Bells at Consecration in OF?
  • marajoymarajoy
    Posts: 781
    I am suspicious that a priest I know is going to soon try and get rid of bells at the Consecration - he recently made a comment that bells should *not* be used in the OF since they are only specifically prescribed in the EF. (Aside from the terrible logic,) I have trouble believing that nowhere are there OF rubrics indicating bells may be rung at the Consecration! Anyone?
  • matthewjmatthewj
    Posts: 2,597
    I once worked for a priest that got rid of the bells because he didn't like the servers kneeling down for the Eucharistic Prayer (in order to get the bells) (also our Diocesan Bishop had given the instruction that everyone in the sanctuary - including servers and deacons - should stand for the EP). Clearly the altar servers were incapable of ringing bells while standing.
  • 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.
  • Ben YankeBen Yanke
    Posts: 3,114
    Matthew....ask him if he's ever heard of a credence table.
  • Ben YankeBen Yanke
    Posts: 3,114
    Or heard of joints that bend.
  • Some liturgists say that the ringing of bells suggests an actual moment of consecration, and disagree with the practice, claiming that the Church has never proclaimed that the consecration occurs at a precise “moment” in the Eucharistic Prayer. Some theologians these days speak of the entire Eucharistic Prayer as consecratory.

    It’s very interesting that the Anaphora (Eucharistic Prayer) of Addai and Mari of the Syrian Church does not contain the actual words of institution per se, yet was determined to be a valid Eucharistic Prayer in a document signed by Pope John Paul II on July 20, 2001!
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 7,761
    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.
  • Ben YankeBen Yanke
    Posts: 3,114
    @Chonak, Likewise with incensations.

    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.
  • 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?
  • 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.
    I think it's helpful to understand the history of genuflections during the Eucharistic Prayer.

    A very informative book is The Eucharistic Prayers of the Roman Rite by Enrico Mazza, Liturgical Press, 1986, 2004. "Google Books" has an excerpt, and a brief historical survey of genuflections during the Eucharistic Prayer can be found on pages 8-10 at this link:

    http://books.google.com/books?id=1UvQcvDzHrYC&pg=PA10&lpg=PA10&dq=genuflections+in+the+eucharistic+prayer&source=bl&ots=_Kx0PwLGcv&sig=aQK46yruIeaA5Vp5L2VmAaDuTw4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6AdeUoiuAcri4APx7IGQAg&ved=0CFQQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=genuflections in the eucharistic prayer&f=false

    It's interesting that Mazza says that “The genuflection became obligatory only with the Missal of Pius V in 1570.”
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 7,761
    I think everybody knows that these practices developed in the Middle Ages: the elevations, the genuflections, etc.
  • And bells were added to signal for the clamour of business dealing and general chatter to cease for the most holy part of the mass. Nowadays, of course, there is a more spiritual interpretation for bells, and much more politesse in their rigning.

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

    We ring them in the Anglican Use and the Ordinariate.... longstanding Anglican custom.

    I have even converted priests here and there to the ringing of the tower bell at the consecration, a mediaeval custom. This enables all who are in ear shot to participate in the progress of the Divine Liturgy and to make due obeisance. Features such as these made it possible for the whole countryside or town to participated in the progress of the mass if they could not be physically present.
    Thanked by 1ghmus7
  • 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.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • quilisma
    Posts: 123
    This reminds me of Fr. Tim Finnigan's post about putting your alb on back to front:

    Link

    It goes along the lines of: anything prescribed for the EF, and not specifically mentioned in the OF, must not be done.
    Thanked by 1David Sullivan
  • 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
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,304
    A little before the Consecration, if appropriate, a minister rings a small bell as a signal to the faithful.


    As with several other similar instructions, I'm flummoxed.

    What does it mean that it is done "if appropriate?"
    I'm reading the GIRM precisely to find out if this sort of thing is appropriate or not.

    Imagine this approach to Monopoly rules:
    "A little after passing Go, if appropriate, the player receives $200."

