Hymns Projected On A Wall?

[MithLuin]

Really, Skinzo? You're going to praise my approach and call someone a 'sovereign pontiff' seeking to feed his ego in the same breath? It's like you don't know me at all, mate.

[quote]Will Turner: I said to myself, think like Jack.
Jack Sparrow: This is what you've arrived at? Lead Beckett to Shipwreck Cove so as to gain his trust, accomplish your own ends? It's like you don't know me at all, mate. And how does your dearly beloved feel about this plan? Ah, you've not seen fit to trust her with it. [/quote]




Of course it isn't authoritative. In the sense that it's not the pope or the Vatican saying 'this is okay, guys.' However, as far as Skinzo is concerned, it's an authentic interpretation of Church teaching. Other theologians are welcome to disagree with this guy if they think they have cause.

Edited June 23, 2011 by MithLuin

[HollyWilliams]

I don't like it either. It would feel too much like a Pentecostal church. Pentecostal churches are often like rock concerts in their liturgy.

[AccountDeleted]

I've been in churches that used overhead projectors for hymns and even for the Creed! and while this isn't my favourite thing, I do appreciate the fact that I can look at them without taking off my glasses (which are for distance) as I have to do with a hymnal. I have multi-focal lenses but they still don't seem to be comfortable when looking up at the priest or the altar and then back down at the book, so often, I take them off. With the overheads, I can sing along, seeing the words, and not have to take my glasses off. But if given the absolute personal choice, I prefer my liturgy to be very traditional - it generates an atmosphere that seems more appropriate for me personally. I have been in many Masses around the world though, so now I just accept wherever I am, and even whatever language they are using (from English to Spanish to Latin to Polish etc...) The Mass for me is all about Jesus, the consecration, Holy Communion and the presence of God. While I would like everything to be according to 'my tastes', I also accept that it won't always be.....

[Cam42]

[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 wrote that response before Red offered her fraternal correction. So easy there....

Also, there is a pattern going on here, with Skinzo and it is one of obstinant denial. Also, a personal opinion, even from the most orthodox theolgian NEVER trumps actual Church teaching. No matter how much he denies this, there is no arguing that. I have the objective truth of the Church behind my statements, he has personal opinion.

The mockery started with him, yet I don't see you giving him any gentle reminders, but that's ok, I need to rebuild my reputation around here, so I appreciate it.

There is no difference of opinion, because I haven't given my opinion. My view comes strictly from authentic Church teaching. Also, Mith, you're running this down to symantics, because even if it is simply "in a church," it is clear that it is for any reason. Mass is included in that. So, there is no subliminal suggesting going on.

So, I know that we've been disagreeing over the last couple of days, but that is because your philosophy about the Church and mine are vastly different. I am much more traditional than you, but if you take an honest look at what I'm saying, there is nothing at odds nor is there anything incorrect about my position. I base nothing on conjecture and nothing on innovation. I use only Church documents and episcopal instruction as my source material, when teaching or when correcting. Sure, I'm sarcastic, but only when one has been sarcastic with me. That is in direct response to the idea that I am too emotionless....so if you think I should just go back to being an emotionless doctrine machine, I can certainly do that....

As it stands, Skinzo has not used any real documentation to support his position. An opinion from one priest does not validate a position. If it did, we'd be Protestants. We're not. He asked me once to ask Fr. McNamara....if I were to have done that with documentation in hand, I am sure that he would change his opinion. Because an opinion can be changed much easier than a Church instruction or teaching. As it stands, he doesn't have a leg to lean on...I have two. He needs to provide documentation to support his claims. And there are more accusations there than just the projector issue....he has also called into question theological credentials, he has also called into question ecclesiastical discipline. He has called into question Church authority. These are not lightly taken and he needs to understand that HIS personal opinions on the matter need fraternal correction.

So, thanks for your statement to me above. It is duly noted. But, I don't see much on the other side, where it is really needed. I'm not going to apologize for standing up for Church teaching....that is more important than any personal opinion.

