Projecting the words for songs at mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter OnBendedKnee
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
TheMc said:
Maybe, but why address it if nothing has changed? Projectors are very unfitting to use in churches.
Click to expand...
That’s the entire point…projection technology has changed…LCD screens, projection devices, etc. potentially could be integrated in a non-distracting way which was impossible with older technology.

I’m not saying that we should automatically accept it, but things (technology) has/have changed since then.
TheMc said:
You seem quite bitter that the projectors are not allowed. Why not teach the choir, then start chanting the Mass propers and ordinary, then get the ordinary into the hands of the people, in square notes. They will soon catch on. Tomorrow night, we are singing the agnus dei from Missa De Angelis at an ordination, in addition to a tallis piece, a few psalms in latin, and a chanted pater noster, also in latin. People can do it.
Click to expand...
That’s fine for those who prefer latin; yes, people can do it, but shouldn’t be forced to. There are very good reasons for having mass in the vernacular.
 
ProVobis said:
The Church prefers Latin.
Click to expand...
…but understands that the vernacular, in many circumstances in this day and age, is more effective in spreading the Gospel message. 😉

But back to the subject at hand, IF we wanted to teach everyone the liturgy in Latin, how better to do it than visually?
 
I haven’t read all the posts on this thread.

I was just very surprised at what I read on the first page!

In the Philippines - most, if not all, churches uses the Projector. I grew up in the 70’s and we’ve had the projectors since then. The hymns are usually projected on the side wall farther to the side of the epistle podium. The cantor usually sings from the epistle podium and the words are just to the side of the cantor that is away from the altar.

Some churches do not have a wall to the side of the epistle podium - in these cases, they usually have that projector sheet (the one on a tripod) to the side of the epistle podium.

This projection not only shows the hymns, it also shows the responses to the liturgy.

In the Philippines, not many churches can afford to print hymnals and weekly missals and all that good stuff America has. So, usually, somebody takes the effort to hand-print these things every week on a transparency film to be used on the projector. These days, they use permanent markers for the hymns but Expo markers for the responsorial psalm so they can erase the responses and use the same transparency the next week - more cost effective like that - because those transparencies are not cheap either.

I’ve never seen them as distracting. I even find them better as a cantor (I was a cantor in the Philippines and also when I moved to the USA) because as a cantor, the sound of the congregation singing is much better when they are singing with their heads up facing the altar instead of looking down at the hymnal.

The thing about it is - if people are not engaged in the Eucharistic Celebration - they won’t be engaged - regardless if there’s a projected hymn on the wall or not. The spirit of the Eucharist is as strong as the individual Catholic allows it to be for their own personal mass experience. You can’t really “force” them to be more spiritual by the presence or absence of something like a projected hymn at communion.
 
I went to an Anglican church for a while, it was a very nice old building from the outside and the inside was no different. Exept for the projectors and television screens.

Now There was a practical reason for this. I was unfortunately sitting behind a pillar which obscured my sight of the pulpit, but the television screens allowed me to see it. It did however look very tacky in a very old fashioned church like this one and I found it distracting.

Hymn books FTW 🙂
 
Repentfulsinner said:
I went to an Anglican church for a while, it was a very nice old building from the outside and the inside was no different. Exept for the projectors and television screens.

Now There was a practical reason for this. I was unfortunately sitting behind a pillar which obscured my sight of the pulpit, but the television screens allowed me to see it. It did however look very tacky in a very old fashioned church like this one and I found it distracting.

Hymn books FTW 🙂
Click to expand...
You just reminded me–the gorgeous cathedral in St. Louis has television screens to make it possible for everyone to see the altar!

This was done under the great Bishop Burke (who is now serving in Rome). If Bishop Burke said it was OK, it’s OK, right?!
 
Cat said:
You just reminded me–the gorgeous cathedral in St. Louis has television screens to make it possible for everyone to see the altar!

This was done under the great Bishop Burke (who is now serving in Rome). If Bishop Burke said it was OK, it’s OK, right?!
Click to expand...
Archbishop (now Cardinal burke) also sent out a dvd of his annual catholic appeal to be shown at all the masses each year.
 
agapewolf said:
Archbishop (now Cardinal burke) also sent out a dvd of his annual catholic appeal to be shown at all the masses each year.
Click to expand...
Again, if he said it’s OK, it’s super OK! He’s awesome!

