Lighting Effects During Mass
  • G
    Posts: 1,397
    Again, sorry for the OT question, but does anyone know of anything remotely authoritative about the inappropriateness of lighting effects during Mass?
    (Other than that it seems way yeeeeeesh.....)
    Obviously the Paschal Vigil is a special case, but spotlights, sudden bumps in the level, dimming the nave at the EP, using colored gels for certain moments in the Liturgy?
    It CAN'T be right, but any citations beyond, oh, I dunno - common sense?
    An usher friend wants a reason for politely flouting the liturgy committee's directives in this regard.
    Thanks for any info.

    (Save the Liturgy, Save the World)
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,934
    What craziness from the liturgy committee. The lights at our place are either on or they are off. If God intended otherwise, He would let us know.
    Thanked by 3canadash M. Jackson Osborn ClergetKubisz
  • MBWMBW
    Posts: 175
    All artificial light, like artificial flowers and other artificial things, either are or should be banned immediately. Sunlight was good enough for both Jesus and Luther.

    No prosthetics, either, sorry.
    Thanked by 5CharlesW M. Jackson Osborn ClergetKubisz CHGiffen Casavant Organist
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,934
    Olive oil lamps. Now those are real lights. Ask any eastern church.
    Thanked by 4MBW M. Jackson Osborn CHGiffen Casavant Organist
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    anyway wasn't Gods first words "let there be light"
    Thanked by 3CharlesW ClergetKubisz Casavant Organist
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    G --

    Yes, I can help a little. There is a principle in rubrical law which holds that the rubrics don't tell you all the things which are forbidden, but rather what is required. The rubrics, for example, don't tell us that the celebrant shouldn't wear a cheese block on his head, even if he is the local ordinary. (The local ordinary is required, if I recall, to wear something else, and no where does it say "He takes off his miter and replaces it with a cheese block.")

    Liturgical dance, for a contrasting example, is both not-required and *unless His Holiness Pope Francis has abrogated the law and I missed the news feed * explicitly forbidden.

    Thanked by 2canadash ClergetKubisz
  • irishtenoririshtenor
    Posts: 1,296
    Going off of what CGZ was getting at:

    The rubrics tell us how to celebrate the Mass, not how not to celebrate the Mass. There are innumerable things that we ought not to do at Mass--so many that they couldn't possibly list them all. Let your imagination run wild.

    In other words, the GIRM (and other documents) are, by and large, prescriptive, rather than restrictive.

    *Edited to correct spelling.*
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • Reval
    Posts: 180
    Our current pastor does the following:

    Before Mass begins, the lights are dimmed. Then, right before the first hymn is announced (I know how that brings joy to all our hearts), the bright lights are snapped on, resulting in everyone feeling unpleasantly stunned and blinking (at least that's how I feel).
  • JahazaJahaza
    Posts: 468
    There is a prohibition... it's referenced here:

    image

    But I haven't been able to track down the exact citation yet.

    But knowing that there is one... you then get to have an argument about whether it's still in force.
    Thanked by 1G
  • JahazaJahaza
    Posts: 468
    Here's the actual decree:

    image

    image
    Thanked by 1G
  • JahazaJahaza
    Posts: 468
    I'd argue that the decree is still in force since nothing about the matter has been totally reordered.

    Here's another longer article based on the same decree with more explanation.

    image

    image

    There is/was also a specific prohibition on using a spotlight on the Host during adoration, but since that's not the situation here, I won't dig up a reference for that.
    Thanked by 1G
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    the GIRM (and other documents) are, by and large, proscriptive, rather than restrictive.


    Irish tenor means to be helpful and accurate. The GIRM is, however, prescriptive, not proscriptive.
    Thanked by 1irishtenor
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,160
    The USCCB document "Built of Living Stones" (2003) says, among other things, that there should be sufficient light to see the faces of other worshippers. That might set a limit on how far the nave lighting could be dimmed during Mass.
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,368
    I think that this would fit just as well under the 'Liturgical Horrors' thread, n'est ce pas?
    It is really horrible to contemplate.

