GIRM 150.

The Adoremus website had an excellent article on the use of bells at Mass a long time ago. It would be to your advantage to try to look this article up. It has the whole history of the use of bells in the Church.

Or heard of joints that bend.

Offhand, I suppose that any argument against ringing bells at the institution narrative is also an argument against genuflecting at that same point in the anaphora. And yet the genuflections are alive and well in the Roman rite.

While other rites may be different, in the roman rite, it seems pretty clear that the correct interpretation is that there is a precise moment.

Ben, are you able to cite official documents of the Church that support this statement?

I think everybody knows that these practices developed in the Middle Ages: the elevations, the genuflections, etc.

Nowhere is their ringing prohibited in the OF (unless someone corrects me.)

Not only is it not prohibited, but it is specifically given as an option, as Andrew Malton cited in GIRM 150:

A little before the Consecration, if appropriate, a minister rings a small bell as a signal to the faithful. The minister also rings the small bell at each elevation by the Priest, according to local custom.
If incense is being used, when the host and the chalice are shown to the people after the Consecration, a minister incenses them.

While I agree with Fr. Jim Chepponis that the current thinking is not of a specific consecratory moment, it is clear that the institution narrative has special significance in the consecration. That Addai and Mari is allowed as an exception simply goes to prove that there is a norm, especially since the justification is that that particular anaphora still implicitly contains the Words of Institution, and they are encouraged to be spoken explicitly even as an addition.

A little before the Consecration, if appropriate, a minister rings a small bell as a signal to the faithful.

Since the Anaphora is said audibly (by description, not by prescription) and since most people have hand missalettes (again, descriptively, not prescriptively) and since the rites are supposed to be easily within the powers of comprehension of the assembled lay faithful, why would there need to be a signal to the faithful?


Oh-- that's right: the presumption in law is for the Latin language, and was originally for a sotto voce anaphora and an ad orientem, ad Dominum celebration of the Mass.

Fr. Chepponis,

Are these the same theologians who say that having the tabernacle on the altar constitutes a distraction at Mass? (I mean this as a serious question, although I recognize that it sounds snarky, and I'm sorry that it will come over that way.)


I ask because some theologians have had all sorts of strange ideas: the ordination of women is possible, good and necessary; hell exists, but it is empty; all religions are basically the same; we're all advancing, in a grand evolution, to the culmination of history; doctrine is subject to modification in its meaning,..... and while it is true that theologians advance these ideas, that doesn't mean that Catholics can or should accept them. Whatever reason exists for the moving of a tabernacle, asserting that the presence of God on the altar is a distraction is, quite simply, unCatholic. Furthermore, if there's no "moment" of consecration, then how do we know when to adore Christ, and not adore bread?


God bless,

Chris

I guess it would be inappropriate if (1) you do not have a bell, (2) there is nobody to ring the bell, (4) it is a missa sine populo and there is nobody to hear the bell, (4) you are in hiding in a secret room or a catacomb, etc.

Optionitis.

Since the Anaphora is said audibly (by description, not by prescription)

I object in calling it non-prescriptive. GIRM:

32. The nature of the “presidential” parts requires that they be spoken in a loud and clear voice and that everyone listen to them attentively.[44] Therefore, while the Priest is pronouncing them, there should be no other prayers or singing, and the organ or other musical instruments should be silent.

33. For the Priest, as the one who presides, expresses prayers in the name of the Church and of the assembled community; but at times he prays only in his own name, asking that he may exercise his ministry with greater attention and devotion. Prayers of this kind, which occur before the reading of the Gospel, at the Preparation of the Gifts, and also before and after the Communion of the Priest, are said quietly.

The anaphora, as part of the prayer in the name of the Church (in persona Christi capitis ecclesiae), should, by prescription of the GIRM, be spoken audibly in the OF.

It says that the nature of the presidential parts requires that they be spoken in a loud and clear voice. It doesn't say that this is a liturgical requirement, under liturgical law,

Wait, the nature of the parts require it, and that is stipulated in the GIRM (liturgical law), but that doesn't count as being required by liturgical law? What kind of reading is that?

We use bells at the epiclesis (single) and at both elevations (triple). I think it adds a great amount of solemnity and beauty to the rites, even when the Eucharistic Prayer is being sung. I would love to add one more bell when the priest genuflects after each elevation and after the celebrant receives the Precious Blood, but that might come in time.

