A server rings a bell

A sure sign that your parish has been possessed by a liturgist is the absence of altar bells, those gentle, attention-focusing reminders typically rung at the sanctus and the consecration.

They are usually depicted as preconciliar holdovers no longer necessary because, with the Mass now mostly in the vernacular, everyone knows what’s going on and when. More dangerously, it is sometimes said that there is no “moment” of consecration and that we shouldn’t be so fixated on Jesus’ presence in the Eucharist — He’s present in the assembly after all!

And besides, according to the GIRM, bells are merely optional. Well, so is the sign of peace and communion under both species. When was the last time you saw those two options suppressed by a liturgist or worship committee?

A few years ago Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University, answered a question about the use of bells that those in … non-ringing parishes may find useful:

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal refers to bell ringing in No. 150: “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.”

The text makes it clear that ringing a bell at the consecration is an option, not an obligation.

Since the GIRM’s presumption is that Mass is celebrated in the local tongue, the use of the vernacular, in itself, cannot be used as a reason for the abolition of the bell ringing. There may be other good reasons, but they should be weighed carefully. A long-standing custom should not just be swept away unless more is to be gained by dropping it than retaining it.

The birth of the custom of a signal bell at the consecration, probably during the 13th century, had more to do with the recitation of the canon in a low voice than to the language of the Mass as such.

It may also have been inspired by changes in church architecture in which the people were more physically separated from the altar by the choir — and in some cases a significant number of faithful were impeded from seeing the altar during Mass. Thus the use of the bell became necessary.

Some centuries later the bell was also rung at other moments such as the Sanctus and before Communion.

Certainly the practical reasons for ringing the bell have all but disappeared. Yet, it can still serve a purpose as an extra aid to call attention to the moment of the consecration, as a jolt to reawaken wandering minds and a useful catechetical tool for children and adults alike.

In an age when people are ever more in thrall to audiovisual means of communication, and less attentive to abstract discourse, it seem strange that we set about removing those very means that, as well as forming part of our tradition, could prove most effective in transmitting a message of faith. A similar argument could also be made regarding the decline in practices such as the use of incense during Mass.

The Holy See has maintained the practice of ringing the bell at the consecration in St. Peter’s Basilica, although it has an excellent sound system. I also had the experience of a parish that restored the use of the signal bell after many years without it. Not only were there no complaints but the general reaction was very positive from all age groups.

 

The Cathedral Code

Check out the one-hour documentary “Building the Great Cathedrals,” which first aired on PBS’s NOVA in 2010, on YouTube. It goes a little “Dan Brown” on us with its supposed revelation of a Biblically based architectural code, but the writers and producers pay tribute to the tremendous ingenuity and effort that went into building these Gothic sacred places in the Middle Ages. The video is in the slightly-less-than-high-def 720p.

 

How can we explain (the CT) to others?

While it’s fair to say that the Catholic Telegraph of Cincinnati is on the mend under recently appointed editor Steven Trosley, it still gives off a schizophrenic vibe week to week. The latest edition is a perfect example. On the editorial page, Fr. Earl Fernandes’s latest Q&A column, which replaces the confusing ruminations of the late Fr. John Dietzen, tackles the redefinition of marriage and directs readers to solid and reliable resources. If you don’t think you need to know how to engage in this debate, you haven’t noticed the number of equal-sign bumper stickers on the highway. Here’s a sample:

Archbishop Cordileone led the prayer at the recent March for Marriage in Washington, D.C. Unfortunately, the mainstream media ignored the March for Marriage in general and some of the remarks of Archbishop Cordleone. USA Today’s Richard Wolf interviewed him. In that interview, Archbishop Cordileone gives clear answers, which can be useful to many Catholics in defending marriage as a union between man and woman. Often the debate has been framed around “equal rights”; he frames the debate around what marriage is. There are two very different understandings of marriage competing with each other. [I would also refer you to an excellent book by Sherif, Girgis, Ryan Anderson, and Robert George, What is Marriage?: Man and Woman: A Defense. This book gives clear answers as to how to defend marriage.]

Archbishop Cordileone shows how favoring traditional marriage is not bigotry or discriminatory in the way that racial prejudice was. He begins to tell a few stories of people who have been harmed and who could be harmed by the redefinition of marriage; telling the narrative is critical to persuading the public. He is one bishop, but he is the chairman of the subcommittee, and many bishops, of course, share his sentiments.

Yet in the featured story pages, you’ll find longtime reporter Eileen Connelly’s account of notorious theologian Richard Gaillardetz’s recent talk at the University of Cincinnati on Vatican II. For the uninitiated, Gaillardetz has spent most of his career kicking sand on Church teaching on the all-male priesthood, contraception, and papal infallibility, and yet Connelly barely hints at the controversy that surrounds his work and quotes only one source who showers him with praise. Here’s a snippet from Connelly’s report:

Gaillardetz noted the importance of preserving the riches of Catholic tradition and the “enduring elements of our faith,” while also undergoing conversion. “All of us have to have the humility to put aside our own agenda and listen to the Spirit,” he said, and in doing so can be “the kind of church that can once again be the face of Christ to the world.”

In response to the presentation, Zalar said, “Dr. Gaillardetz led us in a fascinating inquiry into the historical purposes and outcomes of the Second Vatican Council. This was university scholarship at the highest level presented in a way that held a popular audience rapt with attention. It was precisely the kind of talk promised by the Catholic Studies Lecture Series. It challenged intellectually, provoked impassioned questions, and sparked conversations that lasted beyond its conclusion. Not everyone agreed with Dr. Gaillardetz’s remarks. So it is with university learning, which comes to us as propositions for wider review. One goal of the Catholic Studies Program at UC is to provide a forum for this review to occur. We welcome all Catholics to bring their learning to bear upon the important topics of our time.”

 

The simulation of a sacrament

There’s nothing remarkable about a Louisville woman pretending to be ordained to the priesthood.

Sadly, dioceses like Louisville, Cincinnati, and Rochester that were led by the decadent Bernardin-Jadot bishops are still plagued by this sort of nuttiness, and it will probably take the reform of the grave to heal them fully.

What’s remarkable is how devoid of love, service, and humility, the marks of any true vocation, the Louisville woman’s story is.

It’s all ideology, power, and self-assertion. And sadness.

 

Progressive pro-lifers

Barack Obama, whose policies on abortion hark back to the ghastly practices of decadent first century Rome, accuses pro-lifers of wanting to turn back to the 1950s. That would make us progressive, would it not?

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama vowed Friday to join Planned Parenthood in fighting against what he said are efforts by states to turn women’s health back to the 1950s, before the Supreme Court legalized abortion nationwide, and singled out the GOP-governed states of North Dakota and Mississippi for criticism.

 

Like watching a one-man think tank

That’s how Archbishop Schnurr described Cardinal George’s April 24 lecture on human rights and religious freedom at the Athenaeum. Catch a 6:20 glimpse here:

Tip, the Catholic Telegraph.

 

A lot to be proud of

You can’t make this stuff up. Cincinnati city councilman Chris Seelbach is protesting NFL Hall-of-Fame member Anthony Munoz delivering the commencement address at Xavier University, a Catholic university. Evidently, Munoz opposes the redefinition of marriage, a Catholic position. Here’s a snip:

In a Facebook post this past weekend, Seelbach referred to to Munoz’s ties to the conservative organization Citizens for Community Values, which opposes gay marriage. Seelbach, who is gay, said Cincinnati has a lot to be proud of regarding lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered rights. He cites three initiatives, including the city extending health benefits to all city employees regardless of sexual orientation.