Sanctus bells "interrupt" Eucharistic Prayer? How about the Memorial Acclamation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter japhy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

japhy

Guest
The argument that the ringing of bells during part of the Eucharistic prayer “interrupts” or “breaks the seamlessness” of it doesn’t sit well with me… especially when you consider that, smack in the middle of the Eucharistic prayer there is now a “Memorial Acclamation” (the most common of which, in the US, is addressed to Christ only in the third person). Frankly, I’d prefer to hear the bells and lose the acclamation.
 
japhy said:
The argument that the ringing of bells during part of the Eucharistic prayer “interrupts” or “breaks the seamlessness” of it doesn’t sit well with me… especially when you consider that, smack in the middle of the Eucharistic prayer there is now a “Memorial Acclamation” (the most common of which, in the US, is addressed to Christ only in the third person). Frankly, I’d prefer to hear the bells and lose the acclamation.
Click to expand...
It’s a VERY POOR argument.

Better than the one where some suggest the memorial acclamation now makes the bells redundant.
 
japhy said:
Referred to here and here. Used here. I had another reference the other day, but now I can’t find it…
Click to expand...
pnewton said:
These sites do not claim that Sanctus bells interrupt the prayer. They so the same as you and say that others make this claim.
Click to expand...
Which is why for the first two links, I said “referred to”. The third link, however, Fr. Paul says it himself: “the use of a bell is no longer appropriate, since it interrupts the flow of the whole Eucharistic prayer.”

I’m still searching for the other reference; it was (I think) a bishop’s negative interpretation of the GIRM paragraph that allows for the bells.
 
japhy said:
Which is why for the first two links, I said “referred to”. The third link, however, Fr. Paul says it himself: “the use of a bell is no longer appropriate, since it interrupts the flow of the whole Eucharistic prayer.”

I’m still searching for the other reference; it was (I think) a bishop’s negative interpretation of the GIRM paragraph that allows for the bells.
Click to expand...
Don’t misconstrue my question. I’m not questioning your assertion. I just think that this is the lamest possible excuses I’ve seen for retiring the bells and I want to see what sort of idiot really believes it.

Whenever my pastor tries something new I wonder what new liturgical magazine he reads that suggested it.
 
PKinsale said:
Whenever my pastor tries something new I wonder what new liturgical magazine he reads that suggested it.
Click to expand...
You know how it is. Starts off with an innocent-looking magazine, and before you know it, its workshops and then conferences! 😃
 
I like the idea of bells, but not the execution. They sound like an analog phone ringing (“Can someone get that?! I’m busy!” 🙂 ). I wondered if the bell could be single tones, but then it would sound like the call to find your seats because the movie is about the start.
 
There was a question and response about this back in 1972 (Not. 8 (1972) 343):
QUERY: Is a bell to be rung at Mass?

REPLY: It all depends on the different circumstances of places and people, as is clear from GIRM no. 109: “A little before the consecration, the server may ring a bell as a signal to the faithful. Depending on local custom, he also rings the bell at the showing of both the host and the chalice.”

From a long and attentive catechesis and education in liturgy, a particular liturgical assembly may be able to take part in the Mass with such attention and awareness that it has no need of this signal at the central part of the Mass. This may easily be the case, for example, with religious communities or with particular or small groups. The opposite may be presumed in a parish or public church, where there is a different level of liturgical and religious education and where often people who are visitors or are not regular churchgoers take part. In these cases the bell as a signal is entirely appropriate and is sometimes necessary.

To conclude: usually a signal with the bell should be given, at least at the two elevations, in order to elicit joy and attention.

AH! I finally found the missing link. Here it is: On a less theological plane a correspondent from Los Angeles sent me a reply on ringing bells from the Secretariat for Liturgy of the U.S. bishops’ conference asking if this response should be considered more “official” than mine:

“The ringing of bells during the eucharistic prayer is no longer required by the General Instruction of the Roman Missal. In a day when the people could neither see nor hear what the priest was doing, bells provided a ‘signal’ that something important was about to happen. This need is no longer present. The Order of Mass shows a keen appreciation for the eucharistic prayer as the one ‘great prayer’ of priest and people. It is indeed the entire eucharistic prayer which is consecratory. In order to foster an appreciation of this seamless character of the eucharistic prayer, the ringing of bells is optional.”
 
japhy said:
The argument that the ringing of bells during part of the Eucharistic prayer “interrupts” or “breaks the seamlessness” of it doesn’t sit well with me… especially when you consider that, smack in the middle of the Eucharistic prayer there is now a “Memorial Acclamation” (the most common of which, in the US, is addressed to Christ only in the third person). Frankly, I’d prefer to hear the bells and lose the acclamation.
Click to expand...
I may (of course) be mistaken, but I believe on aspect of the seamless idea is a general reaction against the idea of the Verba, together with ideas attributing a consecratory emphasis to the whole prayer, etc., etc. I do believe that if it were not mandated, some of the more avant-garde would like to lose even the genuflections and elevations - items of prominence that single the Verba out within the whole Eucharistic Prayer. That’s my take on the “seamless” argument. Seen in this light, the Acclamation does not necessarily break the seamlessness, since it does not directly thrust any one part into prominence.
 
