Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: The flappers are back  (Read 6608 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Matthew

  • Mod
Re: The flappers are back
« Reply #15 on: March 26, 2024, 08:31:03 AM »
Lex orandi, lex credendi.  The Holy Trinity is "three-in-one," not "three-within-three."

Exactly.

The priest holds up Jesus Christ for adoration -- three bells, to signify that He is God. God is a Holy Trinity.

3-in-1. Exactly. So 3 bells!

This is a perfect example of how Trads squabble over the most USELESS things that DON'T MATTER.

Some say "THREE in one. Three rings!" Others say "three in ONE. One ring!"

If there was ever something we could point to, that Trads argue about that doesn't matter, this would be it.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: The flappers are back
« Reply #16 on: March 26, 2024, 08:47:04 AM »
Exactly.

The priest holds up Jesus Christ for adoration -- three bells, to signify that He is God. God is a Holy Trinity.

3-in-1. Exactly. So 3 bells!

This is a perfect example of how Trads squabble over the most USELESS things that DON'T MATTER.

Some say "THREE in one. Three rings!" Others say "three in ONE. One ring!"

If there was ever something we could point to, that Trads argue about that doesn't matter, this would be it.

It's like the Kyrie/Christe Eleison ... 3 sets of 3.  I don't think anyone's making a dogmatic issue about either of these, just talking about things they don't like, e.g. the flapping at the front of the church.  Obviously has little-to-no impact on Catholic doctrine, nor affects the validity of the Mass, but still annoying.  I also don't care for the 1-3-1 bell ringing, but I'm not going to stop attending a chapel over it.


Offline ElwinRansom1970

  • Supporter
Re: The flappers are back
« Reply #17 on: March 26, 2024, 10:15:23 AM »
It's like the Kyrie/Christe Eleison ... 3 sets of 3.  I don't think anyone's making a dogmatic issue about either of these, just talking about things they don't like, e.g. the flapping at the front of the church.  Obviously has little-to-no impact on Catholic doctrine, nor affects the validity of the Mass, but still annoying.  I also don't care for the 1-3-1 bell ringing, but I'm not going to stop attending a chapel over it.
"Oh Dreadful Day! The priest separsted his index fingers and thumbs for two seconds during the Pater Noster. The Mass is invalid! The priest is a modernist!"

Re: The flappers are back
« Reply #18 on: March 26, 2024, 11:07:39 AM »
The forum has discussed the "bell issue" at least once before, with citations.  It appears that either the 1-3-1 or the 1-1-1 is a time honored practice.
 
Collectio Rerum Liturgicarum  of Rev. Joseph Wuest, C.SS.R. (first Latin edition 1889) translated into English as Matters Liturgical by Rev. Thomas W. Mullaney, C.SS.R., eight edition edited by Rev. William T. Barry, C.SS.R., S.S,L., 1956:
 
Quote
160k) At each Elevation after the Consecration the altar bell shall be rung either three times or continuously.  This rubric is variously interpreted.  But a widely accepted practices is to ring the bell, at the genuflection before the Elevation, at the Elevation itself, and at the genuflection after the Elevation.
 
Father Lasance My Prayer Book (1953) says that after each consecration:
Quote
The priest kneels, then raises the Sacred Host / chalice (the bell is rung).
 
Blessed Be God (1925):
Quote
At the elevation of the Host the bell is rung thrice.  At the elevation of the Chalice the bell is rung thrice.
 
St. Joseph Daily Missal (1951):
Quote
After pronouncing the words of Consecration, the Priest genuflects, and adores the Sacred Host.  He then rises, elevates It, and replaces It upon the corporal, genuflecting once again.  The bell rings once for each act of adoration.

After genuflecting and adoring the Precious Blood, he rises, elevates It and replaces the chalice on the corporal, genuflecting once again.  The Bell rings once for each act of adoration.

St. Joseph Daily Missal (1961) shows three bells at the elevation of both the Host and the Chalice.
 
The St. Andrew Daily Missal (1962) does not mention bells at all.
 
And now, for Fortescue: Fr. Adrian Fortescue’s The Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described” (First Edition 1917) citing the Eleventh Edition 1960):
Quote
At each Elevation he holds up slightly for a moment the end of the chasuble in his left hand, and rings the bell with his right, either continuously or three times.  He may arrange this so that he ring once when the celebrant genuflects, once when he elevates, once again when he genuflects.  Since there are two elevations the bell will be rung altogether six times.

However, in the section on a High Mass (sung Mass with incense) he says about the Elevation:
Quote
The thurifer (or M.C.) incenses the Sanctissimum, kneeling on the lowest step at the Epistle side.  He makes three double swings of the thurible at each elevation (in practices, one each time the bell is rung), bowing before and after.
 
One might conclude from Fr. Fortescue that an older practice may have been to ring the bells three times at the elevation, but no bells at the genuflections.  When bells at the genuflection became a common practice (rather than an official addition to the rubrics) is perhaps when it became 1-3-1.  In any case it appears the church allows some divergence in practice, and both Wuest and Fortescue mention situations where ringing the bell is not strictly required.  It does seem the silliest of things to worry about.  It makes a lot of sense to me for there to be three bells at the elevation, as that is distinctively a more solemn moment than the genuflections, and incense is offered at the elevations (3 doubles, fits with 3 bells) but not at the genuflections.
 
Another gem from Fr. Fortescue from the above cited book: “As a general rule … not more servers should attend than those really needed, who have some office to perform.  It does not add to the dignity of a rite that a crowd of useless boys stand about the sanctuary doing nothing.


Offline Matthew

  • Mod
Re: The flappers are back
« Reply #19 on: March 26, 2024, 11:42:08 AM »
Another gem from Fr. Fortescue from the above cited book: “As a general rule … not more servers should attend than those really needed, who have some office to perform.  It does not add to the dignity of a rite that a crowd of useless boys stand about the sanctuary doing nothing.

It's a cute "Haha! I can relate to that!" observation, I'll give him that. BUT...

My opinion in the exact opposite of this, but it's just my opinion.

The more people (smart/dumb, young/old, experienced/novice and in between), the greater the King you're serving. Whether it's a king's court, or the King of Kings at Mass. Not everyone at Court is as experienced, useful or wise as the King's Advisor or something. You have all sorts of people with a whole range of "jobs" to do -- but the more people at Court, the more noble or exalted the Court is.

Let's face it: the more people, the more money it costs. The more people you have to hire, feed, house, etc. So YES, the more people at your Court, the greater king you are.

So it makes the whole ceremony a "bigger deal" when 15 people are up there, than just 2 people. "Bigger deal" = more dignity, more status.