Byzantine Catholic Bishops at charismatic style Mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter sidbrown
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’m aware that the Ge’ez rite has liturgical dance, but my humble opinion is that if one’s own tradition doesn’t have it (in this case, Latin), then don’t include it.
 
Ora_et_Labora said:
I’m aware that the Ge’ez rite has liturgical dance, but my humble opinion is that if one’s own tradition doesn’t have it (in this case, Latin), then don’t include it.
Click to expand...
The Ge’ez (Ethiopian Orthodox) “dance” looks similar to this: youtube.com/watch?v=cRsF8_sxDhE

As you can see, it bears no similarity whatsoever to gyrating deacons carrying a Gospel book.
 
wynd said:
The Ge’ez (Ethiopian Orthodox) “dance” looks similar to this: youtube.com/watch?v=cRsF8_sxDhE

As you can see, it bears no similarity whatsoever to gyrating deacons carrying a Gospel book.
Click to expand...
Interesting. Thanks; I’d not yet seen it. I wonder if this is of Jewish ancestry, given that there were Ethiopian Jews before they became Christians.
 
Alethiaphile said:
I honestly don’t see what was so bad about that. Not saying it’s the best liturgy I’ve ever seen, but I didn’t think it was blasphemous. The dancing came after the final blessing, so it didn’t occur during the liturgy. I don’t really have a problem with a celebratory mood at the end of a liturgy; I think that’s appropriate- much more so than a somber one. Now during the prayers and the epiclesis- that’s a different story. There is a time to be somber and reverent, and a time to celebrate.

Ever heard of David dancing before the Ark?
Click to expand...
One of the more sensible and discerning responses in this thread.👍 The dancing clearly came before (prior to the procession) and after (following the final blessing) the Liturgy.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
I suspect that with Archbishop Gomez in charge there won’t be anymore liturgical theater at the next RE gathering.
 
mardukm said:
One of the more sensible and discerning responses in this thread.👍 The dancing clearly came before (prior to the procession) and after (following the final blessing) the Liturgy.

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
So dancing like that in Church is OK?
 
sidbrown said:
So dancing like that in Church is OK?
Click to expand...
That wasn’t a church. It was an auditorium.

But assuming it was a church, what is wrong with dancing if it is extra-liturgical, and they believe they are offering praise by doing so?

Blessings
 
mardukm said:
That wasn’t a church. It was an auditorium.

But assuming it was a church, what is wrong with dancing if it is extra-liturgical, and they believe they are offering praise by doing so?

Blessings
Click to expand...
What’s wrong with Muslims killing apostates from Islam if they believe they are offering praise by doing so?:rolleyes: The point is, I’m sure these Latin bishops knew it was not appropriate to do such a thing, but because of their desire to “worship God as they see fit” (which is Protestant to the core, IMHO) they went on anyway. I don’t see why it makes a difference if it is extra-liturgical or not. But then again, I guess we just have different views of what is appropriate.

In Christ,
Andrew
 
Coming right down to it, I’m not so sure all of the so-called “dancing” was “extra liturgical” at all. To say that the procession, e.g., is “extra-liturgical” is technically correct, but it nonetheless is integral to the liturgy: if there’s no procession, how does the celebrant enter? Tele-port himself on stage? Same with the recession. “Beam me up, Scotty.”

In any case, I admit that I couldn’t stomach watching the entire thing, but I think it was clip 7 that shows the “offertory” with writhing figures (apparently either barefoot or in huaraches) in diaphanous alb-like garments, wafting those bowls of incense while gyrating around what is (presumably) supposed to be an altar. Looks kind of like “dancing” to me.

And now for a general question that maybe someone better-versed in the Novus Ordo than I can answer: clip 8 (I believe) is the “Eucharistic Prayer” but the text being read out of that loose-leaf binder just doesn’t sound like anything I’ve ever heard. Was this some sort of “original composition” or does such a text actually appear in an approved Missal?

For the life of me, I still cannot figure out why any self-respecting Eastern bishop (for that matter, any bishop, period) would even be present at, much less participate in, such a thing. This was truly a monumental disgrace.
 
The EP used in clip 8 is EP III. The celebrant has in fact altered a couple of words, but they are very close paraphrases. He shouldn’t have altered ANY of them.

Correct text:
And so, Father, we bring you these gifts. We ask you to make them holy by the power of your Spirit, that they may become the body + and blood of your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at whose command we celebrate this eucharist.
The day before he suffered he took bread in his sacred hands and looking up to heaven, to you, his almighty Father, he gave you thanks and praise. He broke the bread, gave it to his disciples, and said:
Take this, all of you, and eat it: this is my body which will be given up for you.
When supper was ended, he took the cup. Again he gave you thanks and praise, gave the cup to his disciples, and said:
Take this all of you and drink from it: this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me.
(extracted from catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/Text/Index/4/SubIndex/67/ContentIndex/24/Start/9 )
 
mardukm said:
That wasn’t a church. It was an auditorium.

But assuming it was a church, what is wrong with dancing if it is extra-liturgical, and they believe they are offering praise by doing so?

