Is it permissible to use one of those "entrance bell" things at a Novus Ordo mass?

  • Thread starter Thread starter YoungTradCath
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Y

YoungTradCath

Guest
Well, is it? The ones the priest or an altar boy rings right as Extraordinary Form masses start? Reason I ask is because I want to ask father if he would mind if we installed one, and we are a Novus Ordo-only parish (at least for now). I like them, as they are a better way of starting mass than having somebody say, “Please rise.”
 
Yes, we do.

Our rector found some bells lying unused in a storeroom at a nearby parish, and we’ve installed them at our Cathedral. He celebrates Mass in the EF once a month, and we use the bells for EF and OF Masses, daily and Sundays.
 
YoungTradCath said:
Well, is it? The ones the priest or an altar boy rings right as Extraordinary Form masses start? Reason I ask is because I want to ask father if he would mind if we installed one, and we are a Novus Ordo-only parish (at least for now). I like them, as they are a better way of starting mass than having somebody say, “Please rise.”
Click to expand...
We use it at one of my parishes. I think it’s a great idea. And it’s not so much a question of being “allowed,” but rather a question of “what’s the best way to do this?” There’s no need to re-invent the wheel. It worked for years before the reforms, why shouldn’t we continue?
 
TheMc said:
We use it at one of my parishes. I think it’s a great idea. And it’s not so much a question of being “allowed,” but rather a question of “what’s the best way to do this?” There’s no need to re-invent the wheel. It worked for years before the reforms, why shouldn’t we continue?
Click to expand...
Well, if there was a prohibition against it, I certainly didn’t want to recommend it.
 
YoungTradCath said:
Well, if there was a prohibition against it, I certainly didn’t want to recommend it.
Click to expand...
No, I don’t think there is. In fact, it would seem that GIRM no. 42 would advocate for these types of things:

Attention must therefore be paid to [1] what is determined by this General Instruction and [2: Read:] by the traditional practice of the Roman Rite and to [3] what serves the common spiritual good of the People of God, rather than private inclination or arbitrary choice.

It’s pretty much saying that: you should do the following: 1) Follow the GIRM, 2) Follow the traditional practice of the Roman Rite. 3) Do what is best for the congregation (which is not, by the way, necessarily what they want, but rather, what they need. Having surgery is not always what you want, but it may be what you need. Does surgery feel good? Heck no. Must everything the priest does make you feel good? No. ||| Would you like to eat cotton candy all day? Some of us would. Should you? …).

So long story short, there’s no need to re-invent the wheel. In fact, it seems we are discouraged from doing so.

If you ask me, it was just one of those things that just got lost (purposely?) in the transition, just like ad orientem (the GIRM allows and assumes it), chant (no. 41), polyphony (no. 41), latin (no. 101), the organ (no. 61), communion patens (no. 93), dalmatics (no. 125), altar boys (letter from rome), altar bells (no. 42), to name a few.
 
Lol I never even knew that some deacons didn’t use dalmatics. The only time I’ve seen a dalmatic-less deacon is in an OF mass in which two deacons take part; the second, non-celebrating one only wore an alb and stole, even though he delivered the homily.
 
YoungTradCath said:
Lol I never even knew that some deacons didn’t use dalmatics. The only time I’ve seen a dalmatic-less deacon is in an OF mass in which two deacons take part; the second, non-celebrating one only wore an alb and stole, even though he delivered the homily.
Click to expand...
Yeah, at least in my area, dalmatics are quite uncommon. Most of the time, it’s just alb and stole.
 
And seriously, you can get vestments on the cheap if you look for them.
 
YoungTradCath said:
And seriously, you can get vestments on the cheap if you look for them.
Click to expand...
Seriously. Both my pastor and I have ordered from this site before (so they are trustworthy):

catholicliturgicals.com/estore.php

Their vestments are great. Dalmatics are only $100, and matching chusables for the same amount.

catholicliturgicals.com/view_dalmatics.php?catid=252
catholicliturgicals.com/view_vestments.php?catid=206

I’m sure most, or at least many parishes could get sets of these if they really wanted to.
 
In my youth, that “entrance bell” was called the sanctuary bell, because it hung at the door leading into the sanctuary from the sacristy. The altar boy rang it as he entered the sanctuary first, ahead of the priest (in the days before elaborate processions). My home parish continued to use it, even after the introduction of the Novus Ordo.

My current parish, is an TLM parish, in another archdiocese. The church we are graciously allowed to share is the home of a Novus Ordo parish. We were delighted to find that they still had their sanctuary bells in place on the wall, and we use them when Father says a low Mass.
 
To get back to the OP topic, yes, it is permissible to use a bell to signal the start of Mass.
 
TheMc said:
just like ad orientem (the GIRM allows and assumes it)
Click to expand...
JMJ

First, for YoungTradCath: though everyone else responded sufficiently, I’ll toss in my two cents: basically, ringing the bells at the start of Mass (to alert people to the procession starting) is outside of the liturgy (which begins with the procession and ends with the recession). Thus, liturgically, “anything goes” (within reason–we don’t want to disturb the meditative environment and prayer of the people!). There are no rules for ringing the bell before Mass (and, consequentially, no regulations on how the bells are rung).

