Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Stubborn 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.
-
You mean what's with the altar boy, it is entirely up to him how many shakes he give the bells.
NOT!
-
Please explain how they are ringing the bell five times. I've seen many chapels ring the bell once when the priest genuflects, three times at the elevation, and once more during the second genuflection.
Is that what you're hearing?
-
Bells are signals and the number of rings isn’t necessarily a theological statement.
Right after the Consecration, the priest genuflects. There’s a bell to signal this. Then at the Elevation you get your 3 rings. After the Elevation, the priest genuflects and another ring to signal this. So it’s not 5 rings. It’s 1-3-1 rings. At the Elevation you get your 3 while the other two merely signal the genuflection. That’s perfectly appropriate and was always done that way by an Independent priest I know who was ordained prior to Vatican II. There are enough real issues with SSPX so that we don’t need this nonsense that just makes you look ignorant.
-
Bells are signals and the number of rings isn’t necessarily a theological statement.
Right after the Consecration, the priest genuflects. There’s a bell to signal this. Then at the Elevation you get your 3 rings. After the Elevation, the priest genuflects and another ring to signal this. So it’s not 5 rings. It’s 1-3-1 rings. At the Elevation you get your 3 while the other two merely signal the genuflection. That’s perfectly appropriate and was always done that way by an Independent priest I know who was ordained prior to Vatican II. There are enough real issues with SSPX so that we don’t need this nonsense that just makes you look ignorant.
If anything, many SSPX chapels do just a single ring at the Elevation. SSPX-trained servers tend to do this.
I grew up at an independent chapel in the 1980's. We're talking about people who *organically remember* the time before Vatican II -- i.e., an unbroken line of Tradition. These early Trads didn't have to "discover" it or flail about trying different things to be "more traditional" -- they just had to remember their own recent past and do what they had always done!
Between Thomas A. Nelson who set up the chapel and was certainly in charge, the priest who was ordained in 1961 before Vatican II started, and all the parishioners who were born in the Baby Boom generation or earlier -- they collectively knew what they were doing. Nothing non-traditional would have ever gotten through.
1 ring, 3 rings for the Elevation, then 1 ring. That's how I was trained, and how I still serve Mass today, even though I serve for ex-SSPX priests now.
I even got a set of bells that is *exactly* the same model I used growing up. Hooray for nostalgia!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
I was born in 1951 and began training as an altar server in 4th. grade as I recall. My recollection of the bells at the Consecration is 1-3-1, but that was a long time ago.
The Saint Joseph Daily Missal 1951 Edition says “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”. I presume the “act of adoration” is the genuflection. The same is written for the Consecration of the wine.
The St. Andrew Daily Missal 1958 Edition does not mention bells (nor does it show a bell image) at the Sanctus, the Hanc igitur, nor the Consecration.
The Saint Joseph Daily Missal 1961 Edition is imprecise. It says “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”. At the elevation of the Host three bells are shown. At the Consecration of the Wine (on the Latin side of the page) bells are not mentioned nor shown. On the English side of the page, at the conclusion of the Consecration of the Wine, all it says is “The Priest adores the Precious Blood: you do likewise. The bell rings 3 times".
I have a book called “Matters Liturgical” (The Collectio Rerum Liturgicarum of Rev. Joseph Wuest, C.SS.R.). It was first published in Latin in 1889 and the first English translation was made in 1925 by Rev. Thomas Mullaney, C.SS.R. My copy is the Eighth English edition, re-arranged and enlarged by Rev. William Barry, C.SS.R, S.S.L in 1955. It says “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 practice is to ring the bell at the genuflection before the Elevation, at the Elevation itself, and at the genuflection after the Elevation". How many times the bell is or should be rung at the genuflection is not stated. The book gives this reference: S.L.P.: I, B. 251; L. O’Connell: P. 166 but I didn't find what exactly this reference is, though I didn't look too hard either.
-
Again, there is no 5. Just a 1, then a 3, then another 1. At different times in the Mass there might be a single ring or a set of 3 rings.
