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.
We have a little fixture attached to the doorpost at the entrance to the nave of the Church. It has three bells actuated by a gold rope with a tassle. This is specifically to signal that the Mass is about to begin.

Two of our priests ring it gently but I think one of our priests is going to rip it off the wall some day. It is really amazing how hard he pulls that thing and I hope I’m altar serving when he rips it off the doorpost. LOL

I’ve always wanted to pull the rope, when people are there praying the rosary or doing pennance after confession or something, just to see people jump to their feet. Pavlov’s dog comes to mind and I’m not sure that I ought to be thinking of that. 😃

-Tim-
 
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.”
We do.
 
Hm. I want to ask father if the parish will buy one or if it will install one if I buy one. They can’t cost much.
 
Yes, it is permissible. our local OF parish has used the “bells” for ever.
 
The GIRM assumes it. “Facing the people, the priest says this.
Facing the altar, the priest does that.” is all over the GIRM.
JMJ

Thank you, TheMc, for your response!

With all due respect, I think “all over” is a rather gross hyperbole. In the instruction for “The Different Forms of Celebrating Mass” (chapter IV), under the section “Mass without a Deacon” (section A), nos. 120-170, there are only five mentions of “facing the people” and one mention of “facing the altar”. Having only one mentioning of “facing the altar” does not presume that the priest is facing the altar the rest of the time, but rather implies he is not (and that in this instance he should). Then again, there are the five mentions of “facing the people” about which the same could be said. I won’t go into much detail here as this is aside from the topic of the thread (which is about the bell), and I am sure there are many other threads on the ad orientem/versus populum topic. But here’s my brief analysis:

Two of the references for “facing the people” are from the chair (cf. nos 124 and 165), before the Collect and Prayer after Communion. Note that in the concluding rite–including the dialog preceding the final blessing, and the blessing itself–no instruction is given to “face the people”. Thus, there is the implication that the posture is retained from its previous mention (that is, as the priest is facing the people already from the Prayer after Communion). These remarks are interesting, as no. 310 indicates that the chair is most properly placed at the head of the sanctuary, facing the people (although it should not look throne-like). However, a number of exceptions are allowed, including if the tabernacle is behind the altar. More commonly today the celebrant is sitting to the side of the altar facing inward (profile to the congregation). Therefore, I would argue that at least these two mentions of “facing the people” are for the case when the priest is not already facing the people.

In no. 146, the priest “faces the people” for the “Orate, fratres”, after which he is not told to “face the altar”. He is then not instructed to face the people again until no. 154, before saying “The peace of the Lord be with you always.” My understanding of this, which will apply to the other instances, is that it is designated whenever there is a change of position of the priest (with one exception, which I will mention). Prior to 146, the priest is preparing the altar and the gifts, blessing them, and incensing them; his actions prior to 146 are oriented toward the gifts and the altar and God. Therefore, the priest is instructed, in 146, to, literally, “face” the people, to direct his words to the congregation.

No. 154 I think is particularly important. The instruction to face the people follows the prayer “Lord Jesus Christ, who said to your Apostles…”. I don’t know how often I’ve seen priests looking around the congregation while praying this. Who are they speaking to? The prayer is directed to Jesus Christ (it’s the only prayer directed to Jesus in the whole Eucharistic Canon), and Jesus Christ, while in a spiritual way is manifest in each individual and in the corporate body of the faithful gathered, is substantially present directly in front of him, on the altar. (If only they would have included "Facing the Host, the Priest says aloud the prayer Domine Iesu Christe, qui dixisti.)

No. 157 follows the priest’s internal preparation before receiving the Eucharist. Again, his disposition is changed, as he is oriented toward the Sacrament on the altar, which is in front of him (regardless of which way he’s facing with respect to the people). So when he proclaims Ecce Agnus Dei, although he should preferably (according to my opinion–not explicit in the text) be looking with adoration at the Eucharist he is elevating, he is never the less directing his words to the people (in a literal way: his words are facing the people). He is not speaking to God or to the Eucharist, but to the people.

