Visual projector aids at Mass

[Phemie]

I’ve often wondered if the reason why so many bathrooms with toilets are in the basements of older Catholic church buildings is because someone decided that “going to the bathroom” is not appropriate for the same level as the Mass. So now all of us who have serious issues (for me, it’s knees) going up and down stairs are forced to go to the bathroom down the street at the local 7-11 after Mass instead of in the church building. God created our kidneys and bladders, and He became a human being Himself, and He does not consider our physical world somehow “inappropriate” in His August Presence. In the same way, God created our physical senses, and if we are using devices that make it easier for our senses to process information, that is not inappropriate, especially if we are attempting to process information about Him and His Church.

I suspect it’s because many of those old churches were built without bathrooms (at a time when many homes didn’t have them either) and when they were renovated to include them there was no space except the basement. I do recall going to pee outside behind the church when I was a kid, they didn’t put a bathroom in our parish church until the 1970s. They put it in the sacristy.

 

[CAROLOFTHEBELLS]

When I hold the Missal book as the readings are read, I feel more connected to the Word of God. I used to just watch the lector, but I would find my mind would drift a bit, or I would get distracted by other things in my line of vision (including sometimes what the lector was wearing), or for some reason I just did not understand the reading as it was being read. I feel like with my “face buried in the book”, I am getting the total immersive experience of both hearing and seeing up close and personal.

Since I am in a choir, I am actually not “holding” the book unless I am at a Mass where I am not singing. I have the Missal on the music stand and I flip over to that Sunday’s readings at an appropiate time. I may follow along with my finger on the page and read along silently. While I find the style of reading that lectors are encouraged to use stilted and hard to follow without reading along, I also find looking at the book as the Word of God is being read is more of a spiritual experience for me. If for some reason, my parish or most parishes abandoned their books, I would probably order one for my personal use.

Another thing I enjoy about the books is sharing with someone next to me when the pew does not have enough, using the same book to sing from and to pray the creed. This is a different experience than standing next to someone with both bodies focused on screens ahead of them. Sharing a book takes a bit of cooperation and thinking of each other. Actually, when this has happened, it has given me extra joy in attending Mass that day.

 

[CAROLOFTHEBELLS]

Can’t get this Simon and Garfunkel lyric out of my head, as it seems to relate to video screens and various other electronic devices:

“And the people bowed and prayed to the neon god they made.”

 

[Edmundus1581]

Can’t get this Simon and Garfunkel lyric out of my head, as it seems to relate to video screens and various other electronic devices:

“And the people bowed and prayed to the neon god they made.”

 

[Cat]

Can’t get this Simon and Garfunkel lyric out of my head, as it seems to relate to video screens and various other electronic devices:

“And the people bowed and prayed to the neon god they made.”

But it’s just a song.

Using an overhead projector is not worshipping a neon God.

Again, we need to stop being so esoteric. I can respect that some people find spiritual meaning to physical objects, but many people don’t. Frankly, I’m a little bothered by the idea of a “book” have such importance. It sounds like what I used to see in the Protestant churches when people literally “worshipped” the Bible. I don’t want to be back in that world.

 

[VivienneJ]

I wonder…

If the internet had been around when printed books became available in churches…would people have been complaining about having those newfangled books in the holy space of the church and wondered why people couldn’t just listen to the words and memorise the hymns as they had done before?

Back home my church is in a small country town; we are not a wealthy parish; we do not have hymn books, missals, miselettes or any other such. We have the hymns on overhead projector sheets which one of the choir members changes as needed. The screen is over to the right side of the church and doesn’t cause any problems. You either bring your own missal with you, or learn the prayers. We get a leaflet (1 A4 page) with the responsorial psalm, church announcements and a meditation suitable for that Sunday.

Here where I work, the church is huge. We have 5 screens inside the church; two in the front and two in the middle and one where the choir sits; there are two more at the upstairs balcony; one at each entrance to the church (3 doors); two in the outside compound and, depending on the size anything from 2 to 4 in the halls that are used to accommodate the overflow of worshippers at times. I have no idea who operates, prepares and maintains all of this. But without those screens, only the people in the first few rows of pews would see anything that happened in the sanctuary. Before Mass the screens are either blank, or display a picture suitable for the Sunday; during Mass they are used for prayers where the congregation joins in, the readings, the hymns and the notices at the end. When none of these are appropriate to be shown, we see the priests in the sanctuary. No books or other printed matter are provided at all, but the screens mean that even though the church is huge, and sometimes you end up in one of the halls, or standing outside, you can still see what is happening.

