Video screens being used during the Mass?!

[Mamaw_Carol]

(Ding - good answer)!!!

You just exclaimed the very point of this thread. Church is not for entertainment! So what you advise is beneficial. Do away with the big bands and bring on the organ in the back or side of church. Let the parishioners (notice how I didn’t state audience) use the hymnal.

If there are any important messages place them in the bulletin and not a PowerPoint™ presentation.

Mass is a focal point of the sacrificial lamb, the new Adam, the new Eve, and the new covenant…Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection. Not a 10-minute rework of the Gloria.

So yes, I agree with you 100%. Kick the entertainment screens out and leave tradition.

**** I agree with your answer, and many others. I WAS Protestant, I converted to the Roman Catholic Church for lots of reasons, one of which is that the Mass is supposed to be the same all over the world, and it is a worship experience - we are there to worship Christ. This is one of the times of the week when we give up our own interests in all humilty and bow our heads before the Great and Almighty God. The Homily isn’t the center of the Mass, as in a Protestant church, the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist is. If you think about how you would behave if you could see Him in his human form, standing in front of you, perhaps those announcements could wait. Also, remember, that as we participate in the Mass, we are also participating in the Heavenly Liturgy. I daresay there probably aren’t video screens at the Throne of the Lamb.

In my Parish, we use screens for those people who, for whatever reason, choose to sit in the social hall during Mass. They can watch the Mass on the screen, and come into the Sanctuary to partake of the Eucharist.

Here’s an idea: why not create a scroll of video images around the social hall, or some other area of the church, so that your announcements can be run there. And do away with announcements in the Sanctuary altogether. It is a Holy place - let’s treat it accordingly.

 

[Stonez]

I have no problem with churches using video screens…provided they are using them correctly. i.e. for putting the lyrics of songs and the responsorial psalm. one of the most orthodox churches in my diocese incorporates two video screens for lyrics during mass.

p.s. i haven’t read through all the posts and i don’t know if anyone mentioned it but, perhaps using video screens and projectors for song lyrics will eventually save money for the parish. Even though screen and projectors are very expensive, I am sure buying new hymnals every year or every few years can not be too cheap.

 

[WillieManillie]

I have no problem with churches using video screens…provided they are using them correctly. i.e. for putting the lyrics of songs and the responsorial psalm. one of the most orthodox churches in my diocese incorporates two video screens for lyrics during mass.

p.s. i haven’t read through all the posts and i don’t know if anyone mentioned it but, perhaps using video screens and projectors for song lyrics will eventually save money for the parish. Even though screen and projectors are very expensive, I am sure buying new hymnals every year or every few years can not be too cheap.

Under this scenario you’ll then need to put readings I & II, the Gospel, Eucharistic Prayers 1 through 4, the Our Father, Apostles Creed, etc. on the mega-screens.

I prefer to read out of the book. When I read I am able focus and follow along. The excuses I read during this thread are complaints about people flipping pages distract everyone’s attention. So what’s the difference. I guess the rest of the mass is okay to be distracted while the pages flip away on everything else excluding the songs that are on the big screen.

Let’s just put the entire mass on the projector, do away with the books, and then we can go numb paying attention to the screen and forget about the sacrifice of the Lamb of God as we are too busy watching the multimedia presentation on the screen.

 

[Firefox]

Yes

There it is. You cannot see that the screen is NOT entertainment. It is words projected onto a screen in the form of light. It projects colored light onto a white screen that bounces back into your eye. The hymnal is a sheet of paper, with coloring agents on it that block certain colors of light, while allowing the rest to bounce back into your eye. The difference is 100% colored pigment vs. colored light. If a screen is entertainment, so are the pages of the hymnal, the pages of the lectionary, the little wooden boards that display the numbers of the songs, (Those really match up to the argument) and the stained glass windows. (They project colored light into the church as well.)

