Technology and the Mass

[Jegudiel]

Updated ideas adding the carillon, cell phone shielding and hard of hearing resources.

I was thinking about the different ways technology can be fruitfully applied to the celebration of the Mass. I am a huge believer in using all five senses when it comes to worship. Some parishes are already doing some of the following.

Soft, appropriate, pre-recorded music would play before and after the Mass unless of course live music was available. I think this might help the talking problem in some churches.

I would have several very large flat-screen video panels that would display the stations of the cross and the saint of the day. In addition to original artwork the monitors could be used to display images of stations from famous churches around the world. A video window could be added to give historical information about the image and/or to explain the specific station. When the Mass procession began, the images would be electronically “veiled” so the focus would be upon the altar and no where else. The color of the “veils” could follow the liturgical seasons. Alternately the panels could display icons of great saints of the Church oriented so they are looking towards the altar along with us, much like the wonderful tapestries at Our Lady of the Angels Cathedral in Los Angeles.

The entire church would be fairly well lit but the nave would slowly become less bright during the procession. The sanctuary would remain fairly bright with the ambo area being lit the brightest during the readings.

During the Liturgy of the Eucharist the lighting level in the sanctuary would be dimmed to match the nave except for the altar area which would be softly spotlighted. Anyone thinking this would be “disruptive” has never been to a well managed performing arts venue.

The church’s bells would ring remotely before and after Mass and possibly during the Gloria. If resources permitted a full carillon would be controlled by the organist. One of the bells would be tolled remotely during the epiclesis and major elevations as allowed by the Mass rubrics.

During the Great Amen the entire church would be softly be re-lit to show joy and to make things safe for communion.

I suspect I might use very discreet video panels to display lyrics, the readings and prayers as well. This would take a lot of thought and diligence because far too many churches do this poorly and it can detract from the Mass. It would be nice not to need hymnals/missalettes anymore.

I would use passive shielding to ensure cell phones and pagers did not disrupt the Mass. I would also broadcast either low power AM radio or wireless Internet so those with hearing problems could hear better using a simple radio or smart mp3 player and earphones/buds.

The tabernacle would be designed to focus people’s attention to it unlike any other tabernacle I have seen. It might be made of opaque bulletproof glass and lit from the inside (much like Old Mission Santa Barbara’s Tabernacle) or it might be conventionally lit with theatrical lighting to make it look awesome.

No question that it would have to be done right or not at all. Sometimes it’s nice to dream…

 

[Oneofthewomen]

I have to say, you are not doing a really good job of convincing me of anything other than you think that you are right, and anyone who disagrees with you lacks imagination or maturity.
Trust me, I lack neither, and while I agree with you that your ideas do have merit and could actually be implemented in a way that truly enhances worship, your approach and the attitude that has manifested in this thread and others is very off-putting. If you were to approach me in real life the way you come across here, I would not want to listen to you at all.

I have seen what you are conceptualizing done, in a very good way, and it did for some, enhance worship.
For others, it did not. I have knowledge of theater and have been involved in quite a few community theater productions. I appreciate good lighting & sound and the theatrical elements that our 21st century technology can offer. But they are just that “theatric elements”. I am not saying that they can’t have a place, and that what you are envisioning could not be a beautiful experience.
My biggest issue with your proposals is sustainability.

Most of the parishes in my area, that took on grand projects like this, now use all the “bells & whistles” , so to speak,
for only one Mass per weekend, and for special events (Christmas & Easter, First Communion weekend, etc) and for non-liturgical events such as speakers, retreats & concerts.
In the beginning, support and enthusiasm was high, and there were lots of volunteers. As the novelty wore off, volunteers got scarce. Soon there were just not enough people to continue to do it correctly, so the “theatrics” were stopped.

A lot of time, money and effort was spent, and now these parish have all sorts of out-dated and sometimes even obsolete equipment that was “state of the art” just a couple years ago and this stuff sits around collecting dust. When you are relying on volunteers, this happens, because “life” happens.
Which brings us back to the expense, to do something like this correctly and have the sustainability it would probably be best to hire someone to handle all the technology.
Is that really a wise use of parish funds?