Blessings
Click to expand...
So this type of dancing introductory to the liturgy is OK?
 
Aramis said:
The EP used in clip 8 is EP III. The celebrant has in fact altered a couple of words, but they are very close paraphrases. He shouldn’t have altered ANY of them.
Click to expand...
Thanks, Aramis, but I don’t think I’m convinced.

The Preface is in clip 7 and doesn’t sound like any preface I’ve ever heard. The “Sanctus” text is clearly a paraphrase. At the end of that clip is the beginning of the EP, and even the first words do not reflect anything of EP III (nor, for that matter, of II or IV).

In clip 8 is the Institution Narrative which does seem to be a paraphrase of what the text should be. That’s about it. Listen closely to what follows the acclamation. (I gave up at 9:49 when the celebrant said “… through our sharing in this meal”)

Anyway, it all sounds like a flashback to the improv days of the 1970s (apparently they never really went away, but I’ve shielded myself from them). Absent the existence of an approved EP text of which I am unaware, if what was done at that event isn’t an original composition, I’ll eat my hat.
 
It’s improvisation around the EP III.
The preface can be altered for special occasions by the bishop, and the preface can be altered by the calendar, as well.

The anaphora text is EP III, with some illicit liberties and a few “paraphrased from memory” spots.

It’s definitely illicit, but also definitely EP III, including specific wordings surrouding the institution narrative.
 
Aramis said:
It’s improvisation around the EP III.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the follow-up. It seems to be more improv than EP III, but I suppose that’s typical. Another reason for me to continue to steer-clear of the OF. To adapt a line from Forrest Gump, “it’s like a box 'o choklits: ya never know what yer gonna git.”
 
Dear brother Andrew,
Harpazo said:
What’s wrong with Muslims killing apostates from Islam if they believe they are offering praise by doing so?:rolleyes: The point is, I’m sure these Latin bishops knew it was not appropriate to do such a thing, but because of their desire to “worship God as they see fit” (which is Protestant to the core, IMHO) they went on anyway. I don’t see why it makes a difference if it is extra-liturgical or not. But then again, I guess we just have different views of what is appropriate.
Click to expand...
I didn’t know there was a commandment that said, “Thou shalt not dance before the Lord.”🤷😃

Blessings
 
Dear brother Malphono,
malphono said:
Coming right down to it, I’m not so sure all of the so-called “dancing” was “extra liturgical” at all. To say that the procession, e.g., is “extra-liturgical” is technically correct, but it nonetheless is integral to the liturgy: if there’s no procession, how does the celebrant enter? Tele-port himself on stage? Same with the recession. “Beam me up, Scotty.”

In any case, I admit that I couldn’t stomach watching the entire thing, but I think it was clip 7 that shows the “offertory” with writhing figures (apparently either barefoot or in huaraches) in diaphanous alb-like garments, wafting those bowls of incense while gyrating around what is (presumably) supposed to be an altar. Looks kind of like “dancing” to me.
Click to expand...
I believe the liturgical procession starts with the Altar Cross. Anything before that is not part of the Liturgy.

The only thing that bothered me was the dancing deacon.😃 I do know that Hispanic Masses are generally more lively than your average mass, but the dancing deacon was just too much.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
mardukm said:
That wasn’t a church. It was an auditorium.
Click to expand...
That is a silly reason to allow dancing in church, because it is not a “church,” but an auditorium. It really depends on what dictionary you are using. Some would define church as any building used for public worship and it would thus qualify. Further, some would call the LA cathedral an auditorium, but it is still a church regardless of the auditorium aspects of the building.
It boils down to this: Catholic allow dancing as an introduction to or as part of their worship service, whereas Eastern Orthodox do not. And still, the Byzantine Catholic clergy did not seem to object to dancing as part of the religious service.
 
mardukm said:
I believe the liturgical procession starts with the Altar Cross. Anything before that is not part of the Liturgy.
Click to expand...
This seems like legalism to me. “As long as it was before the official start of the liturgy…”

What actions would you consider inappropriate before liturgy? Why?
 
sidbrown said:
That is a silly reason to allow dancing in church, because it is not a “church,” but an auditorium. It really depends on what dictionary you are using. Some would define church as any building used for public worship and it would thus qualify. Further, some would call the LA cathedral an auditorium, but it is still a church regardless of the auditorium aspects of the building.
It boils down to this: Catholic allow dancing as an introduction to or as part of their worship service, whereas Eastern Orthodox do not. And still, the Byzantine Catholic clergy did not seem to object to dancing as part of the religious service.
Click to expand...
A church is a building that is specifically consecrated for holiness. A public auditorium is not. I believe that in a place that is not normally consecrated as a church, the only holy area is the altar.

And I don’t see why the BC clergy would have objected. I really don’t. Some here thought it was pagan, but I doubt they were worshipping a pagan god by their actions. There are Christian groups out there who don’t celebrate Easter or Christmas because of the pagan origins. I just don’t give in to that kind of irrational thinking. Call me liberal if you want, but I’m not going to condemn anyone just because I am not used to their style of worshipping God.

Blessings
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top