There is a raging controversy about the ringing of the bless at the elevations in the Extraordinary Form.
The practice in Macon and Savannah is that the server rings the bell once when the priest first genuflects after either consecration and then rings the bell THREE times at the elevations and then once when the priest genuflects the second time.
However, there is a purest causing major problems and controversy. She insists that the bells are rung only three times collectively for the consecrations. Once at the first genuflection, once at the elevation and once at the second genuflection.
Which practice is correct???? Inquiring EF Mass goers want to know!
And now this controversy concerns both forms.
The Church teaches that the Host becomes the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ at its consecration. The same for the wine.
Let's say that the priest dies or becomes incapacitated after consecrating just the Host and the Mass is not concluded by any other priest even at a later time. Is/are the Host(s) consecrated even though the wine was not? And of course for the validity of the Sacrifice, the Holocaust must be consumed by the celebrant. In this case it isn't.
Can you have a consecration of one element without the other and without the sacrifice????????????????
14 comments:
As to the correct number of times the bells must be rung at the appointed moments, I suggest you consult the unimpeachable, magisterial work of Martinus Scriblerus which is found in, "Memoirs of the Extraordinary Life, Works, and Discoveries of Martinus Scriblerus."
Among the tinkling questions, he also addresses the most pressing and urgent matter of how many angels can dance on the point of a needle and, most importantly, are the dancing the Fox Trop of the Samba.
Originally, it was church bells rung to notify all the folk working fields, and unable to attend a Mass, that Jesus was now present and ringing continued thru the elevation, so that all the workers could kneel and pray as Christ was presented.
Much the same as Angelus bells to sanctify a worker's day morning, noon, and night to allow participation in what was happening inside cloistered walls with the Divine Office.
During Mass, additionally, the majority of the lay folk would be quite busy praying, during the sacrifice offered mostly inaudibly by the priest, and the bells being rung for those able to attend also served to notify them Christ was present and being presented to them to allow them to show proper veneration and respect to God physically present in their midst by kneeling or prostration.
I served Mass from 1959 to 1967 (when the genuflections before the elevations were suppressed) and never rang five times at each elevation; nor do I recall anyone else doing so. I have noticed it happening in recent years, along with the priest prolonging the elevations unduly.
Both are unnecessary affectations, and we get enough of these in the Novus Ordo. Let's keep them out of the older Rite.
As for the other question, it is absolutely forbidden, even in extreme urgent necessity, to consecrate one matter without the other (Canon 927), so it is a reasonable assumption that the Sacrament would be thereby rendered invalid.
As to valid consecration, it would be invalid and incomplete, until the priest noticed, or was notified of the error/omission, where he could then perform the missing part of the rite, thereby rendering both the Mass and its intentions valid.
Until he does that, it is invalid, incomplete while completely on hold, everything associated with the Mass.
I’m with John Nolan on this. Many years ago when I was an altar server we rang the hand bells: at the Sanctus three times in succession after the celebrant began the prayer; once during the Canon when the celebrant outstretched his hands over the oblations at the epiclesis; once as the celebrant genuflected, once at the elevation, and once as the celebrant genuflected again so three times total for each Consecration action of the Host and Precious Blood – not three times only at the elevation; once after each time the priest said “Domine non sum dignus” (so three times total). In other words, a total of thirteen bell ringings. GIRM, 150 says: “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.” So it seems that bells are optional now, but if used, once at the epiclesis and once each for the elevation of the Host and the Chalice for a total of only three times.
I agree, as usual, with John Nolan's assessment regarding the sanctus bells. Glad he referenced the actual Canon. I knew the answer just could not find/remember the source.
This is an amusing "raging controversy". I think the one thing that Anonymous isn't noticing is that outside of the Novus Ordo, this is the extent of controversy for most people. It is a much more peaceful existence debating topics such as this...as points of interest. Shame there isn't a raging controversy regarding dancing priests and COVID-borne liturgical abuses.
The Ritus Servandus gives some gudance here. It explicitly mentions: at the Sanctus, slightly before consecration, at each consecration (either once for each Species until placed back on the altar, or thrice), and shortly before the people’s communion.
At my local Latin Mass, these rubrics have been stretched slightly to the following:
- at the removal of the chalice veil to mark the Offertory
- at the Sanctus thrice
- at the Hanc igitur (“before the consecration”)
- at each elevation: once at each genuflection before and after, thrice during the elevation itself
- at the Priest’s communion (shortly before the people’s communion)
There was historically great variation from place to place, thus the matter was largely governed by Custom. In short, for the Latin Mass, pick something and stick to it, even if there are some “extra” praeter ius ringings of bells. Eventually, the Bishop tells you to do something different, the community does something different, or it lasts 30 years and becomes Custom with force of law.
As to the Ordinary Form, the same applies generally, but remember that the GIRM is the guiding extra-rubrical source, not the Ritus Servandus; if the community celebrates in both Forms, you may or may not be able to bring some kind of local harmony.
As to consecrating one Species without the other, the Canon uses the words “nefas est”, which is the strongest language the Code uses to express something that must not be done. The one Species consecrated would be validly so, but the Mass and the fulfillment of the intention would be invalid, and if done intentionally or through negligence the priest would commit a grave sin in doing so.
What Byzrc said! 👍
If the Mass is invalid, then no part of it can be valid and it would also invalidate the Sacrament, since the Eucharist cannot be confected at an invalid Mass.
I'm a bit confused, Mr Nolan. So the Host becomes the Body and Blood of Christ at the words 'This is My Body', but if, as Father says, '(T)he priest dies or becomes incapacitated after consecrating just the Host and the Mass is not concluded by any other priest even at a later time', it ceases to be the Body and Blood of Christ?
Is that the biggest question in Savannah? Because I actually have some questions about particular things at the TLM and Savannah that I’ve been waiting a while for an opportunity to ask.
Why at the Mass, a High Mass, does the priest read the readings in a low voice while a layman reads over him loudly in English?
And why does the choir sing the entire Pater Noster instead of just the “Sed libra nos a malo”?
I know that I noticed some other differences from what I’m used to as well, but that’s all that I can remember at this point. It’s been a couple years since I’ve been to that Mass.
J-M Weismiller
I was commenting on an earlier observation that 'the one species consecrated would be validly so, but the Mass and the fulfilment of the intention would be invalid' which seems to embody a contradiction.
Colton Lowder
Interesting point about the Pater Noster. In 1958 permission was given to recite (at Low Mass) the Pater along with the priest, including the final Amen. In 1964 this was extended to the Sung Mass where the people could now sing it in Latin along with the priest.
The chant for the Pater Noster is one of the oldest that has come down to us. The musical structure makes it clear that 'sed libera nos a malo' is a response to the celebrant's chant which concludes 'et ne nos inducas in tentationem.' I often attend the Novus Ordo in its sung Latin form and wish they had adjusted the chant so as to avoid the two conclusions when everybody sings it. It does demonstrate that the congregational recitation or singing of the Pater is a novelty.
John Nolan
I knew that the entire congregation singing the Pater Noster was a feature of the provisional 1965 missal, and I thought maybe that’s where the practice originated. Though otherwise it seems that they are following the 1962, as permitted by Summorum Pontificum.
You can actually see the 1965 missal put in practice (though kept entirely in Latin) at Clear Creek Abbey in Oklahoma and the other foundations of Fontgombault. They use the 1965 for their conventional Masses, though the private Masses follow the 1962 Missal.
Post a Comment