Can bishops permit liturgical dance

[FrDavid96]

Let me link this:
ewtn.com/library/curia/cdwdance.htm

Note how this ended:

I am sure that the priests are glad to be excluded. Now, I have two question. The first, why the dancing during the gifts is in the liturgy, the first time was in the procession. Also, this was at an event, so might it qualify?

The Holy See must give permission (in one form or another). It’s perfectly safe to assume that an event (indeed a Liturgy) that is being arranged by the Holy See will have whatever permissions are necessary.

The second question is one I have seen here every time the USCCB publishes anything the least controversial. How binding is a document from one of these USCCB committees on the bishops? I often see it argued that what is said is not even binding on the faithful.

A bishop’s committee has no binding authority. None whatsoever.

The authority does not come from the committee, instead the authority rests with the actual books or documents that do have authority.

A simple example: we all know that a poster on CAF doesn’t have any authority to write canon law. However, if a member can certainly post a quote from the law itself. The authority rests with the law, not the CAF member.

It’s exactly the same thing with a bishop’s committee. Even though they’re experts. and even though they do have authority within their own diocese, the committees (as such) have no authority at all. They can only give guidance on what the liturgical law actually says. **In the end, it’s only the liturgical books that have been specifically approved by Rome that have any binding force. **

 

[SMHW]

I suppose I should have asked, can a bishop licitly permit liturgical dance?

I’d like to address this question from a different perspective.

Is it within a bishop’s competency to decide just what exactly constitutes “dance”?

I did not attend the liturgy in question but I did attend another at the same conference. And I also attended the (non-liturgical) angel workshop which used “dancers”. I would say that the angel workshop did cross the line into dancing but for the liturgy I attended I would say no, (although I will admit that the incense bearers movements were rhythmic.)

I have seen my share of liturgical dancing and the closing Mass I attended was the “tamest” I have seen in 25 years.

 

[FrDavid96]

I’d like to address this question from a different perspective.

Is it within a bishop’s competency to decide just what exactly constitutes “dance”?

…

That’s a tough one.

The answer might seem to be “yes.”

However, I’ll direct participants here once again to the document released by the bishop of Hawaii. His document, not the one from the secular print. catholichawaii.org/media/593837/19990103-norms-sacred-gesture-in-the-liturgy.pdf

He makes a point of reminding everyone that the Vatican’s prohibition against dancing at Mass remains in force.

The permission that he did receive from Rome was to approve “sacred gesture” beyond what is described in the Missal. That tells us that even if a bishop were to say “I won’t approve dance, but I will approve sacred gestures” he is still acting beyond his competence.

So where do we draw the line? Who draws it? The first answer is “the bishop” yes, indeed. The bishop decides what constitutes dancing. However, we also have to be cautious in saying that because it does not lead to the conclusion that if something is merely dance-like then he can permit it.

It’s a bit like that famous Supreme Court quote: I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it.

I also want to point-out something I read from the diocese own website (but I can’t find the link again). The bishop specifically avoided using the word “hula” because that word only applies to a single language, while his diocese includes peoples of other cultures and languages beyond the native Hawaiian. So avoiding the word “hula” doesn’t exclude the practice, instead it includes other peoples. Of course, hula is permitted, but hula dancing is not. It’s subtle indeed!

 

[FrDavid96]

It is important that we get the facts straight:

Some people might wonder about the Papal Nuncio’s reaction to the Mass.

Since we’ve read so much about the dancing occurring in the presence of the Papal Nuncio, it’s quite a natural, almost unavoidable question.

I checked the OP’s first post. The OP was asking specifically about the Mass with the Celtic character/theme. That Mass began at 5:15 PM on Friday, Feb. 24. It was one of six Masses being offered in different locations, but at the same time.

Interestingly enough, the Papal Nuncio, Archbishop C.P. was the principle celebrant at the Spanish Mass happening in a different part of the Convention, at the same time. The local Archbishop was with the Nuncio.
**
Neither the Papal Nuncio nor the local Archbishop attended the Celtic Mass, the one that brought about the OPs question.**

Here’s a link to the schedule recongress.org/2017/updates.htm#LITURGY
It lists the celebrants for each of those 6 Masses.

