Episcopalian vs. Catholic

[bob_regan]

In the city of Angels.

GKC

On dancing at Mass and the Church’s thoughts/tachings:

catholic.net/index.php?option=dedestaca&id=135&grupo=Church%20Teaching%20QA&canal=Liturgy%20Explained

 

[Yggdrasil]

Thank goodness for councils!

In this thankgiving, then, one must include Vatican II, which relaxed the strict universal standards and freed the liturgy to be infused with local and cultural customs. The earlier councils forbidding ecclesial dance have found their place in the historical review as overly prudish and needlessly harsh. An old Wesleyan standard in the Episcopal hymn-book takes the line from St. Paul: “Rejoice in the Lord always—again, I say, rejoice!”
Sacrosanctum Concilium § 37:

Even in the liturgy, the Church has no wish to impose a rigid uniformity in matters which do not implicate the faith or the good of the whole community; rather does she respect and foster the genius and talents of the various races and peoples. Anything in these peoples’ way of life which is not indissolubly bound up with superstition and error she studies with sympathy and, if possible, preserves intact. Sometimes in fact she admits such things into the liturgy itself, so long as they harmonize with its true and authentic spirit.

Note that Abp. Mahoney or virtually any other bishop permitting liturgical dance has yet to receive formal censure from Rome. Note also that the practice has found a much wider and more positive reception in areas like Africa, which show better numbers than North America does insofar as an increase in Catholic population is concerned.

Actually…tradition does hold that during the consecration of the Mass from the epiclesis onward, not only are the Communion of Saints in Heaven around the altar, but that the angels DANCE in joy and praise around the altar as the bread and wine becomes the Body, Blood Soul and Divinity…

Indeed.

Quarters of the Episcopal Church may be returning to her roots more than some here would like to admit.

 

[chris_molter]

In this thankgiving, then, one must include Vatican II, which relaxed the strict universal standards and freed the liturgy to be infused with local and cultural customs.

Fortunately, liturgical dance is not a local or cultural custom in the Latin Rite, or within the Anglican tradition (no, saying it has been since the 60s doesn’t count). Thanks be to God.

I suppose if we want to implement all of the liturgical norms of Vatican II, we can put the altar rails back, return to ad orientem, only use the vernacular as an exception, and restore chant to its pride of place. We can also dismiss with the EMHCs in nearly all cases, not hold hands during the Our Father, eliminate communion in the hand, etc.

 

[Yggdrasil]

Fortunately, liturgical dance is not a local or cultural custom in the Latin Rite, or within the Anglican tradition (no, saying it has been since the 60s doesn’t count). Thanks be to God.

I suppose if we want to implement all of the liturgical norms of Vatican II, we can put the altar rails back, return to ad orientem, only use the vernacular as an exception, and restore chant to its pride of place. We can also dismiss with the EMHCs in nearly all cases, not hold hands during the Our Father, eliminate communion in the hand, etc.

Vatican II didn’t stipulate that it had to be a prior Latin Rite tradition; all that was necessary was that it be a significant part of the cultural history of “the various races and peoples.” Dance qualifies. And even Christians themselves haven’t historically been averse to dancing in the cloisters.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Oh, Cardinal Mahoney, gotcha. I had no idea what you guys were talking about. Mahoney’s a piece of work anyway…uhhhhh…

In the city of Angels.

GKC

 

[captainmike]

I have been blessed to worship at one of the last remaining orthodox Episcopal parishes, and I can assure the OP and any other readers that the thing said here are tragically true. Things are worse in the Episcopal Church than are generally known. In my opinon, the pushing of agendas seems to outway all other emphases. Good is called evil, and evil good. No offense is meant to anyone by these words, but I can’t think of another way to put it.

But to answer the original question, the place where I’m at would probably seem 90-95% oldschool Catholic to you in terms of practice. Very High Church, lots of reverence, belief in Real Presence, kneeling at the altar for Communion, etc. We even oppose abortion - a shocking statement from an Episcopal church. The other Anglican options where I live are basically evangelical/emergent church plants, so we can either hold out as long as possible or put “Rome” in our Mapquest. It’s tough to be an Anglo-Catholic or a “sorta Catholic” Protestant these days…our time seems to have ended, but a few parishes never got the memo. We covet your prayers!

up until about four years ago, i attended an episcopal parish like yours. then, after 22 years of being an episcopalian, i became catholic. best decision i ever made.

