V
- Status
D
Digitonomy
Guest
Canon law, and church rules in general, is interpreted strictly: if it doesn’t specifically say something, and the matter in question is not clearly within the scope of a rule, then one is not bound by that rule in that case.
If you can provide a rule which you think video screens violate, then we can have a more detailed discussion about whether the rule applies or not. However, if there is no applicable rule, then video screens can be used. There is no need to revise canon law or the GIRM to specifically allow something. If my priest buys a vestment with a pattern of geometric shapes on it having 18 sides each, it doesn’t matter that there have been no such vestments used in the diocese before, he doesn’t need approval to use such a vestment, it is acceptable unless there is a rule contrary to it in place. OR if the local bishop rules that it is not acceptable.
I disagree. The magisterium does not always issue directives that are wise, nor must directives last forever. However, unless they contradict essential dogmatic truths, we are obligated to follow the directives, in spite of our doubts about their wisdom.
W
WillieManillie
Guest
The norms of mass are clearly written by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Unless practices of mass for approval are in written form, such practices (i.e., multimedia uses) are rendered invalid.
D
Digitonomy
Guest
Things like the rosary were private devotions for many years before they ever received official approval from the Church. But official approval was not required. Church inaction did not disallow the use of rosaries - rather, it was perfectly fine to use rosaries until such time as they were forbidden or restricted.
So it is with Church rules in general. A priest as part of his homily may hold aloft a book or picture, or play a CD or tape, or project an image or video clip, whether on a video screen, or the side wall of the church, etc. Such a stunt is rarely justified, and would often be a distraction - which is why I’ve probably only seen this sort of thing happen a few times in my life. But unless there is a rule against it, he is free to do so.
So it is with Church rules in general. A priest as part of his homily may hold aloft a book or picture, or play a CD or tape, or project an image or video clip, whether on a video screen, or the side wall of the church, etc. Such a stunt is rarely justified, and would often be a distraction - which is why I’ve probably only seen this sort of thing happen a few times in my life. But unless there is a rule against it, he is free to do so.
W
WillieManillie
Guest
It’s clear you’re utilizing personal opinion. This is why the screens are used by liberal clergy. I will give credence to Jimmy Akin’s interpretation. After all he is on Catholic Answers and well respected as a genius.
Your rosary point has me scratching my head. I don’t understand that one. The rosary is approved by the Pope. The church has written and Golden Rosed Our Lady of Fatima. Our Lady encourages the Rosary. It’s merely a prayer of meditation.
Jesus praying in the garden approves the rosary as a form of prayer. I’ll accept his precedent even over the Popes.
Enough evidence has been provided. The big screen is protestant. No further evidence is needed.
D
Digitonomy
Guest
I don’t know whether he’s a genius, but Jimmy Akin is pretty sharp, and it’s very rare when I disagree with him over interpretations of canon law or the GIRM. If you can show where Jimmy Akin has expressed his view on the licity of video screens, it would surely be educational for one of us.
Another question that must be answered is what forms of media expression are allowed, and which are prohibited as part of a homily? If as you suggest a priest is forbidden from playing a 30-second video clip of Fulton Sheen, could he play an audio clip? Could he point to a large poster or diagram? Could he hold up a still picture? Could he hold up a book? Could he put on a baseball cap, as a former cardinal in New York was known to do?
Since Jesus was not using the rosary, I don’t think his prayers in the Garden of Gethsemane are relevant.
The point I was making is that explicit approval of the rosary by Church took centuries. As I understand your approach, anything not explicitly approved is forbidden. So following the logic you’ve put forth, praying an unapproved devotion like the rosary was illicit for those many years.
Depends on what you mean by “protestant.” If you mean reminiscent of cheesy evangelical mega-churches, then I agree, no further evidence is needed. However, if you mean in opposition to the Church, I’m afraid you’ll have to provide the evidence of that.
A
agapewolf
Guest
Enough evidence has NOT been provided.
Your blanket statement does not make sense. A video screen cannot be, in essence, protestant. come on.
and no, “liberal” priests are not the only ones using video screens.
Your sweeping generalizations are unfair, and unfounded.
O
O.S.Luke
Guest
The problem with sweeping generalizations is that they’re rarely accurate!
I think you would find that just as many Protestants are opposed to big screens as there are Catholics. It’s less about being “liberal” and more about change and caution - sometimes well-founded. I imagine there are some very conservative and theologically-orthodox priests that utilize multimedia as it should be utilized if used: as a tool, never a focus.
Some Protestant denominations have no musical instruments pemitted in any worship, for the same reasons given by the Early Church. I think that’s a little silly now, but I know historically where that’s coming from.
I’m sure someone once fussed about rosaries (Jesus didn’t use one), pipe organs (Hippolytus and Augustine didn’t use them), church liturgies in digital form (Justin Martyr didn’t use a computer). Of course, Pharisees didn’t heal on the Sabbath, either…
Jesus - the original, radical troublemaker.
Pax,
O+
I think you would find that just as many Protestants are opposed to big screens as there are Catholics. It’s less about being “liberal” and more about change and caution - sometimes well-founded. I imagine there are some very conservative and theologically-orthodox priests that utilize multimedia as it should be utilized if used: as a tool, never a focus.
Some Protestant denominations have no musical instruments pemitted in any worship, for the same reasons given by the Early Church. I think that’s a little silly now, but I know historically where that’s coming from.
I’m sure someone once fussed about rosaries (Jesus didn’t use one), pipe organs (Hippolytus and Augustine didn’t use them), church liturgies in digital form (Justin Martyr didn’t use a computer). Of course, Pharisees didn’t heal on the Sabbath, either…
Jesus - the original, radical troublemaker.
Pax,
O+
A
Aramis
Guest
In the case of church architecture and fittings, except as noted in Canon Law, Particular Law, Civil Law, and the instructions of the Missal, it’s the Bishop’s call. THe people have (name removed by moderator)ut, the bishop the final say.
Video and Overhead Transparency screens both fall into that gray zone. If you dislike them, POLITELY write a note to the pastor, and if you feel the need, the Bishop.
- Status