 

[Sarabande]

Yesterday after mass someone was talking to me about a parish they visited and was put off by the use of only the lyrics and no music. The person said, “How do they expect us to follow along without the music? It’s like they think we’re too stupid to know what the notes are for.” This person does not “read” music never having music lessons, but he’s able to figure out that the notes going up or down means to go up or down with your voice, or that certain notes means to hold out or shorten, etc.

Perhaps some places with projectors do put up the music, but of the places where I’ve been which incorporated them only used the lyrics. Besides my problems being able to see well on screens, paying too much attention to the screen rather than the actual mass, it really was upsetting to not have the actual music. I thought this would only be a problem for musicians, but I see it can be a problem for non-musicians.

 

[Sarabande]

I’d suggest some caution on arguments to the future…

Quite a long time has passed since we have needed candles in church to provide enough light to see things. Electric lights have made candles obsolete. Yet, we still use them. We use them because they have a value beyond merely the utilitarian; and at the same time, we realize that electric lights simply do not adequately address the spiritual realities that we celebrate in the Church’s liturgy.

There is a very good reason why there is near universal disdain among Catholics for those “dreaded electric votive lights” wherever they appear, even though they’ve been around for 40 years now, and people have had more than adequate time to “just get over it and accept it.”

We still use candles in purely secular settings as well; because we realize that there are times when an electric version is “just not the same.” I will venture to guess that with St. Valentine’s day approaching, there will be quite a few couples having dinner by candlelight.

Would you advocate for a “pascal flashlight” instead of a pascal candle? I rather doubt it.

There is a value to the written word that goes beyond mere utility, and there is a value to liturgical books that goes beyond mere utility as well. There is a reason why the deacon incenses the book of the Gospels, and that reason is because the book itself has an inherent spiritual value and significance which simply does not attach to images projected on a wall, or the screens of devices.

The (literally) written word in an actual bound book conveys a sense of permanence, stability, and continuity that is completely contradicted by electronic images which are constantly changing, and which can be easily changed in a fraction of a second.

I think that the Church should indeed embrace new means of communication and new means of making sacred texts more available and accessible. By all means. I have nothing against it, and even use an e-book version of the Liturgy of the Hours for my own private use.

We should certainly embrace technology where it can be useful, but we need to be cautious about using it merely because it is available, without proper discernment.

Something to think about and it makes a lot of sense.
Thank you.

 

[johnmann]

I’d suggest some caution on arguments to the future…

Quite a long time has passed since we have needed candles in church to provide enough light to see things. Electric lights have made candles obsolete. Yet, we still use them. We use them because they have a value beyond merely the utilitarian; and at the same time, we realize that electric lights simply do not adequately address the spiritual realities that we celebrate in the Church’s liturgy.

There is a very good reason why there is near universal disdain among Catholics for those “dreaded electric votive lights” wherever they appear, even though they’ve been around for 40 years now, and people have had more than adequate time to “just get over it and accept it.”

We still use candles in purely secular settings as well; because we realize that there are times when an electric version is “just not the same.” I will venture to guess that with St. Valentine’s day approaching, there will be quite a few couples having dinner by candlelight.

Would you advocate for a “pascal flashlight” instead of a pascal candle? I rather doubt it.

There is a value to the written word that goes beyond mere utility, and there is a value to liturgical books that goes beyond mere utility as well. There is a reason why the deacon incenses the book of the Gospels, and that reason is because the book itself has an inherent spiritual value and significance which simply does not attach to images projected on a wall, or the screens of devices.

The (literally) written word in an actual bound book conveys a sense of permanence, stability, and continuity that is completely contradicted by electronic images which are constantly changing, and which can be easily changed in a fraction of a second.

I think that the Church should indeed embrace new means of communication and new means of making sacred texts more available and accessible. By all means. I have nothing against it, and even use an e-book version of the Liturgy of the Hours for my own private use.

We should certainly embrace technology where it can be useful, but we need to be cautious about using it merely because it is available, without proper discernment.

Sure, but I would also warn against opposing technology merely because it’s not traditional. We all know about the organ.

 

[clem456]

Sure, but I would also warn against opposing technology merely because it’s not traditional. We all know about the organ.

Of course. We should look at the nature of the media, and come to a conclusion based on how the media contributes to the liturgy. We should not disregard -or embrace- technology merely because it is new.
An organ breathes and imitates the human voice well. It’s not a great instrument merely because it’s “traditional”, because as you said, it wasn’t always “traditional”. It has inherent qualities that other instruments don’t have. A trumpet has qualities an organ doesn’t have. Everything has a set of God-given attributes that may or may not contribute to the liturgy. I’m trying real hard to find the qualities inherent to a video presentation of lyrics, and picture aids above the altar of sacrifice.