So is that the end of the debate? Or is someone going to speak up and say that they know more about Catholicism than Bishop Burke? 😉
 
Most churches I have attended over the years, project the song lyrics for people at Mass.

I’ve never found it distracting even at Communion time. Some people choose to silently pray after receiving Holy Communion, others choose to sing the hymn(s) til all receive and are back in their chairs/pews.

Very few churches I’ve been to over the years have pews with hymnals for people to use with a stand showing the numbers of the hymn/song choices.

I’ve been to a few ceremonies where the song lyrics are not projected, instead a program is given out with the order of the ceremony and the song choices with lyrics.
 
Cat said:
You just reminded me–the gorgeous cathedral in St. Louis has television screens to make it possible for everyone to see the altar!

This was done under the great Bishop Burke (who is now serving in Rome). If Bishop Burke said it was OK, it’s OK, right?!
Click to expand...
That’s a little different. Those screens are to help people see what is happening **at **the altar. Projecting words on a screen takes people’s attention away from the altar.

And while I’m at it, I wanted to respond to an earlier comment.
I find veils distracting, and I find it distracting when women choose to wear old-fashioned clothing that resembles religious habits, and a tight bun, and no makeup, along with their veils. I have no objection to these disciplines and believe that personal dress should be up to each woman. If a woman wants to dress “old-style,” that’s OK. But I still find it distracting because it’s different.
Click to expand...
Women who wear veils or who chose to dress modestly for Mass aren’t doing so in order to draw your attention to them. If this distracts you, it’s unintentional. Using a projector is intended to draw your attention to it. It’s intentionally distracting. Distraction isn’t always a bad thing but it would be hard to say anyone projects words on a screen and hopes that noone looks at them.

agapewolf:
Archbishop (now Cardinal burke) also sent out a dvd of his annual catholic appeal to be shown at all the masses each year.
Click to expand...
A lot of bishops do a similar distribution. But again, you don’t play the DVD during the Mass itself. It’s usually played at the end of Mass (announcement time) or as part of the homily. Watching the DVD doesn’t draw your attention away from any part of the Mass.
 
It’s played during the homily, which is indeed part of the mass itself. And your points don’t fit along with the arguments here against using it at any time in the church.
 
Corki said:
Women who wear veils or who chose to dress modestly for Mass aren’t doing so in order to draw your attention to them. If this distracts you, it’s unintentional. Using a projector is intended to draw your attention to it. It’s intentionally distracting. Distraction isn’t always a bad thing but it would be hard to say anyone projects words on a screen and hopes that noone looks at them.

.
Click to expand...
So then we should do away with hymnals and missals again, because they do the same thing…draw your attention away from the altar.
 
I find veils distracting, and I find it distracting when women choose to wear old-fashioned clothing that resembles religious habits, and a tight bun, and no makeup, along with their veils. I have no objection to these disciplines and believe that personal dress should be up to each woman. If a woman wants to dress “old-style,” that’s OK. But I still find it distracting because it’s different.
Click to expand...
Women who wear veils or who chose to dress modestly for Mass aren’t doing so in order to draw your attention to them. If this distracts you, it’s unintentional. Using a projector is intended to draw your attention to it. It’s intentionally distracting. Distraction isn’t always a bad thing but it would be hard to say anyone projects words on a screen and hopes that no one looks at them.
Click to expand...
The old fashioned dress with or without veils/head coverings would not distract me one bit. Neither does projecting the words to responses and song lyrics. Either you pay attention to them or you don’t. I have to focus extra on whats happening in Mass when people wear distracting clothing like short shorts or really tight/revealing clothing.
 
puzzleannie said:
of all the practices surrounding music at Mass we have had to endure in the last 40 years, this practice may be the one that (searching for polite language) bothers me the most. At the very least, assuming everyone in the congregation is sight impaired and must rely on the projected words, they should invest in a proper screen, and place it where the mandatory crucifix, and obviously the altar, are not obscured. If they don’t do that not only are they not accomplishing what they are after, to make the lyrics accessible and easily readable to foster congregational singing, they are deliberately maliciously moving focus from the action of the altar and the sacrifice of Christ to the congregation and choir. Reprehensible.
Click to expand...
I sort of agree with this but must say I am guilty.