This is a waste of time. I suspect that there’s no mention of bells at all in the official Missale Romanum and so it’s just a matter of custom.
-
Again, there is no 5. Just a 1, then a 3, then another 1. At different times in the Mass there might be a single ring or a set of 3 rings.
This is a waste of time. I suspect that there’s no mention of bells at all in the official Missale Romanum and so it’s just a matter of custom.
True.
But then again, some Trads think that the 1962 Missale somehow causes a loss of Faith or other deleterious effects, either through the addition of St. Joseph to the canon, Bugnini's "fingerprints" being on the Missale, or some combination of these. So nothing surprises me.
Meanwhile, smart people observe no difference in "results" between the 1962 and older versions of the Missale -- all other things being equal. This point is crucial. The Indult uses the 1962 Missale, but they don't do as well because they accept Vatican II, they are under the authority of Modernists, they share facilities with the Novus Ordo, etc.
So when comparing the "output" or results of various Missales, you have to correct for major differences like this, which is difficult to do. I look at independent and other solid "Trad" chapels personally, and I see no differences in my long experience.
-
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.
Non-responsive.
Who is name-calling? Give me a break.
Non-responsive.
Give me a break. "Idiotic."
It's a legitimate concern about rubrics.
And, if anything was "idiotic," it was all your non-responsive blather. Only moneil brought a reasonably authoritative source to bear.
True.
But then again, some Trads think that the 1962 Missale somehow causes a loss of Faith or other deleterious effects, either through the addition of St. Joseph to the canon, Bugnini's "fingerprints" being on the Missale, or some combination of these. So nothing surprises me.
Meanwhile, smart people observe no difference in "results" between the 1962 and older versions of the Missale -- all other things being equal. This point is crucial. The Indult uses the 1962 Missale, but they don't do as well because they accept Vatican II, they are under the authority of Modernists, they share facilities with the Novus Ordo, etc.
So when comparing the "output" or results of various Missales, you have to correct for major differences like this, which is difficult to do. I look at independent and other solid "Trad" chapels personally, and I see no differences in my long experience.
Non-responsive.
Again, there is no 5. Just a 1, then a 3, then another 1. At different times in the Mass there might be a single ring or a set of 3 rings.
This is a waste of time. I suspect that there’s no mention of bells at all in the official Missale Romanum and so it’s just a matter of custom.
Non-responsive.
-
I was born in 1951 and began training as an altar server in 4th. grade as I recall. My recollection of the bells at the Consecration is 1-3-1, but that was a long time ago.
The Saint Joseph Daily Missal 1951 Edition says “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”. I presume the “act of adoration” is the genuflection. The same is written for the Consecration of the wine.
The St. Andrew Daily Missal 1958 Edition does not mention bells (nor does it show a bell image) at the Sanctus, the Hanc igitur, nor the Consecration.
The Saint Joseph Daily Missal 1961 Edition is imprecise. It says “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”. At the elevation of the Host three bells are shown. At the Consecration of the Wine (on the Latin side of the page) bells are not mentioned nor shown. On the English side of the page, at the conclusion of the Consecration of the Wine, all it says is “The Priest adores the Precious Blood: you do likewise. The bell rings 3 times".
I have a book called “Matters Liturgical” (The Collectio Rerum Liturgicarum of Rev. Joseph Wuest, C.SS.R.). It was first published in Latin in 1889 and the first English translation was made in 1925 by Rev. Thomas Mullaney, C.SS.R. My copy is the Eighth English edition, re-arranged and enlarged by Rev. William Barry, C.SS.R, S.S.L in 1955. It says “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 practice is to ring the bell at the genuflection before the Elevation, at the Elevation itself, and at the genuflection after the Elevation". How many times the bell is or should be rung at the genuflection is not stated. The book gives this reference: S.L.P.: I, B. 251; L. O’Connell: P. 166 but I didn't find what exactly this reference is, though I didn't look too hard either.
Responsive. Winner.
And my recollection is the opposite—3, not 5/1-3-1.
Missal scans to follow.
-
So where did the 5/1-3-1 come from? Is it legitimate or a novelty?
