Video during mass

[FrDavid96]

Father no disrespect but that sounds like something that would come from someone following in the sedevacantism position…

That’s absurd.

Do you honestly believe that one must be a sedevacantivist to believe in dignity and reverence in the Mass?

Because I love the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass even if occasionally we are presented with a video which shows us up close really what is happening in our diocese and why our money is needed.

I don’t think of it as a commercial break as someone put it, but an important part of learning about stewardship.

Now I love my Church, and I hate to see these squabbles, and I don’t believe what these Bishops are doing is wrong or at all takes away from the mass and they are used sparingly.

There’s nothing wrong with the videos. There is everything wrong with interrupting the Mass to make everyone watch a television screen.

 

[FrDavid96]

When we have reached the point that what we feel that pomp and ceremony outweigh the call for charity (St. Augustin tells us that of fasting, prayer, and alms giving, alms giving is the most pleasing to God), we have lost the very message of the Gospel.

Addressing the topic, whether in video or traditional homily, hardly detracts from the dignity of the Mass.

Instead of the question you ended with, we could also ask, How can Christ’s call for us to act with charity, which includes monetarily, be dismissed so casually???

And can you tell me where I or anyone else has dismissed the call charity?

Please quote me the post.

 

[FrDavid96]

Good night everyone.

I think I’ve made whatever contribution I might make to the topic at hand, and I don’t see any point in continuing to participate. Anything I might say at this point would be redundant.

Unsubscribing.

 

[Neofight]

I am asking how and why (and how we reached the point) where the dignity and reverence of the Mass are so casually dismissed as unimportant and irrelevant.

my answer then, would be “we” have not, although “you” seem to believe we have…I just happen to see the reverence of the majority to be better stead than you do…but in fairness to your opinion, perhaps the laity are too sheltered from the reality you see.

 

[Neofight]

Good night everyone.

I think I’ve made whatever contribution I might make to the topic at hand, and I don’t see any point in continuing to participate. Anything I might say at this point would be redundant.

Unsubscribing.

Fair enough, and very astute.

Good night!

 

[ProVobis]

Interesting that when a homily is given on the readings of the day, most don’t get upset, but when a homily is given on the needs of the diocese and our duty to support the Church, it is called a commercial message.

I don’t know. Have we ever tried a dramatic video on the gospel for the day? Might wake a few up that way too.

 

[quies]

I don’t know. Have we ever tried a dramatic video on the gospel for the day?..

I like it. …Although if performed “live” through liturgical dance – maybe we could work the collection sequence into the dramatizing, too?! I mean – how exciting would it be to witness a ballerina’s grand ronde jambe en l’aire - gossamer ribbons flying as she gracefully vaults into the middle of the third pew and handily snags a sawbuck from the enraptured elderly couple seated there?

…Might wake a few up that way too.

A rousing handbell chorus will do that same thing, too! (Although I always think my tinnitus is acting up again until I finally figure it out…)

 

[Cat]

I realize that the Bishop feels it must be shown while there is a captive audience but it bothers me immensely to have the sacred celebration of the Mass interrupted for a commercial message. Even worse, our parish passes out forms and pencils so we can complete our pledge before Mass resumes! I do not nor will I ever complete a form under those conditions. I don’t care how important the Bishop’s campaign is, it isn’t more important than the Mass or even a good homily. We receive little enough teaching and little that is dedicated to sin and redemption, we cannot waste even a moment of the opportunity to hear the good word.

Why is it that when we express financial concerns to the clergy we’re told God will provide if we trust in Him, doesn’t God provide for Bishops concerns?

Why don’t you consider service to God through the giving of our monies part of the sacred celebration of the Mass? Why is practical work less reverent than any other part of the liturgy of the Mass?

One of the main purposes of the Mass is to encourage and equip the believers for SERVICE. If we receive Jesus in Holy Communion and do nothing with Him, then why bother? Christianity isn’t just about our personal salvation–it’s about doing the physical WORK of God in this world.

I play piano/organ for Mass, and while everyone else is sitting and soaking in all the beautiful liturgy, I am getting my music ready, listening for the “cues” to start playing, watching the choir director for direction, setting the registration on the organ, watching my key signatures and dynamic markings on the sheet music, etc. I don’t consider any of that any less “reverent” than just sitting/praying/singing, etc. Service to God IS worthy worship, even if it involves everyday “work.”

 

[Cat]

“A Reading from the Letter of Saint Paul to the Corinthians”

No. Reading a letter aloud is one thing. Turning the church building into a temporary movie theatre in the middle of the Mass is something significantly different.

This is not just my personal opinion. The law of the Church reads thus:

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.

Whether you (or I) see a difference or not, there is no question that the Church most certainly sees a difference.

So once again, our bishops are doing it wrong.

And you and the others on this forum don’t see how deadly this line of thinking is to the Church in the United States? You honestly don’t see it?

