicans. Incidentally, the R.C.C. does not support your statement "The
RCC has only had the doctrine of infallibility for 130 years..." The Rev. Thomans L. Kinkead explains,
"The Church does not make new doctrines, but it teaches its truths more clearly and distinctly when someone denies them. The
Church always believed that Our Lord is the Son of God; that there are seven Sacraments; that the Pope is infallible, etc. These truths and all the others were believed by the Apostles, and the Church proclaimed them in a special manner when they were denied... They proclaimed these truths- not as new doctrines, but as truths always believed by the Church, and now defined because denied."

To reiterate, I understand the concept of infallibility well, I just don't believe it.

[John W. Kennedy]

I am sorry to say this, but the statement that the Church always regarded the Pope as infallible simply cannot be justified by the historic record. (The history of the Nicene Council, for example, becomes absurd when one attempts to deal with it from that viewpoint.)

And most Roman scholars are very hesitant to apply Infallibility to any doctrines beyone the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption of the B.V.M., and (sometimes) the Tome, Leo the Great's tract against the Monophysites.

But that aside, one certainly hopes that Apostolicae Curae is not to be regarded as infallible (and I don't see how it can be, anyway, since it is an issue of history, rather than of Faith and Morals), because huge tracts of it have been exploded by modern scholarship.

------------------
John W. Kennedy
"Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays."
-- Charles Williams

[tomndebb]

My "130 years" crack was specifically aimed at the First Vatican Council wherein the actual doctrine of [i]papal[\i] infallibility was set forth. It had certainly been appealed to prior to that event and, of course, in laying out the arguments in favor of papal infallibility during their 1869 discussions, the Council reached back through history to find examples to support the claim. However, prior to Vatican I, there is no pronouncement by a General or Ecumenical Council of the RCC claiming infallibility for the pope. (The Magisterium is a different issue.)
I do note, in review, that I omitted the adjective "papal" in my earlier post. My only (lame) defense is that in the context of a Papal Bull, I assumed Papal Infallibility (to which I also give little credence).

------------------
Tom~

[Diceman]

In summary: Papal infalability has only been invoked 2 or 3 times. Everything the pope says is NOT infallable. Nobody who knows what he's talking about has ever said otherwise. Get over it.

As long as this thread has spread into the Church of England, perhaps somebody could answer me this. Do Anglicans honestly believe that their founder, King Henry VIII, is in heaven? After all, the man had IIRC two wives executed on false treason charges and had countless people imprisoned, tortured, and killed as part of the break with Rome. And all for purely selfish reasons. Do Anglicans honestly speak of him in the same breath as Martin Luther or John Calvin, or would they like to forget about old Hank 8?

------------------
"I had a feeling that in Hell there would be mushrooms." -The Secret of Monkey Island

[Northern Piper]

I've never heard of any Hank 8 veneration, partly because his actions were mainly political, and partly because the Anglican Settlement owes more to his pragmatic daughter, Elizabth I, than it does to him.

When he established his Supremacy, he didn't change the doctrine of the Church - it was pretty much Roman Catholic, except that Henry took over the Pope's role as Supreme Head. It was only after the turmoils of the Protestant extremism under Edward VI, and the attempted return to Roman Catholicism under Mary I, that Elizabeth I's pragmatic middle way between the two was largely accepted as the basis of Anglicanism.

The monarch who was remembered by the Church was Charles I, the sainted royal martyr (also known by his opponents as "that man of blood.") There was a strong element of religious debate in the English Civil War, with Charles I stongly in favour of an episcopal High Church, and many parliamentarians in favour of puritanism, presbyterianism, anabaptism, "levelling", and other Protestant views. So, after the Restoration of Charles II, the date of the execution of Charles I was added to the Calendar of the Anglican Church as a day of remembrance. (Note: not a saint, just remembrance of his witnessing.)

I guess the moral is that the Church remembers martyred kings with more sympathy than kings that make martyrs.

