Hymns Projected On A Wall?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Skinzo' timestamp='1308701661' post='2257079']
The GIRM alone is normative for the liturgy now. [/quote]
Positive you want to stick by that one?

[MithLuin]

Yeah, I'm not buying that. We're Catholic. We're into history and roots and where things came from. Not severing all old ties and starting fresh.

It's certainly a prohibition that [i]can[/i] be changed, but I see no evidence that it [i]has[/i] been changed.

That being said, if a church has permission from their bishop to use screens and projectors, I doubt they're really doing anything wrong. This isn't exactly a matter of faith and morals here, so I think some variety of opinion is allowed within the Church on this particular topic. I'd prefer they be saved for larger events - like mass in a gym or stadium - rather than normal Sunday mass in a parish. And I think that's liturgically more appropriate. But one could certainly argue that the prohibition was talking about something else, so this 'doesn't count' and is permissible. If one wanted to.

[SoylentGreene]

They use a projector at my parish prior to Mass and sometimes during.

[Cam42]

I don't even know where to start with this one...there are so many errors in such a small space, my brain hurts....yikes....Ok...

[quote name='Skinzo' timestamp='1308700022' post='2257068']
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? [/quote]

No, but we don't have to be either. Fr. McNamara was giving his personal opinion on the matter. He was not trying to offer succinct Catholic teaching.


[quote]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. [/quote]

The Church does not proscribe things very often in her teaching. She will give a prescriptive teaching and that will have a binding force until such time as it specifically abrogated. Case in point, the Code of Canon Law. The Code of Canon Law written in 1917 was binding until 1983, a full 18 years after Vatican Council II closed. But all of the Canons dealt with the Church as she existed prior to Vatican Council II. How, using your logic as stated above do you reconcile that? As for reading the document, I can almost read it back to you rote. No lie. Ask anyone around here, they'll tell you. I've read it in its entirety maybe 30 times? If not more.

[quote]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?[/quote]

If the document from 1987 (a link would be fabulous, btw) deals specifically with concerts in a church, then obviously that would either supercede or support the document from 1958. I would need to read through it in order to make an educated statement though.

[quote]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.
[/quote]

That was not the intention of the Council Fathers nor is it the intention of the Church. That statement is patently false. You cannot have both forms of the rite being mutually enriching if one outdates or supercedes the other. The EF is to illumine the OF and vice versa. To make your statement is to make a statement which is mutually exclusive. And that, according to Holy Mother Church is just a mistake.

A final statement....I will only say this, because I think that it is important to understand....I have a bachelors' degree in Theology from the University of St. Thomas; with post-graduate work completed in Systematic Theology with an emphasis on the Liturgy, from Mt. St. Mary's University and Seminary. I'm no slouch. Do I claim to have the renown of Fr. McNamara? Nope. But that doesn't automatically exclude the fact that I can make a very calculated and precise statements. I don't say this to tout my own education, but rather to lend credence this conversation. If you don't believe me, ask any old timer here who knows me. It is common knowlege. You're new since I took my hiatus, so I can't imagine that you'd have any idea....nevertheless, even the most basic Catholic with no formal education can become educated on the liturgical action of the Church. As a matter of fact, I have long supported, both here and in real life, that every Catholic should become educated about the Mass, because it is precisely the Mass that 98% of Catholics relate to.

So, bottom line...a document in the Church has binding force until such time as it specifically stated not to. The best example I can give is Quo Primum which has been in effect since it's publication in 1570. While there have been some additions to it, the document is still binding today. So, it's safe to assume that our dear document from 1958 still has a little kick to her...

[Cam42]

Okie dokie...now that I've sufficently stuffed my brain back in my skull....



[quote name='Skinzo' timestamp='1308701661' post='2257079']
The GIRM alone is normative for the liturgy now.[/quote]

Unless of course you assist at a Traditional Latin Mass, or an Ordinariate Mass, or an Eastern Church, or an Anglican Use Parish. The GIRM is specific to the Novus Ordo, but which GIRM? Do you follow the universal GIRM or the National Conference GIRM? Let's also not forget that the National Conferences only think that they have the power to create their own GIRM, but that doesn't stop them....even their "national GIRMs" must have the recognitio of the Holy See. But...nowhere in the GIRM will you see it advocating the use of projectors and the like. Sorry.