I once had a debate like this before… Whether humans are animals or not. They just could not fathom that science does not include the immortal soul into classifications, so by scientific terms, humans are animals. Since religion does include the immortal soul, humans are not animals in religious terms. It’s all context, like these screens.

Let’s just put the entire mass on the projector, do away with the books, and then we can go numb paying attention to the screen and forget about the sacrifice of the Lamb of God as we are too busy watching the multimedia presentation on the screen.

How, pray tell, would it distract us? At my parish, during most of the year (I don’t like it when they don’t) there are no pictures on the screen. It’s just the words staring at you. As I’ve pointed out above, the only difference in what you see on the screen and in the book is whether light is blocked, or allowed. It’s used for the music. When you are singing, you are (surprise) thinking about the music. Whether you look in the book or on the screen, you remain thinking about the music.

 

[tradition]

“MODERNISM - THE SEWER OF HERESIES”
CAN SOMEONE TELL ME IF THAT QUOTE WAS FROM
FROM POPE PIUS X OR POPE PIUS XII ? ?
I’M NOT SURE?

THAT’S WHY THE LATIN MASS SHOULD
NOT HAVE BEEN TAMPERED WITH.View attachment 1574

 

[kage_ar]

Here’s the solution to this and all matters of concern as follows:

• retain the screens for those incapable of holding a book or can’t read music out of the book.
• add a “follow the bouncing ball” as we all sing
  **- have someone present each mass in sign language **
  - provide braille hymnals and missalettes for the blind
  - provide handicap access to all confessionals and communion areas
• remove all candles and replace them with simulating candles with flashlight bulbs (believe it or not this is being done at one of my old churches)
• Provide an archdiocesan Power Point presentation and web telecast of the sermon to address the shortage of priests.
• Build drive through communion services and confession by email, phone, IMing, or text messaging.

Bold added - to provide access to Mass and the Sacraments for the disabled not a joke. I’ve seen many mean-spirited posts on these forums, this one is in the top 5. You may be attempting humour, to this DISABLED CATHOLIC, you failed.

 

[Mamaw_Carol]

Even though I converted years after the Latin Mass went out of common use, I am looking forward to attending.

It’s interesting…my daughter lives in Europe. Last time I was there, I made it a point to visit many of the old (from the first millenium) churches. The ornate alters, as pictured in the quoted passage, are still there. The priests and the people are largely gone. The Cathedral of St. Stephen, from which Pope Benedict XVI will celebrate mass next week, was one of the churches I visited several times. I never saw a mass going on, nor did I see a schedule of masses. It is one of the most beautiful churches I’ve ever visited, with ornate pillars adorned with sculpture and paintings, and many small altars to various saints around the perimeter of the Sanctuary. I encourage everyone to watch as the Holy Father celebrates from St. Stephen next week (it’s on EWTN live). Try to picture video screens in this ancient church.

I think it is important to retain the reverence of the Sanctuary and not make changes to bow to culture. We could go back to the former practice that people used to have of bringing our own missals to follow the mass. It is also possible to use first stanzas of familiar hymns to cut down on the need for a hymnal. The less distraction the better. But, we all can also learn to be tolerant of others, and we can learn to focus in spite of any noise around us (such as small children, for instance).

Choose the path of love and respect.

 

[agapewolf]

Under this scenario you’ll then need to put readings I & II, the Gospel, Eucharistic Prayers 1 through 4, the Our Father, Apostles Creed, etc. on the mega-screens.

*yet another opposite extreme. There is no need to put the readings, eucharistic prayers, etc on the screen. Those are meant to be heard…not everyone says them all together, just one proclaimer, or the priest/deacon. *

I prefer to read out of the book. When I read I am able focus and follow along. The excuses I read during this thread are complaints about people flipping pages distract everyone’s attention. So what’s the difference. I guess the rest of the mass is okay to be distracted while the pages flip away on everything else excluding the songs that are on the big screen.