    Okay, that's a bad example, since other parts of the game tell you precisely when it is inappropriate.
  • 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.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,304
    (4) you are in hiding in a secret room or a catacomb

    you could use a dumb bell
  • Ben YankeBen Yanke
    Posts: 3,114
    Optionitis.
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 1,837
    (4) you are in hiding in a secret room or a catacomb,

    Ah, the pristine springtime of the liturgy!
  • 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.
    Thanked by 2CharlesW Adam Wood
  • 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


    Read more carefully. 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, merely that the nature of a thing requires something else.

    It is much the same as claiming that the nature of the human being requires that he vote in his country's election. Aside from the arguable nature of the proposition in itself, it neither commands that people shall vote, nor does it tell us how to vote. I'm not being facetious here. Think of what else has come into the sanctuary (properly understood) as a result of apparent loopholes in the law. (Think, as just one example, of the clarity about whether the Kyrie is (or is not) part of the penitential rite.)

    Cheers,

    Chris
    Thanked by 1chonak
  • 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?
  • Protasius
    Posts: 468
    Judging by older rubricist works from the 19th century it is inappropriate to ring the bell, if you celebrate at a Side Altar and there is a Solemn Mass or exposition of the Blessed Sacrament on the High Altar.
  • matthewjmatthewj
    Posts: 2,597
    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.
    Thanked by 2hilluminar Jani
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,005
    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?


    That GIRM requirement is liturgical law in the United States, and it means exactly what it says.
  • 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.
    Thanked by 1chonak
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,005
    There is a name for picking and choosing which laws you will follow. It's called Protestantism. Yes, the Church does many liturgical things that were not done from the 16th century until the 20th. Some of those things it actually did do before the 16th century. But in any event, it is the same Church which even today has the lawful authority to decide its liturgical practices and laws.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 7,761
    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.
  • Sure, not everything in Church law is a command, but even in the examples you provide, they are explicitly recommendations and preferences. GIRM 32 is an explicit requirement.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 7,761
    Quod gratis asseritur gratis negatur. It's plainly hortatory. :-)

    If you want to make a contrary case, please cite a competent expert.
  • Poor argument. You are the one who asserts that GIRM 32 should not be read as the requirement that it is. The onus is on you to show why Peters' example of "literary forms" should apply to GIRM 32 instead of an explicit reading of a clear text.

    Peters was not referring to GIRM 32, but to passages that outright state that they are recommendations, not requirements. It is on you to show why his general statement applies here.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 7,761
    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.
  • I don't make the claim. The GIRM makes the claim. You are the one, by hammering the square peg of Ed Peters' text into the round hole of this particular circumstance, who is trying to ignore the plain meaning. That is your assertion, and in any argument, it is the asserting party who holds the burden of proof.

    Furthermore, your hermeneutic of liturgical law here would, if accepted, render the entirety of the GIRM meaningless. If every single article of the document needs jurisprudence backing up its implementation, then why consider the GIRM binding at all? Is there anything in the GIRM that, in your opinion, is not up for grabs, if you can actually question an article that explicitly renders an action as a requirement?
  • 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
  • Just when I thought arguments couldn't get any loopier, "required" means "not required." Meanwhile Sacrosanctum Concilium's hortatory waffling about Latin ("may its use be preserved!" -- uh, "save particular law" to the contrary) becomes a "requirement."

    For your next trick, you can tell us how Dignitatem Mulieris actually requires women's ordination.
  • 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?
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 7,761
    Well, here's the text:
    32. Natura partium «praesidentialium» exigit ut clara et elata voce proferantur et ab omnibus cum attentione auscultentur. Proinde dum sacerdos eas profert aliae orationes vel cantus non habeantur, atque organum vel alia instrumenta musica sileant.


    I will happily agree that this tells priests that they _should_ present those prayers clara et elata voce. The question is whether it's a legal obligation. From my limited knowledge, I don't think the phrasing indicates that.

