Dance and Liturgy

[AnthonyF]

At a recent Mass presided over by our Bishop, the gifts were presented with dance. I questioned that practice noting the August 2003 BCL letter on the USCCB site. The paragraph on “Liturgy and Dance” quoted the 1975 Notitiae which stated that dance was not to be part of the liturgy in western culture. I also quoted Cardinal Arinze’s statement on dance. I was told by the diocesan liturgist, that the Notitiae is not law and carries no authority, and that Cardinal Arinze was stating only an opinion and not law. I was told that unless it is strictly forbidden by Canon Law or by the Bishop, he could do what he wished as long as it did not distract from the Liturgy. I was told that RAP music could be used if it was used “properly”. Is he correct?

 

[Snerticus]

I suspect not. In fact, I’m pretty sure this liturgist is taking matters into his own hands and relying on his own interpretation/judgment of Canon Law.

Snert

 

[Victorious]

From liturgists: deliver us, O Lord.

The Mass is nothing less than the sacrifice of Calvary, re-presented in an unbloody manner. Because we could not physically be at Calvary, Calvary is brought to us. This is the One Sacrifice of Christ. We are quite literally at the foot of the Cross at Mass, right there with the Blessed Mother and Mary Magdalene and St. John. The Mass and the Sacrifice of the Cross are identical.

When the rubber meets the road, this tells us everything we need to know about whether we should be dancing or playing rap “music” at Mass. Whatever we would not do in front of the dying Jesus, and His mother, and his disciples, we should not do at Mass.

If anybody danced or played popular music on Golgotha, they were rooting for the other side.

 

[AnthonyF]

We know that the Liturgy is Christ’s continuous offering of Himself to the Father. We see this in the Book of Revelation 5:6, Christ’s continuous offering and we are welcomed to join our offering with His. How can anyone improve on this. I believe that any attempt to “improve” only impoverishes. But what can we do, EXCEPT PRAY

 

[benedictgal]

At a recent Mass presided over by our Bishop, the gifts were presented with dance. I questioned that practice noting the August 2003 BCL letter on the USCCB site. The paragraph on “Liturgy and Dance” quoted the 1975 Notitiae which stated that dance was not to be part of the liturgy in western culture. I also quoted Cardinal Arinze’s statement on dance. I was told by the diocesan liturgist, that the Notitiae is not law and carries no authority, and that Cardinal Arinze was stating only an opinion and not law. I was told that unless it is strictly forbidden by Canon Law or by the Bishop, he could do what he wished as long as it did not distract from the Liturgy. I was told that RAP music could be used if it was used “properly”. Is he correct?

Actually, the liturgist is wrong. The Church has made it quite clear that dance has no place in the liturgy of the western culture. Rather than talk to the diocesan “liturgist”, I would suggest that you write directly to the bishop, sending it via registered letter. If he does not respond to you or makes a response contrary to what is already been indicated in the authoritative documents of the Church, then, you can write to Rome, attaching your original letter and his response.

Canon Law is not the only resource. Documents like the GIRM and Redemptionis Sacramentum regulate the Sacred Liturgy. It is also not about “freedom”. RS notes that:

7.] Not infrequently, abuses are rooted in a false understanding of liberty. Yet God has not granted us in Christ an illusory liberty by which we may do what we wish, but a liberty by which we may do that which is fitting and right.18 This is true not only of precepts coming directly from God, but also of laws promulgated by the Church, with appropriate regard for the nature of each norm. For this reason, all should conform to the ordinances set forth by legitimate ecclesiastical authority.

Furthermore, the bishop’s authority is not carte blanche. It does have its limitations. Indeed, RS also states that:

[11.] The Mystery of the Eucharist “is too great for anyone to permit himself to treat it according to his own whim, so that its sacredness and its universal ordering would be obscured”.27 On the contrary, anyone who acts thus by giving free rein to his own inclinations, even if he is a Priest, injures the substantial unity of the Roman Rite, which ought to be vigorously preserved,28 and becomes responsible for actions that are in no way consistent with the hunger and thirst for the living God that is experienced by the people today. Nor do such actions serve authentic pastoral care or proper liturgical renewal; instead, they deprive Christ’s faithful of their patrimony and their heritage. For arbitrary actions are not conducive to true renewal,29 but are detrimental to the right of Christ’s faithful to a liturgical celebration that is an expression of the Church’s life in accordance with her tradition and discipline. In the end, they introduce elements of distortion and disharmony into the very celebration of the Eucharist, which is oriented in its own lofty way and by its very nature to signifying and wondrously bringing about the communion of divine life and the unity of the People of God.30 The result is uncertainty in matters of doctrine, perplexity and scandal on the part of the People of God, and, almost as a necessary consequence, vigorous opposition, all of which greatly confuse and sadden many of Christ’s faithful in this age of ours when Christian life is often particularly difficult on account of the inroads of “secularization” as well.31

Thus, it is not just about Canon Law.