It comes from whatever the number of shakes the altar boy decides at the time he rings the bells. Always has, always will. Is that legitimate or novelty I don't know, all I know is in this matter, it is always up to the whims of the altar boy who is ringing the bell.
I served and went to many Masses that used a simple dinner bell, good luck ringing that bell only 3 dings. The important thing is *when* it rings, not how many rings it makes.
(https://chairish-prod.freetls.fastly.net/image/product/sized/2bf83a3e-da0e-4803-960b-b38d1569d82d/english-silverplate-dinner-bell-8649?aspect=fit&width=640&height=640)
-
(http://judaism.is/images/definition%20thrice.jpg?crc=3893107274)
-
(http://judaism.is/images/stedman-s%20missal%20rubrics1.jpg?crc=383044193)
(http://judaism.is/images/stedman-s%20missal%20rubrics2.jpg?crc=145883493)
You know, "thrice."
-
St. Andrew Daily Missal, 1945 edition
(http://judaism.is/images/st%20andrew%20missal%20rubrics.jpg?crc=4216515133)
You know, "three times."
-
…Always has, always will. …
Except when it hasn't and won't.
-
…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.…
"Never."
:laugh2:
-
The rubrics for a low/high mass are 3 rings. The 1-3-1 is sometimes used at a solemn high mass, for added solemnity. Otherwise, it's probably an typical-french-sspx-influence where they use the 1-3-1 for low masses. The french influence in the sspx cannot be overstated and it shows itself both in liturgy and in theology. Sometimes good, sometimes bad.
-
"Never." "Idiotic."
(http://judaism.is/images/never1.jpg?crc=336919573)
(http://judaism.is/images/never2.jpg?crc=4187412877)
(http://judaism.is/images/never.jpg?crc=4015495005)
-
While Mark 79 shows hand missals that reference one "bell", I've often seen (in fact, I've only seen) altar boys with altar bells--three bells connected together! :(
Obviously, then, there are 15 bells being rung instead of five! Oh! The humanity! :jester:
-
I didn't think this would become a flash point, but I am reminded to never underestimate the likelihood of the oh-so-traditional circular firing squad. "Idiotic." "Never."
-
Notice these missals mention the bells ringing 3x. Not 1-3-1. Not 5x. Only 3x.
.
I've often seen (in fact, I've only seen) altar boys with altar bells--three bells connected together!
Exactly. And this corresponds with the 3 actions of the priest - genuflection - elevation - genuflection. It's not that complicated.
.
The liturgical differences can only be attributed to european customs...
-
@Matthew
Is this a trad forum or not?
If it is a trad forum, is it legitimate to discuss rubrics of the trad Mass, including the bells?
Further, both the Stedman's and the St. Andrew Missals (as posted above) blow your "never" to hell.
Even though you were wrong, this tempest-in-a-teapot is hardly worth your typical over-reaction.
-
@Matthew
Is this a trad forum or not?
If it is a trad forum, is it legitimate to discuss rubrics of the trad Mass, including the bells?
Further, both the Stedman's and the St. Andrew Missals (as posted above) blow your "never" to hell.
Even though you were wrong, this tempest-in-a-teapot is hardly worth your typical over-reaction.
1. Who is over-reacting? Who just posted like 10 times in a row, having clearly spent hours on it, scanning and posting pages from various missals? Give me a break.
2. Yes, this is a trad forum. Any other childish questions you need answers to?
3. Who said this thread should be deleted or purged? Certainly not me. The thread still exists doesn't it? I obviously have no problem with it.
4. I still hold that this is a tempest in a teapot. You haven't proven me wrong here. Or have you demonstrated that this is critical to the Faith of Catholics, and I missed it? Trads have much more serious things to worry about than the CUSTOM of how many bells to ring at Mass. Those missals just express the local custom, they aren't rubrics or dogma. Only the Missale Romanum is official. Hand-missals for laymen just put into printed form the rubrics *as well as the most common local customs*.
-
@Matthew
Further, both the Stedman's and the St. Andrew Missals (as posted above) blow your "never" to hell.
