projector screen to display text hymns?

[FAB]

Right.

So, is there a later document?

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

Peace,
FAB

 

[Canto]

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

I’m sure Benedictgal does recognise their authority, but they aren’t inffalible. The relevant document didn’t get the required number of votes nor recognitio from the Vatican. Thus it is not an authoritive document and cannot override what the Vatican has said.

 

[benedictgal]

I’m sure Benedictgal does recognise their authority, but they aren’t inffalible. The relevant document didn’t get the required number of votes nor recognitio from the Vatican. Thus it is not an authoritive document and cannot override what the Vatican has said.

You are right, Canto. Inasmuch as I do recognize and respect the USCCB (and, I challenge anyone to specifically find a post where I said I did not), the document in question did not get the required 2/3 vote so that it could be sent to Rome for the recognitio. A lower body cannot overrule and override what the higher authority has decreed.

Sing to the Lord is not a binding document. Nor is the document that it replaced, namely Music in Catholic Worship. While it makes some suggestions, and some very good ones especially where things like weddings are concerned, it also contradicts what is found in the authoritative documents of the Holy See, especially the part concerning the tropes for the Agnus Dei.

Oddly enough, even the section FAB posted from SttL does not make his point. The prohibition remains that recorded music is not allowed for the Mass. The one exception came for Masses with children and even that is found in the Directory for Masses with Children as promulgated by the Holy See. His post did not even reference projector screens.

 

[benedictgal]

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

But, no such document from the Holy See has come out completely abrogating what is found in De Musica Sacra. With all due respect, FAB, you really have proven nothing.

 

[FAB]

But, no such document from the Holy See has come out completely abrogating what is found in De Musica Sacra. With all due respect, FAB, you really have proven nothing.

Benedictgal,
I work with codes and ordiances which are updated on a regular basis. Many times there entire sections eliminate. Because thosesections are not in the updated document does not mean that that one goes to the previous document and say that section is still in effect.
The 1958 document appears to be replaced by the document 9 years later written after VII and the introduction of the OF of the mass.The later document only refers to the earlier one once and not on this subject. Since both document are on the same subject, music in the mass, an assumtion can be made that the later document is the one to be followed.

As far as the USCCB document, most of these are written to clarify a vatican document. The one from 2007 allows the use of recorded music in some cases.

My other augument that the 1958 document is no longer in effect is that itt is not being enforced. the use of projectors, TV’s etc are then left in the hands of the local ordinary. They have also been in use for decades.

Peace,
FAB

 

[Kat127]

One thing I think has been overlooked in this discussion is the fact that a lot of the faithful having vision and hearing problems. I am practically deaf and have been for most of my life. I can tell you right now the idea of a projector would be god-send for me.

I do my best to follow in the missal and to memorize what is going on. But you normally have to flip back and forth between pages and oftentimes there are multiple options for what the priest might be saying. Sometimes I just give up because I feel I am spending too much time trying to “keep up” rather than focus on God and the Holy Sacrifice. I normally can’t follow along with the singing because either I cannot figure out where in the song we are or I miss the hymnal number (and you’d be amazed how often they don’t update the little board that is suppose to tell you the hymnal number- and I have attended MANY Churches in my life).

Now all of these things are my personal problems. They are things I need to continue to find ways to deal with. I just try to do my best and hope God forgives me when I become frustrated during Mass. But in light of my experience, I hope you all can understand why I find your complaints about how distracting it would be rather petty.

I was taught that it was our responsibility to keep ourselves focused during mass regardless of what distractions are plaguing us. So don’t advocate to take something away that may help people more fully participate in mass merely because it requires you to have more discipline in mass.

I am sorry if I sound harsh and I don’t mean to hurt anyone’s feelings but I think this is a point that needs to be considered.

Kat

 

[benedictgal]

Benedictgal,
I work with codes and ordiances which are updated on a regular basis. Many times there entire sections eliminate. Because thosesections are not in the updated document does not mean that that one goes to the previous document and say that section is still in effect.
The 1958 document appears to be replaced by the document 9 years later written after VII and the introduction of the OF of the mass.The later document only refers to the earlier one once and not on this subject. Since both document are on the same subject, music in the mass, an assumtion can be made that the later document is the one to be followed.

As far as the USCCB document, most of these are written to clarify a vatican document. The one from 2007 allows the use of recorded music in some cases.

My other augument that the 1958 document is no longer in effect is that itt is not being enforced. the use of projectors, TV’s etc are then left in the hands of the local ordinary. They have also been in use for decades.

Peace,
FAB

But, it still does not make your point, FAB. Incidentally, I, too, have worked with codes, ordinances and legislation, having written some bills that actually became law.

Just because something has been “used for decades” does not necessarily make that licit, FAB.

