Why ring bells/

  • Thread starter Thread starter annejohno
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

annejohno

Guest
I hope this is the right place to ask this question
Our previous priest used the bells at the Consecration. Our current priest does not. He said I should give him some good reasons why he should and he will think about it. what should I say?
 
Ringing the bells is not mandatory but at all parts of the Mass where they were rung they were saying - Hey, pay attention now, this is important stuff we are about to do.

Gone are the sanctuary bells in most places - sad to say.
 
Bells are also an ancient tradition. They could also be a sign of the victory of Christianity over the pagans.When the pagan religon of Rome ruled it would be treason to have a procession and in some places Christians had to have Mass in homes and if they got to loud thae centurions came and destroyed the house. THe bells show our freedom from pagan tyranny.
 
I think the question refers to sanctuary bells that go ting a ling a ling and not the church bells in towers 🙂
 
The tradition goes way back to the old style cathedrals when mass was said in latin. The cathedrals were very long and narrow and if you were not in front (commoners to the back please) you were unable to see. That, compounded with not many people knowing latin (only the educated, and there were not many), bells were used to help people know the consecration is taking place.

The bells are not required, but tradition plays a large role in out lives and has special meaning.
 
Sorry to point this out but there are still Masses in Latin.
 
Does the bishop in your diocese use them at his masses?

If so, then (my understanding) your priest should as well, as the “local tradition” spoken of in liturgical texts is (according to a priest who was in my parish) is actually the Cathedral’s tradition, as it is the smallest recognized individual entity.

Corrections?

in Him, through her,
Pio Magnus
 
The bell is basically a call to worship. It is called the Sanctus bell and the practice of ringing it began in the sixth century. It was rung at the Sanctus, before the consecration, at the institution (3 times each at the elevation of the eucharist and precious blood), three times before the Priests communion, and in some places 3 times before the people would recieve. The bottom line is that is awakens our senses to let us know that a miracle is taking place up on the Altar. It is a call to worship.

Story:I brought a Morman friend to a daily Mass, Father would always use the bells. I was behind her during Mass, she kept her head down most of the time, and I noted that when the bells rang she looked up. After Mass she asked me why they rang bells and told me it made her look up and she knew in her heart that something important was happening but she didn’t know what it was… 😃
 
40.png
mjdonnelly:
The tradition goes way back to the old style cathedrals when mass was said in latin. The cathedrals were very long and narrow and if you were not in front (commoners to the back please) you were unable to see. That, compounded with not many people knowing latin (only the educated, and there were not many), bells were used to help people know the consecration is taking place.

The bells are not required, but tradition plays a large role in out lives and has special meaning.
Click to expand...
I told Father some of the answers in these various posts. He answered me with a variation of this one quoted about the tradition of not being able to see and the bells announcing the consecration so those visually separated would know what was going on…He said that the whole Mass is a build-up to that point and that the people are part of it the whole way…they don’t need to be notified because they are actively part of the prayers leading to this point. He said the Church is not going backward it is going forward.
It reminds me a a husband who says “I don’t need to tell her I love her, she knows it.” I say you may not need to tell the people but it is nice and even moving. This does not seem to be a good enought reason to change his mind. I will look into what our Archbishop does at the cathedral. Thank you so much for responding.
 
Oh well, I guess no bells for you. I love bells, they add ambiance, plus the altar boys love ringing them, I think. They aways kneel behind the lectern waiting for their cue, it’s really cute. It’s sad that this tradition is being let go. We have them here, but when I go elsewhere I notice they’ve been done away with. I don’t understand why, they are low tech, inexpensive and add a very pleasant effect to the Mass.
 
40.png
annejohno:
I told Father some of the answers in these various posts. He answered me with a variation of this one quoted about the tradition of not being able to see and the bells announcing the consecration so those visually separated would know what was going on…He said . . . the people . . . don’t need to be notified because they are actively part of the prayers leading to this point. He said the Church is not going backward it is going forward.
QUOTE]

When a priest was giving me a similar speech, I responded that even the most attentive and recollected of us sometimes have wandering thoughts, and the bells are a way of drawing us back into focus. I would never go to the mat over Sanctus bells, but sometimes, I do feel that the “reasons” given for liturgical decisions are painfully unconvincing. E.g., “forward” seems to be a misplaced value judgment here. Forward to what?
Click to expand...
 
40.png
annejohno:
I told Father some of the answers in these various posts. He answered me with a variation of this one quoted about the tradition of not being able to see and the bells announcing the consecration so those visually separated would know what was going on…He said that the whole Mass is a build-up to that point and that the people are part of it the whole way…they don’t need to be notified because they are actively part of the prayers leading to this point. He said the Church is not going backward it is going forward.
Click to expand...
The Santus bells seem to elicit strong emotional reactions from people no matter what position one take’s on them.

I think the seminaries in this country must had a whole class on bells some time in the recent past :hmmm: because our previous pastor was never so passionate as when he spoke against the bells. To him, the Sanctus bells screamed, “Lord, I am too preoccupied to pay attention without bells.” He saw them as the ultimate sign of disrespect to Christ.

I personally think bells add a beautiful emphasis to the Mass, regardless of whether or not they are needed. But anymore I am usually startled when I hear them.
 