Actually, your scans are ambiguous at best. It says the bell rings thrice. WHEN, MY GOOD MAN? It doesn't say. It is ambiguous. Do they mean at the Elevation of the Host itself? That's how I would interpret that. The other two rings at the genuflections must be local custom?
Your blowing my never to hell can go to hell.
I continue to maintain that the various missals are ambiguous at best. And that it DOESN'T MATTER.
-
The only rubrics that matter are the ones in the ACTUAL priest's missal. The layman's missal isn't designed to be explanatory in this aspect.
-
@Matthew
Is this a trad forum or not?
If it is a trad forum, is it legitimate to discuss rubrics of the trad Mass, including the bells?
Further, both the Stedman's and the St. Andrew Missals (as posted above) blow your "never" to hell.
Even though you were wrong, this tempest-in-a-teapot is hardly worth your typical over-reaction.
You know what, Mark? That's twice today, on two completely different subjects, that you've flown off the handle with emotion aimed at me. (The other was the "Gray man" topic, at which you mumbled something about a double standard).
Anyone can get into the heat of an argument, even with the moderator (long-standing members will confirm this, and how I usually permit it with no problem).
I'm not against a good debate, argument, criticism, or disagreement.
But I'm seeing a pattern here. Two different subjects? Both of them quite inconsequential? And you're attacking me personally with both of them?
I don't know what your problem is. You seem to really hate my guts, like you're miserable here because of my presence.
Apparently you and I aren't meant to get along, even if we're both serious, devout Catholics. That saddens me actually. But it's nevertheless true.
Maybe it's like having two roosters in the same flock.
At any rate, you need AT MINIMUM some time to cool down, as you seem to be in quite an emotional state of anger towards me this fine November afternoon.
So I'm re-instating your ban from CathInfo for now.
God speed.
-
Bump
I don't know what happened to the first post of this thread -- that much was apparently deleted. I didn't delete the thread, or the rest of these posts wouldn't still be here in the database. I didn't exactly delete all Mark79's posts either -- because, again, they're all still here in the thread. Stuff that's deleted is gone for good.
So I don't know what happened. I just spent the last 15 minutes messing around in the database, trying to revive or salvage this thread, so it would show up again. I didn't think I would have deleted a thread about bells at the consecration. Sure enough, I didn't.
-
If anything, many SSPX chapels do just a single ring at the Elevation. SSPX-trained servers tend to do this.
I grew up at an independent chapel in the 1980's. We're talking about people who *organically remember* the time before Vatican II -- i.e., an unbroken line of Tradition. These early Trads didn't have to "discover" it or flail about trying different things to be "more traditional" -- they just had to remember their own recent past and do what they had always done!
Between Thomas A. Nelson who set up the chapel and was certainly in charge, the priest who was ordained in 1961 before Vatican II started, and all the parishioners who were born in the Baby Boom generation or earlier -- they collectively knew what they were doing. Nothing non-traditional would have ever gotten through.
1 ring, 3 rings for the Elevation, then 1 ring. That's how I was trained, and how I still serve Mass today, even though I serve for ex-SSPX priests now.
I even got a set of bells that is *exactly* the same model I used growing up. Hooray for nostalgia!
that SSPXism came from Louis Tofari at St. Vincent's here in KC. I've argued for years with him that this is not the way it has/was been done Everywhere else, especially as I'm, old enough to remember before the 69/70 changes . he claims he got it from an Adrien Fortescue tome he read somewhere. it sounds stupid and trad dilettante to the extreme.
-
I think the SSPX takes a lot of their stuff from how the French said Mass pre-V2. I noticed many SSPX chapels ring at the Minor Elevation when my missal says otherwise. Also I want to interject the fact that the number of times the bells are rung isn't necessary for the Mass, it actually kinda boils down to how the priest wants it, every chapel is different in that regards.
-
yeah, like that proprietary missal of theirs that has 1962 emblazoned on the bottom, emphasizing how "loyal" they are to the so called pope, you know the one that has the SECOND Confiteor? and no rendition of the crucifix at the Te Igitur? SSPXism for sure.