Ok., maybe I had better be more clear.


A law can be interpreted in many senses, even assuming that it is applicable law.

There are several factors which go into the proper understanding of the law.

What was the intent of the lawgiver?
How has this law been previously applied?
Without being a consequentialist, is the harm done by applying the law exceeded by the good accomplished by enforcing it?

There are others, and I would be happy for a canonist to chime in here.

Until the Missal of Paul VI was promulgated, for a significant time period, the canon of the Mass was said in a quiet voice, at least by law. Now, the very nature of the presidential prayers requires that they be spoken clearly in a loud voice. I won't square that circle. Remember, in attempts to do so, that it's one and the same rite. (No, I'm not being snarky or facetious.)

Regulations on the liturgy, dating from Vatican 2, require that the rites are to be simplified, so that they be easily within the power of comprehension of the people. This being true, the symbol serve a practical purpose perhaps, but not a symbolic purpose, because the people, who can hear the priest clearly, know where he is in Mass, and therefore know that the Consecration moment (assuming it still exists) is about to happen.

Canon 915, to use an non-liturgical case, seems to require that notorious public sinners be prevented from receiving Holy Communion, yet bishop after bishop clearly doesn't read the law this way -- I presume because the good which might come from such excommunications is outweighed by the evil which might come from it. Surely the good of souls, the risk of profanation, the good of an individual material heretic and so on require action? Evidently not, for no action is forthcoming. The logical conclusion seems to be that the law, to return to the liturgical situation, doesn't mean what its clear meaning is.

cgz is correct in noting that not everything written in Church law is a command. Some statements in church law are hortatory in nature. As canon law professor Edward Peters (Sacred Heart Major Seminary) writes:

It is widely recognized that the 1983 Code uses a variety of "literary forms" to express its provisions, and that not all of these forms, and the canons they convey, are of equal weight. There are indeed numerous exhortations, as opposed to obligations, contained in the 1983 Code. Canon 904, for example, "strongly recommends" that priests celebrate the Eucharistic Sacrifice once a day, Canon 1186 "recommends the Blessed Mary ever Virgin . . . to the particular and filial devotion of the faithful" and Canon 280 states that "some community of life for clerics is highly recommended." Although the appropriateness of these canonical exhortations is patent, it is also clear that none of these canons establish a juridic obligation the violation of which would be canonically cognizable.

Quod gratis asseritur gratis negatur. It's plainly hortatory. :-)

If you want to make a contrary case, please cite a competent expert.

Uh-uh. The burden of proof, when it comes to proclaiming other people's duties and obligations, is on the one making the claim.

Where did you get your JCL? I don't have one, so I'd defer to the commentaries of experts. They know enough not to just read the text, but also know to look at how the Church has treated GIRM 32: does anyone act contrary to it? How do authorities respond in those cases? If Church authorities treat actions contrary to GIRM 32 as violations of law, that would weigh in favor of your interpretation; if they don't, it would mean they treat the phrase as hortatory, advisory, or merely instructional.

But enough of bare assertions.

If it's so obvious, you won't have any trouble researching it to prove your point. I'm not going to spend any time digging around, 'cause it's not an issue I need to settle for any personal concern, and I have other stuff to do.

Andrew,

I won't speak for Bill, but it seems to me that, in a great many cases of "law" since the Great Second Ecumenical Council at the Vatican, the law has appeared to say something clearly enough, but then the law was ruled to allow what it clearly prohibited. Take (oh, no, why use the example) girl altar boys. The law clearly prohibited them, and yet a great many people, on the advice of either agitators or the truly clueless, came to the conclusion that girl altar boys were, in fact, permitted under the law as written. This -- despite the clear meaning of the law -- resulted in a changing of the practice, and Pope John Paul (God rest his soul) then announced that girls could serve at the altar, without changing the law. Vatican 2 says, explicitly, that the use of Latin shall be preserved, and yet it can hardly be found, from pole to pole. If these clear, obvious statements can be construed to mean other than they do, then surely that which is, in fact, NOT a requirement can't compel anyone.

By the way: I'm not advocating a lack of liturgical discipline or canonical discipline, or casuistry. I'm attempting to describe a situation which already exists. The law doesn't compel in this case.

Cheers,

Chris

By the way, Chonak, if you would like to "look at how the Church has treated GIRM 32," would the universal precedent of every bishop everywhere be a good place to start, including all those who drafted and approved the GIRM?

