C
Cimachol
Guest
I suppose I should have asked, can a bishop licitly permit liturgical dance? We’ve had responses from two different priests so far who don’t seem to agree completely, so I’m still not sure.
- Status
F
FrDavid96
Guest
No.
The word “licit” means “according to the law.” That means that the question itself is not about opinion or feelings or emotions or preferences, much less wishful thinking. It is a question about what the law says.
Now the law (in several forms, canon law, liturgical law, Vatican II Constitution, etc) is clear that changes to the Mass cannot be made by the local bishop unless approval is granted by the Holy See. When anyone claims that the bishop has been given that authority, the responsibility is to show where/how the law gives that to him. No such law exists.
Nothing in the law gives the local bishop any authority (ie any “competence”) to permit liturgical dance. One might say that is is beyond his competence, or one might say that it is not within his competence. It’s the same either way.
Now, if the bishop requests and receives a dispensation from the Holy See to permit dance, then he has that authority—still, without any such dispensation it is not his decision to make.
Usually when a person asks “is such-and-such licit?” the sentence clause “without a dispensation” is implied.
We know that the Holy See has been reluctant in the extreme to grant permission for liturgical dance (at least in Western society). It’s also worth noting that when the bishop of Hawaii explained the dispensation that he received he actually avoided using the word “dancing” but instead specifically used the phrase “sacred gesture.” The only time he used the word was to remind the diocese that the prohibition against “dance” remains in effect.
Now I would ask readers here to actually read that letter by the bishop. It’s extremely obvious that if permitting dancing in the Liturgy were within the competence of the local bishop, then years of effort were all just a waste of time. It also begs the questions “why would the Holy See grant a dispensation if none was needed?” and “why would the Holy See intervene to prohibit a bishop from allowing something which the law permits him to allow?” The whole thing would make no sense if this matter were within the competence of the local bishop (which, of course, it is not).
P
pnewton
Guest
You are right to be confused. But do you know who is in charge of implementing the GIRM? - the bishop of that diocese. So, since two priests do not agree, then I would say you do not have a clear answer. However, I would say that the safest and most charitable thing would be to err on the side of supporting the bishop, not accusing him of anything, and if you must, report it to the papal nuncio and him deal with the bishop. That way if there is any dispensation, or one is needed, or correction is needed, then that would be between the bishop and the Holy See.
Bishops and priests do no always agree and get along.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
Since you do not know whom to believe, I suggest you direct your inquiry to the Office of Worship for the Archdiocese of Los Angeles for a proper answer. The office’s director is a quite capable person.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
You seem to be confused on an important point.
The role of the bishop is to implement the GIRM. It is not his role to re-write it.
Based on your other posts, you often confuse re-writing with implementing.
P
pnewton
Guest
No, I do understand the difference. The question to the bishop might be would he say he is re-writing it, or would he say he was implementing it and staying within what was allowed. I wouldn’t want to beg the question just based on the word used.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
Let us be crystal clear, because this matter seems to be being obfuscated by one of the posters, in a way that astonishes me as a priest.
His Excellency, the Papal Nuncio, was in attendance at this event. In fact, he presided at one of these Masses.
His Excellency, the Archbishop of Los Angeles, the Vice President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, who holds multiple degrees culminating in his doctorate, has ably demonstrated a knowledge in his many areas of expertise, which includes actually the liturgy and the issue of inculturation, that far surpasses what I have seen demonstrated from any of my brother priests on this website. Which is why His Excellency serves in so many capacities on behalf of the Holy See.
Above all, given by a priest’s ordination by which he is constituted as “a co-worker with the Order of Bishops” as the rite of ordination well articulates, a complete deference should mark any priest’s attitude toward any bishop…but most especially of the stature of Archbishop Jose Gomez.
In fact, let me make this point even clearer. If I, as a professor of liturgy, wanted to confer with someone on the liturgy, it would be with His Excellency, Archbishop Gomez. It would not be with any priest contributing here.
P
pnewton
Guest
Let me throw a new spin on this, something in a lighter vein. Personally though, I am not a fan of many things West Coast. So, the bishop who is in authority of his diocese is in charge of implementing the liturgy. We know that acculturation is permitted. Dance, or at least some form of movement with music is common place, and almost second nature in Africa.
I remember hearing Cardinal Arinze make a comment about this a couple of decades ago about how such a thing in Africa is part of the culture, but is not part of the culture in America. So, now I am thinking, we are speaking of Los Angeles, not my beloved Texas. Quite frankly, I have little idea what the culture of Los Angeles is, except based on what I have seen, it is far more foreign to my experience than anything in Africa. I mean, we have mariachis and matachines here from time to time, as it is part of our culture. So, if the word “culture” can be applied to Los Angeles, I can surely understand why it might be different than the rest of the western world.
Additionally, I love the irony that it is the liturgical traditionalists that would argue for the normality of the culture of Los Angeles.
But yes, I love AB Gomez and have no problem totally trusting that he knows what he is doing. LA’s gain was San Antonio’s loss.
I remember hearing Cardinal Arinze make a comment about this a couple of decades ago about how such a thing in Africa is part of the culture, but is not part of the culture in America. So, now I am thinking, we are speaking of Los Angeles, not my beloved Texas. Quite frankly, I have little idea what the culture of Los Angeles is, except based on what I have seen, it is far more foreign to my experience than anything in Africa. I mean, we have mariachis and matachines here from time to time, as it is part of our culture. So, if the word “culture” can be applied to Los Angeles, I can surely understand why it might be different than the rest of the western world.
Additionally, I love the irony that it is the liturgical traditionalists that would argue for the normality of the culture of Los Angeles.
