From Irish Jesuit News:
Jesuit wants films at mass
Pat Connolly SJ is the Associate Professor of Film and Television at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles. He speaks of film as the historic development of 'a third language', speech and written text being the other two. And he firmly believes that film should be part of our liturgies, particularly the mass.
Obviously of Irish descent, on a recent trip to visit family and Jesuit friends in Dublin he spoke to Pat Coyle of the Jesuit Communication Centre about his love of the language through symbols that is film, and gave examples of films he has made and how they have been used in liturgies in certain Churches in the US. He calls his short religious-themed films 'animated stain glass windows'
He also spoke of the importance of symbols in liturgy and in film as a means of evoking their multiple meanings in the memory and heart of those who see them. Listen here to his interview.
What Fr. Connolly says (approvingly) in the interview about Catholics following Protestant examples rings true, sadly enough.
20 comments:
Pass the popcorn please.
Well we already have Saturday matinee Masses..
Think he'd allow Mel Gibson to direct one?
I'm trying to find the right words, but I can't. The mass is not a show. If they truly understood what it means, they'd never even think of such insane things.
More fruits of JP2's spring time in the Church.
Has the Pope announced the permanent (this time)suppression of the Jesuits yet?
Two thumbs down
I would like to watch "The Man Who Would Be King" with Sean Connery and Michael Caine, perhaps as a replacement for the sermon.
It's a great tale of British India with some good ecumenical scenes near the end as our heroes shoot down the pagan priests. Connery's Crowning as the King of Kafiristan could be taken as a metaphor for Christ the King.
These wreckovators are still at it! This Papacy was meant to be about restoring the Church's sacred worship amongst other things.
Sorry, Holy Father, it's not working, is it?
And won't, until the NO is abrogated and the Old Mass reigns supreme once again.
Well, it is not JP2's spring, but simply the continuation of jesuits' rebellion against the true ground of the Society – Jesus Christ himself – and His Holy Church. As backtothefuture rightly admitted, "if they truly understood what Mass means...". It is a sad thing to tell but despite some good and saintly priests within society, it more and more seems to become a society of my pal, called jesus, rather than a true society of Jesus Christ. Sad.
What is there is to say about all of this, and what can be said without restating the obvious?
My question is, where is the tipping point with this, with Muller, with the invectives against the SSPX and Tradition, etc.? At what point do these weirdos fall off the scale? I don't get it.
The Holy Mass is a sacrifice, a bloodless continuation of the sacrifice of Calvary. If for one instant, this was thought through - at the Mass, you are there, at the foot of the cross (there is a wonderful old picture that shows beautifully:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_XGnAc5yuBfI/S_KuSRVKznI/AAAAAAAAV30/_CxJHpsxZig/s400/holy_mass_01.jpg
as our Redeemer suffers and is sacrificed for us. To show any disrespect, to show films, is horrific, an insult that makes you as bad as the people who spat at Jesus as he suffered.
What is it with the Irish clergy?
Hmmm. dinner and a movie. then one could sleep in on Sunday. Yeah, rest on the Lord's day! As a good Irish american all I can say is J M J!
There's a couple interesting points here. First, I think things like this and much of the reform (vernacular, spoken out loud, more readings, facing the people, making the Mass "intelligble," etc.) came/come from an idea that Mass is for teaching the people. When did the Mass start to begin to be seen this way? (in the past, much was hidden from the people by rood screens, language, and silence/low tones--it was not a tool or means for teaching, but had its own intrinsic value as essentially an end itself).
Second, much of the arguments against this idea of films are the same as those that led to the demolition of beauty in churches. The large, elaborate paintings, sculpture, stained glass, reredos, etc. were seen as distractions from what was happening on the altar, which should be the sole focus. It should be noted, that St. Bernard argued against elaborate imagery, etc. in churches for monks, but saw it as as tolerable for "carnal" people.
The only difference here, it seems to me, is that this priest is arguing for the elaborate artwork to have motion rather than be static. The downside I see is that it would be even more distracting from the altar. I think finding a balance between beauty and instructive imagery without crossing the line of distraction is the key here. Finding that line seems to have always been a challenge.
This is all about using the mass as a vehicle for his "art". Nothing more.
Two thumbs down
Two dumbs up.
Vol II of the book "Re-Formed Jesuits" (about mid to late 20th c changes in the Jesuit Order in the US) has an account of a Christmas midnight Mass at the Woodstock theologiate in Maryland (what today I think is still-dreadful Woodstock Theological Center), with the rector presiding:
"The congregation assembled gradually, as though for a play, with a number of the young scholastics escorting young nuns from the nearby convent and carrying on lively conversations as they found places. The whole fore-Mass was completely changed. There were no prayers and no scriptural readings. In their place there were three presentations, at the edge of the sanctuary: two films (without sound) and a broadcast, all running simultaneously.
"One film showed a young man and woman in bathing suits romping and wrestling in the waves on a beach. The middle film showed picture after picture of naked male babies. The third was a radio broadcast announcing all the usual items of the daily news, including births, deaths, war. At the end of the presentation, all were invited to assemble in the large sanctuary. There the priest consecrated the host and wine in the usual manner, after which we were all invited to sing 'God Bless America'."
It is written in the first person so was apparently personally witnessed by the book's author, Joseph M. Becker, S.J.
Two thumbs...DOWN.
If this Jesuit Father wants to improve the Mass I have a better suggestion than going to the movies. My transformational change is that the priest should have the entire sermon dedicated to explaining the readings of that day. Nothing about their own youth or experiences. Just explain the bible.
Aggiornamento seems to be endless. V2 goes on and on and on.
Let's face it. They no longer believe. They've lost the Faith.
That's it "awkwardcustomer"
They've lost the Faith.
Such notions would never enter their heads if they believed what is happening on the Altar.
Post a Comment