During mass years ago in Latin, folks would be saying their rosary, reading other prayers, or praying quietly to themselves. The bells helped to get their attention back to the Holy Sacrifice Of The Mass.

I enjoyed the Latin Mass. The priest would say Mass and the people would hear Mass. Today we try to participate in Mass. We have Latin Mass in our diocese, for those who wish to attend.
 
Deacon Tony - the participation at the TLM is more internal but make no mistake, I participate each week - I don’t just “hear” the Mass as you said. The council fathers used an expression that goes back to Pope St Pius X to describe this type of participation, participatio actuosa. It is commonly translated as “active participation,” however, it might be better translated as an actualized participation. It is not just externally singing and doing all the actions that everyone else is doing, but also an internal disposition.

Anyone could go through all the actions and say all the responses and sing all the songs and still not be actively participating unless that internal participation, that being moved to tears at the sacrifice that Christ made, that flood of grace upon receiving His Body and Blood in the form of the sacred host, that unity with our brothers and sisters as we receive him. This is not limited to the TLM or the NO but is the true meaning of active participation.
 
Deogratis- you are very blessed to have this gift. I think I have it too, as I attended many Latin Masses. However, the church guided by the Holy Spirit, decided that participation in the vernacular would be more inclusive.
 
Is your pastor open minded enough to consider opinions of these sources:
  1. The General Instruction of the Roman Missal:
  2. A little before the consecration, when appropriate, a server
    rings a bell as a signal to the faithful. According to local
    custom, the server also rings the bell as the priest shows the
    host and then the chalice.
Whether or not to ring bells does not sound like an option to me. The question is when is the appropriate time.

The local custom can add an additional ringing.

Now, there are still questions about this, so why not ask the Congregation for Divine Worship? OK, someone did, and they presented a response:

This was done in 1970, before the “new” edition of the GIRM, but it still applies in exactly the same way:

“Notitiae” is the bi-monthly publication of the Congregation for
Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. In Notitiae 8
(1972) 343 it addressed the query “Is a bell to be rung at Mass?”

After quoting the GIRM, “Notitiae” gives the following answer:

"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
that the central part of the Mass. This may easily be the case, for
example, with religions 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.

THEREFORE – I think it is up to the your pastor to demonstrate that the particular liturgical assembly always takes part in the Mass with so much attention and awareness that bells are superfluous. Has there been a long and attentive catechesis and education in liturgy? He needs to show that there are no wandering minds, each and every person (priest and assembly) there realizes that Jesus Christ, in His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity are truly present, there are no crying babies, no street noise to cause distractions, etc.

Is your pastor docile to these instructions from Christ, or does he expect you to be docile to his own interpretation?

I like the very first point of the GIRM, where it talks about the two that Jesus sent to prepare the upper room. Odd instructions, indeed, but they followed them. What if they had thought they could find a better room? Even though they did not fully understand the instructions, they went along with them. This is a nice example for us to follow.

I have been talking about this for over a year with our pastor, and we got the bells to ring once last Sunday. Patience! It has also opened his mind to the possiblitliy that maybe we should just “do what the GIRM says” to avoid endless bickering. What a concept!

Good luck.
 
"decided that participation in the vernacular would be more inclusive
Click to expand...
That’s true to a point

Second Instruction on the Liturgy
SECOND INSTRUCTION ON THE LITURGY
VII. USE OF THE VERNACULAR
  1. The competent territorial authority, while observing the prescriptions of art. 36, paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, may decree that in liturgical celebrations in which the people participate, the vernacular language may be used even:
a) in the Canon of the Mass;
b) throughout the entire rite of sacred ordinations;
c) in the lessons of the Divine Office even when recited “in choro.”

His Holiness Pope Paul VI during an audience granted on April 13, 1967, to the undersigned Arcadio, Cardinal Larraona, Prefect of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, approved the present instruction in all its individual parts and confirmed it with his authority, ordering that it be published and observed by all those concerned, beginning June 29, 1967.

Rome, May 4, 1967, the feast of the Ascension of the Lord, Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...
Emphasis mine and the word here is MAY, not MUST.

Ceremonies of the Modern Roman Rite says
  1. To achieve this full participation, the people are to be able to respond and sing in their own language. But they also participate actively through ceremonial. Common postures and actions express the unity of the congregation.2 They are meant to observe the rules of the episcopal conference concerning standing, kneeling and sitting during celebrations. As part of a continuous liturgical catechesis, they should be reminded of signs and actions specific to parts of the Mass or the liturgy of a day or season. Local custom and culture is embodied in other devout practices and music. However, the Roman liturgy should also express the universality of the Church; thus the people are meant to be able **“to recite or sing together not only in the vernacular but also in Latin the parts of the order of Mass that pertain to them”.**3
Click to expand...
Latin still is the universal language of the Church and as far as everything I have ever read, it was never the intention that Latin ws to be done away with in the Mass but only that those parts where the people do verbally (via singing or acclamations or other responses) be made in the Vernacular.

OTOH - since the Holy Spirit has guided JOHN PAUL II to allow the TLM by Indult, I suppose that the truth be that the people be ALLOWED to participate fully and actively and in the vernacular and that the people be ALLOWED to continue worshiping in the traditional way.

The intent, after all, of the Catholic Church is to save souls and Mother Church is trying to accommodate both “camps” in order to do this and I see no problem with having both Masses available to the people.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top