Projecting the words for songs at mass

[pnewton]

I just think making the liturgy, our primary experience as Christians, more textual, is something to be wary of.

I think it is good to internalize as much as one can. While I sometimes need to read the missal, I try to listen as much as I can and switch to following the words only as needed. Especially new Catholics benefit from the printed texts, but Bluegoat has a point that it is good to get to the point you have less of a need of it.

Music, however present an interesting dichotomy. I could incorporate music that needed little time to learn. Much of praise and worship music is easily learned. However, I have an affinity for hymns that contain theological depth. These can not be sung without having the words. I think the epitome of these are the sequences. They have a lot of meaning, but no one could sing them without the words.

The advantage of hymnals is that they allow the user to use them or not. Projected words are a little too much in-your-face.

 

[benedictus2]

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.

Very well said!

However, I think congregational singing is necessary to the Liturgy because if the people really pay attention to it (and we don’t get the sloppy, theologically incorrect songs we have been fed in recent years), then we truly participate in worship. After all that is what we are there for, to worship. Unfortunately there has been too much leaning towards feel-good pat on the back music rather than really good worship music.

 

[TheMc]

Very well said!

However, I think congregational singing is necessary to the Liturgy because if the people really pay attention to it (and we don’t get the sloppy, theologically incorrect songs we have been fed in recent years), then we truly participate in worship. After all that is what we are there for, to worship. Unfortunately there has been too much leaning towards feel-good pat on the back music rather than really good worship music.

But congregational singing isn’t necessary to the Liturgy. Some may prefer it, but if you are going for the ideal, unless you are going to learn the stuff from the GR.

That being said, I heartily agree with your comments about the trash they’ve been feeding us.

 

[ProVobis]

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.

Now that I think about it, maybe having a projector wouldn’t be such a bad idea after all. The literacy aspect is what actually preserves a language, which is probably why Latin has succeeded in that scholars and Church documents use it, but hardly anyone holds a conversation in it. The more illiterates and half-literates you have, the faster among them the English language deteriorates, especially with its homophones, silent letters, and sometimes very awkward and horrible pronunciations by those with heavy accents. Songs are especially tough to follow. People are looking up lyrics all the time for popular tunes. And it’s tough to follow readings when you have many proper names as well. Politicians, TV commentators, and songs break grammar rules all the time, most of them don’t even complete sentences, and no one notices or seems to care. With books and newspaper articles, however, mistakes are found much quicker and therefore they are generally proofread so that they can be preserved much better. And encouraging people to read whether from a missal, their iPhones, or Microsoft Powerpoint can only improve communication and understanding, IMO. Otherwise all the predications about Modern English going the way of Old English and Middle English will come true that much faster.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I sometimes attend Mass where this occurs. It is most definitely not anywhere near the sanctuary. The very large screen is high on a wall to the side of the sanctuary, so there is zero interference with Mass. It’s to be noted, though, that this is not a church with traditional architecture. Walls are very high and very bare, allowing for this. Almost all other churches I’ve ever attended have statues, or votive candles, or pillars, or recessed areas to both sides of the sanctuary, all of which would make it clumsy to engineer such a device.

Only two or three other (similarly contemporary) churches I’ve attended would ever permit such a setup, due to shape of the nave (as wel as size), and due both to the height of the ceiling and the breadth of the wall space. In traditional church architecture the interior is elongated, and most/all parishioners are facing the altar. In some alternative architecture the interior is broad rather than long; in some cases the pews are even set up as a semicircle or close to that. Those all make sense for the use of a screen.

In the minority of these spaces where it does work, though, it’s fabulous, and absolutely the way to ensure much more vocal participation. People have a single reference point, with very large, well-spaced lettering, easily readable from the very back of the church. It’s so high that no head or body can obstruct the view. Most often the chorus and verses are displayed manually by someone assigned to do that (which is also why the words can be so large). This is so much less distracting than all the people who fumble through a missalette, never able to find the page, who must pull out reading glasses to participate, who have trouble following the verses, and who keep their faces buried low instead of raised high. The liturgy moves along way better and with far less noise when it can happen, but again, this applies to a small minority of churches.