But yes, I love AB Gomez and have no problem totally trusting that he knows what he is doing. LA’s gain was San Antonio’s loss.
I didn’t think there was anything much to this, but this point kind of ends if for me. Light a candle or curse the darkness, so to speak. Laugh of gripe. Nothing to be gained and no real complaint.
L
LittleFlower378
Guest
Archbishop Gomez also allowed a gay couple with their child to bring up the gifts causing major scandal. Bishops can error.
They are trying Liturgical dance in my Parish but I don’t believe they have used it in the mass…yet…and I hope they never do because of the norms posted in the first few posts. I don’t like it, it sometimes seems like our parish is a testing grounds for liberal ideas. There are some positive things about the parish but some not so positive, such as the congregation being very loud and not very reverent before and after mass. We recently moved, remember people to first check and get to know the parish before you move to a location!
They are trying Liturgical dance in my Parish but I don’t believe they have used it in the mass…yet…and I hope they never do because of the norms posted in the first few posts. I don’t like it, it sometimes seems like our parish is a testing grounds for liberal ideas. There are some positive things about the parish but some not so positive, such as the congregation being very loud and not very reverent before and after mass. We recently moved, remember people to first check and get to know the parish before you move to a location!
P
pnewton
Guest
I have never been any where a priests has chosen who brings up the gifts, much less the bishop, which brings up another point. The fact that there something different in the procession does not mean that the bishop permitted it, other than not saying anything at the time. I doubt he handles every little detail. I have no doubt that sometimes the bishop, like most priests, have to occasionally say, “That thing you did, let’s not do it again.”
L
LittleFlower378
Guest
Fair enough, good points.
C
Cimachol
Guest
Is it required that the people bringing up the gifts be in a state of communion with the Church? (This is a sincere question; I don’t know, and a google search brought me nothing more than an opinion of a non-official someone.) It does seem an odd choice, and one wonders if the decision was meant to be a statement of some kind.
I’m not against the idea of using dance as a form of prayer outside the Mass – there was a musical performance at the same conference discussed above where dancers recreated various stories about angels from the Bible and Church tradition. I thought the whole performance was beautiful. But that’s just it – it was a beautiful performance, and the Mass isn’t meant to be a performance, as far as I understand.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Yet again, and you do this quite often here on the forums, you’re misrepresenting the bishop’s role. His role is to implement the GIRM (Missal, etc. etc.), not to be the author of it.
The Church’s laws are clear and the same sentence is repeated over and over again: that the bishop is the chief liturgist of his diocese within the limits established by law. You keep removing that essential part of the sentence.
The Church has been very clear over the last few decades: dance is not permitted in the Liturgy. Nowhere, not by any stretch of the imagination, is it within the competence of the local bishop to permit liturgical dance (so called). If and where this is allowed, it is only allowed if the Holy See has granted a dispensation or other permission to derogate from the law.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Yes.
And substitute the words “Papal Nuncio” for “bishop” and you’ll see exactly why the fact that the Nuncio is present for something is in no way an indication that he approves of it.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
It is misleading and just plain dishonest when some people make the claim that just because the Papal Nuncio is present for something that constitutes some kind of permission or consent or assent. It just doesn’t work that way.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Deacon:
How dare you actually quote the law in response to a question asking what the law says about a particular matter?
Are you not aware that it doesn’t matter what the law says, licit or illicit is answered by what one is able to find in online video postings.
(insert huge sarcasm image here).
Thank you for actually posting the law as the Church articulates it. It’s refreshing.
How dare you actually quote the law in response to a question asking what the law says about a particular matter?
Are you not aware that it doesn’t matter what the law says, licit or illicit is answered by what one is able to find in online video postings.
(insert huge sarcasm image here).
Thank you for actually posting the law as the Church articulates it. It’s refreshing.
P
pnewton
Guest
I know. The point is that one does not need to make him* aware *of what he witnessed, not that he endorsed it. Heck, he might have seen it as having to endure it. Time is better spent in prayer, or evangelization, than such a pointless endeavor.
P
pnewton
Guest
What I think might be happening is begging the question, what is implementing and what is authoring. I am willing to bet that the bishop literally wrote (authored) nothing in his General Instructions. Where implementation ends and adding begins, or to put it another way, what is “within the limits established by law,” is something way beyond my competence. Yet I can recognize that not all priests agree on this. That is why it has the appearance of begging the question.
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.
P
pnewton
Guest
Let me link this:
ewtn.com/library/curia/cdwdance.htm
Note how this ended:
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.
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 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.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
That part is rather simple. If the bishop has the authority (competence) to make a change to the Missal, then there will be a law somewhere that says he does have the authority for that particular issue.
Unless the Holy See says “the bishop may decide…” then he cannot. It really is that simple.
Dispensations and special permissions from Rome are always a possibility. I need to mention that.
It’s very simple.
We have the Roman Missal. Follow the Missal.
“Say the black and do the red” as we often see/hear.
The role of the bishop is to ensure that his priests do exactly that. If they don’t understand something, then he explains it to them.
We all know that this isn’t like the silly examples some people give, such as “the GIRM doesn’t say that gentlemen must wear neckties.”
If a liturgical action is not described in the Roman Missal, the next step is to see if it’s described somewhere else. For example, the Ordination Rites aren’t found in the Missal but instead are found in the other liturgical books of the Church, duly approved.
Given the history of the issue of dancing within the Mass, and most of all, given the liturgical laws of the Church that the good deacon just posted for us, it is abundantly clear that the Church prohibits dancing during the Mass, and **does not regard this as something not worth addressing **(again, like the neckties).
- Status