 

[AnthonyF]

Benedictgal… Thank you very much. But let me play the devil’s advocate for a second. The RS has lofty ideals and I understand them and what I am doing is to bring more people to the liturgy. The GIRM does not state that dance or secular music is not permitted and if it is not clearly stated in LAW I can do what I believe enhances lay participation in the Liturgy.

What we are dealing with is “if it is not strictly forbidden then it is OK”. As he sees it he is enhancing the liturgy and making it more accessible to “joe six pack in the pew”. I believe he sees the liturgy as whatever the laity wants and not as a means to elevate the laity. You must understand that it is our Bishop Trautman who wants to change the language of the Liturgy to the simplest form. He strongly believes that, for example, the word “dew” or “sweetness” is beyond the mental capacity of the “man in the pew”.

Thank you again for your insights.

 

[IrishAm]

Benedictgal… Thank you very much. But let me play the devil’s advocate for a second. The RS has lofty ideals and I understand them and what I am doing is to bring more people to the liturgy. The GIRM does not state that dance or secular music is not permitted and if it is not clearly stated in LAW I can do what I believe enhances lay participation in the Liturgy.

What we are dealing with is “if it is not strictly forbidden then it is OK”. As he sees it he is enhancing the liturgy and making it more accessible to “joe six pack in the pew”. I believe he sees the liturgy as whatever the laity wants and not as a means to elevate the laity. ** You must understand that it is our Bishop Trautman who wants to change the language of the Liturgy to the simplest form. He strongly believes that, for example, the word “dew” or “sweetness” is beyond the mental capacity of the “man in the pew”. **
Thank you again for your insights.

How insulting to all of us “in the pew.”

 

[benedictgal]

How insulting to all of us “in the pew.”

I wrote to Bishop Serratelli and he was happy to know that people in the pews are embracing the new translations. I wrote to my bishop (before I wrote to Bishop Serratelli) about supporting the new translations. I heard from Bishop Serratelli and not from mine. I am also writing to some of the bshops from Texas, including Cardinal DiNardo and Archbishop Gomez.

 

[benedictgal]

Benedictgal… Thank you very much. But let me play the devil’s advocate for a second. The RS has lofty ideals and I understand them and what I am doing is to bring more people to the liturgy. The GIRM does not state that dance or secular music is not permitted and if it is not clearly stated in LAW I can do what I believe enhances lay participation in the Liturgy.

What we are dealing with is “if it is not strictly forbidden then it is OK”. As he sees it he is enhancing the liturgy and making it more accessible to “joe six pack in the pew”. I believe he sees the liturgy as whatever the laity wants and not as a means to elevate the laity. You must understand that it is our Bishop Trautman who wants to change the language of the Liturgy to the simplest form. He strongly believes that, for example, the word “dew” or “sweetness” is beyond the mental capacity of the “man in the pew”.

Thank you again for your insights.

But, just because it is not in the GIRM, that does not give anyone the right to insert something into the Mass on his own initiative. We are not called to be creative in that respect. We are called to receive with love and obedience what the Church has given us, namely the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

 

[Victorious]

But, just because it is not in the GIRM, that does not give anyone the right to insert something into the Mass on his own initiative. We are not called to be creative in that respect. We are called to receive with love and obedience what the Church has given us, namely the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Yep. God can’t work in us or through us until we get out of His way.

 

[johnnykins]

At a recent Mass presided over by our Bishop, the gifts were presented with dance. I questioned that practice noting the August 2003 BCL letter on the USCCB site. The paragraph on “Liturgy and Dance” quoted the 1975 Notitiae which stated that dance was not to be part of the liturgy in western culture. I also quoted Cardinal Arinze’s statement on dance. *** I was told by the diocesan liturgist, that the Notitiae is not law and carries no authority, and that Cardinal Arinze was stating only an opinion and not law.*** I was told that unless it is strictly forbidden by Canon Law or by the Bishop, he could do what he wished as long as it did not distract from the Liturgy. I was told that RAP music could be used if it was used “properly”. Is he correct?

