Video during mass

[insideitall]

provobis, I apologize for not being clearer. I meant, the part of her post that you had quoted, about the bishops doing it wrong, I took that as her being sarcastic, not that she seriously thought the bishops were incorrect. but perhaps I read it wrong, or misunderstood your response; tone is difficult to figure sometimes.

I found a page posted on ewtn (ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur59.htm) with regards to pre-recorded music; this is part of the answer that I found interesting, referencing the musica sacra:

“Although these documents precede the Second Vatican Council, there is practically nothing in the conciliar or post-conciliar documents which would contradict the principles enunciated or invalidate their general normative value… …any general permission to use recorded or automatically produced music would require the express approval of the corresponding bishop or episcopal conference.”

one would think this would also be applicable to other items found in that document.

though actually, I’m now quite thoroughly confused as to what type of document musica sacra actually is. I found it listed as an encyclical, but when I looked up encyclicals by pope, only the earlier 1955 version is there. is this because the 1958 version wasn’t actually written by the pope, but by the congregation of rites? but if the pope gives approval for what the congregations come up with, how can the bishops decide to change it? doesn’t that defeat the purpose? did vII give bishops/priest leeway in how they apply these rules?

 

[ProVobis]

though actually, I’m now quite thoroughly confused as to what type of document musica sacra actually is. I found it listed as an encyclical, but when I looked up encyclicals by pope, only the earlier 1955 version is there. is this because the 1958 version wasn’t actually written by the pope, but by the congregation of rites? but if the pope gives approval for what the congregations come up with, how can the bishops decide to change it? doesn’t that defeat the purpose? did vII give bishops/priest leeway in how they apply these rules?

Thanks for the clarification.

AFAIK, the prohibition was issued during the papacy of Pius XII, shortly before he died. I presume it has his signature. Interestingly enough, the same questions came up before the Holy Week changes of 1955, but since Pius XII’s signature was on those documents, they went into force without further dispute. (He had in 1948 still issued another document allowing the Pope, and only the Pope, to make Mass changes. He needed to do that because Trent had anathematized ANY pastor of the church who introduced any new rites.)

 

[Karen107]

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).

Now think about this, how can televising a mass into peoples homes be justified whereas, showing a brief video of the goings on of the greater Church and our need to support it during the mass be unjustifiable? Yes, Yes I know it’s justified because of the home-bound who cant make it to the Mass, but yet it leaves the possibility of one watching the Mass in the comfort of their homes rather than actually coming to mass. Which I see a warning about on the USCCB website.

usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/frequently-asked-questions/guidelines-for-televising-the-liturgy.cfm

And in both cases the aid of technology is used to bring us together and to benefit the Church as One Body of Christ.

I believe in my Bishops and what they do is right or they wouldn’t be doing it and I don’t believe they abuse the practice because I agree that Would be a turn off to coming to mass. Lately more-so a letter is read but at times we have been shown a video as an aid to the homily. As evidenced by the responses here I don’t believe its done in just my diocese. Never-the-less I looked for an answer by googling it and found something on EWTN about videos being shown during mass, first and foremost it seems to say it is never to be used instead of a homily.

ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur186.htm

And this is all my take on it.

 

[SMHW]

Now think about this, how can televising a mass into peoples homes be justified whereas, showing a brief video of the goings on of the greater Church and our need to support it during the mass be unjustifiable?

I believe showing a video at Mass has more in common with using artificial flowers to decorate the sanctuary than it does with televising the Mass. It has to do with using real items rather than facsimiles.

Televising the Mass is an extension of amplifying the sound at Mass.

 

[Karen107]

Televising the Mass is an extension of amplifying the sound at Mass.

Is it? I mean the people at home are not receiving the physical body and blood of Our Lord, when quite possibly they could. Now I’m speaking of those who could.

 

[Digitonomy]

Now think about this, how can televising a mass into peoples homes be justified whereas, showing a brief video of the goings on of the greater Church and our need to support it during the mass be unjustifiable?

:shrug:I really don’t see how the two are related, whether videos during homilies are justified or not.