 

[Corki]

In the minority of these spaces where it does work, though, it’s fabulous, and absolutely the way to ensure much more vocal participation. People have a single reference point, with very large, well-spaced lettering, easily readable from the very back of the church. It’s so high that no head or body can obstruct the view. Most often the chorus and verses are displayed manually by someone assigned to do that (which is also why the words can be so large). This is so much less distracting than all the people who fumble through a missalette, never able to find the page, who must pull out reading glasses to participate, who have trouble following the verses, and who keep their faces buried low instead of raised high. The liturgy moves along way better and with far less noise when it can happen, but again, this applies to a small minority of churches.

Don’t they have to project the music in huge notes? It would seem to me that even with a large screen, only a few bars of the music and words could be projected at at time.

 

[Corki]

Very well said!

However, I think congregational singing is necessary to the Liturgy because if the people really pay attention to it (and we don’t get the sloppy, theologically incorrect songs we have been fed in recent years), then we truly participate in worship. After all that is what we are there for, to worship. Unfortunately there has been too much leaning towards feel-good pat on the back music rather than really good worship music.

I don’t think “necessary” is the right word. That would imply that the Mass would not be valid or at least not licit without singing. There are many Masses where only the chior or schola sings and many parishes that have at least one music-free Mass every Sunday. Those Masses are perfectly legitimate. We can truly participate without singing - or without even speaking for that matter.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Don’t they have to project the music in huge notes? It would seem to me that even with a large screen, only a few bars of the music and words could be projected at at time.

Depends on who’s cantoring. Most often, though, the notes have been memorized by the participants because they’ve been modeled previously enough times. (Thus, only the words are displayed in most cases.) If the congregation hasn’t had the opportunity to learn the notes of the verses, then usually the chorus is pretty instantly learnable, and the cantor will sing the verses solo.

One of the cantors, if the notes are new, will display the notes large, a few lines at a time (and yes, the person who changes the pages on the screen knows when to move those pages remotely).

I have to say: I am a really, really visual person, who reads music well. It’s not that I’m not auditory, but I am so much more visual than I am auditory. Yet even I find it much more liberating not to have to read an individual “book” of music during the liturgy (concentrating on matching syllables with individual notes), and just have the tune in my head, or quite easily learn new notes (most people do, I’ve experienced, even people who do not have a musical background similar to mine). When I look at the screen I’m able to think about the words more than when I am mechanically, carefully, matching syllables to individual notes. It’s like the difference between a young child practicing phonics while reading, and really reading phrases and sentences. (Summary: when I first saw the screen, I was skeptical, wanting the visual musical notes as a crutch; I instanty became a convert to the system when I saw how successful it was for everyone – not just myself.)

If you’ve ever been to an opera which is super-titled – freeing you from having to be buried in the libretto instead of captivated by the stage – you’ll experience what I mean. It’s a world of difference. In one you are drawn into the central action. In the other, you’re competing with the central activity.

The side benefit (for those of us interested in a reverent liturgy) is the surprising quiet and focus, throughout the church, which results from having no papers, programs, and books to mess with, pick up, put down, leaf through, etc. It produces much more of a sense of community.

Again, it’s kind of a moot point for the vast majority of existing churches where such an arrangement will not be possible or smooth or non-distracting. I’m sure it’s possible to reconstruct portions of some interiors to allow for this (with additional mid-way screens for longer naves), but undoubtedly that would entail some controversy, with someone’s favorite statue, icon, etc. being removed.

 

[benedictus2]

I don’t think “necessary” is the right word. That would imply that the Mass would not be valid or at least not licit without singing. There are many Masses where only the chior or schola sings and many parishes that have at least one music-free Mass every Sunday. Those Masses are perfectly legitimate. We can truly participate without singing - or without even speaking for that matter.

Very good point! Excellent distinction with regards the word “necessary”.

The phrase should be " very helpful" or “conducive” to worship. Although people who are not into singing might not think so either.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

Now that I think about it, maybe having a projector wouldn’t be such a bad idea after all. The literacy aspect is what actually preserves a language, which is probably why Latin has succeeded in that scholars and Church documents use it, but hardly anyone holds a conversation in it. The more illiterates and half-literates you have, the faster among them the English language deteriorates, especially with its homophones, silent letters, and sometimes very awkward and horrible pronunciations by those with heavy accents. Songs are especially tough to follow. People are looking up lyrics all the time for popular tunes. And it’s tough to follow readings when you have many proper names as well. Politicians, TV commentators, and songs break grammar rules all the time, most of them don’t even complete sentences, and no one notices or seems to care. With books and newspaper articles, however, mistakes are found much quicker and therefore they are generally proofread so that they can be preserved much better. And encouraging people to read whether from a missal, their iPhones, or Microsoft Powerpoint can only improve communication and understanding, IMO. Otherwise all the predications about Modern English going the way of Old English and Middle English will come true that much faster.

