projector screen to display text hymns?

[boatbearer]

Some places (like Saint Pat’s in NYC) have CCTV’s throughout so you can even see what’s going on in the sanctuary. Some of those old buildings are so long with such horrid sight lines that you can’t even see the sanctuary without the CCTV’s.

I guess that’s OK because it’s not in the sanctuary?

 

[Cat]

Because in a properly-constructed Catholic Church, the screen would be covering up the crucifix and the statues of Mary and Joseph, or else if it’s down lower than them, it would be covering up the Tabernacle and the Altar.

So you’re saying that our church is not a “properly-constructed Catholic Church.” I missed your visit. Next time you visit, give me a PM and we can meet you for lunch.

 

[Cat]

With good leadership from the choir, people shouldn’t need “lyrics” to follow. They should be able to hear and follow along with the choir. If the choir is in the habit of springing unknown songs on to the congregation on a regular basis, then they need to break that habit, and get back to the well-known hymns. Likewise, if they are in the habit of mumbling. Just IMHO.

This is not true. Many people, and I’m one of them, can’t remember lyrics even to songs that we’ve sung all our lives.

And many churches, including ours, have such abysmally-poor sound systems or acoustics that anything the choir sings is gibberish. Perhaps these churches decided that having a good sound system makes their church seem more like a conference hall or theater, and so they stick with an inadequate sound system that is better suited to a child’s playroom.

Honestly people, anything that makes the Gospel more clear and easy-to-hear is a GOOD thing, not a bad thing! Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God. I predict that in the very near future, you will see more screens and more projections of words to hymns, even Biblical texts, and homily outlines (done by computer, not projector). There is absolutely nothing irreverent about actually being able to read and hear the Mass. There is much that is wrong with being unable to find the hymn or reading in a missallette, being unable to hear or understand the priest (many are not from the United States), or being unable to understand the choir.

You have to understand that as more and more Protestants are attracted back to the Catholic Church by the Holy Spirit–and this is a good thing, right?–they will be trying to figure out what’s going on. Many Protestants know NOTHING about Catholicism. For that matter, there are many people in the U.S. who have never attended any church of any denomination, and are investigating Catholicism because the Holy Spirit has brought them there. Modern technology will help them to know what’s going on and what’s being said and sung. That’s a good thing. It is happening. Right now it’s a small trickle or stream, but I think that within the next ten years, we will literally see a flood of non-Catholics visiting Mass. My husband and I still read several Protestant magazines and denominational papers, and we see the signs–an increased willingness on the part of Protestants to accept Catholic practices and the Catholic Church as “Christian” (this was NOT the case when we were younger), and a hunger on the part of Protestants for deeper teachings, not fluff and stuff.

This whole thread has a very strange feeling to me. One of the reasons my husband and I love the Catholic Church is that the Church recognizes and sanctifies the human body and ALL of our senses. The Mass appeals to all of our senses, even our sense of smell. *And the reason for the ornateness of the ancient Catholic Churches was to communicate the Gospel to those who could not read, or to those who could understand the priest (Latin text). Isn’t that what a projection has the potential to do–communicate the Gospel? *

Our humanness is not considered “sinful” by the Catholic Church, as it often is in evangelical Protestant denominations (the “pietist” movement). Yet, in this thread, we are being told that somehow, it is “wrong” or “irreverent” for human beings to be able to use our EYES to clearly see words that are part of the Mass. I don’t get this at all. If it is wrong to use a projection as a tool to communicate the Gospel, then it is wrong to use statuary and other artwork as a tool to communicate the Gospel. This thread smacks of pietism and legalism to me.

 

[ProVobis]

This whole thread has a very strange feeling to me. One of the reasons my husband and I love the Catholic Church is that the Church recognizes and sanctifies the human body and ALL of our senses. The Mass appeals to all of our senses, even our sense of smell.

But aren’t these self-serving reasons?

Would you have converted had the Church required Latin in all the liturgies? Or pipe organs in every Church? Gregorian chant? Abstinence from meat on all Fridays? Its traditional fastings throughout the entire year? Three-hour fasting for communion? Strict enforcement of anti-birth control? Head-coverings?

From what you have written on this forum, it appears not.