Let’s just put the entire mass on the projector, do away with the books, and then we can go numb paying attention to the screen and forget about the sacrifice of the Lamb of God as we are too busy watching the multimedia presentation on the screen.

or too busy flipping pages to read along… just as you said

*If reading helps you focus, thats fine, bring a missal or a church can provide some for those that would like one, but don’t use this as a reason to not use a screen.

Again, I’m not saying a screen is the best solution, but the arguments I am reading use extreme examples that do not have substance.*

 

[WillieManillie]

I’ve seen many mean-spirited posts on these forums, this one is in the top 5.

No humor attempted.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Historically, all of these arguments were made when hymnody began to be played in four parts (as opposed to plainchant). Pipe organs were thought to be an instrument of the devil - a “modernism” bringing secular music into the church for the puporse of “entertainment.”

Air conditioning, artificial lighting, carpet, faux-stone - all frowned upon at one time. People shouldn’t be comfortable!

Regarding video screens - our society is less print-oriented and more media-oriented. While some might view such as entertainment, those who work and live in those environments daily don’t think of it as entertainment - they see it as a basic tool. Which is how video screens should be used - as a tool. Any tool can be abused or become more of a focus than intended.

Can you overuse Powerpoint and video screens? Most certainly. You can also have an overzealous organist who modulates music into the 7th heaven. Moderation in all things. Just because you CAn do something doesn’t mean you always should.

Architecture and costs are increasing realities in churches. There is a beautiful Catholic church downtown where I live. It was recently restored at a cost of nearly $3 million - just to repair it. Total cost to rebuild such a church today? $30 million. Few parishes could afford that.

Pipe organs are becoming increasingly expensive as well; building them and maintaining them is becoming cost-prohibitive as well.

I am a Protestant pastor (United Methodist). A video screen would look out of place in our sanctuary; because of classical architecture, there is really no place to put it. However, there are many newer churches being built, Protestant and Catholic alike, where they are incorporated tastefully; not as a focal point, but simply as a functioning tool (just as printed media is). Icons, statues, a font - all of these are still incorporated into such churches.

O+

 

[WillieManillie]

Very nicely said. I can respect that.

 

[VAC]

Historically, all of these arguments were made when hymnody began to be played in four parts (as opposed to plainchant). Pipe organs were thought to be an instrument of the devil - a “modernism” bringing secular music into the church for the puporse of “entertainment.”

Air conditioning, artificial lighting, carpet, faux-stone - all frowned upon at one time. People shouldn’t be comfortable!
O+

I would absolutely love to get my hands on some type of historical documentation of your above statements.
Way too many of the discussions on these types of topics are based on personal opinions, (in my opinion) and are influenced by society and cultural perceptions rather than any spiritually or biblically based doctrines.

 

[O.S.Luke]

I would absolutely love to get my hands on some type of historical documentation of your above statements.
Way too many of the discussions on these types of topics are based on personal opinions, (in my opinion) and are influenced by society and cultural perceptions rather than any spiritually or biblically based doctrines.

I took History of Sacred Music from a Catholic professor. Just about any decent text on the matter would give you more than enough historical documentation.

This website (a Catholic website) might be helpful. An excerpt:

In the 4th century, St. Augustine himself complained that sometimes music in church seems “directed to the sound rather than the sense” of the faith, in which case he “would prefer to hear no singing at all.”

Five centuries later, Pope Leo IV discovered that just 26 miles from Rome, one of the most important monasteries in all of Italy had been completely neglecting the Gregorian chant for years. The abbot, the Pope had heard, found the whole genre “distasteful.” Leo IV upbraided the abbot for this opinion:

We command under sentence of excommunication that, in the singing and readings in your churches, you carry them out in no other way than that which Pope St. Gregory handed down, and We hold that you cultivate and sing this tradition always.