I believe it’s my Protestant upbringing (47 years) that gives me this persepective: Every time our Church authority figures are disregarded or judged as “incorrect”, it hurts their credibility and causes others to harbor doubts. Catholics wonder, “If my bishop is wrong about something like this, then how do I know that my bishop isn’t wrong about other things, like premarital sex, or same-sex marriage, or abortion, or weekly Mass attendance? And after all, look at all the bishops who allowed the abuse of children! I’d better stop listening to these wrong-o guys and just follow my heart and do what I think is right. God is a loving God after all, and He won’t condemn anyone who acts out of love.”

And these weak, under-catechized Christians stop listening to their bishop (who is, after all, wrong about many things), and stop attending Mass regularly (and eventually stop attending it ever, except for funerals and weddings), and live life away from the Church, because, after all, the bishops are incorrect about so many things, it’s best to just rely on our own intellect and feelings.

Even Catholics who decide to stick with the Church and continue to attend Mass will harbor constant doubt and cynicism about what is said by their priests and bishops, and start questioning everything and every activity. Hey, you know something?–that’s what PROTESTANTS do! Since there is no reliable authority, they become their OWN authority and decide for themselves what is “correct” and “reverent.”

**After all, the word Protestant comes from the word, “Protest.” And isn’t that what many of you are doing on this thread?! **

And what’s even more despicable is that those “Protesting Catholics” lead young people and children astray. They hear Mom, Dad, Coach, Teacher, etc. talking about “that bishop who doesn’t know what he’s doing,” and they decide that the Church can’t be trusted to teach the truth. So they leave, or they seek out a version of the Catholic Church that has a “heavier” authority than Jesus intended for His Church to have.

We can’t be doing this, people! Unless our bishops are actually teaching SIN, we need to submit to them and stop undermining them!

And instead of discussing this issue of videos and “movie theaters” on an online forum, we should instead write to our diocese and ask, straight out and politely, by what authority the bishop does these things? And if that question sounds familiar, remember who in the Bible asked that question of Jesus. Hint–it wasn’t Jesus’ disciples. But let’s not worry about that–ask the question respectfully and sincerely, and submit to the answer.

 

[pnewton]

Whether you (or I) see a difference or not, there is no question that the Church most certainly sees a difference.

Sadly, I think that in this day and age (2015), most people in the congregation wouldn’t listen to a written letter from the bishop read aloud, unless the letter was about sex.

We are not a “listening” people in the United States. We are “audio-visual.”

And it doesn’t matter whether you like it or not–it’s reality. Gone are the good ol’ days when a letter was something exciting!

These two quotes should establish at least one fact that Fr. David made. There is a difference between videos and reading a letter. If not, there would never have been a prohibition at any time. If there was no difference, there would be no reason for a bishop to engage in a more expensive and time-consuming message.

Cat’s observation is insightful. We are a people consumed by the need for media. One reason I do not like this sort of video is because I desire a respite from the sensory overload of a media laden world. I like the idea the holiest hour of the week is different than the rest of life.

Beyond our cultural Attention Deficit Disorder, we have an Americanistic Disorder. It is not sufficient for us to have our bishop request we give. He have to see, hear and feel the reason, which is best done through media immersion. Gone are the days when we listen to authority because it is authority. This is reflected in these forums. It is reflected in our children and younger generations. It is reflected in our huge prison populations. No doubt the bishops and priests of the last generation bear some responsibility for their failure in the sexual abuse scandal. However, how long will we let that minority of the past deter us from simply giving to a need without having to be inundated with a media deluge?

 

[ProVobis]

These two quotes should establish at least one fact that Fr. David made. There is a difference between videos and reading a letter. If not, there would never have been a prohibition at any time. If there was no difference, there would be no reason for a bishop to engage in a more expensive and time-consuming message.

Good point. This appears to be one of the last acts of Pope Pius XII, whose wisdom seems to have been ignored in many areas.

 

[ProVobis]

So once again, our bishops are doing it wrong.

No one is saying that.

But having taken graduate business classes with priests, I know that fund-raising and administration is a learned process for all clerics in addition to their having been schooled in theology, philosophy, etc. So far 13 dioceses have declared bankruptcy; this is not exactly a trend we want to keep following either.

.

 

[insideitall]

I read that comment as being sarcastic. I thought cat’s post was excellent and spot on.

I’ll admit when I first read the question my first thought was “did this person just crawl out from under a rock?” I see absolutely no difference in the priest standing up there reading about all the things they use the money for, and having them run a video about it. also, it’s not like this is anything new. at one parish I used to attend, they had a (retractable) projector screen installed in the church, and it was used not only for this appeal but for guest speakers to use as well (religious from sister parishes in latin america, mission groups, parish school, etc). sometimes it was video, sometimes powerpoint.

it’s much more concerning that they even need to ask for special appeals and second collections on a regular basis, because most catholics don’t attend mass (let alone every week) or give anywhere near what they can give (whether that means money or volunteering, which essentially is money if the church doesn’t have to pay for someone to do the job).

 

[Karen107]

That’s absurd.

Do you honestly believe that one must be a sedevacantivist to believe in dignity and reverence in the Mass?

There’s nothing wrong with the videos. There is everything wrong with interrupting the Mass to make everyone watch a television screen.