Now regarding “theatrics”, that is what we are talking about here.
It is laudable that you want to engage all 5 of your senses Jegudiel, and to be honest, what you are talking about would be “sensory overload” for me-
and I’m just your normal (somewhat ) 40-something.
Using all 5 senses means different things to different people. To give you an idea of what I mean, if I could have my way, it would be this-

I want a church that is bright with natural light that steams through stained glass. I want simple hymns, old & new (with a healthy dose of David Haas & the St. Louis Jesuits)
or propers (English would be best, but Latin would be ok). I want statues & crucifixes, and the stations to be things that I can look at, that have depth, dimension and form and ponder their artistry.
I want to be able to hear clearly, where ever I happen to be in the church.
I would love it if there was more “sacred silence” and incense was used more often.
The last thing I want would be a “multi-media” experience.
Mass should be a ***mystical union ***between man and God, and that is something that I have a very hard time finding with a lot of technology.

 

[Jegudiel]

I’m not trying to convince you or anyone else that I am “right.” What I outlined speaks for itself. What I have responded to are out and out mischaracterizations or worse.

I have to say, you are not doing a really good job of convincing me of anything other than you think that you are right, and anyone who disagrees with you lacks imagination or maturity.
Trust me, I lack neither, and while I agree with you that your ideas do have merit and could actually be implemented in a way that truly enhances worship, your approach and the attitude that has manifested in this thread and others is very off-putting. If you were to approach me in real life the way you come across here, I would not want to listen to you at all.

I have seen what you are conceptualizing done, in a very good way, and it did for some, enhance worship.
For others, it did not. I have knowledge of theater and have been involved in quite a few community theater productions. I appreciate good lighting & sound and the theatrical elements that our 21st century technology can offer. But they are just that “theatric elements”. I am not saying that they can’t have a place, and that what you are envisioning could not be a beautiful experience.
My biggest issue with your proposals is sustainability.

Most of the parishes in my area, that took on grand projects like this, now use all the “bells & whistles” , so to speak,
for only one Mass per weekend, and for special events (Christmas & Easter, First Communion weekend, etc) and for non-liturgical events such as speakers, retreats & concerts.
In the beginning, support and enthusiasm was high, and there were lots of volunteers. As the novelty wore off, volunteers got scarce. Soon there were just not enough people to continue to do it correctly, so the “theatrics” were stopped.

A lot of time, money and effort was spent, and now these parish have all sorts of out-dated and sometimes even obsolete equipment that was “state of the art” just a couple years ago and this stuff sits around collecting dust. When you are relying on volunteers, this happens, because “life” happens.
Which brings us back to the expense, to do something like this correctly and have the sustainability it would probably be best to hire someone to handle all the technology.
Is that really a wise use of parish funds?

Now regarding “theatrics”, that is what we are talking about here.
It is laudable that you want to engage all 5 of your senses Jegudiel, and to be honest, what you are talking about would be “sensory overload” for me-
and I’m just your normal (somewhat ) 40-something.
Using all 5 senses means different things to different people. To give you an idea of what I mean, if I could have my way, it would be this-

I want a church that is bright with natural light that steams through stained glass. I want simple hymns, old & new (with a healthy dose of David Haas & the St. Louis Jesuits)
or propers (English would be best, but Latin would be ok). I want statues & crucifixes, and the stations to be things that I can look at, that have depth, dimension and form and ponder their artistry.
I want to be able to hear clearly, where ever I happen to be in the church.
I would love it if there was more “sacred silence” and incense was used more often.
The last thing I want would be a “multi-media” experience.
Mass should be a ***mystical union ***between man and God, and that is something that I have a very hard time finding with a lot of technology.

 

[The_Curt_Jester]

Nonsense. You’re simply reacting to what you don’t understand. The fact some churches already do some of the things I mentioned with great success.

Depends on what you mean by success. If you’re referring to moving people’s minds to God, I have serious doubts that they’re very successful. If you mean pulling in money and attracting people who want Mass to be entertainment, then sure.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

I’m not trying to convince you or anyone else that I am “right.” What I outlined speaks for itself. What I have responded to are out and out mischaracterizations or worse.

A well thought out post that actually supports your views in some ways but brings up some very important questions, and this is all you answer to?

I’m sorry, I thought you wanted to diaogue. I guess you just proved the point I made in my opening statement.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Some people simply lack the life experiences and the imagination to conceptualize just how beautiful what I described could be. It’s not for every church (or even every Mass in said church) but it has its place.

Some people no doubt have the image of an overhead projector with someone placing slides written in grease pencil on it, someone flipping the lights on and off and scratchy LP’s playing before and after Mass. If that’s the limit of one’s experience and if they don’t realize it, I could see how they would be reactionary to what I posted.

