Projectors During Liturgy?

[Mercy me]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1094125' date='Oct 17 2006, 05:00 PM']
I generally agree until you get to projectors, they have absolutely no reason to be at Mass. We don't go to Mass to read the Word of God, we go to hear [ as in proclaimed] it. Missals are useful for music, but anyone who goes to Mass for more than several weeks should have the parts of the Mass down pat and not be reading anything.
[/quote]

I agree. We have a priest in our diocese who straight out tells people to put the missals away. The Gospel is to be proclaimed not read.

The only time that I have seen a projetor at mass is during stewardship month when the bishop sends a tape or dvd message since he can't make it to all the parishes. It is used as part of the homily and I must admit that I zone out when they do it. I didn't know that it was wrong but I never felt comfortable about it.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Scardella']So, Cam... according to your interpretation, an LCD projector is forbidden, but a transparency projector, which is not automatic is OK?[/quote]

Does a transparency projector help to transmit anything to the congregation or at the very least support the singing of the choir or the faithful? Yes. It is forbidden.

[quote name='Socrates']Would that be forbidden according to that document?[/quote]

I would think so. Since confession is a private devotion and those gathering are there for a stated purpose of attending said private devotion, it would not be permissable.

[cmotherofpirl]

So I suppose yuo consider the bishops taped appeal forbidden as well?

[scardella]

[quote name='Cam42' post='1094499' date='Oct 17 2006, 11:17 PM']
Does a transparency projector help to transmit anything to the congregation or at the very least support the singing of the choir or the faithful? Yes. It is forbidden.
[/quote]

So, songbooks and sheet music are forbidden too?

[kateri05]

oh scardella, thats not what the document says and you know it.

its not talking about songbooks its talking about using electronic devices! don't harp, its not polite!

[scardella]

[quote name='kateri05' post='1094571' date='Oct 18 2006, 12:32 AM']
oh scardella, thats not what the document says and you know it.

its not talking about songbooks its talking about using electronic devices! don't harp, its not polite!
[/quote]

As far as I can tell, it's talking about audio playback anyway. It's quite a stretch to include projectors in that definition. Functionally, there's no difference between a songbook and projected lyrics. In one, you're looking down and away from what's going on, and in the other, you're looking up and away from what's going on. Both "support" the music. If you wanted to get really ridiculous, someone standing with an easel pad (about 4 ft x 4 ft) w/ lyrics written the same size as projected would not be banned by his interpretation. It is simply a ridiculous argument. As long as the screen is not blocking anyone's view of the altar, readers, etc. then I cannot see the problem with it.

Furthermore, I completely see the point in regards to audio playback. There is a big difference in the effectiveness of live music as compared to recorded music. I'm not exactly sure why, but perhaps it is simply because it is there. Maybe the recording necessarily destroys something about the music, but in a casual setting, I'd probably say that recorded music is dead, versus live music which in some sense is alive in that moment.

Edited October 18, 2006 by scardella

[Cam42]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1094507' date='Oct 17 2006, 10:20 PM']
So I suppose yuo consider the bishops taped appeal forbidden as well?
[/quote]

Yes, I already made a comment about that.

[quote name='scardella' post='1094529' date='Oct 17 2006, 10:47 PM']
So, songbooks and sheet music are forbidden too?
[/quote]

Ab absurdum.

[scardella]

[quote name='Cam42' post='1094711' date='Oct 18 2006, 09:07 AM']
Ab absurdum.
[/quote]

Exactly.

[Cam42]

No brother,

You are taking it to the absurd. You are arguing with me simply to argue with me. How about showing something of substance? As I have said, it is not up to me to prove the Church's position on this. It is up to you to disprove it.

You ask a question, don't get the answer that you like, then start railing on the one who gives the answer, because you don't like the answer. Well, the answer is consistent with the documentation provided. It is not up to me to conjure up some answer that will make you feel good and justify your feelings. It is up to me to give an accurate answer based upon the documentation provided. I have done that. If you think that it is inaccurate, show, with proof how it is. Otherwise accept the answer.

[scardella]

[quote name='Cam42' post='1094763' date='Oct 18 2006, 10:02 AM']
You are taking it to the absurd. You are arguing with me simply to argue with me. How about showing something of substance? As I have said, it is not up to me to prove the Church's position on this. It is up to you to disprove it. [/quote]

You're assuming that the statement applies to projectors. It's clear to me that it doesn't. The quote is inadequate for judging a projector, because a projector doesn't support the music. It produces no more sound than air conditioning. The fact that it provides multiple examples, and ALL OF THEM are devices that produce audio directly indicates that it is speaking about devices that play prerecorded music. Furthermore, a projector does not have to be involved w/ the music at all. As others have mentioned, they could be used to show an outline of the priest's homily, which patently has nothing to do with music. The statement is inadequate for projectors. Projecting lyrics is "supporting" the music in the same way that songbooks "support" the music. Neither produce any significant degree of sound. Hence the descent into absurdity.