Lastly, no. 158 is the ONLY case where the priest is directly instructed to “face the altar”, which is when he says quietly Corpus Christi custodiat me in vitam aeternam. I think this is also to emphasize that this prayer is to prepare the priest for receiving the Eucharist: some priests have taken to saying this prayer out loud, and even modifying it so as to say “May the Body and Blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ, bring all of us into eternal life” (or something of the sort), to which the people tend to respond “Amen”. When the priest is oriented to the altar, he is not speaking to the people, but praying for himself before consuming the Host (and likewise with the chalice).

NB: The section I refer to is just one form of celebrating Mass; I did not take to all the forms.

This section went longer than I intended, so I’ll make some very short comments in a separate post (since I already wrote these and it ended up being too long…)
 
40.png
TheMc:


I agree that many things were taken too far, misinterpreted, and/or abused following Vatican II. The two examples you give are also in the GIRM: no. 41 about chant and the people knowing responses and principal Mass parts in Latin, and no. 12 about the use of vernacular (note that SC 36.2 discusses the use of the vernacular, and 36.3-4 about the authorization of the translations). And, ultimately, the use of the Latin language is “preserved in the Latin Rite”, insofar as it is the language of the Universal Church, documents are promulgated in Latin, and, again, the people are able to pray the Mass parts in Latin when together in the Universality of the Church (that is, a multi-lingual setting).

I honestly do not have time to search through all the VII documents, my apologies (I’ve already spent an hour writing this response…), but I will comment that generally speaking, it is (or should be) well known that this idea that suggests before Vatican II we always faced ad orientem is wrong: countless liturgists have shown in historical documentation that who faced what way changed repeatedly over time. (Recognize that ad orientem is ambiguous: are we talking about the priest with his back to the people? or are we talking about facing east, which is what ad orientem means? if the latter is the case, are we talking about everyone facing east? or just the priest?) I’ll direct you to the resource: Ever Directed Towards the Lord: The Love of God in the Liturgy of the Eucharist Past, Present and Hoped For. U. W. Lang, ed. London: T&T Clark, 2007. (esp. pp. 90-107, the chapter written by Uwe Michael Lang).



I understand. I like your reference to the KDM website–I’m an unofficial Knight (I haven’t been knighted yet, but I have the gear and the pin!), and I know Fr. Rick well.


Interesting note about the translation; I don’t have the Latin text, nor do I know Latin well (yet), so I won’t take my time to research it now (I have other papers to write for my classes!). Again, my apologies.

In conclusion of this all, I think the important realization is that ultimately, this is all a moot point: our Holy Mother Church has validated Mass celebrated in the vernacular, celebrated with or without Gregorian Chant, celebrated ad orientem or versus populum. None of these compromise the validity or liceity of the Mass. These are hot-button topics among even the top liturgists, let alone us lowly aspirants here in the forum (my humble regards to you who are experienced liturgists and have reached your hand down to help those of us down here!). In other words, the “pros” if you will, don’t have one right answer–I don’t think we novices can ever come to one right answer. (I’m talking mostly about myself, here, since I do not know what your experience is with liturgy in academia). All we can do is follow the lead of the Church, and accept with submission, obedience, and humility those things on which we personally disagree with Her.

God love you!
 


I agree that many things were taken too far, misinterpreted, and/or abused following Vatican II. The two examples you give are also in the GIRM: no. 41 about chant and the people knowing responses and principal Mass parts in Latin, and no. 12 about the use of vernacular (note that SC 36.2 discusses the use of the vernacular, and 36.3-4 about the authorization of the translations). And, ultimately, the use of the Latin language is “preserved in the Latin Rite”, insofar as it is the language of the Universal Church, documents are promulgated in Latin, and, again, the people are able to pray the Mass parts in Latin when together in the Universality of the Church (that is, a multi-lingual setting).