[emphasis added]

Here is what Vatican II says with emphasis added:

DECREE CONCERNING THE PASTORAL OFFICE OF BISHOPS IN THE CHURCH CHRISTUS DOMINUS
ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/v2bishop.htm

1. In this Church of Christ the Roman pontiff, as the successor of Peter, to whom Christ entrusted the feeding of His sheep and lambs,** enjoys supreme, full, immediate, and universal authority over the care of souls by divine institution**. Therefore, as pastor of all the faithful, he is sent to provide for the common good of the universal Church and for the good of the individual churches. Hence, he holds a primacy of ordinary power over all the churches.
   The bishops themselves, however, having been appointed by the Holy Spirit, are successors of the Apostles as pastors of souls.(3) Together with the supreme pontiff and under his authority they are sent to continue throughout the ages the work of Christ, the eternal pastor.(4) Christ gave the Apostles and their successors the command and the power to teach all nations, to hallow men in the truth, and to feed them. Bishops, therefore, have been made true and authentic teachers of the faith, pontiffs, and pastors through the Holy Spirit, who has been given to them.(5)
2. Bishops, sharing in the solicitude for all the churches, exercise this episcopal office of theirs, which they have received through episcopal consecration,(6) in communion with and** under the authority of the supreme pontiff**. As far as their teaching authority and pastoral government are concerned, all are united in a college or body with respect to the universal Church of God.
3. By virtue of sacramental consecration and hierarchical communion with the head and members of the college, bishops are constituted as members of the episcopal body.(1) “The order of bishops is the successor to the college of the apostles in teaching and pastoral direction, or rather, in the episcopal order, the apostolic body continues without a break. Together with its head, the Roman pontiff, and never without this head it exists as the subject of supreme, plenary power over the universal Church. But this power cannot be exercised except with the agreement of the Roman pontiff.”(2) This power however, “is exercised in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council.”(3) Therefore, this sacred synod decrees that all bishops who are members of the episcopal college, have the right to be present at an ecumenical council.
4. (a) To bishops, as successors of the Apostles, in the dioceses entrusted to them, there belongs per se all the ordinary, proper, and immediate authority which is required for the exercise of their pastoral office. But this never in any way infringes upon the power which the Roman pontiff has, by virtue of his office, of reserving cases to himself or to some other authority.
5. In exercising supreme, full, and immediate power in the universal Church, the Roman pontiff makes use of the departments of the Roman Curia which, therefore, perform their duties in his name and with his authority for the good of the churches and in the service of the sacred pastors.

11 …Individual bishops who have been entrusted with the care of a particular church-under the authority of the supreme pontiff-feed their sheep in the name of the Lord as their own, ordinary, and immediate pastors, performing for them the office of teaching, sanctifying, and governing. **Nevertheless, they should recognize the rights which legitimately belong to patriarchs or other hierarchical authorities.
**

Funny how the actual text of Vatican II is so often man-handled in the name of the amorphous “Spirit of Vatican II.” Naturally, something other than the decrees of Vatican II would have to be cited to get to where we are now.

As is clear from above, Cardinal Arinze as head of the appropriate dicastry is not merely offering his personal opinion.

 

[johnnykins]

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWDANCE.HTM [emphasis added]

The following essay appeared in “Notitiae” 11 (1975) 202-205, and is labeled as a “qualified and authoritative sketch.” It is the mind of the Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship (presently called Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments) that this article is to be considered “an authoritative point of reference for every discussion on the matter.” Therefore, it is commended for study by diocesan liturgical commissions and offices of worship. (This English translation first appeared in The Canon Law Digest, Vol. VIII, pp. 78-82).

[IN PART]

“However, the same criterion and judgment cannot be applied in the western culture.
Here dancing is tied with love, with diversion, with profaneness, with unbridling of the senses: such dancing, in general, is not pure.
For that reason it cannot be introduced into liturgical celebrations of any kind whatever: that would be to inject into the liturgy one of the most desacralized and desacralizing elements; and so it would be equivalent to creating an atmosphere of profaneness which would easily recall to those present and to the participants in the celebration worldly places and situations.
**Neither can acceptance be had of the proposal to introduce into the liturgy the so-called artistic ballet[2] because there would be presentation here also of a spectacle at which one would assist, while in the liturgy one of the norms from which one cannot prescind is that of participation. **
Therefore, there is a great difference in cultures: what is well received in one culture cannot be taken on by another culture.
**The traditional reserve of the seriousness of religious worship, and of the Latin worship in particular, must never be forgotten. **
If the proposal of the religious dance in the West is really to be made welcome, care will have to be taken that in its regard a place be found outside of the liturgy, in assembly areas which are not strictly liturgical. Moreover, the priests must always be excluded from the dance.”

 

[Sancto_Spiritu]

I can’t bloviate on Canon Law, but I can use common sense:

Dance may be “acceptable” under this law or that law, but it is NOT reverent and is NOT appropriate for Mass.

 

[Victorious]

I can’t bloviate on Canon Law, but I can use common sense:

Dance may be “acceptable” under this law or that law, but it is NOT reverent and is NOT appropriate for Mass.

Amen. If anybody was dancing on Calvary, they had to be rooting for the other side.