 

[Cat]

One thing I think has been overlooked in this discussion is the fact that a lot of the faithful having vision and hearing problems. I am practically deaf and have been for most of my life. I can tell you right now the idea of a projector would be god-send for me.

I do my best to follow in the missal and to memorize what is going on. But you normally have to flip back and forth between pages and oftentimes there are multiple options for what the priest might be saying. Sometimes I just give up because I feel I am spending too much time trying to “keep up” rather than focus on God and the Holy Sacrifice. I normally can’t follow along with the singing because either I cannot figure out where in the song we are or I miss the hymnal number (and you’d be amazed how often they don’t update the little board that is suppose to tell you the hymnal number- and I have attended MANY Churches in my life).

Now all of these things are my personal problems. They are things I need to continue to find ways to deal with. I just try to do my best and hope God forgives me when I become frustrated during Mass. But in light of my experience, I hope you all can understand why I find your complaints about how distracting it would be rather petty.

I was taught that it was our responsibility to keep ourselves focused during mass regardless of what distractions are plaguing us. So don’t advocate to take something away that may help people more fully participate in mass merely because it requires you to have more discipline in mass.

I am sorry if I sound harsh and I don’t mean to hurt anyone’s feelings but I think this is a point that needs to be considered.

Kat

Bless your heart, Kat127!

I think this is probably the main reason that projections will become the norm in even the most traditional of Masses–to help those who are older and/or those who have various physical limitations. People are living longer lives now, much longer than they lived back in 1958. And older folks are getting around more and actually attending Mass rather than sitting at home shut-in due to disabilities. I see more and more people using walking aids (canes, walkers, motorized chairs, scooters, braces, wraps, etc.)–this is the current thinking in medicine–do what you can to remain as mobile as possible for the sake of your overall health.

Modern “conveniences” are not moral or immoral–they are amoral. Some of you attach various evil or worldly connotations to these communication devices, but many of us don’t. To us, they are merely aids to helping us receive information, no different than amplified sound or an electric organ. There is no irreverence in looking at words on a screen or a PDA rather than a missal or having them memorized.

 

[FAB]

But, it still does not make your point, FAB. Incidentally, I, too, have worked with codes, ordinances and legislation, having written some bills that actually became law.

Just because something has been “used for decades” does not necessarily make that licit, FAB.

Benedictgal:
I’m on your side with this, but a 52 year old pre VII document just does’t do it.
I am the Director of Liturgy and Music at my church. Recorded music is not used, but my pastor wants to us a larger variety of music than what is avaiable in our OCP hymnals. His solution is to install projectors or flat screen TV’s, pay the appropriate copy rights and put the words up far all to see. His previous church has a similar system. We are doing it now to a limited extent at our once a month youth mass.
I am against the idea, but his augument to me would be the same I have given to you, prove that we can’ t do it.
I have tried to do some research on the issue and the document you sight only came up on one conservative traditional site and does not come up on the vatican site site.

Peace,
FAB

 

[ProVobis]

I was taught that it was our responsibility to keep ourselves focused during mass regardless of what distractions are plaguing us. So don’t advocate to take something away that may help people more fully participate in mass merely because it requires you to have more discipline in mass.

The reality is that it can be very distracting, especially to those who are set in their ways of praying. While what you advocate may be practical, you need to look at whether this is self-serving or whether this is done for the better glory of God. It is all about the intent, not rationalizations, and placing unnecessary distractions can be sinful, especially if it provides others possible reasons to stay away from Mass altogether. I know I wouldn’t want someone else’s staying away on my conscience.

 

[Kat127]

The reality is that it can be very distracting, especially to those who are set in their ways of praying. While what you advocate may be practical, you need to look at whether this is self-serving or whether this is done for the better glory of God. It is all about the intent, not rationalizations, and placing unnecessary distractions can be sinful, especially if it provides others possible reasons to stay away from Mass altogether. I know I wouldn’t want that on my conscience.

I see your point but I think you are missing mine. I am not unaware that by making some lives easier others will be a little harder. But I think it is a matter of balance. For the disable the benefits are huge, while having to learn to ignore a distraction is relatively minor.

Look at the words you used “those who are set in their ways of praying” you are basically saying some people are so stubborn they aren’t going to handle this well so those of you that have learn to handle this should just leave well enough alone. I figured out a way to participate in Mass despite not hearing and you are honestly going to tell me people cannot overcome the distraction of seeing words on a screen?

We learn to ignore the cute child sitting ahead of us that is making goofy faces. We learn to ignore the person down the pew that is tapping their foot and making the whole pew shake. We learn to ignore cell phones ringing or a crying child. I think we can handle ignoring something that benefits people.

Some people might stop attending mass but some might stay or attend again because this helps them. Is it self-serving? Perhaps, but how is saying “I don’t want it because I might lose focus” not self-serving?