So unless the Papal Nuncio is capable of bi-location, he wasn’t present for the Mass that the OP is asking about. Interesting.

---

By the way, I checked. There was no last minute change to the schedule. The Nuncio was at the Spanish Mass, no question.

 

[FrDavid96]

…

Then again, this could be an aberration the bishop was ignorant of until it occurred in front of him. In all things, I prefer to give AB Gomez the benefit of the doubt. It seems the “Christian” thing to do.

It did not occur “in front of him.” He wasn’t there. He was with the Nuncio at the Spanish Mass.

So “benefit of the doubt”? Aplenty.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

A simple example: we all know that a poster on CAF doesn’t have any authority to write canon law. However, if a member can certainly post a quote from the law itself. The authority rests with the law, not the CAF member.

It’s exactly the same thing with a bishop’s committee. Even though they’re experts. and even though they do have authority within their own diocese, the committees (as such) have no authority at all. They can only give guidance on what the liturgical law actually says. **In the end, it’s only the liturgical books that have been specifically approved by Rome that have any binding force. **

Actually, no…what is written is not correctly formulated at all.

It is important that we get the facts straight:

Indeed, it is important that facts be straight.

Some people might wonder about the Papal Nuncio’s reaction to the Mass.

Since we’ve read so much about the dancing occurring in the presence of the Papal Nuncio, it’s quite a natural, almost unavoidable question.

I checked the OP’s first post. The OP was asking specifically about the Mass with the Celtic character/theme. That Mass began at 5:15 PM on Friday, Feb. 24. It was one of six Masses being offered in different locations, but at the same time.

Interestingly enough, the Papal Nuncio, Archbishop C.P. was the principle celebrant at the Spanish Mass happening in a different part of the Convention, at the same time. The local Archbishop was with the Nuncio.
**
Neither the Papal Nuncio nor the local Archbishop attended the Celtic Mass, the one that brought about the OPs question.**

Here’s a link to the schedule recongress.org/2017/updates.htm#LITURGY
It lists the celebrants for each of those 6 Masses.

So unless the Papal Nuncio is capable of bi-location, he wasn’t present for the Mass that the OP is asking about. Interesting.

---

By the way, I checked. There was no last minute change to the schedule. The Nuncio was at the Spanish Mass, no question.

I have written to the moderator of the sub-forum for guidance. I am not going to spend two hours or more going back over what I have lived as well as over documentation only available to me offline, with the need to translate several parts of it into English with what regards the dicasteries of the Holy See, in order to deconstruct and correct what has been stated here…only for the thread to simply be “disappeared.”

My time, together with the current tasks I have been asked to do in retirement, are simply too important for that sort of waste.

On the other hand, after years in this field, this subject is too important to be left without response – for there is actually little that has been done more important, from my perspective, than this precise aspect of liturgical inculturation…far extended beyond where we were one but above all two decades ago.

Also it needs to be made clear the individuals who are the focus of the comments of frdavid96, so that they are not being referred to by initials: Archbishop Christophe Pierre, Archbishop Jose Gomez, Bishop Francis X. DiLorenzo, and Bishop Larry Silva.

Bishop DiLorenzo was actually a remarkable advocate on behalf of liturgical dance, extended beyond Africa and to the peoples of the South Pacific. And his advocacy prevailed to a very far reaching effect, at the time of the Extraordinary Synods of Bishops in view of the Great Jubilee, and beyond to the work now of his successor.