The eventual advent of polyphonic singing presented a new problem: singers who use the liturgy to improvise their own songs during Mass. In the 12th century, the Bishop of Chartres complained that much singing in church is “full of ostentation.” “Such is the facility of running up and down the scale,” he wrote, “the ears lose their power of judging.”

In the same period St. Aelred, a Cistercian abbot in England, described in detail the alarming developments of the period. “To what purpose is that terrible blowing of bellows, imitating rather the crash of thunder than the sweetness of the human voice?” he asked. The saintly abbot continued: “Sometimes, and I write it with shame” the singing “is forced into the whinnying of a horse” and even “imitates the agonies of the dying.” “And this ridiculous trifling,” he said with disgust, “is called religion.”

As you can see, St. Aelred didn’t like the “blowing of bellows,” and the Church took a very dim view of the organ at first; it was a secular instrument that didn’t appear in churches until the 10th century, and it wasn’t until the middle ages that organs (most of them Blockwerk organs) became widespread in churches and abbeys.

O+

 

[WillieManillie]

I took History of Sacred Music from a Catholic professor. Just about any decent text on the matter would give you more than enough historical documentation.

This website (a Catholic website) might be helpful. An excerpt:

As you can see, St. Aelred didn’t like the “blowing of bellows,” and the Church took a very dim view of the organ at first; it was a secular instrument that didn’t appear in churches until the 10th century, and it wasn’t until the middle ages that organs (most of them Blockwerk organs) became widespread in churches and abbeys.

O+

This is the case and you do show enough evidence to convince me. Notice the authority involved prior to the final acceptance. Yet there were, as there are today, numerous infractions even though it was forbidden.

Prior to allowing the organ it was irreverant and not authorized. In other words, the infraction was disobedient.

The people who complain about this detail and active debate should refrain from participating in such threads.

The displays are an infraction at this time.

 

[kage_ar]

No humor attempted.

I Pray that God finds a way to open your heart to the disabled. Bl. Margaret of Castillo, may you interceede for this.

 

[Digitonomy]

The displays are an infraction at this time.

An infraction against what rule? The displays may sometimes demonstrate poor taste, they may be used inappropriately, but they are not in themselves an infraction against any rule, they are not disobedient to any authority, unless the local bishop has made a pronouncement on the issue.

 

[WillieManillie]

I Pray that God finds a way to open your heart to the disabled. Bl. Margaret of Castillo, may you interceede for this.

Please, you’re way too serious. Thank you for your prayers though. I reciprocate. Good day.

 

[WillieManillie]

An infraction against what rule? The displays may sometimes demonstrate poor taste, they may be used inappropriately, but they are not in themselves an infraction against any rule, they are not disobedient to any authority, unless the local bishop has made a pronouncement on the issue.

Unless approved by the local Bishop of the applicable deanery, they are not authorized to do such.

If a child drinks until his parents explicitly state it is not ok doesn’t make it ok.

 

[VAC]

This is the case and you do show enough evidence to convince me. Notice the authority involved prior to the final acceptance. Yet there were, as there are today, numerous infractions even though it was forbidden.

Prior to allowing the organ it was irreverant and not authorized. In other words, the infraction was disobedient.

The people who complain about this detail and active debate should refrain from participating in such threads.

The displays are an infraction at this time.

This illustrates my point beautifully. If it is the OPINIONS of mere mortals of the times dictate what is right and wrong. If the directives came from God or any real authority, they would stand the test of time and not change over the years.
God’s ways are far above our ways. How arrogant of us to use the everchanging elements of culture and society to determine what is appropriate or not at mass, and present it as fact and demand adherence. If organ music was ever considered irreverent in the past, then to now demand that it be played to the exclusion of all else is equally irreverant and totally ridiculous.

 

[VAC]

If a child drinks until his parents explicitly state it is not ok doesn’t make it ok.

Absolutely not, there are very explicit laws on the books in every state about underage drinking.
This is not the case in the topic of this theard.