    If you'd like a reason for that opinion:

    As Fr. James Coriden writes in his "An introduction to canon law" (Paulist, rev. 2004, p. 32-33) these "Literary forms" appear in church law:

    1. Doctrinal statements

    2. Norms of action
    a. exhortations
    b. admonitions
    c. directives
    d. precepts
    e. prohibitions
    f. penalties
    g. procedures
    h. constitutional elements

    (Readers can refer to his book to find out what these all are.)

    Identifying the type of statement starts with the text. Some of these are legal obligations, and some are not.

    Note that the statement in GIRM 32 doesn't say "The priest must..." or "the priest is to...". It does not say "it is forbidden to..." It says: "the nature of the presidential parts demands..." That is quite indirect.

    And that indirectness, on the face of it, makes me think that the statement is not clearly a precept or a prohibition or even a directive. To me, it looks like an exhortation or perhaps even a doctrinal statement. I.e., not a legal obligation.

    Also note: I'm not advocating here that GIRM 32 be a vague statement rather than a clearly enforceable directive. I think it just is.

    There's my shocking contention. So if you can point to a scholarly counterargument, do let us know.
    Thanked by 1Jahaza
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 7,761
    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.
    Thanked by 2Richard Mix CHGiffen
  • I would just like to reiterate that the sentence at the beginning of GIRM 32 is false on its face, as cgz pointed out above. It can't be essential to such prayers to pray them out loud, etc., otherwise the silent canon (not to mention the inattentive parishioner) would make them not be, which is a reductio ad absurdam for sure.

    This is not the only place where the GIRM gives reasons that can't be reconciled with common sense or history. But of course, when the GIRM is expressing positive law, the justifications don't have to be agreeable.
  • @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.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 7,761
    Thanks for posting that, Mark.

    Here's a link to the text you cited: http://notitiae.ipsissima-verba.org/show/64

    In your favor, I'd say that CDW's dubium response is a little stronger than your Latin-to-English rendering would have it: "debet" isn't just "ought"; I'd consider it to be "must".

    For those who haven't read the piece, a questioner in 1978 wrote in about concelebrations. He indicated that sometimes multiple celebrants produce a "competition of raised voices" trying to outdo one another.

    The CDW response cited the very clear instructions in GIRM 170 (1975 edition; it's para. 218 in the 3rd edition). With multiple celebrants pronouncing the words, it's appropriate that there be a clear rule about the prominence of the presiding celebrant.

    So it doesn't directly give an answer about #32, but it's informative.
  • 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".
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,005
    The silent canon was considered an error from the beginning, and was even condemned by the Emperor Justinian. It has developed, been banished, and re-occurred in east and west over the centuries, I think, because of creeping clericalism. There were even arguments advanced in the past that it was too sacred for the ears of the non-ordained. One thing I have learned, is that any error repeated enough, brings out an army of advocates for it who will swear it came directly from God, and is hallowed practice.
    Thanked by 1Liam
  • 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.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,005
    You wouldn't believe it anyway, since it doesn't conform to your wishful thinking. Yes, the emperor counted and made law for the church. No church authorities contradicted him, and were in agreement when he spoke for all of them. You forget that when the empire existed, the popes did not reign supreme as they later did in the Middle Ages.

    This debate has raged in the east for centuries as well. It isn't just a western thing.
    Thanked by 1Liam
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 7,761
    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.
  • Charles,

    I hope you will overlook my skepticism. Here is its source: a great many people in recent years have attempted to justify all manner of "restorations", by appealing to the practice of the "early Church". In my early years as a Catholic (I'm coming up on 19 years this All Saints' Day) I noticed one real weakness in John Paul's catechism: it seemed to jump from Augustine to Vatican 2, as if there was nearly no history in the intervening years except some ignorable Council of Trent.

    So, I ask with sincerity: what's your evidence?
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,005
    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.’
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,005
    Personal nastiness is not a quality that will attract people to the cause of sacred music.


    No one wants to be nasty, or at least, I certainly don't. But can you discuss anything liturgical with those who disregard and reject current liturgical law? Those of us who work in sacred music don't have the luxury of only accepting what we like and what used to be in force. We have to live and work with what actually is the current law.