[Cam42]

[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]


Perfect, I'll follow up with another email to Fr. McNamara...and give him all the facts...and see if I get the same response. Or better yet, I'll write the Congregation and see...as it is, I have a friend who works for the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments (one of the advantages of being in seminary for so long and moving in the right circles). He'll have a more authoritative opinion....if you want to start playing one up on this....

You've still only given Fr. McNamara's personal opinion and it is at odds with Church teaching, so it's not very authoritative at all....he hasn't given you anything more than conjecture and opinion. When he does cite supporting documentation which allows for projectors to be used, rather than his personal thought, I would accept it much better.

Edited June 23, 2011 by Cam42

[Cam42]

As a matter of transparency, I have sent the following email to Fr. McNamara. I can provide his email address if necessary or wanted.

[quote]Dear Rev. Fr. McNamara ;

Pax et Bonum.

I have been in a conversation with an aquaintence regarding a specific issue which has presented itself and I would like clarification on the matter. I do this in as a matter of clarification, not only so that the issue will become clear, but also for my own edification. A bit of information about me, I hold a BA in Theology and Catholic Studies and I work as a Master of Ceremonies in my home parish, currently for the extraordinary form only, but I have extensive application to the ordinary form, until January 2011.

Here is a synopsis, it is my contention that based upon the document [i]De Musica Sacra[/i] promulgated 3 September 1958, that it is wholly and completely unacceptable to use a projector in a church, regardless the reason, whether this be for a concert, a movie or during the celebration of the Holy Mass. My reasoning is based upon the following paragraph, no. 73:

The use of any kind of projector, and particularly movie projectors, with or without sound track, is strictly forbidden in church for any reason, even if it be for a pious, religious, or charitable cause. In constructing or remodeling meeting halls near the church or under it (if there is no other place), care must be taken that there is no direct entrance from the hall into the church, and that the noise from the hall, especially if it is going to used for entertainments, shall in no way profane the holiness, and silence of the sacred place.

[url="http://www.catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/documentText/Index/2/SubIndex/17/ContentIndex/298/Start/243"]source[/url]


It would seem that the use of any kind of projector (which would include overhead, television) and particularly movie projectors is strictly forbidden for any reason, including religious causes. I would posit that religious causes would most certainly include the Holy Mass.

I am fully aware that there have been particular parishes and even bishops who have employed this method of communication, which seems to be in direct confrontation with this document. I am also fully aware that parts of this document have been superseded, but that does not invalidate the whole of the document. I have done a fair amount of searching and a fair amount of study on this particular issue, but I have not seen anything which supersedes this teaching.

I am aware of your personal opinion on this issue and I while I am respectful of your position and I appreciate your views on most issues, I would like to know your reasoning for holding this opinion and if it has any basis in an instruction of which I am not aware. We as Catholics are obliged to help in the hermeneutic of continuity and dispelling the hermeneutic of rupture, so I am looking for clarification on this, so that I may proceed in a proper manner.

Thank you in advance for taking the time to respond to this matter.

AMDG+,

Andy Milam

P.S. I am including part of an email that you recently sent, so that you are fully able to respond. Thank you.

"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. 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).


In short, the document and the principles it enshrines are valid but are off topic so to speak in the case of overhead projectors.

Yours in Christ

Fr. Edward McNamara L.C."[/quote]

I expect a response shortly. I will forward on when I receive it.

[MithLuin]

[b]Cam[/b], I chastised [b]Skinzo[/b] in my very next post in this thread, and I know he started it. (I didn't realize I'd gotten my times off - obviously I read [b]Red[/b]'s correction before seeing your post, which was what prompted me to address your remarks first; Skinzo had already been corrected earlier in the thread for going too far...by the mods.) I'm equal opportunity when it comes to correction - I don't use such remarks to forward a particular point, but rather to attempt to improve the overall demeanor of this board. I think that Catholics should be able to discuss their faith civilly, even when they disagree...even if passionately. And it's strange that you assume I support [b]Skinzo[/b] in this matter, when I've clearly stated my distaste for the use of projectors/screens during mass in a church in this thread. I know we do have different views of the Church, and that's fine - I don't expect to see eye-to-eye with all one billion of the world's Catholics. But we are still both Catholic - right?