Dear Father, I hope you can accept my apologies, its just that on these forums sometimes it is hard to tell and I’m glad you made your position clear to me. I’ve discussed some things with sedevacantists who believe that the holiness of the mass has been lost and so that’s where I was coming from.

I do believe that there is the same dignity and reverence to the Mass. I am a product of the 60s generation and this is the mass we’ve come to know and love and did not really know the mass beforehand, though I learned about it and see it evidenced in older churches. The surroundings may look a little different, and maybe technology has been added, but it is still the same Catholic Church forever beholden to the mission of Jesus Christ set us out to do and the Holy Spirit will continue to guide it always.

I apologize again… I hope you can be at peace with me… Karen

 

[ProVobis]

These two quotes should establish at least one fact that Fr. David made. There is a difference between videos and reading a letter. If not, there would never have been a prohibition at any time. If there was no difference, there would be no reason for a bishop to engage in a more expensive and time-consuming message.

Good point. We should heed some of the wisdom behind those old documents.

 

[ProVobis]

I read that comment as being sarcastic. I thought cat’s post was excellent and spot on.

I don’t know if you addressed that to my comment after I had taken note of the fact that cat’s rather lengthy post was directed to a priest seemingly to educate him about the role of the bishops. Is this the case? I’d like to know for the record.

 

[Denise1957]

To the OP… I believe this is where some change came in about in the liturgy in regards to using videos or letters from with consent by the Bishops in liturgy…

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

CONSTITUTION
ON THE SACRED LITURGY
SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY
HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON DECEMBER 4, 1963

1. This sacred Council has several aims in view: it desires to impart an ever increasing vigor to the Christian life of the faithful; to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times those institutions which are subject to change; to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ; to strengthen whatever can help to call the whole of mankind into the household of the Church. The Council therefore sees particularly cogent reasons for undertaking the reform and promotion of the liturgy.

IMO, the videos and letters don’t mean to take away from the liturgy, it brings it more to the people in a more cohesive way. In fact like one poster mentioned, the early Churches probably read the letters sent to them by Paul and Peter, and various Bishops, which we still read in the liturgy of the Word today… Isn’t that what the Church does to unify the body of Christ?

edits I found this written in there:

1. Transmissions of the sacred rites by radio and television shall be done with discretion and dignity, under the leadership and direction of a suitable person appointed for this office by the bishops. This is especially important when the service to be broadcast is the Mass.

What does the above quote from a Vatican document have to do with showing a video during Mass? From how I read it, the document is referring to the Mass itself being broadcast, like how EWTN broadcasts a daily televised Mass, and it doesn’t say anything about showing videos during Mass (that I can find).

 

[SMHW]

I took Cat’s post to be something of a cry of distress. Perhaps it is because I am feeling somewhat the same way.

We have here the ***perception *** that some bishops are calling for an action that violates liturgical law.

If we accept the premise that some bishops are asking for a video to be played at Mass and a second premise that it is unlawful to play a video/audio recording at Mass, then what else are we to conclude?

Because no one wants to reach that conclusion we has seen lots of people suggest that the older law is either no longer in force, does not actually apply in this situation, or is within the bishop’s authority to dispense.

Another possibility is that no bishop has actually called for audio and/or videos recordings at Mass. If that is the case, it would ***seem ***as if some persons have been abusing their delegated authority from the bishops.

There could be other possibilities which I can not immediately envision.

In any case, it is distressing when one sees what appears to be a contradiction. We know that because this forum is full of people who are just so distressed. Thus far I have not seen a resolution to this “contradiction” which is compatible with FrDavid96’s stated understanding of Musica Sacra.

 

[Gorgias]

Really?

I’ve checked the Roman Missal. I cannot find any place in the Mass for playing videos.

Can you quote the text in the Roman Missal or in the GIRM where the Church describes the part of the Mass that incorporates a video presentation into the Mass?

I cannot find it.

I know that Fr David has left the thread, but after browsing through five pages, I’m surprised that no one has mentioned this:

There’s nothing in the GIRM that says, “Take up a collection prior to the Offertory”.

Oh, there’s a section that mentions that monies that were donated (for the poor or for the Church) can be brought up during the Offertory. There’s also a sentence that mentions collections that were “collected in the church.” But, there’s nothing that expressly discusses taking up a collection between the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

So, we might conclude that it’s improper to take up a collection “in the context of the Mass.” On the other hand, we might conclude that it isn’t prohibited to take up a collection… and that the message from the bishop is simply the instruction regarding a particular collection (whether it’s taken up immediately or in the following week(s)).

 

[felsguy]

I don’t know. Have we ever tried a dramatic video on the gospel for the day? Might wake a few up that way too.

There is a whole series of very short vignettes or “dramatizations” of Gospel passages that our parish uses in RCIA, retreats, etc although not at Mass yet. They are only 3-5 minutes long and are very powerful. And in my opinion they would have more effect than some of the dry rather esoteric homilies we are treated to on a regular basis…

I don’t recall who produces them and don’t save access to my materials at the moment but I will share the source later if this thread is still active.