And also there needs no less to be listed, in annex to this thread, who actually composes the committee on worship that is part of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops:

Most Rev. Wilton D. Gregory
Archbishop of Atlanta
Committee Chairman
[Former President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops]

Most Rev. David A. Zubik
Bishop of Pittsburgh

Most Rev. Daniel E. Thomas
Bishop of Toledo

Most Rev. Mark J. Seitz
Bishop of El Paso

Most Rev. Christopher J. Coyne
Bishop of Burlington

Most Rev. Joseph M. Siegel
Auxiliary Bishop of Joliet in Illinois

Most Rev. Andrzej J. Zglejszewski
Auxiliary Bishop of Rockville Centre

Most Rev. Daniel E. Garcia
Auxiliary Bishop of Austin
Chairman, Subcommittee on Divine Worship in Spanish

I would also add two of several of the expert advisers to this committee, who are quite famous and highly regarded by all of us who work in the field of liturgy:

Right Rev. Gregory J. Polan, OSB
Abbot Primate of the Benedictine Confederation

Right Rev. Jeremy Driscoll, OSB
Abbot of Mount Angel Abbey

Rev. Msgr. Kevin W. Irwin
Professor of Liturgical Studies, The Catholic University of America

Rev. Jan Michael Joncas
Fellow, Center for Catholic Studies, University of St. Thomas

Rev. Thomas C. Ranzino
Chairman, Federation of Diocesan Liturgical Commissions

Rev. Juan J. Sosa
President, National Hispanic Institute of Liturgy

 

[pnewton]

On the other hand, after years in this field, this subject is too important to be left without response – for there is actually little that has been done more important, from my perspective, than this precise aspect of liturgical inculturation…far extended beyond where we were one but above all two decades ago.

Again, not a liturgical dance fan, but I share this sentiment. The United States is centuries removed from the European culture, yet the Roman Rite Church seems stuck in this culture. As much as it may hurt nativists, we have become vastly more diverse with each passing decade. It is past time we recognized our unique culture and cultures as separate.

For me, I live with a lot of Hispanic culture, but we still enjoy on occasion Irish, Czech, Asian and Western African influences. I have particularly been impressed with the culture around Our Lady of Guadalupe, the Matachines and such.

 

[FrDavid96]

The second question is one I have seen here every time the USCCB publishes anything the least controversial. How binding is a document from one of these USCCB committees on the bishops? I often see it argued that what is said is not even binding on the faithful.

I must address this point.

Here is what I wrote

It’s exactly the same thing with a bishop’s committee. Even though they’re experts. and even though they do have authority within their own diocese, the committees (as such) have no authority at all. They can only give guidance on what the liturgical law actually says. In the end, it’s only the liturgical books that have been specifically approved by Rome that have any binding force.

Despite what someone has falsely claimed, and offered nothing to substantiate that claim; what I wrote earlier is exactly how the USCCB Committees operate, with regard to your question as you phrased it. They have no authority on their own, as committees. The individual members (since they are bishops) have authority within their own diocese, when they are acting in that capacity. However, the committees as such have no authority. They can quote the law. Still, the authority rests with the law itself, not just the committee.

Here is a paragraph from the complementary norms enacted by St John Paul II in his *motu proprio Apostolos Suos *

Art. 2. – No body of the Episcopal Conference, outside of the plenary assembly, has the power to carry out acts of authentic magisterium. The Episcopal Conference cannot grant such power to its Commissions or other bodies set up by it.
w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_22071998_apostolos-suos.html

That’s very clear. A USCCB Bishops Committee is exactly what was meant by “other bodies set up by it.” A committee has no authority to issue documents with binding force.

Decisions made by committees have no binding force (that was what you asked about “binding force”). In order to be binding, a decision must be approved by a 2/3 majority of the entire Conference and approved by the Holy See–unless the Holy See provides otherwise, such as by requiring a simple majority, etc.
See here usccb.org/about/public-affairs/backgrounders/upload/usccb-document-approval-process.pdf

Of course, any reasonable person knows what you mean by the question about what sort of authority a committee has. You’re not asking if a committee chairman has the authority to authorize purchase of a new copy machine, or the authority permit a book publisher to print a text for which the USCCB holds copyright, or the authority to appoint an ad-hoc subcommittee, etc. etc. We all know what you meant by the question.
**
The bottom line is this: As I’ve posted repeatedly here now, if one wants to know “what does the law say?” look to what the law says.

Then ask yourself this: which side of this little debate here has quoted the law, and which one has ignored the law???**