[quote]Not a single person posting in this thread has the stature of a professor of liturgy such as Father McNamara. [/quote]

True, but we don't need to, either...


[quote]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."

[b]Personally I believe[/b] 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.
[/quote]

I hilighted the most important part of his statement, from this conversation's point of view. I covered this before, but you must have missed that post, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and repost:

[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.
[/quote]


Now, since this is the third time I've posted the whole of the document in this thread, I would be willing to bet you still haven't read it. I have. More than three times.

[Skinzo]

[quote name='Cam42' timestamp='1308706820' post='2257123']
I don't even know where to start with this one...there are so many errors in such a small space, my brain hurts....yikes....Ok...



No, but we don't have to be either. Fr. McNamara was giving his personal opinion on the matter. He was not trying to offer succinct Catholic teaching.




The Church does not proscribe things very often in her teaching. She will give a prescriptive teaching and that will have a binding force until such time as it specifically abrogated. Case in point, the Code of Canon Law. The Code of Canon Law written in 1917 was binding until 1983, a full 18 years after Vatican Council II closed. But all of the Canons dealt with the Church as she existed prior to Vatican Council II. How, using your logic as stated above do you reconcile that? As for reading the document, I can almost read it back to you rote. No lie. Ask anyone around here, they'll tell you. I've read it in its entirety maybe 30 times? If not more.



If the document from 1987 (a link would be fabulous, btw) deals specifically with concerts in a church, then obviously that would either supercede or support the document from 1958. I would need to read through it in order to make an educated statement though.



That was not the intention of the Council Fathers nor is it the intention of the Church. That statement is patently false. You cannot have both forms of the rite being mutually enriching if one outdates or supercedes the other. The EF is to illumine the OF and vice versa. To make your statement is to make a statement which is mutually exclusive. And that, according to Holy Mother Church is just a mistake.

A final statement....I will only say this, because I think that it is important to understand....I have a bachelors' degree in Theology from the University of St. Thomas; with post-graduate work completed in Systematic Theology with an emphasis on the Liturgy, from Mt. St. Mary's University and Seminary. I'm no slouch. Do I claim to have the renown of Fr. McNamara? Nope. But that doesn't automatically exclude the fact that I can make a very calculated and precise statements. I don't say this to tout my own education, but rather to lend credence this conversation. If you don't believe me, ask any old timer here who knows me. It is common knowlege. You're new since I took my hiatus, so I can't imagine that you'd have any idea....nevertheless, even the most basic Catholic with no formal education can become educated on the liturgical action of the Church. As a matter of fact, I have long supported, both here and in real life, that every Catholic should become educated about the Mass, because it is precisely the Mass that 98% of Catholics relate to.

So, bottom line...a document in the Church has binding force until such time as it specifically stated not to. The best example I can give is Quo Primum which has been in effect since it's publication in 1570. While there have been some additions to it, the document is still binding today. So, it's safe to assume that our dear document from 1958 still has a little kick to her...
[/quote]

Thank you for clarifying that you don't have the stature of Father McNamara who is a professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum, a pontifical university in Rome.
You seem to be trying to confuse the issue. The GIRM of course is what one must follow when saying the OF. In using the 1962 missal one would follow its rubrics. That of course is obvious. Quo primum? That is not in force anymore as the liturgy in fact was reformed by decree of Vatican II. The right to say the EF was not formally abrogated. If Quo primum were still in force we would have no option but the EF. In fact, we do because of later papal legislation and the decree of Vatican II. Pius V's decree was only a disciplinary one and it certainly did not bind future popes. The 1958 document is also disciplinary, not teaching.
I don't know why I would care about your standing here on Phatmass. This is not an authoritative forum. What is said here is not at all relevant to what the Church is saying. I don't know why you raise the subject of "teaching", this is all about a disciplinary matter. It's obvious you did not read what Father McNamara said, namely he is not aware of any prohibition on the use of projectors during liturgy.

S.