 

[jmcrae]

Actually you didn’t “give up.” You took another shot or two at my postings…

90%? Where did you get that number?

I would guess that at least 90% (it’s probably closer to 100%) of the parishes in my diocese have enough money for such a system – if they wanted and understood such a system.

Have you any idea the cost of bringing a multimedia professional on staff? (Assuming we’re not going with the Paddy the caretaker version … ) This isn’t a $5.00 an hour job that you can give to one of the teenagers on a part-time basis. Most parishes that I know of are trying to cut staff - not add on someone really expensive to do with technology what the average person can do manually, for free. That’s not even taking into account the total redesign of structural walls, to incorporate the technology into the building - new wiring, computers, and the screens themselves.

 

[boatbearer]

Have you any idea the cost of bringing a multimedia professional on staff? (Assuming we’re not going with the Paddy the caretaker version … ) This isn’t a $5.00 an hour job that you can give to one of the teenagers on a part-time basis. Most parishes that I know of are trying to cut staff - not add on someone really expensive to do with technology what the average person can do manually, for free. That’s not even taking into account the total redesign of structural walls, to incorporate the technology into the building - new wiring, computers, and the screens themselves.

• We don’t pay a “multimedia professional on staff” We paid someone to set it up. At least I think we paid. That might have been donated as well. Volunteers prepare it for each Sunday or each special Mass. It’s not brain surgery to prepare what amounts to some very simple/clean/subdued/static/silent Powerpoint slides.

FWIW, any student from across the street at the HS could EASILY prepare the slides each week.

• No need to “cut” staff when most of it works for nothing as they do here.
• There was no “total redesign of structural walls.” That’s silly.
• One computer. The wiring is fairly trivial. The two panels were about the only real expense.

OK, try again…

 

[choy]

in my experience in the Philippines, its usually a member of the choir who runs the projector, since mostly its song lyrics that are projected anyways. sometimes theres a dedicated volunteer who puts up the songs as well as the responses which would include the Psalms

 

[Cat]

But aren’t these self-serving reasons?

Would you have converted had the Church required Latin in all the liturgies? Or pipe organs in every Church? Gregorian chant? Abstinence from meat on all Fridays? Its traditional fastings throughout the entire year? Three-hour fasting for communion? Strict enforcement of anti-birth control? Head-coverings?

From what you have written on this forum, it appears not.

Self-serving? So do you think that the beautiful artwork in many Catholic churches has to go so that there is no possibiliy of an appeal to human vanity? Should the Church cover the ceiling of the Cistine Chapel so that there is no possibility that men will glorify the artist more than the Creator?

I see nothing self-serving about wanting to see and hear Jesus as He works through His priest and His servants during the Mass.

ProVobis, it is the Holy Spirit who worked in us to lead us to the Truth of the Catholic Church.

We recognized Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament and wanted Him.

We studied the history of the Catholic Church and recognized that this was truly the Church that Jesus Christ founded and that the apostles were given authority over on this earth, and that the authority has been transmitted to successors through the centuries, right up through today and Pope Benedict XVI.

Both of us had the typical extensive evangelical Protestant knowledge of the Bible (Old and New Testaments), and as we learned more about the Catholic Church and Her teachings, we were able to see that the Catholic Church was more Biblical than any Protestant church that we had ever encountered. In fact, we finally understood some of the confusing passages in the Bible in the light of the Catholic Church.

We spent three years attending Mass as Protestants and studying the Catholic Church, reading the Catechism, reading through the Catholic version of the Bible, especially the Deuterocanonicals, and attending several Catholic Family Conferences and other retreats. We read as many of the books by the modern Catholic apologists (Tim Staples, Scott Hahn, etc.) that we could find, and my husband listened to quite a few CD sets by these men and women on his daily commute to work, and then taught me what he had learned.

After these three years of study, the Holy Spirit gave both my husband and me–separately, BTW–a very clear message–“If you do not convert, you will go to hell because you will have rejected Jesus. The Catholic Church is the Church of Jesus Christ and if you are truly His disciples, you will become part of His Body.”

BOTH of us heard the Holy Spirit speaking this message. And both of us made the decision to convert.

I honestly don’t think that the various ancient traditions would have stopped the Holy Spirit from working in us, and I don’t think they would have stopped us from converting… After all, people converted to Catholicism from Protestantism before Vatican II, didn’t they?