I honestly do not have time to search through all the VII documents, my apologies (I’ve already spent an hour writing this response…), but I will comment that generally speaking, it is (or should be) well known that this idea that suggests before Vatican II we always faced ad orientem is wrong: countless liturgists have shown in historical documentation that who faced what way changed repeatedly over time. (Recognize that ad orientem is ambiguous: are we talking about the priest with his back to the people? or are we talking about facing east, which is what ad orientem means? if the latter is the case, are we talking about everyone facing east? or just the priest?) I’ll direct you to the resource: Ever Directed Towards the Lord: The Love of God in the Liturgy of the Eucharist Past, Present and Hoped For. U. W. Lang, ed. London: T&T Clark, 2007. (esp. pp. 90-107, the chapter written by Uwe Michael Lang).

I understand. I like your reference to the KDM website–I’m an unofficial Knight (I haven’t been knighted yet, but I have the gear and the pin!), and I know Fr. Rick well.

Interesting note about the translation; I don’t have the Latin text, nor do I know Latin well (yet), so I won’t take my time to research it now (I have other papers to write for my classes!). Again, my apologies.

In conclusion of this all, I think the important realization is that ultimately, this is all a moot point: our Holy Mother Church has validated Mass celebrated in the vernacular, celebrated with or without Gregorian Chant, celebrated ad orientem or versus populum. None of these compromise the validity or liceity of the Mass. These are hot-button topics among even the top liturgists, let alone us lowly aspirants here in the forum (my humble regards to you who are experienced liturgists and have reached your hand down to help those of us down here!). In other words, the “pros” if you will, don’t have one right answer–I don’t think we novices can ever come to one right answer. (I’m talking mostly about myself, here, since I do not know what your experience is with liturgy in academia). All we can do is follow the lead of the Church, and accept with submission, obedience, and humility those things on which we personally disagree with Her.

God love you!
Yes, the ad orientem point may have been taken a little far on my part. Concerning ad orientem, I should have portrayed as a legitimate option that has been lost. But with the other points, I do stand firm that they were things that we should be seeing regularly, if not always, such as chant/polyphony, latin, etc…
 


I agree that many things were taken too far, misinterpreted, and/or abused following Vatican II. The two examples you give are also in the GIRM: no. 41 about chant and the people knowing responses and principal Mass parts in Latin, and no. 12 about the use of vernacular (note that SC 36.2 discusses the use of the vernacular, and 36.3-4 about the authorization of the translations). And, ultimately, the use of the Latin language is “preserved in the Latin Rite”, insofar as it is the language of the Universal Church, documents are promulgated in Latin, and, again, the people are able to pray the Mass parts in Latin when together in the Universality of the Church (that is, a multi-lingual setting).

I honestly do not have time to search through all the VII documents, my apologies (I’ve already spent an hour writing this response…), but I will comment that generally speaking, it is (or should be) well known that this idea that suggests before Vatican II we always faced ad orientem is wrong: countless liturgists have shown in historical documentation that who faced what way changed repeatedly over time. (Recognize that ad orientem is ambiguous: are we talking about the priest with his back to the people? or are we talking about facing east, which is what ad orientem means? if the latter is the case, are we talking about everyone facing east? or just the priest?) I’ll direct you to the resource: Ever Directed Towards the Lord: The Love of God in the Liturgy of the Eucharist Past, Present and Hoped For. U. W. Lang, ed. London: T&T Clark, 2007. (esp. pp. 90-107, the chapter written by Uwe Michael Lang).
By ad orientem most people, including me, mean that the priest and people are facing the same direction. One other thing I forgot to mention. Our holy father also speaks very highly of this practice, and uses it frequently.
I understand. I like your reference to the KDM website–I’m an unofficial Knight (I haven’t been knighted yet, but I have the gear and the pin!), and I know Fr. Rick well.
He’s a great priest. I also know him.
Interesting note about the translation; I don’t have the Latin text, nor do I know Latin well (yet), so I won’t take my time to research it now (I have other papers to write for my classes!). Again, my apologies.

In conclusion of this all, I think the important realization is that ultimately, this is all a moot point: our Holy Mother Church has validated Mass celebrated in the vernacular, celebrated with or without Gregorian Chant, celebrated ad orientem or versus populum. None of these compromise the validity or liceity of the Mass. These are hot-button topics among even the top liturgists, let alone us lowly aspirants here in the forum (my humble regards to you who are experienced liturgists and have reached your hand down to help those of us down here!). In other words, the “pros” if you will, don’t have one right answer–I don’t think we novices can ever come to one right answer. (I’m talking mostly about myself, here, since I do not know what your experience is with liturgy in academia). All we can do is follow the lead of the Church, and accept with submission, obedience, and humility those things on which we personally disagree with Her.