Our parish has a sloping ceiling…so the words are projected on that…above the crucifix…I find I can look up quickly for the words…and then back down at the crucifix quite handily. The projector is mounted up out of sight. It is interesting that at the later Mass (less traditional) they use graphics which remain up in between the songs. At the more traditional early Mass…it’s just a simple black screen with white words and in between the songs it goes to a black screen or disappears. One thing to note…having the Latin words up there does help me to understand/learn Latin a little more when it is used…especially today when it was cantored? So I can hear how it’s supposed to be pronounced and see how it’s spelled at the same time.

As far as communion…people that want to sing…sing…and they will do that anyway. I usually do not sing before or after communion…prefering to pray. But I don’t see how sing detracts from communion…far better to concentrate on that then the back of the person in front of me…

 

[itslaylay]

Our church also has a projector with the same setup, although not anywhere near the altar or crucifix.
I’ve been to a church that had an electronic screen that folded out… pretty high tech

 

[Cat]

I’m glad to hear of Catholic churches that use projectors, powerpoints, etc. I didn’t think that this was “forbidden,” because our own dear bishop uses it, and because an august authority like Bishop Burke made use of it in his diocese.

If these orthodox men allow something, then it’s OK. I would never have the audacity to claim that they are in the wrong or that I, a mere convert, know more than they do about rubrics of the Mass.

In the oldest Catholic Church in our city, the bishop’s videos are played on a large television which is wheeled into the nave. It isn’t irreverent in any way. The nave’s interior is so ornate and decorated with sculpture, paintings, and stained-glass that a television set does not block anyone’s vision of the beauty.

In our parish, which is reasonably modern (1971), the screen is lowered from the ceiling. Nothing is blocked, because there is nothing on the walls except bricks.

We don’t use projections very often, except when the bishop has asked the parishes to play his videos. We use missallettes and hymnals in the pews.

I think that it is a very good and efficient way for the bishop to make sure that important information reaches as many Catholics in the diocese as possible. I honestly can’t think of any other way for the bishop to reach so many people as cheaply. Letters are expensive. Radio pronouncments or television broadcasts wouldn’t work, as people would switch the station and not listen. Emails would be deleted.

No, folks, this is definitely the best way to make the point to as many Catholics as possible. Those who chose to skip Mass that day–well, that’s a problem. But the majority of faithful Catholics would hear the announcement because of the projection of the video. If you want to cry out, “Irreverent,” well, tell the bishops, and at the same time, tell them your idea for communicating important information to all Catholics in a diocese.

 

[JGMendes4049]

At my church, we occasionally use the projector, but never during Mass.

 

[Sarabande]

If you’ve ever been to an opera which is super-titled – freeing you from having to be buried in the libretto instead of captivated by the stage – you’ll experience what I mean. It’s a world of difference. In one you are drawn into the central action. In the other, you’re competing with the central activity.

That’s what I dislike about most opera houses. The supertitles are usually up front so that it distracts me from actually watching the opera. I automatically look at it even if I don’t want to. (Sort of like putting in the subtitles for a movie in the language you actually speak, but you can’t help but look at the words even if you can understand them.) I prefer the way they have it at the Met where it is behind each seat. It’s like having a book down on your lap in a way and you can choose to look at it or not.

I prefer to read the music right in front of me. I don’t like anything too far away and even if I know the melody, I still prefer to have the music right there with me. I personally feel stifled without the music if I have only the words to read. Strange how it works differently for people. Now, to have it all memorized without the words or the music to look at is the most liberating.

That all said, I can see how a projector could work with a newer building which may not be as traditional aesthetically-speaking, so you can get away with putting something like that in there without it looking totally out of place. The older ones I’ve been to that have incorporated it doesn’t work at all, IMO.