[Nihil Obstat]

Cam's got you beat to the nth degree, Skinzo.

Are you saying that the GIRM is the only relevant document to consult when celebrating the Novus Ordo? You seem to be implying that, by denying that De Musica Sacra has authority with regards to the Novus Ordo. This is demonstrably false, of course. Redemptionis Sacramentum, just as the first example that came to mind, is not the GIRM, is not at all related to the GIRM, yet has power over the Novus Ordo. De Musica Sacra retains its authority until such a time as it is specifically abrogated. Certain individual parts of De Musica Sacra might be superseded by later documents, but unless the part about projectors is specifically altered elsewhere, it remains in force. Tra le sollecitudini is another document that, as you may recall, I love to bring up. It has had some aspects revised by later documents (for instance mixed choirs), but its reaffirmation of the first place of Gregorian chant is still very much in force, even if it hadn't been supported in later documents (which it was).

[Skinzo]

[quote name='Cam42' timestamp='1308708781' post='2257135']
Okie dokie...now that I've sufficently stuffed my brain back in my skull....





Unless of course you assist at a Traditional Latin Mass, or an Ordinariate Mass, or an Eastern Church, or an Anglican Use Parish. The GIRM is specific to the Novus Ordo, but which GIRM? Do you follow the universal GIRM or the National Conference GIRM? Let's also not forget that the National Conferences only think that they have the power to create their own GIRM, but that doesn't stop them....even their "national GIRMs" must have the recognitio of the Holy See. But...nowhere in the GIRM will you see it advocating the use of projectors and the like. Sorry.



True, but we don't need to, either...




I hilighted the most important part of his statement, from this conversation's point of view. I covered this before, but you must have missed that post, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and repost:




Now, since this is the third time I've posted the whole of the document in this thread, I would be willing to bet you still haven't read it. I have. More than three times.
[/quote]

I'm really not interested in you opinion as you have no qualifications as you have noted. Popes and bishops do. So do professors of liturgy. No one forbids the use of projectors at Mass. You continue to refer to the 1958 document as if it was teaching, it isn't. It's instructions from the Congregation of Rites and this is a disciplinary issue.

S.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Skinzo' timestamp='1308709507' post='2257137']
Thank you for clarifying that you don't have the stature of Father McNamara who is a professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum, a pontifical university in Rome.[/quote]

No problem. It was never an issue for me, just you.

[quote]You seem to be trying to confuse the issue. The GIRM of course is what one must follow when saying the OF. In using the 1962 missal one would follow its rubrics. That of course is obvious. Quo primum? That is not in force anymore as the liturgy in fact was reformed by decree of Vatican II. The right to say the EF was not formally abrogated. If Quo primum were still in force we would have no option but the EF. In fact, we do because of later papal legislation and the decree of Vatican II.[/quote]

Vatican II didn't legislate the Novus Ordo, Pope Paul VI did in 1969. As for Quo Primum having any force, read Summorum Pontificum. The Mass of Pope St. Pius V does still carry weight and you are, in fact, incorrect about Quo Primum.

[quote]It is, therefore, permissible to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following [b]the typical edition of the Roman Missal[/b] promulgated by Bl. John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the Liturgy of the Church. The conditions for the use of this Missal as laid down by earlier documents 'Quattuor abhinc annis' and 'Ecclesia Dei,' are substituted as follows:...[/quote]
[url="http://www.summorumpontificum.net/2007/07/summorum-pontificum-english.html"]source[/url]

Typical Edition of what? Quo Primum. Still in force. Still relevant.

[quote]Pius V's decree was only a disciplinary one and it certainly did not bind future popes.[/quote]

Wrong. It is clear that you don't understand how the Church teaches in a disciplinary fashion.

[quote]The 1958 document is also disciplinary, not teaching.[/quote]

Wrong. A discplinary document carries the force of the Pontificate and the Church behind it until such time as it is specifically abrogated. We, as Catholics still must adhere to it.


[quote]I don't know why I would care about your standing here on Phatmass. This is not an authoritative forum.[/quote]

I don't know either, but you have burdened yourself with it. Although, I will say that I do have the credentials to speak about such things, even if informally.