 

[Digitonomy]

The Congregation for Divine Worship has just released a Homiletic Directory. In news articles I saw no mention about the use of audiovisual aids in homilies, but my hope is that the book will at least briefly touch on the topic. In that case, our arguments here can be over the narrower scope of what those words say, rather than the fairly broad range of possibilities we have been discussing so far.

news.va/en/news/homiletic-directory-the-art-of-preaching

 

[otjm]

The Congregation for Divine Worship has just released a Homiletic Directory. In news articles I saw no mention about the use of audiovisual aids in homilies, but my hope is that the book will at least briefly touch on the topic. In that case, our arguments here can be over the narrower scope of what those words say, rather than the fairly broad range of possibilities we have been discussing so far.

news.va/en/news/homiletic-directory-the-art-of-preaching

That may be the answer, or it may be elsewhere.

Given that the ruling comes from the 1950’s and was made at a time where only what we know now as the EF existed, there are several possibilities.

One is that the promulgation of the OF “started from square one”; that is, prior liturgical rules and regulations were specific to the prior form, and not to the OF.

The GIRM has been revised several times since the OF started; possibly the original GIRM indicated that it superseded prior rules and regulations.

Possibly something in the 1983 Code of Canon law superseded it.

Or there may be some other process/rule/regulation superseded it.

Silence in any given document may or may not mean that the rule is still in force; one would think that if it was, that it would be mentioned in the subsequent document, but that is not absolutely a given.

Given that my archdiocese has had four bishops who have used videos for this purpose, two of whom were subsequently made Cardinals, and one of them subsequently made head of the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, I have a bit of a hard time coming to the conclusion that all 4 were either sloppy, forgetful, or knew it and simply chose to violate it.

But as to an answer, I don’t have it.

 

[phil19034]

Ours sends it *as *the homily. And the recording is played at that time.

He also does one the 2nd or 3rd week of Advent. It is the same week every year, I just don’t remember which week it is.

Interesting … I’ve never seen this and I’ve lived in two different dioceses.

Depending on the topic, I’ve only heard the letters read as **part **of the homily or during “announcements.”

 

[phil19034]

I just edited above…

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.

Anyway, I imagine this is where the practice stemmed from.

This has to do which filming and broadcasting devotions, religious ceremonies, and/or a mass on TV, not playing a film during Mass.

Playing a film should be done after mass is over

 

[phil19034]

Well, it appears that Bishops from around the US did it yesterday. Must be a recommendation from the USCCB.
Our Archbishop, former president of the USCCB and holding a Doctorate in Liturgy, does this every year: Slick video, appeal for funds with a summary of how they are dispersed, tied in to the readings, talk about our obligations, and then followed up with the priest reading from the Archbishop’s instructions to “walk people through” the filling out of the Annual Appeal forms, including providing a pencil and mailing it for them. Ushers employed to pass out forms to heads of households, collect them up, and bundle them for mailing.
We’re pretty used to it. Most people (including leadership) don’t like it. But I don’t think they dislike it for liturgical reasons…they dislike being tapped for more $$$.
The pastors are directed to get it done, and on a specific day.
They comply with their Bishop’s wishes.

We even have a version in Spanish (in which the Spanish pronunciation is pretty bad. )

My Archbishop doesn’t send a video. For the seminarian appeal, he sends seminarians to each parish to provide a brief talk during announcements, but never video during mass.

We are planning the World Meeting of Families here in Philly, and no video has been used during mass for that either. But we can watch videos online.

In my opinion, videos from the Bishops belong online or in the parish hall with coffee.

God bless

 

[ProVobis]

The Congregation for Divine Worship has just released a Homiletic Directory. In news articles I saw no mention about the use of audiovisual aids in homilies, but my hope is that the book will at least briefly touch on the topic. In that case, our arguments here can be over the narrower scope of what those words say, rather than the fairly broad range of possibilities we have been discussing so far.

Seems like it would be a simple thing for the Pope to just say that the prohibition is no longer in effect (like Pope Paul did with the Index of Forbidden Books, and so on).

But then again, maybe not.

 

[phil19034]

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.

Perhaps it’s as simple as the Bishops intend for videos to be played during “announcements” or immediately after the Mass has officially ended.