[quote]You ask a question, don't get the answer that you like, then start railing on the one who gives the answer, because you don't like the answer. Well, the answer is consistent with the documentation provided. It is not up to me to conjure up some answer that will make you feel good and justify your feelings. It is up to me to give an accurate answer based upon the documentation provided. I have done that. If you think that it is inaccurate, show, with proof how it is. Otherwise accept the answer.
[/quote]

I want a quote that applies. I thought I had run across a statement that mentioned projectors directly or almost directly, and I was asking if someone could find that, because when I tried to find it again, I couldn't. If that quote is the best that you can do, then it is a stretch to apply it to projectors.

Edited October 18, 2006 by scardella

[Cam42]

[quote name='scardella' post='1094774' date='Oct 18 2006, 09:17 AM']
You're assuming that the statement applies to projectors. It's clear to me that it doesn't. The quote is inadequate for judging a projector, because a projector doesn't support the music. It produces no more sound than air conditioning. The fact that it provides multiple examples, and ALL OF THEM are devices that produce audio directly indicates that it is speaking about devices that play prerecorded music. Furthermore, a projector does not have to be involved w/ the music at all. As others have mentioned, they could be used to show an outline of the priest's homily, which patently has nothing to do with music. The statement is inadequate for projectors. Projecting lyrics is "supporting" the music in the same way that songbooks "support" the music. Neither produce any significant degree of sound. Hence the descent into absurdity.

I want a quote that applies. I thought I had run across a statement that mentioned projectors directly or almost directly, and I was asking if someone could find that, because when I tried to find it again, I couldn't. If that quote is the best that you can do, then it is a stretch to apply it to projectors.
[/quote]


It is a stretch only because you don't like the answer. I have answered it to the best of my knowledge. You can either accept it or not. Apparently you don't, but then again I don't think that I could have said anything short of telling you what you want to hear that would garner a positive response from you.

So, with that my answer stands, until you can prove it otherwise with acceptable documentation, commentary and proof, I will assume that it is the most accurate answer available.

God Bless.

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1094154' date='Oct 17 2006, 05:43 PM']
Missals are a one time investment for a parish, they don't have to be seasonal brochures. I have been going to Mass at cathedral for years, its not a requirement to closely watch the priest in order to be connected to Christ. Most altars and pulpits are elevated enough so you know whats going on, and with mics you can hear the whole Mass clearly.
[/quote]
indeed, watching the priest isn't all that important unless you're worried he's going to do something wacky. And if you're worried about that then you're already distracted!

I'm with Cam on this topic, I think projectors are much more distracting than the shuffling of pages in a missalette.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' post='1094832' date='Oct 18 2006, 11:54 AM']
indeed, watching the priest isn't all that important unless you're worried he's going to do something wacky. And if you're worried about that then you're already distracted!

I'm with Cam on this topic, I think projectors are much more distracting than the shuffling of pages in a missalette.
[/quote]
I think projectors are wrong as well.

[scardella]

I finally found the quote!

[quote name='DMS']73. 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.[/quote]

[zunshynn]

[quote name='scardella' post='1094871' date='Oct 18 2006, 09:49 AM']
I finally found the quote!
[/quote]

I thought you said De Musica Sacra was obscure and obsolete.

[Cam42]

[quote name='scardella' post='1094871' date='Oct 18 2006, 10:49 AM']
I finally found the quote!
[/quote]

Well.....what say you now? My analysis is consistent, even if I didn't have the exact paragraph. However, thanks for supporting my position with it.

[quote name='zunshynn' post='1094875' date='Oct 18 2006, 10:53 AM']
I thought you said De Musica Sacra was obscure and obsolete.
[/quote]




For those of you who were talking about TV broadcasts:

[quote name='De Musica Sacra #74-79']74. For any radio or television broadcast of liturgical functions or private devotions, the local Ordinary must give his express permission; this is required whether they are being held inside or outside the church. Before granting permission, the Ordinary must be sure that:

a) the singing and music fully comply with the laws of the liturgy, and sacred music;

b) in the case of a television broadcast, all those taking part in the ceremonies are so well instructed that the ceremonies may be carried out in full conformity with the rubrics, and with fitting dignity.

Standing permission may be granted by the local Ordinary for broadcasts to originate regularly from a particular church if, upon inquiry, he is certain that all the requirements will faithfully be met.

75. Television cameras should be kept out of the sanctuary as much as possible; they should never be located so close to the altar as to interfere with the sacred rites.

Cameramen and technicians should conduct themselves with the devotion becoming a sacred place and the rites, and not disturb the prayerful spirit of the congregation, especially at those moments which demand the utmost recollection.

76. Photographers in particular should observe these directives, since it is much easier for them to move about with their cameras.

77. Each pastor is to see to it that the prescriptions given in 75 and 76 are faithfully observed in his church. Local Ordinaries, moreover, shall not fail to issue more specific directives as circumstances require.