[quote]What is said here is not at all relevant to what the Church is saying. I don't know why you raise the subject of "teaching", this is all about a disciplinary matter. It's obvious you did not read what Father McNamara said, namely he is not aware of any prohibition on the use of projectors during liturgy.[/quote]

I did read it. Hence the comments I made above about it. Are you really that obtuse?

[Cam42]

[quote name='Skinzo' timestamp='1308709935' post='2257139']
I'm really not interested in you opinion as you have no qualifications as you have noted.[/quote]

Yes you do, because you keep responding. Let's be honest about that at least.

[quote]Popes and bishops do. So do professors of liturgy.[/quote]

That is why I quote their teaching and not their opinions.

[quote]No one forbids the use of projectors at Mass.[/quote]

Yep. The Church does....I'm not going to quote it again, you can look back in the thread...obstinate denial is a problem, you really need to get help for it.


[quote]You continue to refer to the 1958 document as if it was teaching, it isn't. It's instructions from the Congregation of Rites and this is a disciplinary issue.[/quote]

Look this is the easiest way to show that you're wrong. Plus it goes to show that you still haven't read the document....from the closing paragraphs of the instruction....err, teaching (psst...they mean the same thing).

[quote]This instruction on sacred music, and the sacred liturgy was submitted to His Holiness Pope Pius XII by the undersigned Cardinal Prefect of the Sacred Congregation of Rites. His Holiness deigned to give his special approval and authority to all its prescriptions. He also commanded that it be promulgated, and be conscientiously observed by all to whom it applies.[/quote]

We know that it comes from the Pope, promulgated through one of His Congregations...in other words, this was done in his name AND Pope Pius XII signed off on the document....get it yet? Let me continue...

[quote]Since the time of Pius X, every diocese has been required to have a special commission of sacred music (Motu proprio [i]Inter sollicitudines[/i], Nov. 22, 1903: AAS 36 [1903-1904] no. 24; Decr. Auth. SRC 4121). The members of this commission, [b]both priests and laymen[/b], specially selected for their knowledge, experience, and talent in the various kinds of sacred music, are to be appointed by the local Ordinary.[/quote]

Oh, so people like me can be part of all of this and not just professors, Popes and bishops? Really....it's true.

[quote]In our time the Supreme Pontiffs have issued three important documents on the subject of sacred music: the [i]Motu proprio Inter sollicitudines[/i] of St. Pius X, Nov. 22, 1903; the Apostolic constitution [i]Divini cultus[/i] of Pius XI of happy memory, Dec. 20, 1928; and the encyclical [i]Musicæ sacræ disciplina[/i] of the happily reigning Supreme Pontiff Pius XII, Dec. 25, 1955. Other papal documents have also been issued, along with decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Rites in regard to sacred music.

[...]

Before his encyclical on sacred music, the Supreme Pontiff, Pius XII, issued another encyclical on the sacred liturgy, [i]Mediator Dei[/i] (November 20, 1947), which very clearly explains, and demonstrates the relation between liturgical doctrine, and pastoral needs. It has therefore been considered appropriate to put together from the above documents a special instruction containing all the main points on sacred liturgy, sacred music, and the pastoral advantages of both. In this way their directives may be more easily, and securely put into practice.[/quote]

The Popes, not just one, so it does show that the authority of multiple Popes can have influence over one particular documents, contrary to what you're stating; have taught, through instructions like this one how to properly integrate these teachings, err...instructions, into the Church's life.

These things do have binding force and these things are not simply the personal opinions of a particular Pope. We have to understand that the discipline of Holy Mother Church is to be adhered to until such time as it is abrogated. Until that time, we are bound to follow it. It's called [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05030a.htm"]ecclesiastical discpline[/url] and it's a much bigger deal than that which you're aware.

[url="http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/DocumentContents/Index/2/SubIndex/17/DocumentIndex/243"]source[/url]

[MithLuin]

[quote name='Cam42' timestamp='1308759728' post='2257279']

...obstinate denial is a problem, you really need to get help for it.