PS: I just noticed an amusing argument by reductio ad absurdum (as a math major I'm entitled to use this):

32. Natura partium «praesidentialium» exigit ut clara et elata voce proferantur et ab omnibus cum attentione auscultentur.

If it is a legal obligation that the priest present these prayers clara et elata voce, then the rest of the statement is to treated similarly; that would make it also a legal obligation that everyone listen cum attentione.

However, it is obvious the Church is not so rigorist as to make the attention of the faithful a matter of legal obligation; therefore, the initial assumption ("If it is a legal obligation that the priest present these prayers clara et elata voce") is false.
QED.

@Chonak: No, the CDW held in 1978 that "coetus fidelium distincte percipere debet vocem praesidentis" (the congregation ought to perceive the voice of the presider distinctly). Incidentally (since you like legalism), consider GIRM 218, which deals with concelebrated Masses: "The parts pronounced by all the concelebrants together and especially the words of Consecration, which all are obliged to say, are to be recited in such a manner that the concelebrants speak them in a low voice and that the principal celebrant’s voice is heard clearly. In this way the words can be more easily understood by the people." If we believed the arguments you are advancing, then we ought to conclude that the GIRM is happy to permit a silent canon -- in contravention, of course, of what it tells us is demanded by the nature of those prayers -- except, mysteriously, in the case of concelebrated Masses.

@Andrew Malton: the GIRM does not say that it is "essential" to pray the presidential prayers out loud, it says that the nature of those prayers demands it. You see the difference? To give another example, we might say that the nature of being a child demands paying respect to one's parents -- but it is not "essential" to respect one's parents in order to be a child.

Phooey.

Your example shows why natural and essential are different, and so they are. And it's unnatural in a child (although not unknown) to disrespect it's parents, indeed. However, it's far from unnatural in the Canon to be pronounced quietly -- on the contrary it's both normal and natural, and for immemorial ages.

Of course, that's not to say the GIRM permits the "presidential" prayers to be spoken in a low voice: I am quite sure this is forbidden. My only point is that here (32) at least, it is forbidden on a somewhat spurious argument from "nature".

Charles

Evidence, please, for the fact that a silent canon was considered an error by some authority in the Church -- and the Emperor, God bless his cotton socks, doesn't count, because he's not an ecclesiastical authority.

Here's a routine reminder: Critique principles, not people. Be discriminating but don't nitpick. Be academic not acerbic. Be principled not polemical.

Update: readers who think this is an unreasonable post and downvoted it are invited to read the forum etiquette guidelines, and please observe them, whether you like them or not. Personal nastiness is not a quality that will attract people to the cause of sacred music.

I think you are downplaying the importance and role of the emperor. Yes, the medieval popes stepped into the power vacuum as the empire declined and became monarchs themselves. I recall one pope - don't recall which one at the moment - visiting the emperor in Constantinople to obtain his backing against a particular heresy. The pope didn't have the authority to combat it alone. That was the model of the papacy in the early days, which is what the Orthodox mean when they say they would accept the papacy as it existed in the first one thousand years of Christianity. As I mentioned, the "silent" canon debate has raged in the east for centuries. In some places it truly was silent, in other places inaudible because a wall separated the priest from the people.

Here is what Justinian decreed, and he did have the authority to both decree and enforce.

here is a translation of the relevant part of Novella 137, ‘Moreover we order the bishops and presbyters not to say the divine Oblation and the prayer in holy Baptism silently, but in a voice that can be heard by the faithful people, so that the souls of those who listen may be roused to greater compunction and to glorify God our Master. For this is what the holy Apostle teaches when he says in the first Epistle to the Corinthians, “Otherwise, if you pronounce a blessing with the spirit, how shall one who holds the place of the uninstructed say the ‘Amen’ to your thanksgiving, since he does not know what you are saying? For you may be giving thanks very well, but the other person is not built up.” [1 Corinthians 14:16-17]. Again, this is what he says in the Epistle to the Romans, “For it is by believing with the heart that one is justified, and by confessing with the mouth that one is saved” [Romans 10:10]. For these reasons, then, it is proper that the prayer of the Offering and the other prayers to our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, with the Father and the Holy Spirit should be said aloud by the most reverend bishops and presbyters. As the very reverend priests know that if they disregard any of this, they will answer for it too at the fearful judgement of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ, we too will not acquiesce in this, or leave it unpunished.’