Author Topic: Re: the Quinity? (Read 3421 times)

Matthew · « **Reply #5 on:** November 21, 2020, 07:36:01 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on November 21, 2020, 05:57:18 AM

There are enough real issues with SSPX so that we don’t need this nonsense that just makes you look ignorant.

This.

Also, I moved this out of the Anonymous subforum, as it clearly doesn't belong there. I think it was put there because the OP knew he was posting something idiotic -- naturally anonymity is desired when posting something you're going to (rightfully) get soundly criticized for.

OH, how I wish the usernames were exposed when a thread is moved outside the Anonymous forum!

The Anonymous subforum was NOT created to protect idiots from the consequences of their idiotic posts. It was posted so legit members could ask sensitive questions about health, personal relationships, etc. without fear of embarrassment or other reprisals. Also, it can be used for whistleblowing at chapels.

Stubborn · « **Reply #6 on:** November 21, 2020, 09:42:42 AM »

Quote from: Anonymous on November 21, 2020, 04:55:07 AM

You mean what's with the altar boy, it is entirely up to him how many shakes he give the bells.

This was me, to which LT answered: "NOT!"

The SSPX does not mandate to all of their altar boys the number of times to ring the bell as if it's a critical part of the rubrics of the Mass.

No matter who trains altar boys, when altar boys are trained how to serve the Mass, they will learn *when* to ring the bells, that's what matters. I was trained same as Matthew, 1/3/1, but some altar boys do 3 every time they ring the bells, some do 1 or 2, some ring the whole time through the elevation until the Sacred Species are put back onto the altar.

If the priest wants it done a specific way, then he will let the altar boys know, but having served Mass for at least dozens of different trad priests from the late 60s through the 90s, not one of them ever said a thing regarding how many shakes the bells needed to be rung.

As Lad and Matthew said - this is a non-issue.

Mark 79 · « **Reply #7 on:** November 21, 2020, 12:00:23 PM »

None of our Missals (Steadman, St. Andrew, St. Joseph) describe "1-3-1" rubrics. They all describe "3."

So where did the 5/1-3-1 come from? Is it legitimate or a novelty?

Since grammar school WE, maybe not you of the 1980's, were taught that the 3's (3 Hail Mary's, 3 bells @ consecration, sets of 3 ejaculatory prayers, 3 Agnus Dei's. 3 Domine non sum dignus's, etc.) serve as a reminder of the Holy Trinity.

No 5 anywhere… ever. Even the 5 decades of the Rosary are PART of 3 x 5 decades of the full Rosary.

Yes, the "Quinity" was a wry jab, but really… what is the 5 about? Where is there a 1-3-1 in any Missal?

If this required such a low threshhold of intelligence to grasp, why did you resort to name-calling? Can you defend the 5/1-3-1 rubric from authority (not some independent priest) or not?

Perhaps it is some sort of local aberration, however its legitimacy is certainly NOT reflected in ANY Missal I have ever seen.

Do you have an authoritative defense of the aberration or not?

Matthew · « **Reply #8 on:** November 21, 2020, 01:24:33 PM »

Quote from: Mark 79 on November 21, 2020, 12:00:23 PM

Yes, the "Quinity" was a wry jab, but really… what is the 5 about? Where is there a 1-3-1 in any Missal?

Where does it say in any missal that the bells should be rung at all when the priest genuflects, before and after?

I've seen the little 3 bell graphics in all the missals I've used and seen -- and that's quite a few, I should point out -- but never does it say when those 3 bells should be rung.

Many Trads (with an unbroken line to the past, didn't have to rediscover or learn Tradition from a book) interpreted that as "3 rings at the elevation", plus a ring for the genuflection before and after.

The SSPX seems to interpret that as 3 rings total, leaving just 1 for the elevation itself. It seems to be another legit interpretation, and it has symmetry, etc. so it "works" for Mass: sufficient beauty and decorum, does the job, etc.

They both get the job done (alerting the Faithful to the Elevation of the Host, for purposes of adoration), so who the flip cares? It's a total non-issue. We have much bigger fish to fry, in the SSPX and elsewhere.

Matthew · « **Reply #9 on:** November 21, 2020, 01:27:46 PM »

Quote from: Mark 79 on November 21, 2020, 12:00:23 PM

If this required such a low threshhold of intelligence to grasp, why did you resort to name-calling?

Who is name-calling? Give me a break.