God love you!
Yes, the ad orientem point may have been taken a little far on my part. Concerning ad orientem, I should have portrayed as a legitimate option that has been lost. But with the other points, I do stand firm that they were things that we should be seeing regularly, if not always, such as chant/polyphony, latin, etc…
 
Yes, the sanctuary/sacristy bell is permissible and a fine alternative to announcements. I have personally installed them in six parishes.

Generally, items like bells are not covered in detail in current liturgical documents, except at the parts during the Mass at which a bell may be rung, “according to local custom.” Local custom means that, for example, the altar bell may be rung once or three times at the elevations, may be a cluster of four or five bells, a single bell, a gong, a tubular chime, a rota (bell wheel), a tower bell, or nothing at all.
 
By ad orientem most people, including me, mean that the priest and people are facing the same direction. One other thing I forgot to mention. Our holy father also speaks very highly of this practice, and uses it frequently. …] Concerning ad orientem, I should have portrayed as a legitimate option that has been lost. But with the other points, I do stand firm that they were things that we should be seeing regularly, if not always, such as chant/polyphony, latin, etc…
JMJ

Thanks, TheMc!

Yes, our Holy Father does indeed support the notion of common directionality between Priest-celebrant and congregation. I don’t know if I’d say he uses it frequently–he will at times use it in “private” Masses or when he celebrates alone or for his household, but we notice that most of the Masses he celebrates he does versus populum.

And truly, I agree with you. I am not at all, in the slightest, opposed to ad orientem, and I think the symbolism and intent of all facing one direction is incredibly significant, something that has been tragically lost in the restructuring of our churches. I was only trying to make the point that both are legitimate postures for the celebration of Mass.

God love you!
 
And truly, I agree with you. I am not at all, in the slightest, opposed to ad orientem, and I think the symbolism and intent of all facing one direction is incredibly significant, something that has been tragically lost in the restructuring of our churches. I was only trying to make the point that both are legitimate postures for the celebration of Mass.

God love you!
Thanks for keeping me in check. 😃

I also agree that both options have legitimacy, but in the same breath, while two things may both be allowed, that doesn’t mean they are equal in merit. Just sayin’ (tjwdsssc: that’s not to you, that’s more of a general statement)
 
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 +
I believe this to be correct.

Before 1960 we were using chimes for all the “bell-ringing” during Mass, including the entrance where two keys were set up at the door (along with the holy water, but that’s another thread.) In 1960 the diocese informed us that chimes were not to be used anymore during Mass; however they were still allowed to announce beginning of Mass.
 
Thanks for keeping me in check. 😃

I also agree that both options have legitimacy, but in the same breath, while two things may both be allowed, that doesn’t mean they are equal in merit. Just sayin’ (tjwdsssc: that’s not to you, that’s more of a general statement)
JMJ

You’re welcome! And you, me! 🙂

God love you!
 
Yeah, at least in my area, dalmatics are quite uncommon. Most of the time, it’s just alb and stole.
***I’m 55 yo and I’ve NEVER seen a deacon wear a dalmatic; if fact the only time i have ever seen one is in the “Autom” catalog. ***

As far as the entrance bells, 99% of the church’s use them in my area.
 
***I’m 55 yo and I’ve NEVER seen a deacon wear a dalmatic; if fact the only time i have ever seen one is in the “Autom” catalog. ***
JMJ

I have to say, this is really sad…I guess I’m from very blessed places…wherever I’ve been–my home, my undergraduate, and my current seminary–I’ve always seen dalmatics whenever a deacon has served at Mass (during the LoH, deacons wear alb and deaconal stole). Now, the bigger problem in my home diocese is that we don’t have very many deacons, so there aren’t many to be seen wearing dalmatics…pray for vocations!

God love you!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top