I'm pretty sure Fr. McNamara is well aware of the text of the document in question, since he referred to it in his response to Skinzo. Documents, like any text, need to be interpreted and applied to particular situations. He has offered his interpretation (and his reasons for it), and it [i]does[/i] seem silly to draw the man into an internet forum debate when clearly [i]no one[/i] here is actually putting up projector screens in parishes. But, whatever, again - you didn't start it. If you want to submit a query to the Congregation so that they can issue an official clarification on this point, that would be splendid!


You are right, [b]Skinzo's[/b] view of church documents prior to Vatican II 'expiring' somehow was completely off. Clearly, he doesn't have a complete understanding of how the Church instructs the faithful. Which is why [i]it's a very good thing[/i] that he trust the interpretation of a respected theologian over his own. If we were to each interpret the documents however we saw fit, [i]that[/i] would be analogous to Protestantism (though of course there, they are interpreting the Bible directly, more often, rather than their church constitutions or what not.) I understand that you have some education in theology, [b]Cam[/b], so of course you may disagree with the theologian [b]Skinzo[/b] has suggested on your own grounds. But to blast Skinzo for misinterpreting things [i]and[/i] for seeking theological input seems....silly. Yes, I understand that a theologian has no official weight within the Church. But it's certainly a good thing that they take the time to instruct the faithful anyway, isn't it?


Yes, a church document speaking to this matter post-1958 would trump this instruction. Apparently, one does not exist (at least, no one here is aware of one.) So, the instruction stands, and we must interpret how it applies to particular situations in various churches around the world.

[quote]Also, Mith, you're running this down to semantics, because even if it is simply "in a church," it is clear that it is for any reason. Mass is included in that. So, there is no subliminal suggesting going on.[/quote]

No, but what if the mass is not in a church? What if the mass were outside, in a gymnasium, or a stadium, or a theater, or an auditorium? It would seem that in these cases, the instruction would not apply, which is why I thought it worth bringing up. And if the use of a projector/screen [i]during mass[/i] in a gym is permitted, then the problem is not with its use during mass, but rather simply with its use in a church building. So, the intention seems to be to prevent the church building for being used for something other than mass. And....a bishop's appeal is [i]not[/i] an instance where that would happen. See? (In my diocese, the bishop's appeal is an audio recording only, so no projector or TV is used and this is a moot point.)

Your interpretation of the document is that the use of a screen/projector for lyrics to songs during the mass in a church is prohibited, but it's not the only possible interpretation of that document. It is a more strict/literal one without taking into consideration the intention with which the instruction was given (at least, you have not offered any commentary on that). That's fine - it sounds a perfectly valid interpretation for a Catholic to hold. But again...not the [i]only[/i] possible interpretation.


Please, don't feel the need to become a robot, nor to discuss things merely dispassionately. I am not asking you to change your opinion on the use of projectors during mass (whatever that might be, since you apparently haven't shared that with us yet). Nor am I asking you to stop correcting people when they hold confused ideas about the Church. I was merely asking that such correction be more charitable and less snarky. Sure, other people will be rude - but there's no need to respond in kind. You can just point out that they seem heated, and move on.

[Cam42]

The response from Fr. McNamara just came:

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

[quote][font="Arial"][size="4"][color="navy"]Thy Kingdom Come![/color][/size][/font]

[font="Arial"][size="4"][color="navy"]Dear Mr. Milam in Christ. Basically I believe that we are before a simple case of a divergent interpretation of the same document. Perhaps we simply approach it from different angles. The question I ask myself is what is DMS actually prohibiting. Personally I do not see it as a blanket prohibition on all projectors, including future technological development, but that it refers to not using the Church for such projections in order to conserve its climate of sacred silence. In my view the document simply does not refer to this particular case. [/color][/size][/font]

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

[font="Arial"][size="4"][color="navy"]Later legislation on this topic is admittedly very thin on the ground. The closest document I have found is the US Bishop’s Guidelines on church building: “Built of Living Stones”. This legal force of this document is certainly less than an Instruction from the Holy See but it is unlikely that the following norm would have been approved by the bishops if they believed that restrictions of DMS still applied: [/color][/size][/font]