[/quote]

[b]Cam[/b], I know you aren't the only one being snarky in this thread, but you were asked elsewhere today to refrain from making snide diagnoses of people's mental health. I'm not a mod; that's just a gentle reminder before the mods see it.



[b]Skinzo[/b]'s argument is that an educated theologian whose opinion he respects as being genuinely orthodox has said that this particular scenario is okay, so he is going to go along with that rather than interpret the documents for himself.

Your argument is that there is an existing Church document from 1958 that clearly states, 'No projectors in church'.

There's really no need to mock each other over such a simple disagreement. It's a difference of opinion over interpretation, and to be honest, the fact that the prohibition is over the use of the technology [i]in a church[/i] rather than [i]during a mass[/i] suggests that the meaning of the document may not be what we are discussing here. Though I do agree that you're not allowed to just throw out such teachings as they become problematic -- the proper avenue would be to request permission, not just assume that it is granted.

[Jaime]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1308801660' post='2257543']
[b]Cam[/b], I know you aren't the only one being snarky in this thread, but you were asked elsewhere today to refrain from making snide diagnoses of people's mental health. I'm not a mod; that's just a gentle reminder before the mods see it.



[b]Skinzo[/b]'s argument is that an educated theologian whose opinion he respects as being genuinely orthodox has said that this particular scenario is okay, so he is going to go along with that rather than interpret the documents for himself.

Your argument is that there is an existing Church document from 1958 that clearly states, 'No projectors in church'.

There's really no need to mock each other over such a simple disagreement. It's a difference of opinion over interpretation, and to be honest, the fact that the prohibition is over the use of the technology [i]in a church[/i] rather than [i]during a mass[/i] suggests that the meaning of the document may not be what we are discussing here. Though I do agree that you're not allowed to just throw out such teachings as they become problematic -- the proper avenue would be to request permission, not just assume that it is granted.
[/quote]

I reeallly like Mithluin

[MithLuin]

Why thank you!

I'll admit, though, that the main reason I'm on phatmass today is as a distraction from grading exam papers......so I can understand and sympathize with feeling snarky!

[Skinzo]

[quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff) (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1308802565' post='2257552']
I reeallly like Mithluin
[/quote]

Mithluin indeed is most likeable indeed in her careful approach to this and her position is also spot on. I now have an email from Father McNamara, Professor of Liturgy at Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University in Rome. I won't bother to address the concerns of the "sovereign pontiffs" posting herein any further as their opinions are of course irrelevant and it's all just a silly game of "Gotcha!" which does not really interest me. But some have to feed their egos that way.
I wanted to be sure that Father McNamara was aware of the 1958 document so I specifically asked about no.73 of that doc. and its application.
In his response Father has explained that no. 73 does not in fact ban projectors per se in Church. When read in its entirety no. 73 becomes clearer. It is primarily directed at preventing churches from being turned into movie houses even for religious or charitable reasons. It is not interpreted to mean overhead projectors could not be used during liturgies as of course similar projectors have been used many times in papal masses. Anyway without further delay here is Father McNamara's response:

"[font="Arial"][size="4"][color="navy"][color="navy"][font="Arial"][size="4"]Thank you for your interest. I would say that this document is still relevant but it is not speaking about this case but about projecting movies or films in Church. This is clear in the rest of no 73 when it even forbids such projections in rooms or halls next to the church where the noise could cause distraction. It is above all directed towards the forbidding using the church premises for such purposes even if the movie were the life of a saint or if was for a charitable cause. I don't believe it is related in any way with projecting the lyrics of a hymn.[/size][/font][/color][/color][/size][/font] [font="Arial"][size="4"][color="navy"][color="navy"][font="Arial"][size="4"]While not formally abrogated the document has in part been supplanted by later instructions on the same subject. It is still a useful guide on topics where there have been no later pronunciations. In practice however, screens and projections have been used for some multitudinous Masses celebrated by the Pope so as to allow for greater visibility (although to my knowledge only for outside masses) and many bishops use videotaped sermons for their annual appeals (admittedly a far from ideal situation but not necessarily forbidden).
[/size][/font][/color][/color][/size][/font]