(And as for the state of Henry's soul - that's not a matter of church policy, so far as I know. I imagine the Church would say it's between him and God.)

[C K Dexter Haven]

All English history is divided into Good Things, Bad Things, and one Memorable Date (1066).

[John W. Kennedy]

Actually, Charles I was officially canonized, the only one in Anglican history. His day even had a special service. But that disappeared some time prior to 1968.

Anyway, no, Anglicans don't think much of Henry VIII. (Though we do defend him from the, "All he wanted was a divorce," line. The issue was whether the Pope had ever had the right to allow him to marry his brother's widow, then, as now, regarded as incest by both churches, and Henry does seem to have somewhat sincerely believed that Katherine's failure to produce a living male heir was God's punishment for it.) But from our viewpoint, his disconnection from the Roman Church was a Good Thing in that it allowed the formation of an island in the Church that was somewhat freer of the, "Being Protestant is the only sin," and, "Being Catholic is the only sin," attitudes that continue to tear the Western Church to this day.

Of course, we have our own fault: "Making waves is the only sin."

------------------
John W. Kennedy
"Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays."
-- Charles Williams

[Northern Piper]

John,

I'm intrigued by the idea of Charles I being canonized. The entry for him in the "Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church" refers to him as being popularly considered a martyr by the High church wing, but doesn't list him as a saint. Can you give me any further information?

[Northern Piper]

CK,

with great regret, I must remind you that English History consists of two genuine dates; the other is 55 B.C.

[John W. Kennedy]

I didn't know there was a CODCC. I'll check the ODCC2. If it's not there, I probably read it somewhere in Prayer Book Studies (the booklets published from the late 40's to the mid 70's that eventually produced the new BCP).

------------------
John W. Kennedy
"Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays."
-- Charles Williams

[WallyM7]

All English history is divided into Good Things, Bad Things, and one Memorable Date (1066).

Actually, two memorable dates.

1215.
At Runnymede King John is convinced that the Magna Carta is a good idea.


That's better.

[C K Dexter Haven]

JTI, I love you!

Sorry, Wally, but jti is correct, and I am in error -- 55 BC is the other memorable date, "the year in which Julius Caesar (the memorable Roman Emperor) lnaded, lake all other successful invaders ... at Thanet."

The Magna Charta -- from the Latin Magna great and Charter (a Charter) -- was "the chief cause of democracy in England, and therefore a Good Thing" ... but the date is not memorable.

Anyone else who doesn't know what we're talkin' about is directed to 1066 and All That by W.C.Sellar and R.J. Yeatman.

[Northern Piper]

CK,

let's just keep it platonic, okay?

[Northern Piper]

I thought I would bump this to save it from the Great Purge, because of: (a) the range of topics covered; (b) the number of posters who contributed, many still active on the boards two years later; and (c) it was my first thread (I'm sentimental).

_____________________________

The poster formerly known as jti (sig™ inserted at request of dantheman (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=70417), and to placate Sue Duhnym (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=68898))

[Sir Doris]

Originally posted by Northern Piper
CK,

with great regret, I must remind you that English History consists of two genuine dates; the other is 55 B.C.


As a product of the English education system I assure it goes, or rather went, in my day, something like this.

Starts 1066 Battle of Hastings, not actually in Hastings King Harold gets arrow in eye, William wins. Before that there were a few Saxon blokes, at least one of whom burnt cakes. There were Romans at some time that built roads, but that was all a long time ago.

After that some more wars, some King dies after red hot poker shoved up backside, we fight with French a lot, not that there was a France as we know it today, and we owned most of it quite rightfully by marriage and all that, you know.

Henry VIII : divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, survived. Mary Rose, sunk.

Edvard VI: protestant bloke, founded some schools for not so very rich people.

Sister Mary, Catholic: seemed a bit miffed about something or other.