[font="Arial"][size="4"][color="navy"]“[/color][/size][/font][b][font="Arial"][size="4"][color="black"]§ 233 §[/color][/size][/font][/b][font="Arial"][size="4"][color="black"] Provision for electronic media should be incorporated into the initial design of a new building. These should fit into the architectural design and should be made inconspicuous. Consideration should be given to the effect of light on projected images.[/color][/size][/font][font="Arial"][size="4"][color="navy"]”[/color][/size][/font]

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

[font="Arial"][size="4"][color="navy"]I hope this helps and thank you for your interest and desire to live the liturgy as it should be lived. God Bless You! [/color][/size][/font]

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

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

I hardly see this as being an authoritative response, but rather the personal opinion of one priest. Also, while I respect Fr. McNamara, I do believe that he gives far too much weight to to the USCCB. The USCCB has no teaching authority whatsoever. That role, in this instance belongs to the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments. On many occasions the USCCB has had to turn to the CDWDS for clarifications on liturgical matters, so it is clear that the USCCB has no authority to challenge or change Church teaching or instruction.

Michael Voris STB concurs;

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkn7lkf9p18&t=1m30s[/media]

Even Fr. McNamara doesn't go so far as to state that it is teaching, but rather that he and I are having a personal discussion about a difference of opinion on a Church document. He even goes so far as to say what I am saying in that the document from the USCCB doesn't carry the same weight as an instruction from Rome.

My point, this is all just an opinion of one priest, which is what I've been saying all along...and even he recognizes that he and I can be on equal footing with our opinions...I wonder, can you?

[Skinzo]

Father McNamara has provided some further clarification regarding the status of the 1958 document "De musica sacra et sacra liturgia". I asked him how this document would apply to the Novus Ordo which of course did not exist in 1958:
"[font="Arial"][size="4"][color="navy"][color=navy][font=Arial][size=4]I would say that most of it no longer applies as it has been supplanted by Musicam Sacram or other later documents which were published with the new rite in mind. However insofar as it contains principles which have not been mentioned by later documents it is still a valid point of reference. For example the prohibition on any form of artificial music in church is, I believe, still applicable as it is a general principle that is indifferent to whatever rite is being celebrated. Elements which refer to the specifics of the extraordinary form can only be applied to the new rite in very general terms. An instruction need not necessarily be formally abrogated but may be supplanted if later documents with the same legal force are issued giving new norms regarding essentially the same material. [/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"][color="navy"][/color][/size][/font]

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






[b]
[/b]

[Cam42]

[quote name='Skinzo' timestamp='1308868999' post='2257848']
Father McNamara has provided some further clarification regarding the status of the 1958 document "De musica sacra et sacra liturgia". I asked him how this document would apply to the Novus Ordo which of course did not exist in 1958:
"[font="Arial"][size="4"][color="navy"][color="navy"][font="Arial"][size="4"]I would say that most of it no longer applies as it has been supplanted by Musicam Sacram or other later documents which were published with the new rite in mind. However insofar as it contains principles which have not been mentioned by later documents it is still a valid point of reference. For example the prohibition on any form of artificial music in church is, I believe, still applicable as it is a general principle that is indifferent to whatever rite is being celebrated. Elements which refer to the specifics of the extraordinary form can only be applied to the new rite in very general terms. An instruction need not necessarily be formally abrogated but may be supplanted if later documents with the same legal force are issued giving new norms regarding essentially the same material. [/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"][color="navy"][/color][/size][/font]

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






[b]
[/b]

[/quote]


So, what's your point? Musicam Sacram doesn't deal with this issue at all and I am aware of no other liturgical document which does. So, it would seem that there is nothing out there to supplant it. So, it would seem that it is still a valid point of reference. Considering that this is not a point which is specific to the extraordinary form, I fail to see his point. Perhaps I will follow up with him on it....

Perhaps it would be better served if you would post your email to him, and his complete response rather than snippets, as it seems what you are posting is quite disjointed and seems to be largely irrelevant. That is your choice, but as it is, I fail to see the connection that you're trying to make with the latest email from Fr. McNamara.