Those of us that have experience more, experienced better understand…

I didn’t say anyone was “stupid” – you did. But some of the comments made say a great deal negative about those making them.

Do you think veiling your insults like you describe “veiling” the stations disguises them from your targets? I have plenty of life experiences, probably a lot more than you have, and I have a wonderful imagination. I just don’t happen to agree with you, which you obviously have a problem with. Your approach is to beat every poster who even dares to disagree with your vision, and insult their intelligence.

Good luck with that. Yes, I’d say the negative comments say a great deal negative, and yours are the most negative.

 

[Cavaille-Coll]

I’m waiting for the electronic thurible. You swing it just like a traditional thurible, but what comes out is harmless water vapor instead of dangerous second-hand frankincense.

Jegudiel - Automatic bell controllers (as opposed to electronic devices making bell-like sounds through loudspeakers - these ARE NOT bells!) have been in use for a hundred years. I prefer motor-pealed bells to manual (rope-pealed) bells for several reasons:

1. They always get rung at the right time and for the right duration.
2. They peal at the correct rate and ring evenly. Manual bells are often poorly pealed by people who don’t pull the rope far enough down, who don’t let the rope go high enough, who try to regulate the speed of the bell, or, worst of all, try to “ride” the rope (a great way to break the bell wheel).
3. Newer units often have remote controls to sound the bell from the altar (i.e. Consecration) or from outside (weddings and funerals).
4. The latest magnetic linear motors have no chains or moving parts to break (but good luck finding them in the USA).

The only thing that can make a real bell sound poorly through automation is to peal it with an electric striker. This is a hammer which tolls a stationary bell. While strikers are needed for clock strikes, funeral tolls, the Angelus, and other such uses, attempting to peal a bell by hitting it repeatedly with a striker makes it sound dull and mechanical, as well as about half as loud as a swinging bell.

 

[Jegudiel]

Depends on what you mean by success. If you’re referring to moving people’s minds to God, I have serious doubts that they’re very successful. If you mean pulling in money and attracting people who want Mass to be entertainment, then sure.

Again, nothing more than your opinion. “sacredcow” wrote a nice description about how technology was successfully applied in their parish. Sometimes it’s up to the younger generation who lack the prejudices and fear of technology to blaze the trail…

 

[The_Curt_Jester]

Again, nothing more than your opinion. “sacredcow” wrote a nice description about how technology was successfully applied in their parish. Sometimes it’s up to the younger generation who lack the prejudices and fear of technology to blaze the trail…

I am the younger generation – and I see what all that stuff has done to people, too. Sometimes it’s up to the younger generation to not be afraid to admit a lot of stuff is wrong and go back to appropriate worship.

 

[Elizium23]

Please cite your sources!

 

[Jegudiel]

I’m waiting for the electronic thurible. You swing it just like a traditional thurible, but what comes out is harmless water vapor instead of dangerous second-hand frankincense.

Censers with electric coils (rather than charcoal) are already available. Supposedly they cut down on the often irritating smoke caused by burning charcoal. They are quite expensive though.

Jegudiel - Automatic bell controllers (as opposed to electronic devices making bell-like sounds through loudspeakers - these ARE NOT bells!) have been in use for a hundred years. I prefer motor-pealed bells to manual (rope-pealed) bells for several reasons:

Please do NOT try to change what I said. I made NO mention of "automatic bell controllers, bell-like electronic devices, etc., etc.) If you want to talk about bells – I know a GREAT deal about the subject, start a new thread and I will chime in. Why try to add to what I said?

1. They always get rung at the right time and for the right duration.
2. They peal at the correct rate and ring evenly. Manual bells are often poorly pealed by people who don’t pull the rope far enough down, who don’t let the rope go high enough, who try to regulate the speed of the bell, or, worst of all, try to “ride” the rope (a great way to break the bell wheel).
3. Newer units often have remote controls to sound the bell from the altar (i.e. Consecration) or from outside (weddings and funerals).
4. The latest magnetic linear motors have no chains or moving parts to break (but good luck finding them in the USA).

The only thing that can make a real bell sound poorly is to install electric strikers. These are hammers which toll a stationary bell, and while they are needed for clock strikes, funeral tolls, the Angelus, and other such uses, attempting to peal a bell with a striker makes it ring dull and mechanical, as well as about half as loud as a swinging bell.

Naw. First, hand-rung bells (by competent bell ringers) sound far better than the militaristic, sterile sound (in comparison) of motorized bells. To get this far warmer and more soulful sound also takes a far greater commitment that most parishes just won’t be able to muster or maintain.