78. Since the very nature of a radio broadcast requires that the listeners be able to follow the action without interruption, a broadcast Mass will be more effective if the priest pronounces the words a little more loudly than demanded by the "low voice" of the rubrics, and correspondingly pronounces louder still the words to be said in a clear voice according to the rubrics; this is particularly desirable when there is no commentator. Then the listeners will be able to follow the entire Mass with no difficulty.

79. It is well to remind the radio and television audiences before the program that listening to the broadcast does not fulfill their obligation to attend Mass.[/quote]

[scardella]

[quote name='zunshynn' post='1094875' date='Oct 18 2006, 11:53 AM']
I thought you said De Musica Sacra was obscure and obsolete.
[/quote]

My particular difficulty w/ liturgical documents written pre-Vat II is that they were written w/ the Tridentine Mass in mind, not Novus Ordo. AFAIK some of it may well not apply, despite what Cam says. I don't know.

[quote name='Cam42' post='1094887' date='Oct 18 2006, 12:22 PM']
Well.....what say you now? My analysis is consistent, even if I didn't have the exact paragraph. However, thanks for supporting my position with it.
[/quote]

I was looking for a quote, not a debate. I certainly don't agree with the quote I found's rationale, but my analysis concerning the applicability of your previous paragraph stands. I had originally thought it was a pre-Vat II quote, anyway. (I also thought it was saying it was forbidden too.)

Edited October 18, 2006 by scardella

[PadrePioOfPietrelcino]

how does this apply to projecting the mass into an overflow room? If projectors are not allowed...And television broadcast do not fulfill Sunday, or any Holy Day obligation? If they still bring the Eucharist to those in the room it seems to create muddy waters.

[kentigern]

From

CONSTITUTION
ON THE SACRED LITURGY
SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY
HIS HOLINESS

POPE PAUL VI
ON DECEMBER 4, 1963

[quote]120. In the Latin Church the pipe organ is to be held in high esteem, for it is the traditional musical instrument which adds a wonderful splendor to the Church's ceremonies and powerfully lifts up man's mind to God and to higher things.

But other instruments also may be admitted for use in divine worship, with the knowledge and consent of the competent territorial authority, as laid down in Art. 22, 52, 37, and 40. This may be done, however, only on condition that the instruments are suitable, or can be made suitable, for sacred use, accord with the dignity of the temple, and truly contribute to the edification of the faithful.[/quote]

This is the up to date requirements I am familiar with for music at Mass. The organ should be given precednece where possible, but other instruments (and machines?) are allowed. Personally I think the use of machines for music at Mass is wrong. There is a point with liturgical music where music is best left out if it cannot be done to a sensible standard.

As regards using projectors for lyrics, I don't see why it is not aloowed HOWEVER it is an infringemnt of copyright if done with out permission. To project lyrics you require copyright licences, these are expensive.

Somewhere (and I am not sure I can find it easlily) there is an quote saying that people should be encouraged to listen to the Gospel. Also projecting the words of the Mass is also (I believe) in breach of copyright.

I hope this answers people's worries!

As regards TV and radio, obviously watching Mass on TV or listening to it on the radio does not get one out of going to Mass. However I would imagine the situation is different regarding overflow rooms etc. I think this topic has been well covered!

Gordon

[Cam42]

[quote name='scardella' post='1094980' date='Oct 18 2006, 01:23 PM']
My particular difficulty w/ liturgical documents written pre-Vat II is that they were written w/ the Tridentine Mass in mind, not Novus Ordo. AFAIK some of it may well not apply, despite what Cam says. I don't know.

I was looking for a quote, not a debate. I certainly don't agree with the quote I found's rationale, but my analysis concerning the applicability of your previous paragraph stands. I had originally thought it was a pre-Vat II quote, anyway. (I also thought it was saying it was forbidden too.)
[/quote]

The reforms of the Liturgy, as has been shown several times presumes the continued application of these documents. The Mass is the Mass and whether or not it is the previous form or the current form, according to the council father's has no bearing. This much is very clear.

I don't know why you think that just because the document is from before Vatican Council II, all of a sudden it is less authoritative. That certainly was not the intent and thus far has been proven ad infinitum that it is not the case.

[quote name='kentigern']This is the up to date requirements I am familiar with for music at Mass. The organ should be given precednece where possible, but other instruments (and machines?) are allowed.[/quote]

Gordon, when one studies these documents then one will find that Sacrosanctum Concilium quotes, references, and cites the documents that I have been listing. There is nothing in print or otherwise that frees the Church from these other documents written earlier in the 20th century.

[quote name='PadrePioOfPietrelcino' post='1094994' date='Oct 18 2006, 01:54 PM']
how does this apply to projecting the mass into an overflow room? If projectors are not allowed...And television broadcast do not fulfill Sunday, or any Holy Day obligation? If they still bring the Eucharist to those in the room it seems to create muddy waters.
[/quote]

I think the citation from De Musica Sacra sufficently answers those concerns.