I would agree that many practices changed over time, were dropped, re-discovered, and put back into use - sometimes completely out of context. My issues were with disregarding current liturgical law. Being Catholic musicians means we have to follow it, whether we particularly like it or not. The woods are full of schismatics and Protestants who don't follow any laws of the Church, but hopefully, that doesn't include anyone on this forum. However, one can become entirely too legalistic and hair-splitting on such things. Perhaps it is better to follow the mind of the church rather than look for ways around it.

Justinian. I don't remember which site I copied that from onto a Word document some years ago. I was having a discussion with someone on a related subject at the time and saved it. A Google search will reveal several sources, from Fordham, Google Books, Wikipedia, and others.

Henry VIII, is a case unto himself without satisfactory explanation. The early popes never had powers equal to the emperor, but took on monarchial status and powers when the emperors no longer had any presence or powers in the west. The emperors never apportioned power to themselves, it was theirs to begin with. We are in a mindset of medieval popes and Vatican I pronouncements, which colors our views on the papacy. It wasn't anything like that in the early days. Interestingly, the current pope seems to be reverting to the earlier model. Time will tell.

Spanish Inquisition popes. There have been times when the papacy was weak or under attack by civil forces, and also times when it has been strong. I have sometimes thought that the Spanish aristocrats and throne had as much to gain as the church, from getting rid of rivals. Given that the bishops were mostly aristocrats, it gets a bit murky as to who used whom the most.

Early evidence. We have what we have, until something better is discovered.

Too funny!

Charles,

It's amazing how much we agree on, given the size of the chasm which separates us.

I completely agree that liturgical law is not optional. Current law must, surely, be understood within the constant practice and teaching of the Church. Reading liturgical law, I discover that the choir should be understood as part of the community gathered in such and such a place, but that it performs a sacred function--- and so I encourage kneeling in choirs, for the law requires kneeling for the consecration, only to be villified here, among some of those who keep the liturgical law. Go figure. Furthermore, every time I point out that the organ and other instruments can't be used on Good Friday, and ..... other occasions, people tell me to be practical. Mostly, these people also tell me that laws may be written in Rome, but need to be applied in the provinces according to the best judgment of the local pastor or liturgy committee.

And... last but not least, viri selecti, despite its obvious, clear meaning, continues to be treated as empty law.

I will continue to look at the evidence both for the existence of the situation you describe with Justinian and its enduring value. (Once, popes lived in Avignon, after all.)

God bless,

Chris

The woods are full of schismatics and Protestants who don't follow any laws of the Church, but hopefully, that doesn't include anyone on this forum.

Shall we read this as you hoping for their conversion, rather than asserting this (sacred music) forum has nothing to learn from traditions with a considerable head start at vernacular chant & polyphony?

Bells were introduced in european cathedrals with extremely long and narrow naves -- :cfr the church attached to the monastery at Solesmes -- so that those at the back of the church or those outside would know what happening at the altar they could not see. The use of bells, considered by some be mandatory, is yet another example of a local custom spreading world wide and in the process acquiring some kind of legal status. Another example is the widespread use of red cassocks for altar boys --originally from Portugal. If you study Kunzler' magisterial work on Liturgy you will discover that the appropriate garment is the alb!

Brendan Conway
brendanconwayatkew@yahoo.co.uk

St. Cyril of Jerusalem said:

“When thou goest to receive communion go not with thy wrists extended, nor with thy fingers separated, but placing thy left hand as a throne for thy right, which is to receive so great a King, and in the hollow of the palm receive the body of Christ, saying, Amen.” (Catechesis mystagogica V, xxi-xxii, Migne Patrologia Graeca 33)

"Tertullian and Origen warn the faithful not to permit any particle of the Sacrament to drop on the floor, while they were holding it in their hand at Communion, because that would be. a profanation inflicted on the holiest of objects. Moreover, Tertullian condemns very severely those Christians who touched the body of the Lord at Communion with the same hand with which they manufactured idols for the false worship of the pagans." http://www.catholicculture.org/libra...cfm?recnum=679

Not only that, but early Christians would take some of the Eucharist home with them and have some of it each day during the week. Early Christians were not very good at anticipating the teachings of the Council of Trent. ;-) Yes, they did receive communion in the hand, and even self-communicated at home, but these practice came to be frowned upon in later centuries.

I have read that in some of the English churches, they would fire a cannon at the consecration for the benefit of those in the country side. They rang bells, too. Apparently, everyone was not at mass.

The big mistake, I think, is to look at the time between the Council of Trent and Vatican II and make the assumption that this represents the practices of all the centuries of Christianity. It doesn't. Many things changed over time. This is organic development of the liturgy. You could even make a case that Trent stopped organic development of the liturgy.

This is quite an interesting thread. I have to say that most of you would make very poor attorneys. You never resolve the issue at hand and you keep going off on tangential arguments which also never resolve themselves. The initial question posed was with regard to the ringing of bells at the Consecration. Although I am not a canon lawyer, I am a civil one. In regular law, we have a rule which says that a statute should be given its plain meaning whenever possible. The issue that CGZ continues to make is that the GIRM does not say at 150 that the server "must" ring the bell, but says "the server rings the bell.." etc.. I would suggest that the plain meaning of such a phrase is clear. Of course, if we wish to split hairs ad infinitum, we can argue about better ways of indicating an imperative, but that is a little silly.

As to the reception of the Eucharist in the hand as opposed to on the tongue, it might be argued that at certain times one form or the other was used. In reality, does it truly matter how a communicant receives Christ's body? We should be happy that the faithful still seek to receive the Lord by either means.

Nice! : )

Sweet! ROFLOL!

Why indeed. I think you like proof in black and white. I get my fill of papers at work. On my own time I stick to music.