I agree with FrDavid96, that stopping the mass during the homily to setup the projector, play a video, put away the video, pass out flyers, etc is a disruption of the Mass. The Homily is supposed to be how we receive the Word of God interpreted and flowing from the Holy Spirit through the priest.

I think a video is disruptive at this point.

However, after Communion or after the Mass has officially ended is a much more suitable place for a video. If I were to guess… I would imagine the most bishops do not intend the videos to be played during the homily. Perhaps some do… but I believe most do not.

I’ve seen plenty of videos, but never during the Homily. HOWEVER, I have heard letters from the Bishop read during the Homily, but never a video during the Homily. Again videos, have always been during “announcements” or immediately after the mass had ended (in place of an exiting hymn).

 

[Cat]

Perhaps it’s as simple as the Bishops intend for videos to be played during “announcements” or immediately after the Mass has officially ended.

I agree with FrDavid96, that stopping the mass during the homily to setup the projector, play a video, put away the video, pass out flyers, etc is a disruption of the Mass. The Homily is supposed to be how we receive the Word of God interpreted and flowing from the Holy Spirit through the priest.

I think a video is disruptive at this point.

However, after Communion or after the Mass has officially ended is a much more suitable place for a video. If I were to guess… I would imagine the most bishops do not intend the videos to be played during the homily. Perhaps some do… but I believe most do not.

I’ve seen plenty of videos, but never during the Homily. HOWEVER, I have heard letters from the Bishop read during the Homily, but never a video during the Homily. Again videos, have always been during “announcements” or immediately after the mass had ended (in place of an exiting hymn).

No one uses “projectors and videos” anymore. It’s all done by computer, and it’s no more disruptive than Father reaching towards his collar to adjust his microphone.

It all boils down to this–how shall the people of the Church be informed of various financial needs?

An old-fashioned letter? This is expensive, even with group rates, and time-consuming, and the chances are excellent that most of these letters will end up in the trash or recycling bin without ever being opened/read.

A seminarian visiting every Mass? Sounds like a good plan if it’s feasible. That’s a lot of Masses. Our parish has 8 Masses on weekends, and there are several parishes in our city that have 3 or more Masses. There are a lot of cities and towns in our diocese–is it really feasible to send seminarians out to all these Masses?

But even if a seminarian was sent out, what would he say? He would read an announcement from the bishop describing the financial needs. Most people would pay no attention because it would be boring. There is no way that the seminarian can “dress up” the announcement, or use some spiffy marketing techniques to get people to pay attention–this would be offensive to the Mass.

How about having the priest announce the financial need either after the Mass during the announcements or after his homily? After Mass, people charge out of the church building the instant the closing hymn starts up, sometimes sooner, so many people would miss the announcement. And according to many people here on CAF, the attention span of most people is very short, and so most people would probably tune out any announcements immediately after the homily. (I don’t think they listen to announcements at the end of Mass.)

How about email? Yeah, right. You know what would happen–any letters from the Diocese would be deleted. No one would actually read them.

So then we come to the video during the Mass, right after the homily before the Liturgy of the Eucharist (so the people must watch it if they wish to stay and receive Holy Communion). I doubt that this was an easy decision for bishops to make 30 years ago. I’m sure they argued about some of the same questions that are being discussed on this thread, mainly whether a video is allowed by Canon Law, and whether it is disruptive to the spirit of reverence and worship in the Holy Mass.

But they decided that yes, videos are the best option. And as the technology has improved, the videos done on computer have made the process less disruptive than the old-fashioned projector or VCR or DVD player.

The point is, the people have to be told about financial needs. The bishops have chosen a method to tell them. It would be so wonderful if we could all “sense” the needs of the Church, or if we could welcome with joy verbal requests from priests for funds. It would be so nice if we were not the type of people who have such short attention spans that we can’t even listen to an announcement but instead, must watch an engaging video written and filmed by the Church’s professional marketing staff.

I’m ashamed of myself. We all should be ashamed. We SHOULD be eager to give our money to Holy Mother Church to help out with her many needs and missions.