“Electric strikers” can take more than one form. Sometimes the actual bell clapper is actuated by a solenoid. Many non-traditional carillons, peals and chimes take this form and sound excellent, even better than traditional carillons. Other times an outboard hammer is used to strike the bell. This is known as “clocking” in the bell world and it’s completely different than swinging a bell where a Doppler Effect is realized. Clocking and swinging are two different things and cannot be compared. If set-up correctly both compliment one another. Here is an example of a remotely clocked bell that is then swung – with excellent results for both:

Church bells of St. Joseph the Worker Catholic Church

Understand the mic is being overwhelmed with the volume and echo inside of the bell tower…

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Again, nothing more than your opinion. “sacredcow” wrote a nice description about how technology was successfully applied in their parish. Sometimes it’s up to the younger generation who lack the prejudices and fear of technology to blaze the trail…

This entire thread is “nothing more than YOUR opinion!”



Love the way you insulted The Curt Jester and assumed he was an older poster! Can anyone say “condescension?”

 

[Jegudiel]

This entire thread is “nothing more than YOUR opinion!”

Love the way you insulted The Curt Jester and assumed he was an older poster! Can anyone say “condescension?”

Stop it. Stop trying to stir the pot. I was speaking of the young people “sacredcow” wrote about in their posting. Many times it DOES take the younger generation to realize the potential of things.

Interesting you did not say anything when at least one person (incorrectly) commented on my age without having a clue how old I am. Selective outrage when it fits your agenda, aye?

 

[Jegudiel]

I am the younger generation – and I see what all that stuff has done to people, too. Sometimes it’s up to the younger generation to not be afraid to admit a lot of stuff is wrong and go back to appropriate worship.

I guess you lack the vision and drive of the younger generation at “sacredcow” 's parish of which I was referring to. It sure sounds like the younger generation has done some truly wonderful things at that parish.

Getting people involved like that is also a wonderful way to retain them…

 

[maryjk]

Still waiting to hear what you plan to do with people that are first responders. Or even with people that need to be available.

Still planning on blocking cell phone coverage?

 

[The_Curt_Jester]

I guess you lack the vision and drive of the younger generation at “sacredcow” 's parish of which I was referring to. It sure sounds like the younger generation has done some truly wonderful things at that parish.

Getting people involved like that is also a wonderful way to retain them…

I lack the tunnel vision, yes.

 

[Rainaldo]

The only thing that can make a real bell sound poorly through automation is to peal it with an electric striker. This is a hammer which tolls a stationary bell. While strikers are needed for clock strikes, funeral tolls, the Angelus, and other such uses, attempting to peal a bell by hitting it repeatedly with a striker makes it sound dull and mechanical, as well as about half as loud as a swinging bell.

The higher quality tone of a swinging bell is caused by the motion of the bell itself. You can hear the same thing with those handbell ensembles - they sometimes move the bells in a sweeping motion back and forth to imitate the quality - has something to do with the Doppler effect or the sound waves bunching up or something.

 

[Rainaldo]

Censers with electric coils (rather than charcoal) are already available. Supposedly they cut down on the often irritating smoke caused by burning charcoal. They are quite expensive though.

Jegudiel, your church would need one of these: youtube.com/watch?v=5DmGa3ZDL_I

 

[Fiasco]

Interesting you did not say anything when at least one person (incorrectly) commented on my age without having a clue how old I am.

In that case, you should know better.

Normally, wisdom comes with age.

** Selective outrage when it fits your agenda, aye?**

The pot calling the kettle black.

PS:
Single quoting sure clocks up the points. Then again, maybe thats your way of showing your respect for each of us, rather than throwing us all together into just one post. The insults are more personal. Thats very thoughtful of you.

PPS:
So you like the Scottish accent? (“aye”). So do i!

This entire thread is “nothing more than YOUR opinion!”.

Love the way you insulted The Curt Jester and assumed he was an older poster! Can anyone say** “condescension?” **

Thats ALSO been part of "this entire thread". Dont get mad, though. Theres a serious problem here, but its not ours. Insecurity?
Anyway, a bit of entertainment doesn`t hurt.

i`ve seen better manners/fewer insults from** trolls!**

 

[feed_me]

The best idea ever for a church is 4th century church. No technology, leaky boards for the roof, hard board for the people to sit on, and holes in the ground for the dung… with flies added.