[font="Arial"][size="4"][color="navy"][color="navy"][font="Arial"][size="4"]In short, the document and the principles it enshrines are valid but are off topic so to speak in the case of overhead projectors. [/size][/font][/color][/color][/size][/font]

[font="Arial"][size="4"][color="navy"][color="navy"][font="Arial"][size="4"]Yours in Christ[/size][/font][/color][/color][/size][/font]

[font="Arial"][size="4"][color="navy"][color="navy"][font="Arial"][size="4"] [/size][/font][/color][/color][/size][/font][font="Brush Script MT"][size="5"][color="navy"][size="5"]Fr. Edward McNamara L.C[/size][/color][/size][/font][font="Arial"][size="4"][color="navy"]."[/color][/size][/font]


[font="Arial"][size="4"] [/size][/font]

[font="Arial"][size="4"] [/size][/font]


[font="Arial"][size="4"] [/size][/font]

[font="Arial"][size="4"][color="navy"][color="navy"][font="Arial"] [/font][/color][/color][/size][/font]

Edited June 23, 2011 by Skinzo

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Skinzo' timestamp='1308807230' post='2257616']
Mithluin indeed is most likeable indeed in her careful approach to this and her position is also spot on. I now have an email from Father McNamara, Professor of Liturgy at Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University in Rome. I won't bother to address the concerns of the "sovereign pontiffs" posting herein any further as their opinions are of course irrelevant and it's all just a silly game of "Gotcha!" which does not really interest me. But some have to feed their egos that way.
I wanted to be sure that Father McNamara was aware of the 1958 document so I specifically asked about no.73 of that doc. and its application.
In his response Father has explained that no. 73 does not in fact ban projectors per se in Church. When read in its entirety no. 73 becomes clearer. It is primarily directed at preventing churches from being turned into movie houses even for religious or charitable reasons. It is not interpreted to mean overhead projectors could not be used during liturgies as of course similar projectors have been used many times in papal masses. Anyway without further delay here is Father McNamara's response:

"[font="Arial"][size="4"][color="navy"][color="navy"][font="Arial"][size="4"]Thank you for your interest. I would say that this document is still relevant but it is not speaking about this case but about projecting movies or films in Church. This is clear in the rest of no 73 when it even forbids such projections in rooms or halls next to the church where the noise could cause distraction. It is above all directed towards the forbidding using the church premises for such purposes even if the movie were the life of a saint or if was for a charitable cause. I don't believe it is related in any way with projecting the lyrics of a hymn.[/size][/font][/color][/color][/size][/font] [font="Arial"][size="4"][color="navy"][color="navy"][font="Arial"][size="4"]While not formally abrogated the document has in part been supplanted by later instructions on the same subject. It is still a useful guide on topics where there have been no later pronunciations. In practice however, screens and projections have been used for some multitudinous Masses celebrated by the Pope so as to allow for greater visibility (although to my knowledge only for outside masses) and many bishops use videotaped sermons for their annual appeals (admittedly a far from ideal situation but not necessarily forbidden).
[/size][/font][/color][/color][/size][/font]

[font="Arial"][size="4"][color="navy"][color="navy"][font="Arial"][size="4"]In short, the document and the principles it enshrines are valid but are off topic so to speak in the case of overhead projectors. [/size][/font][/color][/color][/size][/font]

[font="Arial"][size="4"][color="navy"][color="navy"][font="Arial"][size="4"]Yours in Christ[/size][/font][/color][/color][/size][/font]

[font="Arial"][size="4"][color="navy"][color="navy"][font="Arial"][size="4"] [/size][/font][/color][/color][/size][/font][font="Brush Script MT"][size="5"][color="navy"][size="5"]Fr. Edward McNamara L.C[/size][/color][/size][/font][font="Arial"][size="4"][color="navy"]."[/color][/size][/font]


[font="Arial"][size="4"] [/size][/font]

[font="Arial"][size="4"] [/size][/font]


[font="Arial"][size="4"] [/size][/font]

[font="Arial"][size="4"][color="navy"][color="navy"][font="Arial"] [/font][/color][/color][/size][/font]
[/quote]
How authoritative would you say that email is, with regards to the entire Church?