C
Corki
Guest
This —
However, it seems that many here in this thread are promoting the use of projector **and **the elimnation of the hymnals. And closing your eyes would make it hard to read anything, wouldn’t it?
- Status
M
Melchior_1
Guest
Neither are giant statues or icons
A
Annabelle_Marie
Guest
Says who:shrug: I think in certain circumstances it can be very discreet. At the church where I attend daily Mass…not so…I don’t know where they would project? Cover up the crucifix…no…a screen coming down would be non-discreet. So…not a good choice there. But my home parish…which was built in the 60’s…the roof slopes down…so you can display up and above the crucifix in simple black and white. It works very well and is reverent. And for me…it keeps my focus more on the Mass then having to switch back and forth between a hymnal.
M
Melchior_1
Guest
Better take down those giant pieces of art that shows a man nailed to a Cross too, now that I think about it.
S
Simon62
Guest
I would be mortified once again if I saw a screen anywhere near the sanctuary, but not surprised. Goodness knows how the faithful survived through the ages without microphones, screens, pre-recorded music, especially in those ‘dreadfully large old musty cathedrals’ throughout Europe. 'Corse all this teknoligee and new fangled stuff brought into the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, in churches either designed totally without Catholic sympathy or those which suffered the most awful iconoclasm within, will bring us a deeper understanding of our faith and hopefully a host of new saints to boot!
Todays communion antiphon:
Psallite Domino, qui ascendit super coelos coelorum ad orientem. Alleluia.
(Sing ye to the Lord, who mounteth above the heaven of heavens to the east. Alleluia.)
was sung in Gregorian Chant, as was all of the Mass, by our small congregation just before going up to the rail without the use of said technology and the hymn sung directly after reception of the Sacred Host was Soul of our Saviour. Again just the use of a hymnal and for a lot of people wearing glasses. Oh heck, where would the screen go? Our priest uses the High Altar and it might put him off if it goes on top of the tabernacle.
God bless
Simon
Todays communion antiphon:
Psallite Domino, qui ascendit super coelos coelorum ad orientem. Alleluia.
(Sing ye to the Lord, who mounteth above the heaven of heavens to the east. Alleluia.)
was sung in Gregorian Chant, as was all of the Mass, by our small congregation just before going up to the rail without the use of said technology and the hymn sung directly after reception of the Sacred Host was Soul of our Saviour. Again just the use of a hymnal and for a lot of people wearing glasses. Oh heck, where would the screen go? Our priest uses the High Altar and it might put him off if it goes on top of the tabernacle.
God bless
Simon
H
Hicks
Guest
Are you joking? Like there’s absolutely no functional difference between a crucifix and a tv screen? Like, the logic should go “I guess putting one thing up on the wall pretty much opens the door to putting everything else on the wall”. Like, by your logic should we just put a screen showing stock prices and the weather up on the wall? Or maybe a moose head or a big grandfather clock? Or maybe a dart board? I mean, folks, let be serious, we’ve already put a crucifix on the wall the cat’s basically outta the bag so let’s just put up a dart board in this place whose with me?
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Again, folks, this will be a non-issue for the vast majority of churches, in which it will be difficult to make a screen look ‘discreet.’ When, however, the architecture is fairly massive, not elongated (traditional), but with wide high walls – and when the screen blends in with the walls (gray screen/gray walls kind of thing) and is placed high – the effect is rather different from what many of you are imagining. It cannot be imagined positively within most interior frames; it just cannot. A traditional church would have to undergo a massive overhaul to effectuate this; probably the reconstruction itself wpuld be far more controversial than any later addition of a screen. And I truly doubt that any church would reconstruct itself for the purpose of adding a screen! So all of you who have objections to even the idea, I think are quite safe. The Church has plenty of other problems right now; optional reconstruction is not on the front burner. One priest in a mid-size parish in my region just had to be reassigned to a parish even more in need of personnel, so now there will be one priest serving in this particular parish within a major U.S. city.
Y
Yoyoma67
Guest
I saw this posted at another forum and it seems relevant to the discussion here. It’s from Father Edward McNamara of a pontifical university in Rome. He is discussing the document De Musica Sacra
September 3, 1958
" 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."
He gave a similar answer on the EWTN once:
ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur319.htm
y.
September 3, 1958
" 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."
He gave a similar answer on the EWTN once:
ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur319.htm
y.
B
benedictgal
Guest
However, while I respect Fr. McNamara, he is not connected with the CDWDS, as far as I can tell. While I can understand the issue of the screens during outdoor Papal Masses (for obvious reasons when the crowds are in the tens and hundreds of thousands), he does miss the point on the projection screen used for showing lyrics of a song.
He is extremely knowledgeable, but, all of this is his interpretation, more along the lines of an opinion.
D
Digitonomy
Guest
Can you provide a link to where you found this? It’s not clear to me whether he was posting on his own behalf, or exactly what question he was answering, or if he said anything else, or if a poster at that site was excerpting his comments from elsewhere.
S
Stylites
Guest
Thanks for the update. Whether Fr. McNamara’s interpretation and opinion is any better or worse than anyone else’s is a matter of interpretation and opinion.
Y
Yoyoma67
Guest
Father McNamara is a Professor of Liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum, a pontifical university in Rome. He does answer emails on questions of this type and you will see his contact information here:
uprait.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=383%3Aedward-mcnamara-lc-curriculum-vitae&catid=237%3Aedward-mcnamara-lc&Itemid=364&lang=en
One may always of course address inquiries to the CDW.
y.
uprait.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=383%3Aedward-mcnamara-lc-curriculum-vitae&catid=237%3Aedward-mcnamara-lc&Itemid=364&lang=en
One may always of course address inquiries to the CDW.
y.
B
Bluegoat
Guest
I think it is likely worth more than self-appointed experts on the internet.
S
Stylites
Guest
Indubitably. It is always good to see people who want to help others, as long as they don’t imagine themselves speaking ex cathedra, or blur the lines between the magisterium and self-appointed internet spokespersons.
- Status