And ProVobis, the evangelical Protestant church is full of rules and traditions, many of which are quite burdensome, much more so than wearing a veil (for a short while, we attended a Protestant church in which headcoverings were required for women) or speaking in a foreign language (my husband grew up in an Assemblies of God Church in which only those who spoke in tongues were considered “baptized in the Holy Spirit”–all others were less spiritual), or abstinence from meat (as you know, many evangelical Protestants abstain not only from alcohol, but from caffeine, sugar, and any form of overeating or overindulgence in food or drink–I had evangelical Protestant friends who grew all their own food because they knew that it would be 'pure."), or a three-hour fast (I knew Protestants who attempted to fast for 40 days like Jesus).

Oh, you haven’t seen “rules” and disciplines until you’ve known some of the very strictest of the evangelical Protestants! These people consider Catholicism a lackadaisical religion that doesn’t require anything of its people other than an hour-long Mass once a week. Big deal. The typical evangelical Protestant worship service lasts at least two hours, and at least half of that is sermon.

Most of these evangelical Protestant “rules” are not written down, and are learned only through constant association with evangelicals. We all knew the rules, and if we wanted acceptance in our churches and among our evangelical friends, we didn’t break those rules because then we would be shunned and to an evangelical Protestant, that is unbearable because to evangelicals, Christ isn’t Present in the crackers and grape juice–He is only Present in other Christians, and if other Christians will have nothing to do with us, we have lost Jesus.

I do think that the use of Latin in Mass would make it more difficult for evangelical Protestants to become interested in the Catholic Church because one of the biggest tenants of evangelicalism is total understanding of the Gospel. That’s one reason why there is a great deal of simplification of the Gospel message in evangelical denominations–they want all people to be able to understand and respond to Jesus. And that’s one reason why so many evangelical churches are opposed to the charismatic movement–they take seriously the words of St. Paul in I Corinthians 14 about speaking in words that people can understand. Evangelical Protestants are tend to be rather suspicious of things that are obscure, mystical, or in any way ritualistic (even though evangelical Protestants have their own “rituals” in and out of church.

 

[FAB]

De Musica Sacra de Musica Liturgia
Sacred Congregation for Rites - September 3, 1958

1. 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.

The post VII document:

SECOND VATICAN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL MUSICAM SACRAM INSTRUCTION ON MUSIC IN
THE LITURGY. Given 5 March, 1967

doesn’t contain the same restriction. I would assume that as the more resent document it trumps the previous.

Peace,
FAB

 

[Canto]

The post VII document: doesn’t contain the same restriction. I would assume that as the more resent document it trumps the previous.

Peace,
FAB

Musicam Sacram does not say words to the effect of “The use of any kind of projector is now allowed…” The fact that it does not re-state or deal with the old restriction does not mean it has been given the boot.

 

[FAB]

Musicam Sacram does not say words to the effect of “The use of any kind of projector is now allowed…” The fact that it does not re-state or deal with the old restriction does not mean it has been given the boot.

I would disagree. Over the past 40 years, canon law has changed. There are sections which were revised omited and some added. By reasoning if the canon does not specifically say not to do something or somethng is allowed that was previously permitted, then we are to follow the previous rule. We know that is not the case. We instead use the latest document that has been issued. The 1958 document is not doctrine, it falls under the guideline in the church of a displinary document which gives instructions. It could be be changed at any time and was, 9 years later.

Peace,
FAB

 

[benedictgal]

I would disagree. Over the past 40 years, canon law has changed. There are sections which were revised omited and some added. By reasoning if the canon does not specifically say not to do something or somethng is allowed that was previously permitted, then we are to follow the previous rule. We know that is not the case. We instead use the latest document that has been issued. The 1958 document is not doctrine, it falls under the guideline in the church of a displinary document which gives instructions. It could be be changed at any time and was, 9 years later.

Peace,
FAB

FAB, just because something isn’t contained, does not mean that the prohibition is gone. For example, as late as 2003, during an FDLC conference that I attended, Msgr. Moroney, then seceretary to the Bishops Committee on Liturgy, told us that taped music was prohibited for use in the Mass. So, your argument, with all due respect, does not necessarily hold water.

