Pnewton, I think that there is confusion on the name of the document since “Musicae-Sacrae” seems very much like Musicam Sacram. Here is the quote:
When the Church issues one document, as was the case with “Musicae Sacrae”, which was actually issued by the Congregation for Sacred Rites (the precursor to the CDWDS) and a subsequent document is silent, that, I believe, means that whatever was previously in place still holds.
It appears that not everyone agrees. I do not think I do, even though I do not like projectors. Reading the context, it seems like it was dealing more with noise disruption. It is fifty years old. It is instructions on the implementation of the encyclical, not the papal encyclical itself. A new instruction is not likely to be issued for the sake of one minor point.
While I quoted only part of this post, my comment here sort of addresses benedictgal and Cat as well.
I think you have misunderstood me. I am not saying that this document you reference says anything at all as regards this practice. Rather, I am questioning the apparent extrapolation that if a Cardinal makes a DVD that means he supports projecting song lyrics onto walls during the liturgy. That doesn’t follow. We don’t know when he even intended to have this video shown, and even if it were intended to be seen during a Mass, it still says nothing about song lyrics which are not related. If one automatically follows the other then we must also deduce he supports using prerecorded videos or movies in place of a homily. But, there is nothing to suggest such a thing. The Cardinal made a DVD, and that means nothing other than he intended for his flock to watch it.
I see you point. However, if a bishop intends his message to be shown in churches using video projection (and it’s hard to imagine otherwise if it’s sent to every parish), we can at a minimum say he doesn’t feel any ban on video projection in church remains in effect.
Well, now you’ve moved the goalposts to what people want, rather than what is permitted. I would want to see it - just once, so I could tut-tut them and bear witness to extreme bad taste, just as many do with the clown masses.
lolThe only mention of a microphone in the GIRM is in P 306:
So there’s nothing about readers or cantors having microphones?
Not in the GIRM. I think most of your questions can be answered with common sense.
Of course these can be answered with common sense. But in my travels I have come to understand that common sense isn’t very common.
There is on major difference between projectors and microphones that everyone is missing:
Microphones can be non-transparent in a hurry due to technical problems and user interface problems. What then?
What about projectors that, for example, show a close-up of a baby being baptized? Or a child receiving their first communion? Is there a difference between projectors showing those things and a projector projecting hymn lyrics? Is it a matter of having projectors or not, or what they are projecting and in what asthetic manner they are projecting it?
What then? Then they are non-transparent.
The difference is that the giant “book” is on the wall, and a distraction from the Mass. Anyways, if you don’t want a book, you don’t pick one up. If you don’t want the projector, you…
Yes, I would say you are likely right in this. However, DVDs are not generally played via “video projection” and screens. Most use TV sets wheeled out just for the playing of the video which are then removed. I have never seen a video projector and screen used for playing a video in a church, though I suppose it may be possible. Additionally, such videos are generally played after the closing prayers of the Mass and just before the final blessing at that moment most places insert announcements. They are not used during the actual liturgical celebration such as lyric projectors are. Priests have always been understood to have some freedom to make insertions at the end of Mass by way of announcements and other things relevant to parish life, and it is during these moments that such messages are usually presented. I really don’t see any connection at all between such DVD messages from a Cardinal and usage of projectors during Mass.
That wasn’t quite my intention, but rather meant to suggest that the Church never intended such a thing. I wasn’t trying to appeal to popular opinion, but I did choose an unfortunate set of words.
I disagree. Lighting, whether it was electric, torch or candle, has a historic purpose in worship. The limits of such purpose may even be defined explicitly somewhere, though I have no idea. However, even if they aren’t, we know what the purposes of lighting are in a church and have from the beginning, and the Church has certainly never given approval to dramatic lighting during the consecration. That would be a gross innovation which oversteps the role and purpose of lighting.
I would probably agree with this, but I would incline to suggest that the real problem is that most people believe that if something is not forbidden it is permitted rather than the reverse. In fifteen years I don’t believe I have ever seen even one entirely licit Mass. Innovation abounds. People get used to one innovation and so the next seems less obtrusive and problematic. Churches don’t consider what liturgy really is and what the goal is and so they inevitably end up putting on a show. It is sad and unfortunate, but even otherwise beneficial possibilities, i.e. projected song lyrics, become dangerous in the hands of people so used to innovation and so inconsiderate of liturgical goals. Ultimately, I think it is wise to remember that a Mass celebrated only in ways explicitly approved by the Church would always be entirely licit, solemn and proper. The reverse offers no such guarantees of success.
Say that to someone’s ear drums. Sound cannot be seen, but that doesn’t make it transparent. I’ll go a step further and add that vocal quality of the Priest himself could be an issue. What if his voice is annoying? Now it’s amplified annoyance!
I’ve got ADHD mate, everything distracts me. Especially missals! Or even better, then there’s pencils in the pews! OR BIBLES! OR PENS AND BIBLES AND MISSALS TOGETHER!
I think this above is a perfect guide to any such technological innovation. The key word, liturgically speaking, is ‘discreet.’ Surely, if microphones should be discreet then so should any other technology meant to aid worshipers during the Mass. The question then becomes how can such a thing as projected song lyrics be made discreet? Most problematic is, in my mind, the screen. These things are ugly as sin and present a massive eyesore in the sanctuary even if they don’t cover other things improperly. Perhaps if a church were designed with the intent of using such technology and therefore didn’t have a screen, but instead used an open space on a wall . . . I don’t know, maybe. However, is it possible even then for gigantic projected words in the sanctuary of a church to be ‘discreet?’ It seems very doubtful.
Exactly the point I’ve been trying to make. It’s not discreet. Giant words projected on the wall is not discreet.