 

[benedictgal]

That’s what I dislike about most opera houses. The supertitles are usually up front so that it distracts me from actually watching the opera. I automatically look at it even if I don’t want to. (Sort of like putting in the subtitles for a movie in the language you actually speak, but you can’t help but look at the words even if you can understand them.) I prefer the way they have it at the Met where it is behind each seat. It’s like having a book down on your lap in a way and you can choose to look at it or not.

I prefer to read the music right in front of me. I don’t like anything too far away and even if I know the melody, I still prefer to have the music right there with me. I personally feel stifled without the music if I have only the words to read. Strange how it works differently for people. Now, to have it all memorized without the words or the music to look at is the most liberating.

That all said, I can see how a projector could work with a newer building which may not be as traditional aesthetically-speaking, so you can get away with putting something like that in there without it looking totally out of place. The older ones I’ve been to that have incorporated it doesn’t work at all, IMO.

But, the next step in the progression of projectors might very well lead to a power-point presentation during the homily. It is a slippery slope and a scary one.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

But, the next step in the progression of projectors might very well lead to a power-point presentation during the homily. It is a slippery slope and a scary one.

Why is that so scary? I’ve seen it done…well not a whole power point presentation but pictures that show where Jesus was walking through at the time. Sometimes it helps put the context of the gospel together.

 

[Bluegoat]

Slippery slope arguments are not usually very convincing.

 

[pnewton]

Why is that so scary? I’ve seen it done…well not a whole power point presentation but pictures that show where Jesus was walking through at the time. Sometimes it helps put the context of the gospel together.

Perhaps the concern is that powerpoint presentations will result in extended homilies. :bigyikes:

 

[Elizabeth502]

That all said, I can see how a projector could work with a newer building which may not be as traditional aesthetically-speaking, so you can get away with putting something like that in there without it looking totally out of place. The older ones I’ve been to that have incorporated it doesn’t work at all, IMO.

That’s believable to me, as I mentioned a few times (about older buildings). The shape is even more important than the interior details, because width and height (as opposed to length) is what is important in making this work.

As to your stated comfort with individual programs, , trust me: it works way better not to have people relying on individual pieces of music – both those who do know music & those who don’t. Think about it: the “pages” are turned for you; your eyes follow far more easily; your head is up, not buried. Nothing in your hands; no impediment to reading & following. The three added benefits are that people sing more in unison (timing and note-wise), the endings and beginnings are cleaner because eyes are turned toward the leader or cantor, and the congregation is oriented to the altar.

Again, I’m a convert to this format. I’m a traditionalist who came kicking and screaming.

 

[Sarabande]

Perhaps the concern is that powerpoint presentations will result in extended homilies. :bigyikes:

For me, it’s more like a reminder of work in the corporate world rather than going to church. My mind automatically turns off when I see a powerpoint presentation. Powerpoint presentation, no matter how interesting they try to make it equals :yawn: unfortunately. The only times I ever paid attention to it was if it was important for a test. Otherwise, I’d just read up on the stuff by myself when I can concentrate better.

But, the next step in the progression of projectors might very well lead to a power-point presentation during the homily. It is a slippery slope and a scary one.

The only reason why I think the projectors would work in a newer building is because usually those newer buildings are more modern and simplistic in terms of having the appearance of any other corporate-like building, that those projectors and power-point presentations would fit right in. Also, the projectors will be less-likely to cover anything up.

I personally am not a fan of many things “corporate”… not just in the business world sense. But then again, I’m an introvert and fairly individualistic… for good or bad… I admit that this is probably part of the reason why I usually don’t care for things like projectors in the secular world (such as when I attend operas) as well as for mass. That’s just me. I’ve tended to do things my own way as long as it wasn’t immoral or wrong. Again… that’s just me and it’s probably why I prefer masses which are more “traditional” in general. I’d even be happy to not have microphones, especially for the cantors - speaking as a cantor and a professional singer. (Some churches I attend or have worked in don’t have mics - of course they are either small in which they aren’t needed or old/large and have great acoustics.) Of course, that would also mean that cantors would have to have actual training in voice so that they could project well and lectors and priests would have to learn the art of speaking without a mic as well, which I think is much more of a lost art than singing. But that’s all for a different thread.