MIKolbe Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 [quote name='Skinzo' timestamp='1308659585' post='2256732'] The yellow sign hanging there must really grate on your nerves. But it's so apropos... S. [/quote] That is totally uncalled for and rude....not to mention quite UnChristian. Splinters and logs, son. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 [quote name='Skinzo' timestamp='1308660487' post='2256736'] Father Edward McNamara, Professor of Liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university on the use of projectors at Mass: "Personally I believe that a moderate use of these projections can be of use, above all in presenting the lyrics and music of hymns and sung parts of the Mass. In this sense they could almost be considered as the modern equivalent of the large choir books of medieval times. These outsized books which contained the musical notation for Mass and the Divine Office were usually placed at the center of the choir so as to be visible to all. I am less enthusiastic about projecting prayers, readings and other proclaimed texts as these should be listened to rather than read. Even here, however, it could be argued that the projection is no more distracting than a hand missal or any number of other liturgical resources commonly found in parishes. It is also cheaper as the parish does not have to invest in hundreds of weekly bulletins or expensive hymnals." [url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/liturgy/zlitur319.htm"]http://www.ewtn.com/...y/zlitur319.htm[/url] S. [/quote] How did Fr. McNamara start that article off? Was he speaking from an authoritative point of view or was he giving his personal opinion? Color me crazy, but I don't think that a personal opinion makes a definitve statement on Church teaching....and the last time I checked, personal opinion can be wrong...but he doesn't follow the mind of the Church in his personal opinion. His personal opinion, is based upon, well, his personal opinion. Hmmm...I wonder is that personal opinion the same as what the Church teaches? Let's see..... [quote] 73. [b]The use of [u]any kind[/u] of projector[/b], and particularly movie projectors, with or without sound track, is [b][u]strictly forbidden[/u] in church for any reason[/b], even if it be for a pious, religious, or charitable cause. [/quote] [url="http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/DocumentContents/Index/2/SubIndex/17/DocumentIndex/243"]source[/url] It would seem that his personal opinion is at odds and therefore doesn't need to be heeded. I'll heed the word of the Church and not the personal opinion of one particular American priest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinzo Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 [quote name='Cam42' timestamp='1308661595' post='2256745'] Blah, blah, blah.... I know that I am no authority in the Church, but I know what the authority says and as a Catholic, I am obliged to make it known. You might not like it, but there it is. I will answer, because, like it or not, this is a public board and I feel that I have something to offer it. You weren't around when WWI happened, yet you accept that it happened. So, your whole, unless you were there schtick....not so much....it's called history and tradition, son. And we can learn from it, without actually being there (read Decartes much? You should....and you'll see the error in that statement you made). Yes, Mother Teresa did make comparisons between the third world and the developed world, but not when it came to the Mass. That is what we're talking about here. If we want to talk about the socio-ecomonc status, I agree with her view on most things. Not all, but most. BTW, she's a nice lady. I met her when she was at the Mount, before she died. I actually had a conversation with her...you know, one on one...it was pretty cool. Now, the final piece. I've offered an apology to dUSt. I offered an apology anyone who wants to accept it. I am not going to dwell on this. My feelings were hurt and I hurt feelings....there is another thread about that, so if you want to discuss that seek that thread out, but stay on topic here and leave the rest out. If you're truly not interested in what I have to say, there is a nice little ignore button...feel free to use it. But, regardless of what your personal feelings about me are, you're wrong about the third world being justified in using projectors. The Church condemns it and therefore as a Catholic, so do I and so should every other Catholic. [/quote] Sorry shorty. Prof. McNamara sees no problem with the use of such projectors and no one in authority has called them an abuse. And Prof. McNamara has credentials you don't. So don't waste my time talking about "abuses". The bishops use them all over the world. I'm sure John Paul II saw them in the course of his travels and did not object. Thanks for one thing though. I didn't know about the ignore button. S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinzo Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 [quote name='Cam42' timestamp='1308661962' post='2256750'] How did Fr. McNamara start that article off? Was he speaking from an authoritative point of view or was he giving his personal opinion? Color me crazy, but I don't think that a personal opinion makes a definitve statement on Church teaching....and the last time I checked, personal opinion can be wrong...but he doesn't follow the mind of the Church in his personal opinion. His personal opinion, is based upon, well, his personal opinion. Hmmm...I wonder is that personal opinion the same as what the Church teaches? Let's see..... [url="http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/DocumentContents/Index/2/SubIndex/17/DocumentIndex/243"]source[/url] It would seem that his personal opinion is at odds and therefore doesn't need to be heeded. I'll heed the word of the Church and not the personal opinion of one particular American priest. [/quote] Talk to Father McNamara yourself. He has credentials. What you keep citing is something from 1958. If it still had standing I'm sure Prof. McNamara