 

[FAB]

FAB, just because something isn’t contained, does not mean that the prohibition is gone. For example, as late as 2003, during an FDLC conference that I attended, Msgr. Moroney, then seceretary to the Bishops Committee on Liturgy, told us that taped music was prohibited for use in the Mass. So, your argument, with all due respect, does not necessarily hold water.

Beebictgal:
An update Issued by USCCB, November 14, 2007
Copyright © 2007, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. All rights reserved.
Sing to the Lord:
Music in Divine Worship

Recorded Music
93. Recorded music lacks the authenticity provided by a living liturgical assembly
gathered for the Sacred Liturgy. While recorded music might be used advantageously outside the Liturgy as an aid in the teaching of new music, it should not, as a general norm, be used within the Liturgy.
94. Some exceptions to this principle should be noted. Recorded music may be used to
accompany the community’s song during a procession outside and, when used carefully, in Masses with children. Occasionally, it might be used as an aid to prayer, for example, during long periods of silence in a communal celebration of reconciliation. However, recorded music should never become a substitute for the community’s singing.

Personally I am not fond of projectors being used in the mass. But other than the 1958 document , and understanding the changes made through VII as well as the wide spread use of such equipment or similar equipment, I would say my aurgument does hold water. If there is something post VII that expresses the same restriction, I would be happy to accept it and even embrace it so I would have an aurgument against it being used into my parish.

Peace,
FAB

 

[benedictgal]

Beebictgal:
An update Issued by USCCB, November 14, 2007
Copyright © 2007, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. All rights reserved.
Sing to the Lord:
Music in Divine Worship

Personally I am not fond of projectors being used in the mass. But other than the 1958 document , and understanding the changes made through VII as well as the wide spread use of such equipment or similar equipment, I would say my aurgument does hold water. If there is something post VII that expresses the same restriction, I would be happy to accept it and even embrace it so I would have an aurgument against it being used into my parish.

Peace,
FAB

SttL is not a bnding document, FAB. It failed to get the necessary 2/3 vote of the Latin Rite bishops in order for it to be sent to Rome for the required recognitio. In fact, there are some portions of SttL that contradict the authoritative documents of the Holy See, especiallyi when it comes to the Agnus Dei.

It has no more regulatory power than its predecessor.

 

[ProVobis]

But other than the 1958 document , and understanding the** changes made through VII **as well as the wide spread use of such equipment or similar equipment, I would say my aurgument does hold water.

What changes were made through VII that specifically superceded the 1958 document?

 

[jmcrae]

I would disagree. Over the past 40 years, canon law has changed. There are sections which were revised omited and some added.

Do you know of anything specific, relating to the use of projection systems, or are you just speaking generally?

 

[angelic06]

I think the problem isn’t buying hymnals, but always having to replace the hymnals that disappear. As far as copyright infringement, it’s not much of a concern in my wife’s country. On just about any street corner you can buy pirated copies of movies that haven’t even been released yet.

On the topic of movies—you can get those off of YouTube as well as Google Video, some of which is feeded from YouTube, for free.

Now, as for projectors in church, well almost every Catholic church I’ve been going to before moving to San Antonio used them: first my parish church in my hometown, which eventually gave way to hymnal usage, then another church in the same diocese but different city—as far as I know, they still use projectors. I didn’t know any document prohibited it until a few minutes ago.

 

[FAB]

SttL is not a bnding document, FAB. It failed to get the necessary 2/3 vote of the Latin Rite bishops in order for it to be sent to Rome for the required recognitio. In fact, there are some portions of SttL that contradict the authoritative documents of the Holy See, especiallyi when it comes to the Agnus Dei.

It has no more regulatory power than its predecessor.

Oh that’s right you don’t recongized the authorty of the USCCB.

Peace,
FAB

 

[FAB]

Do you know of anything specific, relating to the use of projection systems, or are you just speaking generally?

Gernally speaking, a later document issued on the same subject or instructions usually superseds the previous unless the later document specifically calls for the previous document to remain in effect.
Peace,
FAB

 

[jmcrae]

Gernally speaking, a later document issued on the same subject or instructions usually superseds the previous unless the later document specifically calls for the previous document to remain in effect.
Peace,
FAB

Right.

So, is there a later document?