Thanks.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Cam42' timestamp='1308868340' post='2257838']
The response from Fr. McNamara just came:

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



I hardly see this as being an authoritative response, but rather the personal opinion of one priest. Also, while I respect Fr. McNamara, I do believe that he gives far too much weight to to the USCCB. The USCCB has no teaching authority whatsoever. That role, in this instance belongs to the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments. On many occasions the USCCB has had to turn to the CDWDS for clarifications on liturgical matters, so it is clear that the USCCB has no authority to challenge or change Church teaching or instruction.

Michael Voris STB concurs;

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkn7lkf9p18&t=1m30s[/media]

Even Fr. McNamara doesn't go so far as to state that it is teaching, but rather that he and I are having a personal discussion about a difference of opinion on a Church document. He even goes so far as to say what I am saying in that the document from the USCCB doesn't carry the same weight as an instruction from Rome.

My point, this is all just an opinion of one priest, which is what I've been saying all along...and even he recognizes that he and I can be on equal footing with our opinions...I wonder, can you?
[/quote]


My apologies, the link seems to be broken...here is the link again....the most relevant part starts at 1:30. Thanks.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkn7lkf9p18[/media]

[dUSt]

I think I'm going to side with the opinion of Fr McNamara on the interpretation of this document, even though I hope I never see a projector inside a church. As much as I dislike them, I do think something more authoritative needs to be released that directly addresses today's use of technology before we can say that this is such a black and white issue. Also, just like people do with the Bible, I think it's easy to fall into the trap of "personal interpretation" of church documents as well--so I'm prone to side with priests and bishops when it comes to interpretations of said documents.

I also disagree with this statement from Cam:

[quote]The USCCB has no teaching authority whatsoever.[/quote]

That's like saying bishops have no teaching authority. So, at the very least, it confuses me why you'd say that.

[Cam42]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1308889577' post='2257970']
I think I'm going to side with the opinion of Fr McNamara on the interpretation of this document, even though I hope I never see a projector inside a church. As much as I dislike them, I do think something more authoritative needs to be released that directly addresses today's use of technology before we can say that this is such a black and white issue. Also, just like people do with the Bible, I think it's easy to fall into the trap of "personal interpretation" of church documents as well--so I'm prone to side with priests and bishops when it comes to interpretations of said documents.

I also disagree with this statement from Cam:



That's like saying bishops have no teaching authority. So, at the very least, it confuses me why you'd say that.
[/quote]

The USCCB is an entity. It is not a bishop in particular. So, the USCCB has no sway over what a bishop does in his own diocese. Michael Voris says it much better than I do, that is why I posted the youtube that I did. If the USCCB had some sort of teaching authority, it would not need the recognitio from the Holy See in order to put out a document, it would be able to do it itself, independent of the Holy See. As it is, that isn't the case.

Also, why would you side with Fr. McNamara if you disagree with personal interpretation? He hasn't posited anything other than that? IDGI...

[MithLuin]

[quote name='Cam42' timestamp='1308890451' post='2257975']
Also, why would you side with Fr. McNamara if you disagree with personal interpretation? He hasn't posited anything other than that? IDGI...
[/quote]

[b]dUSt[/b] answered that, [b]Cam[/b]: Fr. McNamara is a priest.

[quote name='dUSt']...I'm prone to side with [b]priests[/b] and bishops when it comes to interpretations of said documents.[/quote]

Edited June 24, 2011 by MithLuin

[Maggyie]

Can I just say I found this thread to be extremely, unintentionally hilarious and yet sad at the same time. Only in Catholic World would we be able to have an intense and snippy argument about overhead projectors. I wonder what Jesus thinks about overhead projectors.

It's occasions like these where I understand why I have Protestant friends call the Catholic Church "The Document Church." I'm sure everybody involved sincerely believes they are fighting the good fight, but it's just... funny. THE SUPREME PONTIFF HAS HANDED DOWN THE RULING ON OVERHEAD PROJECTORS!! LET IT STAND FOREVER!!!!!

Also, Micheal Voris makes me want to start a YouTube channel called FakeCatholicTV featuring nothing but news and views from bishops, the Pope, other people Jesus has actually endowed with teaching authority.