Kat

 

[Kat127]

Bless your heart, Kat127!

I think this is probably the main reason that projections will become the norm in even the most traditional of Masses–to help those who are older and/or those who have various physical limitations. People are living longer lives now, much longer than they lived back in 1958. And older folks are getting around more and actually attending Mass rather than sitting at home shut-in due to disabilities. I see more and more people using walking aids (canes, walkers, motorized chairs, scooters, braces, wraps, etc.)–this is the current thinking in medicine–do what you can to remain as mobile as possible for the sake of your overall health.

Modern “conveniences” are not moral or immoral–they are amoral. Some of you attach various evil or worldly connotations to these communication devices, but many of us don’t. To us, they are merely aids to helping us receive information, no different than amplified sound or an electric organ. There is no irreverence in looking at words on a screen or a PDA rather than a missal or having them memorized.

I agree! Thank you for saying something. You have no idea how nervous I was to submit my post. It just seems like no one ever wants to talk about these problems.

 

[Digitonomy]

While what you advocate may be practical, you need to look at whether this is self-serving or whether this is done for the better glory of God.

It seems a little uncharitable to imply that Kat127’s intent may be selfish rather than for the glory of God, and then to lay at her doorstep the sin of driving others away from mass.

ProVobis:

placing unnecessary distractions can be sinful, especially if it provides others possible reasons to stay away from Mass altogether. I know I wouldn’t want someone else’s staying away on my conscience.

Unfortunately, we have probably all played a part in people staying away from mass. The use of more or less traditional hymns, the use of incense or lack thereof, being too friendly to fellow parishioners at mass, or not friendly enough - there will always be people who are annoyed or offended, and with enough such prodding will avoid that mass, or even masses altogether. We can certainly take such things into consideration in deciding our actions, but I don’t think we can call an act sinful unless driving away the faithful was the intent of the act.

 

[ProVobis]

Look at the words you used “those who are set in their ways of praying” you are basically saying some people are so stubborn they aren’t going to handle this well so those of you that have learn to handle this should just leave well enough alone.

I see how my words could have been twisted. There is such a thing as custom, which is protected by canon law. Basically, you have absolutely no right to change local custom to suit your agenda, though I admit, your ideas may have some pastoral value.

We learn to ignore the cute child sitting ahead of us that is making goofy faces. We learn to ignore the person down the pew that is tapping their foot and making the whole pew shake.

We have for thousands of years. Nothing new there. Shouldn’t affect custom.

We learn to ignore cell phones ringing or a crying child.

A little bit different there. We’re specifically asked to shut them off and this goes beyond church sometimes. That’s bothersome.

I think we can handle ignoring something that benefits people.

It’s not for you and me to decide what benefits everyone, distracts no one, and acceptable to everyone, is it? If the bishop orders it, then we have to accept it and that’s that. But in our discussions, we seemed to have lost that basic principle. You and I don’t run the church or decide what to do with collections. However, there’s nothing to stop you from making suggestions to your pastor or bishop, but do realize, a lot of others are making suggestions too.

Some people might stop attending mass but some might stay or attend again because this helps them. Is it self-serving? Perhaps, but how is saying “I don’t want it because I might lose focus” not self-serving?

I see your point. But when you go out of your way to shoot a cap gun or chew gum in church, for example, to make your point really worshipping? What are YOUR motives in coming to church at all? To give greater glory to God or feel good about convincing everyone to do it your way?

For 20 years, I couldn’t convince my father to use a computer even though he was intrigued by the internet and emails and all that. I even bought one for him which I had to return. That’s the way people are and we must accept that fact. I believe that’s the way the Church wants us to accept things as well.

 

[ProVobis]

I don’t think we can call an act sinful unless driving away the faithful was the intent of the act.

Thanks for the clarification. But I’m not going to say it’s not sinful if my intentions are good because that’ll might force me into making rationalizations. I need to be sincere.

 

[jmcrae]

Thanks for the clarification. But I’m not going to say it’s not sinful if my intentions are good because that’ll might force me into making rationalizations. I need to be sincere.

I wouldn’t quit going to Mass, but I think it would be really sad if we got rid of Mary and Joseph to the left and right of the Altar, and replace them with PowerPoint screens. Something of the reverent atmosphere of the Church space would be lost, I think - people would feel like they were at a business meeting, or in school, rather than at worship.

 

[snowbee]

The Asian community at our church bought a projector screen for use in our masses. The youth mass now uses it as well. I don’t like it because my eyes are then glued way above the choir loft to the right of the altar. I miss the entrance processional, and everything else because of the placement.
Also, they use songs that aren’t even or don’t tell us where they are in the missal and just say find the words on the screen for their contemporary music.