Second, for TheMc: the current GIRM does not assume for ad orientem, although it does allow it. Liturgical documentation in the GIRM, the Roman Missal, the Catechism, and Canon Law, not to mention the documents of Vatican II and subsequent documents of the CDF and USCCB, all foresee the Mass to be celebrated versus populum, with the possibility of using ad orientem:

“The altar should be built separate from the wall, in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily and that Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people, which is desirable wherever possible.” (GIRM 299, as just one example. Emphasis added.)

God love you!
 
tjwdsssc2015 said:
JMJ

First, for YoungTradCath: though everyone else responded sufficiently, I’ll toss in my two cents: basically, ringing the bells at the start of Mass (to alert people to the procession starting) is outside of the liturgy (which begins with the procession and ends with the recession). Thus, liturgically, “anything goes” (within reason–we don’t want to disturb the meditative environment and prayer of the people!). There are no rules for ringing the bell before Mass (and, consequentially, no regulations on how the bells are rung).
Click to expand...
You are correct, with the exception of one small detail. The Mass ends with the dismissal, not recession. But that’s a pretty small point.
tjwdsssc2015 said:
Second, for TheMc: the current GIRM does not assume for ad orientem, although it does allow it. Liturgical documentation in the GIRM, the Roman Missal, the Catechism, and Canon Law, not to mention the documents of Vatican II and subsequent documents of the CDF and USCCB, all foresee the Mass to be celebrated versus populum, with the possibility of using ad orientem:
Click to expand...
The GIRM assumes it. “Facing the people, the priest says this. Facing the altar, the priest does that.” is all over the GIRM.

Vatican II documents? I find that very hard to believe. Vatican II certanly did not intend for all of the things that happened after the council. Just look at Sacrosanctum Concilium no. 36.1 or no.116 for a minute! Please cite your source on that one if you are going to say that. I’d love to see what you find.

And the USCCB? Well, I’m not even going to go there. The mods wouldn’t like it. This is all I’ll say about that.
tjwdsssc2015 said:
“The altar should be built separate from the wall, in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily and that Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people, which is desirable wherever possible.” (GIRM 299, as just one example. Emphasis added.)

God love you!
Click to expand...
You may find this hard to believe, but this translation is actually incorrect. The clause “which is desirable wherever possible” actually refers to the altar being built apart from the wall.

A more accurate translation would read something like:
The main altar should be built separated from the wall, which is useful wherever it is possible, so that it can be easily walked around and a celebration toward the people can be carried out.

Also, in this case, the words “whenever possible” does not impose an obligation, but rather, it is merely a suggestion. And anyways, in context, the paragraph is more about the placement of the altar than the orientation of the celebrant.
 
TheMc said:
The GIRM assumes it. “Facing the people, the priest says this. Facing the altar, the priest does that.” is all over the GIRM.
Click to expand...
As I have frequently pointed out, all that it assumes is that the priest may be saying Mass ad orientem. You’ll notice that the GIRM never says something like “… then he turns around so as to face the people,” which would imply that these are expected to be different directions. It merely says that some things must be done facing the people and some of them facing the altar, without at all excluding the possibility that these are both in the same direction. Anyway, it certainly seems to be the case (and please ignore my Latin mistake) that the Concilium expected by as early as 1965 that churches were going to be refitted with altars positioned for versus populum. It seems pretty unlikely, in light of that, that they would nevertheless have gone ahead and produced a missal four years which made ad orientem the norm – and yet kept this expectation so secret that it can only be deduced from a few vague and scattered references of the sort we’re discussing here.
 
YoungTradCath said:
Well, is it? The ones the priest or an altar boy rings right as Extraordinary Form masses start? Reason I ask is because I want to ask father if he would mind if we installed one, and we are a Novus Ordo-only parish (at least for now). I like them, as they are a better way of starting mass than having somebody say, “Please rise.”
Click to expand...
At every church I’ve been to the sacristy bell is rung at the start of Mass to warn the congregation the Entrance Procession is about to start.
 
Ringing the bells could not violate the rules concerning a Mass since when the bells are rung Mass has not begun. Even after the bells are rung Mass has not yet technically begun, the Mass begins at the Greeting +
 
YoungTradCath said:
Well, is it? The ones the priest or an altar boy rings right as Extraordinary Form masses start? Reason I ask is because I want to ask father if he would mind if we installed one, and we are a Novus Ordo-only parish (at least for now). I like them, as they are a better way of starting mass than having somebody say, “Please rise.”
Click to expand...
Yes, we have them at our parish that celebrates only the ordinary form and all the priests use them. I agree that it is a more reverent way of beginning Mass than having the cantor start in with “hear-ye, hear-ye all rise for the Reverend Father so and so…” 😃
 
hilde_the_dog said:
Ringing the bells could not violate the rules concerning a Mass since when the bells are rung Mass has not begun. Even after the bells are rung Mass has not yet technically begun, the Mass begins at the Greeting +
Click to expand...
Correct, unless the introit is sung directly after the bell is rung… 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top