I have been preparing the power point for two parishes and I am having misgivings about this. However, the parish priests seem to really appreciate this. I know the people like the presentation (although I can’t really tell whether it encourage the congregation to sing) but I also think that it does not really foster reverence especially during communion.

I think there should be more silence during communion rather than singing.
 
My parish has always used hymnals, and it is getting time once again to consider a new hymnal purchase. However, at my son’s school, they use an overhead projector for the words of the songs. It seems less distracting in a gymnasium.
 
agapewolf said:
So then we should do away with hymnals and missals again, because they do the same thing…draw your attention away from the altar.
Click to expand...
Actually, I think there is in a way an argument for this, and that is ultimatly why I object to projection.

The liturgy is not really meant to be something we read from a book. It was developed in a largely non-literate society withoiut books, and people learned it by heart.

THere are many advantages to having it by heart rather than in a book. The liturgy has always been an important teaching tool, and having it by heart is as didactic as knowing the Creed. It is easier to pray something that we know by heart rather than out of a book. We are not impinged by circumstances where books are not available.

This is why congregational hymn singing is largely a post-printing press phenomena. Strictly speaking, it is unnecessary to the liturgy.

Now, I think it is useful to have copies of the liturgical text around, especially for visitors. And I like singing hymns, though I think it is a bad idea to constantly be introducing new ones, especially new texts. So I don’t see a need to be an absolutist about this.

But we should really keep in mind that the liturgy is not meant to be something we experience through the mediation of a text - we are to participate in it directly. Just as we are not meant only to read about God in the Bible, we are to seek physical unity with the Word.

Unfortunately the newer liturgies in my church, and even in the CC though to a lesser extent, are really very much texts developed by a society that assumes literate people with access to books. They are not really all that easy to memorize and can be changeable.

Projecting the texts of hymns or the liturgy is a mistake IMO because it supports this misunderstanding that the liturgy is a literary experience, and makes it difficult to avoid that. Even a person who does not need the text tends to be drawn to read it, just like one’s eyes are drawn to a tv in a room even if one is not interested in the program.
 
Bluegoat said:
THere are many advantages to having it by heart rather than in a book. The liturgy has always been an important teaching tool, and having it by heart is as didactic as knowing the Creed. It is easier to pray something that we know by heart rather than out of a book. We are not impinged by circumstances where books are not available.

This is why congregational hymn singing is largely a post-printing press phenomena. Strictly speaking, it is unnecessary to the liturgy.
.
Click to expand...
The same argument could be made for not having a Bible. It is better memorized than read and is a post-printing press/literacy phenomena. I think the sense of the Church though is that we are better off having a printed Bible, a literate church and the capability to read the liturgy. A thousand years ago, the Church was at the forefront of publishing, even though it was a slow process. The idea that we should go back to Mass like it was then just because that was the best they could do, well, that is just not the direction the Holy Spirit is guiding us.
 
pnewton said:
The same argument could be made for not having a Bible. It is better memorized than read and is a post-printing press/literacy phenomena. I think the sense of the Church though is that we are better off having a printed Bible, a literate church and the capability to read the liturgy. A thousand years ago, the Church was at the forefront of publishing, even though it was a slow process. The idea that we should go back to Mass like it was then just because that was the best they could do, well, that is just not the direction the Holy Spirit is guiding us.
Click to expand...
I didn’t suggest getting rid of all the texts - I did suggest being careful about making the liturgy primarily, or unavoidably, a textual experience.

Bible study is great, but generally in depth Bible reading is not for during the liturgy. I don’t have a problem even with pew Bibles, or even a printed lectionary, but I wouldn’t want it projected so everyone had to look at it. Nor do I have a problem with the Bible on an MP3, or over the internet, or an internet Bible study.

I would have a problem with an internet Eucharist.

And think of it this way - while there were great fruits from the widespread availability of the Bible, have their been down-sides to this increased focus on the text in Christianity? In a context where Christianity was not text based, could you actually have people who think that the Bible is the only thing necessary, not Tradition, nor the Eucharist, nor perhaps even a Church community?

I just think making the liturgy, our primary experience as Christians, more textual, is something to be wary of.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top