The liturgy is a living action involving the people of God. The media used should not become the focal point of the Mass.

 

[FrDavid96]

Sure, but I would also warn against opposing technology merely because it’s not traditional. We all know about the organ.

And I have never encountered anyone (not in person and not on these forums) who does so.

Posters here are not “opposing technology merely because it’s not traditional.”

 

[27lw]

Of course. We should look at the nature of the media, and come to a conclusion based on how the media contributes to the liturgy. We should not disregard -or embrace- technology merely because it is new.
An organ breathes and imitates the human voice well. It’s not a great instrument merely because it’s “traditional”, because as you said, it wasn’t always “traditional”. It has inherent qualities that other instruments don’t have. A trumpet has qualities an organ doesn’t have. Everything has a set of God-given attributes that may or may not contribute to the liturgy. I’m trying real hard to find the qualities inherent to a video presentation of lyrics, and picture aids above the altar of sacrifice.

The liturgy is a living action involving the people of God. The media used should not become the focal point of the Mass.

So true! Thank you for posting this. After all, I think we all remember the phrase “the media IS the message”.

 

[Edmundus1581]

“the media IS the message”.

:yup:

While the Church has practiced this for centuries, I’ll give Andy Warhol a lot of credit for saying it in so few words!

And kudos for hitting the nail on the head!

 

[Elizium23]

:yup:

While the Church has practiced this for centuries, I’ll give Andy Warhol a lot of credit for saying it in so few words!

And kudos for hitting the nail on the head!

Perhaps Warhol understood this because he was Byzantine Catholic.

 

[Elizium23]

:yup:

While the Church has practiced this for centuries, I’ll give Andy Warhol a lot of credit for saying it in so few words!

And kudos for hitting the nail on the head!

Warhol was actually quoting Marshall McLuhan, but Warhol may have well understood this because he was Byzantine Catholic.

 

[Edmundus1581]

Warhol was actually quoting Marshall McLuhan, but Warhol may have well understood this because he was Byzantine Catholic.

Thanks for the correction, and information.

 

[clem456]

So true! Thank you for posting this. After all, I think we all remember the phrase “the media IS the message”.

And this may express the heart of the dilemma.
Media can become it’s own idol.
“And the people bowed and prayed, to the neon God they made”. (Simon and Garfunkel)

I still like this:
The liturgy is the living action of the people of God…

 

[Saralinda]

We have a large church building and Easter Vigil baptisms are held in the vestibule. Most of the congregation can not see the lighting of the vigil flame or the baptisms so our pastor started projecting what was happening on big screens in the front of the church. Then he added “visuals” to the readings at Easter Vigil (so we wouldn’t fall asleep?) Next came Sunday Mass where the responses are shown, along with a “themed” picture that is displayed at the rest of the time. I think that it is probably a slippery slope, but I miss it when I attend Mass anywhere else.

 

[janeway529]

I wonder…

If the internet had been around when printed books became available in churches…would people have been complaining about having those newfangled books in the holy space of the church and wondered why people couldn’t just listen to the words and memorise the hymns as they had done before?

Back home my church is in a small country town; we are not a wealthy parish; we do not have hymn books, missals, miselettes or any other such. We have the hymns on overhead projector sheets which one of the choir members changes as needed. The screen is over to the right side of the church and doesn’t cause any problems. You either bring your own missal with you, or learn the prayers. We get a leaflet (1 A4 page) with the responsorial psalm, church announcements and a meditation suitable for that Sunday.

Here where I work, the church is huge. We have 5 screens inside the church; two in the front and two in the middle and one where the choir sits; there are two more at the upstairs balcony; one at each entrance to the church (3 doors); two in the outside compound and, depending on the size anything from 2 to 4 in the halls that are used to accommodate the overflow of worshippers at times. I have no idea who operates, prepares and maintains all of this. But without those screens, only the people in the first few rows of pews would see anything that happened in the sanctuary. Before Mass the screens are either blank, or display a picture suitable for the Sunday; during Mass they are used for prayers where the congregation joins in, the readings, the hymns and the notices at the end. When none of these are appropriate to be shown, we see the priests in the sanctuary. No books or other printed matter are provided at all, but the screens mean that even though the church is huge, and sometimes you end up in one of the halls, or standing outside, you can still see what is happening.

Thank you! I’m glad someone can share their LIVED experience, where it may not be the norm for some of us.

 

[27lw]

RE: huge churches where very few can see…

I often think this must be the case in the huge cathedrals, where the cruciform space does not lend itself to the “best view”. I haven’t been to Mass in a huge medieval cathedral, has anyone here? Could you see the priests and what they were doing up front?