AJV said:
That’s my take on the “seamless” argument. Seen in this light, the Acclamation does not necessarily break the seamlessness, since it does not directly thrust any one part into prominence.
Click to expand...
The acclamation divides the prayer into two halves, is what I meant.
 
japhy said:
AH! I finally found the missing link. Here it is: On a less theological plane a correspondent from Los Angeles sent me a reply on ringing bells from the Secretariat for Liturgy of the U.S. bishops’ conference asking if this response should be considered more “official” than mine:

“The ringing of bells during the eucharistic prayer is no longer required by the General Instruction of the Roman Missal. In a day when the people could neither see nor hear what the priest was doing, bells provided a ‘signal’ that something important was about to happen. This need is no longer present. The Order of Mass shows a keen appreciation for the eucharistic prayer as the one ‘great prayer’ of priest and people. It is indeed the entire eucharistic prayer which is consecratory. In order to foster an appreciation of this seamless character of the eucharistic prayer, the ringing of bells is optional.”
Click to expand...
I will stick with what I wrote some time ago:

“The popular theological hypothesis of considering the entire Eucharistic Prayer as consecratory in the hopes of achieving a deeper understanding of the Eucharistic Mystery has some merit. It is terribly incorrect however to suggest that the actual transformation (of either species) does not take place instantaneously at a specific moment in time, that instead it is a gradual process that can be interrupted by the ringing of Sanctus bells. It’s either bread or wine, or the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ – there is no intermediate state.”
 
japhy said:
Which is why for the first two links, I said “referred to”. The third link, however, Fr. Paul says it himself: “the use of a bell is no longer appropriate, since it interrupts the flow of the whole Eucharistic prayer.”
.
Click to expand...
Yes, but Fr. Paul is not my priest so he has no jurisdiciton. My priest would disagree with him.
 
pnewton said:
Yes, but Fr. Paul is not my priest so he has no jurisdiciton. My priest would disagree with him.
Click to expand...
Mine too - vehemently!
japhy said:
AH! I finally found the missing link. Here it is: On a less theological plane a correspondent from Los Angeles sent me a reply on ringing bells from the Secretariat for Liturgy of the U.S. bishops’ conference asking if this response should be considered more “official” than mine:

“The ringing of bells during the eucharistic prayer is no longer required by the General Instruction of the Roman Missal. In a day when the people could neither see nor hear what the priest was doing, bells provided a ‘signal’ that something important was about to happen. This need is no longer present. The Order of Mass shows a keen appreciation for the eucharistic prayer as the one ‘great prayer’ of priest and people. It is indeed the entire eucharistic prayer which is consecratory. In order to foster an appreciation of this seamless character of the eucharistic prayer, the ringing of bells is optional.”
Click to expand...
That is a big leap from “optional” in the opinion of the USCCB rep to “inappropriate” from Fr. Paul. :eek:
 
I personally find the bells about to give me a headache when they ring. The better answer is to teach people to always pay attention, so that they know without sounds when the Eucharist is transubstantiated
 
What a bunch of hooey. :rolleyes:

Someone can manage to watch a game on television, read about another one on their laptop, and listen to a third on the radio - all at the same time, and not manage to be “distracted” (and don’t tell me this doesn’t happen), and there are those who are distracted by some BELLS??!!!

Give me a break.

If they are so distracted then it is because their mind is wandering and they are being reminded that - HELLO!!! CHRIST IS HERE NOW!!

And perhaps that is not such a bad thing. 😉

~Liza
 
SenorSalsa said:
I personally find the bells about to give me a headache when they ring. The better answer is to teach people to always pay attention, so that they know without sounds when the Eucharist is transubstantiated
Click to expand...
That’s never been the intent of the Sanctus Bells.
 
VociMike said:
You know how it is. Starts off with an innocent-looking magazine, and before you know it, its workshops and then conferences! 😃
Click to expand...
You left out the most insidious of all: in-services! (cue Psycho violins)

Seriously, though, I think we can attribute much the antipathy towards Sanctus bells to the fact that we’ve lost sight of their original purpose: to make a joyful noise to the Lord for the wonder He has wrought! Somewhere along the line, the rationales behind things always tend to be forgotten, but I think part of what happened with this one is that people just assumed that the hoi polloi of the Dark Ages, being a huddled mass of ignorant buffoons, had no idea what was going on, etc., etc. Why else would they have needed bells other than to tell the poor saps what was happening? If we re-educate people as to the original purpose of the bells (and also to the fact that the transubstantiation of the species occurs at two discrete moments, no matter how valuable it is to view the canon as an integral whole), we’ll see much of the opposition to bells go away.
 
The very concept that the ringing of bells during part of the Eucharistic prayer “breaks the seamlessness” of the prayer is patently absurd.
If one wants a seamless production I’d suggest the theater not a Roman Catholic Mass.
It is the “Memorial Acclamation” that should be dropped. This Protestant interruption is not appreciated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top