 

[Kat127]

I see how my words could have been twisted. There is such a thing as custom, which is protected by canon law. Basically, you have absolutely no right to change local custom to suit your agenda, though I admit, your ideas may have some pastoral value.

We have for thousands of years. Nothing new there. Shouldn’t affect custom.

A little bit different there. We’re specifically asked to shut them off and this goes beyond church sometimes. That’s bothersome.

It’s not for you and me to decide what benefits everyone, distracts no one, and acceptable to everyone, is it? If the bishop orders it, then we have to accept it and that’s that. But in our discussions, we seemed to have lost that basic principle. You and I don’t run the church or decide what to do with collections. However, there’s nothing to stop you from making suggestions to your pastor or bishop, but do realize, a lot of others are making suggestions too.

I see your point. But when you go out of your way to shoot a cap gun or chew gum in church, for example, to make your point really worshipping? What are YOUR motives in coming to church at all? To give greater glory to God or feel good about convincing everyone to do it your way?

For 20 years, I couldn’t convince my father to use a computer even though he was intrigued by the internet and emails and all that. I even bought one for him which I had to return. That’s the way people are and we must accept that fact. I believe that’s the way the Church wants us to accept things as well.

I 100% agree with you that if the Church Authorities say “no” that is the end of the story. It is their responsibility to look out for the welfare of the entire community. If they say it is too distracting, or disrupts the Mass I would never dream of complaining.

But it seems to me a lot of posters on this thread were objecting to screens already in place in the Churches. Oftentimes, it seemed they were saying either outright or through implication that there is no or little value to the screens. Hearing them complain about distractions when I knew how valuable such a thing would be to me and to others in the Church…well it hit a nerve. I probably could have made my point in a more diplomatic way.

I never made the claim the screen “benefits everyone, distracts no one, and is acceptable to everyone.” In fact, I would claim it benefits a few, distracts a lot and is acceptable with grumbling at best. But I maintain the benefits to those few are so large that is seems unkind to argue against it merely because it is distracting.

If the Church says no, that’s the end of it. If the Church allows it, please find a better reason to argue against it than “it is distracting” because it really does help some people.

Kat

 

[Cat]

You know, I find bathrooms in church distracting. I come to church to worship, not to do physical acts with my animal parts that often smell bad or sound funny. When I see a bathroom in a church, it distracts me from worshipping because I think of these things and then I can’t concentrate on worshipping God. And I find it very distracting when someone has to get up in the middle of Mass and go to the bathroom. I think bathrooms should not be allowed in churches. After all, there were no bathrooms in churches back in the early days of the Church. For that matter, I think that everyone should just hold it in at Mass–we shouldn’t pamper or bodies. Those who can’t wait can just stay home and do their acts somewhere besides during Mass.

Everyone, you know I’m kidding, right? Try telling a woman who is nine months pregnant to just “hold it in.” Or an elderly woman with a spasmatic bladder. Or a man with an enlarged prostate. Or a little child who is just learning to be potty trained.

To me, this is what the arguments against the modern communication devices sound like. We’re human beings with human limitations. We need bathrooms, sometimes in the middle of Mass. We are blessed to live in a time when bathrooms are so nice and clean and convenient! And I see no harm with using modern communication devices in Mass to help us see, hear, and fully understand what is going on. We are blessed to live in such wonderful times when these devices are available.

 

[jmcrae]

You know, I find bathrooms in church distracting. I come to church to worship, not to do physical acts with my animal parts that often smell bad or sound funny. When I see a bathroom in a church, it distracts me from worshipping because I think of these things and then I can’t concentrate on worshipping God. And I find it very distracting when someone has to get up in the middle of Mass and go to the bathroom. I think bathrooms should not be allowed in churches. After all, there were no bathrooms in churches back in the early days of the Church.

They had indoor plumbing in Roman times - what makes you think the houses where Mass was held weren’t equipped with bathrooms?

They don’t typically install the bathrooms right next to the Altar, though.

Everyone, you know I’m kidding, right? Try telling a woman who is nine months pregnant to just “hold it in.” Or an elderly woman with a spasmatic bladder. Or a man with an enlarged prostate. Or a little child who is just learning to be potty trained.

And? Most people have the ability to exit quietly and without calling attention to themselves - they move when there is other movement in the church, and they don’t make a big production out of it.

To me, this is what the arguments against the modern communication devices sound like. We’re human beings with human limitations. We need bathrooms, sometimes in the middle of Mass.

Bathrooms are typically located in another section of the building. They exist so that people can attend to an actual physical need. No one has a physical need for a multimedia display system.

And I see no harm with using modern communication devices in Mass to help us see, hear, and fully understand what is going on.

My mind is boggled that you equate the two. Humankind has had bathrooms for 10,000 years - multimedia display systems are somewhat more recent (within the past twenty years) - we survived for nearly 10,000 years without them, somehow.