would cite it. He doesn't. S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groo the Wanderer Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Was on vacation in Pagosa Springs, CO this past couple of weeks. While there we attended Mass at JPII parish. Its rather new - they are still saving up to buy stained-glass windows. It was one of the most holy and orthodox NO Masses I have ever participated in: The priest gave a real homily including catechesis - from the ambo The music was reverent, even though played on acoustic guitars instead of an organ The EMHCs were not overused The EMHCs never entered the sanctuary - the priest and deacon brought both communion and the chalices/bowls to them instead The tabernacle was in its proper place behind the altar <---- mighty super win here The baptismal was in the rear of the church instead of next to the sanctuary The altar servers were adults and properly vested We Prayed the St. Michael prayer at the end of Mass But - they had projection screens for the hymns. Other than the Protestant-feel it gave to the church itself, it did not seem to distract from the liturgy since they were off during the prayers. There were no hymnals. My guess is that it is cheaper short-term to buy two projectors and screens than to buy a couple hundred hymnals - easier on the budget of a new church? I will be pondering this experience for a long time. Maybe, just maybe, if they are used correctly, projection screens might, might, have a small place in the liturgy? dunno yet. We use them all the time at youth conferences (DCYC) and such since kids don't always know the words. Then again, at Youth 2000, all the hymns are printed in a small phamplet. In both instances, the youth have to be reminded not to clap with the songs during Mass... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomProddy Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 [quote name='Cam42' timestamp='1308658696' post='2256729'] That's not in the context of the Mass, now is it? [/quote] Does it matter? "strictly forbidden in church for any reason..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 [quote name='RandomProddy' timestamp='1308664755' post='2256767'] Does it matter? "strictly forbidden in church for any reason..." [/quote] Yeah, that wasn't in Church, that was on a Church. It is tacky, but it isn't being done in the scope of what is being discussed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MithLuin Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 As far as I can tell, projectors were not mentioned in the Vatican II documents on the liturgy (or music in the liturgy). So, it would be reasonable to assume that a statement from 1958 still stands. That is, after all, relatively recently as far as Church history goes. So, as long as no more recent statements have come out to contradict it, it would seem that projectors in church are banned (whether during the mass or at some other time). Of course, as far as technology goes....1958 is ancient history. It is possible that prohibition was put out specifically to avoid churches being used as movie theaters. After all, churches have long been social gathering spaces for events related to parish life (not just mass), such as parish retreats/talks, so you could see someone thinking that as long as a movie were 'religious' (ie, the Bells of St. Marys [1945] or The Song of Bernadette [1943]), it would be okay to use the church space for a showing of a film. Which...it isn't. That's what church halls are for. Or public movie theaters. Or your living room (well, now more than 1958). And it certainly would be wrong to charge admission to the church to show the latest movie (religious or not). It is quite possible that a static projection of the words of hymns (without 'fancy' distractions) was not foreseen when the prohibition was first made back in 1958. Both the mass and the technology have changed since that time. So, it could certainly be asked if this particular use of technology is appropriate during the mass. I mean, most parishes 'mike' their priests and deacons so that the words of the mass will be heard by everyone in the church. I highly doubt that sound system technology was available and in common use 50 years ago! Things change. But the appropriate way of going about this would not be to just do it. It would be to ask for permission -- since there [i]is[/i] a blanket prohibition on the books! Personally, I think there is plenty of room for abuse, and do see them as part of the 'pared down' liturgy of the evangelical nondenominational churches. Meaning, part of the mentality that worship space doesn't matter - that you could have church in a barn or warehouse and it would still be the same. Now, obviously, you [i]can[/i] have mass anywhere -- and if the Church is persecuted, you may find yourself attending mass in a barn. However....that's hardly the ideal. Battlefield chapels are fine for the battlefield, but when you come home, you want to see a 'real' church, with stained glass and statues, light and airy gothic or solid romanesque or the giant baroque of Rome or the crazy baroque-gone-mad of rococo, or...well, you get the idea. A screen and projector will likely look quite tacky in that setting. If mass is being held in a gym, auditorium, or stadium, the use of screens and projectors is less problematic. The pope's masses tend to be projected on jumbotron when he travels because of the size of the crowds. And the prohibition was about use in churches, not use during mass, so it would not apply in these instances. I've also seen instances when the screen is set up [i]in front of the crucifix[/i], which is completely inappropriate. One place tried to fix this by projecting an image of the crucifix at times when the screen wasn't being used for songs or homilies. Weak. So, generally, I'd want another option to be found rather than to have screens set up in church. If it really is just about the money, then the parish has to do what it has to do. But if hymnals and printouts are available...why not use that instead? Then people can see the notes, too, not just the words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noel's angel Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Unless 2011 has brought some amazing new projectors that somehow don't detract from the sacredness of the liturgy, and unless 2011 has brought a new statement that these amazing new projectors can be used, you have to stick with what was said in 1958. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 [quote name='Noel's angel' timestamp='1308682217' post='2256881'] Unless 2011 has brought some amazing new projectors that somehow don't detract from the sacredness of the liturgy, and unless 2011 has brought a new statement that these amazing new projectors can be used, you have to stick with what was said in 1958. [/quote] This. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dUSt Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 What about flat screens? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIKolbe Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 I would refer to the spirit of the law and go out on a limb and say they are a 'no-no' too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinzo Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 (edited) I think that if the 1958 document had any relevance now, someone of Father McNamara's knowledge and background (as a professor of liturgy) would have noticed it. But when asked specifically about the use of projectors at Mass he saw no great problem with it and made no reference to the 1958 document. Father McNamara was also employed by the EWTN to answer questions about the liturgy. You may read his response here. [url="http://www.anchornews.org/columns/liturgical_mcnamara/may_27_2011.php"]http://www.anchornew...may_27_2011.php[/url] Does anyone here pretend to have the stature of Father McNamara? No pope or bishop seems to have mentioned the subject since then either. Moreover, we have had a liturgical reform since then and the Ordo Missae is now governed by the GIRM. What is relevant now would be the GIRM as the 1958 instruction was written at a time when only the Traditional Latin Mass was available. It defies logic to think that the 1958 document could govern the new liturgy. Why not read the 1958 document in its entirety? If we do that it become clear that it no longer has any force as section 13a of the document rules that only Latin may be used in the liturgy. Does anyone here wish to suggest that has any binding force now? Section 14 of the document also states that only Latin may be used for sung Masses. It also requires that only Latin be used during low Masses. Again, that obviously has no binding force now. Section 15 of the document restricts the use of chant to Latin only. I have attended plenty of masses which used plain chant in the vernacular. Again, obviously of no binding force now. Section 55 of the document issues norms for using a church as a place for a concert. However new norms were issued on this subject in 1987 by the Congregation for Divine Worship. Concerts in Churches" (Protocol No. 1251/87). So which we should we follow? The 1958 norms or the ones issued in 1987? 1987 of course. The 1958 document makes numerous references to canons of the 1917 code of canon law. Of course, that no longer has binding force either. What is obvious over and over again of course is that the 1958 document refers purely to the only liturgy then in use which of course is the Traditional Latin Mass. It is scarcely credible to argue that this document in any way can override what is contained or not contained in the GIRM. Edited June 21, 2011 by Skinzo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Unless the prohibition of projections was *specifically* abrogated by later documents (as, for instance, the exclusive use of Latin was), then we are to assume that it remains in force. It would take an official instruction saying that "the use of projectors is not prohibited" to take away the authoritative force of the prohibition of projectors in De Musica Sacra, as far as I understand it. At no point as far as I am aware has De Musica Sacra been abrogated in its entirety, so those aspects which have not been specifically changed remain normative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinzo Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 The GIRM alone is normative for the liturgy now. Not a single person posting in this thread has the stature of a professor of liturgy such as Father McNamara. Read his response on the use of projectors: [b]Follow-up: On Banners, Overhead Projectors and PowerPoint Displays[/b] [6-22-2010] Related to our comments regarding the use of videos and slide shows during Mass (see June 8), several readers questioned the very wisdom of using overhead projectors. A Sydney, Australia, correspondent wrote: "More and more churches over the world are using the projector during Mass to show the readings, prayers and lyrics of the songs. They believed that the contents, when clearly presented to the congregation, may help to understand the Mass better. Nevertheless, such projections would inevitably cause distractions which on the contrary make people to drift away from the essence of the Mass." Personally I believe that a moderate use of these projections can be of use, above all in presenting the lyrics and music of hymns and sung parts of the Mass. In this sense they could almost be considered as the modern equivalent of the large choir books of medieval times. These outsized books which contained the musical notation for Mass and the Divine Office were usually placed at the center of the choir so as to be visible to all. I am less enthusiastic about projecting prayers, readings and other proclaimed texts as these should be listened to rather than read. Even here, however, it could be argued that the projection is no more distracting than a hand missal or any number of other liturgical resources commonly found in parishes. It is also cheaper as the parish does not have to invest in hundreds of weekly bulletins or expensive hymnals." S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now