Elizabeth I : Protestant wonan, deforested much of England to built ships. Fought Spanish (not personally), Sir Francis Drake did it whilst playing bowls. Sir Walter Raleigh, tobacco, potatoes, threw cloak over pubble so Queenie wouldn't get feet wet.

King James I: Scottish bloke, dirty hands, wrote Bible.

Charles I got head chopped off, Cromwell chappie around for a while, another Charles came back or was it James.

1666 (the other memorable date) Great Fire of London got rid of plague (which must therefore have been in 1665).

Some women rule for a bit, then a lot of German blokes. The Industrial Revolution, steam and spinning wheels and stuff.

Then Victoria, hurrah, Empire etc. Then these Socialist chappies became popular then we had a world war and it all went down hill from there. Boo.

[Autocrat]

Getting back to the original question regarding the Kyrie, I note that the original Mailbag answer seems to suggest that the Kyrie in Greek is no longer used in Roman Catholic worship... In my personal experience it is still not infrequently sung in Greek....

As an aside, regarding the use of Greek in the Roman Catholic mass, it should be noted that when the pope celebrates mass in St. Peter's it was certainly the pre-Vatican II custom (and I suspect that this custom still applies) that the Gospel was said twice - once in Latin and once in Greek... The idea was to represent the fact that the Gospel was being proclaimed to both the Western and Eastern parts of the Universal church.

[C K Dexter Haven]

The Gospel was said twice, once in Laughing and once in Grief?



(Thank you, Rev Dodgson.)

[John W. Kennedy]

I should have made this post back in 1999.

The complete ODCC2 includes the information that Charles, King and Martyr, had his feast day on January 30 from 1662 to 1859. Five churches have been dedicated to him.

[Northern Piper]

John, thanks, that's very interesting.

I also did a bit more research and should have posted this back in 2000, when I found it in a library: the statute in question is entitled An Act for the Attainder of severall persons guilty of the horrid Murther of his late Sacred Majestie King Charles the First,12 Car. II, c. 30.

The Preamble clearly links the execution of Charles I to the fate of the Church of England:... and having gained the pretence of Law made by a power of their owne makeing pursue it with all possible force and cruelty untill at last upon the thirtyeth day of January One thousand six hundred forty and eight His Sacred Majestie was brought unto a Scaffold and there publiquely murthered before the Gates of his own Royall Pallace, And because by this horred action the Protestant Religion hath received the greatest wound and reproach and the people of England the most unsupportable shame and infamy that it was possible for the enimies of God and the King to bring upon us while the Fanatick Rage of a few Miscreants (who were as farr from being true Protestants as they were from being true Subjects) stands imputed by our Adversaries to the whole Nation....


The first section of the Act goes on to provide:That every thirtyeth day of January unlesse it falls out to be upon the Lords day and then the day next following shall be for ever hereafter sett apart to be kepte and observed in all the Churches and Chappells of these Your Majestyes Kingdomes of England and Ireland Dominion of Wales and Towne of Berwick upon Tweede and the Isles of Jersey and Guernsey and all other Your Majestyes Dominions as an Anniversary day of Fasting and Humiliation to implore the mercy of God that neither the guilt of tht Sacred and Innocent Blood, nor those other sinns by which God was provoked to deliver up both us and our King into the hands of cruell and unreasonable men may at any time herafter be visited upon us or our posterity.

So, it doesn't expressly say that Charles I was a saint, but I can see how that language could be interpreted that way.

E-mail me if you want a copy of the statute.

[yabob]

Regarding use in rock music - does nobody else remember the Electric Prunes? Their "Kyrie Eleison" appears on the soundtrack to "Easy Rider" (1969).

[Freyr]

CKDextHavn wrote:

... and, of course, the only real difference between them from my perspective is that one says the Pope is head of the Church, and the other says the Queen is head of the Church. I forget which is which.

Psssssssst, CKDextHavn! The one with the purse is the Queen!