*But we aren’t. * And the bishops are doing what they feel is most efficacious to persuade people to give to the very worthy causes of the diocese. They have chosen a method (videos immediately after the homily) that apparently is working to raise the funds that they need.

Would you rather the Church simply cut out these endeavors so that fundraising doesn’t have to be done? I myself believe in limited government and I would like to see our Federal and State budgets slashed by eliminating many of the programs that I don’t believe are justifiable use of my tax monies.

But we’re not talking about government programs. We’re talking about the needs of Holy Mother Church. We can’t just slash and burn. We have to tell the people of the Church about the needs and use whatever means work to do this and to persuade them to give money to help.

If you have a better idea for parting the people from their money, tell the bishops!

 

[Digitonomy]

I agree with FrDavid96,…
I think a video is disruptive at this point [homily].

However, after Communion or after the Mass has officially ended is a much more suitable place for a video.

Of course, what FrDavid96 is hanging his hat on, De Musica Sacra, prohibits videos in church at all, not just during mass.
ojtm:

One is that the promulgation of the OF “started from square one”; that is, prior liturgical rules and regulations were specific to the prior form, and not to the OF.

I’m a little skeptical that this would be relevant, since the document’s prohibition did not appear to be limited to the liturgy.

 

[ProVobis]

I agree with FrDavid96, that stopping the mass during the homily to setup the projector, play a video, put away the video, pass out flyers, etc is a disruption of the Mass.

Not to mention those churches which by design would require multi screens (and large screens) for viewing such videos.

 

[ProVobis]

But we’re not talking about government programs. We’re talking about the needs of Holy Mother Church.

I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you, we should give voluntarily and a lot, but aren’t we giving a lot as a society by exempting churches from paying property taxes which not too many individuals or businesses, rich or poor, can claim for themselves?

 

[Cat]

I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you, we should give voluntarily and a lot, but aren’t we giving a lot as a society by exempting churches from paying property taxes which not too many individuals or businesses, rich or poor, can claim for themselves?

First, remember that you don’t see many of the results of any of the tax monies that you “donate.” It’s so impersonal. Most of that money goes to pay the overhead and staff salaries for collecting those tax monies and keeping the records.

Second, these “tax breaks” don’t pay the bills at the Retired Priests Home, or for the “Apostolate For Homosexuals,” or for the “Catholic Social Services,” etcl

These are the types of ministries that the Diocescan Appeal is pleading with you for funding. Just because there is a tax break for churches doesn’t mean that these worthy organizations and staff people get any real money.

WE have to give it! And we have to first be informed and persuaded that these organizations are worth a small (or bigger!) financial sacrifice.

Yes, we shouldn’t have to see a video. We should be able to hear Father say, “Give some money to ____,” and we would say, “Yes, indeed, Father, with joy!” But we don’t do that.

If a video can be used by the Holy Spirit to soften our hard hearts, then…what’s the alternative? Telling the Retired Priests that they have to move out? And closing down those other worthwhile ministries?

 

[jmcrae]

Is it? I mean the people at home are not receiving the physical body and blood of Our Lord, when quite possibly they could. Now I’m speaking of those who could.

Homes are not sacred spaces, they are allowed to have TV sets in them. Churches are supposed to be sacred spaces, so they should not have TV sets in them. It’s not so much that videos are being played during Mass, but how did a TV set get on to holy ground? We have lost our sense of propriety.

 

[ProVobis]

These are the types of ministries that the Diocescan Appeal is pleading with you for funding. Just because there is a tax break for churches doesn’t mean that these worthy organizations and staff people get any real money.

Which is one of the reasons why the Pope is asking for some religious communities to be taking some finance classes. I take that as preparing to issue instruments such as bonds and annuities which will bring in some needed cash. I hold a bond through the state of Louisiana which financed a Franciscan hospital. I do know it’s riskier than other bonds because of the financial situation of the Franciscans but I figured it was for a good cause. I hope these other organizations pay heed to the Pope’s advice. I don’t think one can count on collection plates for too much longer, with or without videos. I don’t feel all that great knowing that in our EF community (I told you about), I find myself giving more than 10% of the total amount collected there. But I won’t be around forever, and if no one else steps up, there goes the Mass, if not the parish which hosts it.