    And, as MBM, said above - (in purple) -
    All artificial light, like artificial flowers and other artificial things either are or should be banned immediately. .... [And,] No prosthetics either. Sorry.
    To which one might add those other Liturgical Horrors: simulacra, especially organ simulacra. (Not in purple!)
    Thanked by 2chonak CHGiffen
  • FidemInFidebusFidemInFidebus
    Posts: 611
    The lights in my home church are not bright, and during the day they don't need to be because we have enormous windows. Even at night it's still fairly dim, mainly because the ceiling is so high and the lights are tiny up there. I like it.
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,945
    One could cite pastoral considerations such as:

    1. Hospitality and safety, particularly to those with impaired vision.
    2. FCAP: sudden changes in lighting can have an adverse effect on full, conscious and active participation.

    Also, the liturgy is not a theatrical production but a corporate act of worship. It's not composed of acts and scenes that should be differentiated by changes in lighting. Good Friday and the first parts of the Easter Vigil are unusual in the fairly simple adjustments stipulated in the relevant instructions - no such provision is made for any other liturgies - and if the Church had wanted to tease them out into something more elaborate, it surely could have, but refrained from so doing. Going beyond what is specified is overthinking things.
    Thanked by 2ClergetKubisz M. Jackson Osborn
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,912
    In other words, the GIRM (and other documents) are, by and large, prescriptive, rather than restrictive.


    @Irishtenor: I tend to see the NO as permissive, whereas the EF is instructive. However, I agree with your assessment quoted above. Now we just need to get clergy to actually follow those prescriptions instead of taking advantage of loopholes and things that aren't said.
    Thanked by 1irishtenor
  • ViolaViola
    Posts: 394
    "There is/was also a specific prohibition on using a spotlight on the Host during adoration, but since that's not the situation here, I won't dig up a reference for that."

    Please could I learn more on this; it's a practice done at my place of work and strikes me as unduly theatrical.
  • Randolph Nichols
    Posts: 398
    During the early 1980s, Sacred Heart Parish in Lexington, MA became one of the first churches in the Northeast to experience a radical renovation then thought to be representative of the best post-Vatican II thinking. Visitors from all over the archdiocese came to check it out. Among the novelties was a high-tech lighting system that enabled each segment of the Mass to have its own lighting enhancement. The control board happened to be nearest the organist, so among her responsibilities was to push the right button at the appropriate time.

    Since that organist was eventually to become my wife I can't say nothing good ever came out of Sacred Heart Parish, however . . .
    Thanked by 2CharlesW hymndescants.org
  • G
    Posts: 1,397
    Much thanks, Jahaza.
    Everyone else, except MBW, also thanks, I know the general principles and philosopy and common sesne but also know they are useless in the face of the pagan god WELLTHATSTHEWAYWEDOITHERE, (all bow.)
    It may be urban liturgical legend, but I've been told there are medieval sacramentaries that remind celebrants not to bring their hawks into the sanctuary. Until some osteo-craniosis sufferer does The Stupid Thing, the trusting, naive Church does not issue a ruling forbidding The Stupid Thing.
    MBW, don't move while I go get my spare peg leg to beat you over the head.

    (Save the Liturgy, Save the World)
    Thanked by 4janetgorbitz ClergetKubisz MBW CHGiffen
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,912
    WELLTHATSTHEWAYWEDOITHERE


    Ah, yes, the classic patron deity of pettiness and passive-agressive, non-confrontational, spineless, double-talking administrations.
    Thanked by 2Salieri CHGiffen
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,934
    Ah, yes, the classic patron deity of pettiness and passive-agressive, non-confrontational, spineless, double-talking administrations.


    I have concluded there is a seminary course where they remove the spines of prospective priests. LOL. Only the strong survive.
    Thanked by 2Salieri CHGiffen
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,945
    Actually, the spineless can live far longer. Less brittle.
    Thanked by 3CharlesW Salieri CHGiffen
  • MBWMBW
    Posts: 175
    Actually, I was thinking of using an impending peg leg as a personal spare spine.
    Thanked by 3CharlesW CHGiffen G
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,177
    Actually, the spineless can live far longer.

    Yes. And they're usually promoted to the episcopacy. (After having the second procedure to replace their eyes will dollar-signs.)
    Thanked by 4CharlesW MBW M. Jackson Osborn CHGiffen
Add a Comment