 

[CMatt25]

I woul ask why does having female preists need to be rooted in whatever history you are looking at? We can create new things, ideas, and practices as long as love and adoration of God and Christ is the most important thing. You could argue that that is a slippery slope but i would then say that to me, slippery slopes make being human wonderful. People make wrong choices all the time. Just because something disagrees with early church leaders doesn’t mean that’s one of those wrong choices.

:clapping: The most important things are indeed our unity in believing Christ is our Lord and Savior and love. Nice post! God bless you.

 

[CMatt25]

I think that’s a fair question. My view on it is this: No, they wouldn’t approve. That doesn’t mean they would be right it just means for their time period that was definitely the prevalent veiw. However that view is largely incompatible if one wants to live and work and experience the world as it is today.(in my opinion) I know many gay couples who love each other like feel as closely as my fiance and I do. They go to church with us, who am I to judge them? Let God decide their fate. I respect the Early Church Fathers but I do not follow their teachings to a “T” either, I consider it much like we don’t read good portions of the bible as absolute fact. Hope that clears up my feelings for you.

Well said.

 

[CMatt25]

The entry above was part of a response about how I square my beliefs about gay marriage and woman priests not about the RCCs rejection of them. Gurney inquired, I answered, and never said I was Catholic or had any interest in converting.

Its this basic idea, ultimately of reletavism vs. Absolutism. Why must everything be absolute? I would say it is hard an desired to balance the two.

Everything doesn’t. I guess only unless it just makes someone feel better to think they know it all and no longer need to journey with Christ because their interpretations have already reached a perfectly infallible 100% absolute understanding of God. And then in that case they fail to understand it is all belief and faith.

2Cor 5:7 For we walk by faith, and not by sight.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hi again nhylan,

Could you give me an example, if you don’t mind, where relativism is ok in your opinion, where absolutism and relativism need to be “balanced,” as you put it? Just curious to understand where you’re coming from?

The entry above was part of a response about how I square my beliefs about gay marriage and woman priests not about the RCCs rejection of them. Gurney inquired, I answered, and never said I was Catholic or had any interest in converting.

Its this basic idea, ultimately of reletavism vs. Absolutism. Why must everything be absolute? I would say it is hard an desired to balance the two.

 

[chris_molter]

Vatican II didn’t stipulate that it had to be a prior Latin Rite tradition; all that was necessary was that it be a significant part of the cultural history of “the various races and peoples.” Dance qualifies. And even Christians themselves haven’t historically been averse to dancing in the cloisters.

Exceptions make for poor law. Dance has never been a part of the Mass in the Latin Rite and every Church document dealing with the phenomenon has discouraged it in every case except when dealing with cultures where dance has always been a part of their religious expressions (mainly Asian and African cultures).

In other words, changing the Mass to incorporate dancing where it has not been known is not what the Church was authorizing; allowing for inculturation when dance has always been a part of their legitimate religious expression is. This would exclude pretty much any example of liturgical dance in the Latin Rite in the Americas or Europe since it is not part of liturgical tradition for those cultures.

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

Hi again nhylan,

Could you give me an example, if you don’t mind, where relativism is ok in your opinion, where absolutism and relativism need to be “balanced,” as you put it? Just curious to understand where you’re coming from?

I may be about to step into it, but here goes: I have noticed that the study of humanities in Catholic colleges is often different from the same study in secular institutions. A few years back, my wife was getting her B.A. from a Catholic school, and literature, be it written by Sophocles or Dorothy Day, was studied largely for the moral values that could be gleaned from it.

I was working on an M.A. from a secular school, and there, literature was picked apart (closely read) for clues to the author’s frame of mind, the social and historical context reflected in a work, intertextuality (dialogic relationship between a work and predecessor works), sources that influenced a work, etc.

The reading of St. Augustine’s Confessions, for example, would be very different in the two settings.

The Bible is, of course, a piece of literature. By itself, it consists of words on pages. Much can be gleaned by reading the Bible by looking at it in terms of modern literary study. However, we Christians look on the Bible as more than a very interesting collection of ancient literature. In this way, I think we can see a place for both a relativistic approach, and an absolutist approach. Both inform the other.

This is not inimical to Christian faith. Christians of nearly all stripes engage in biblical scholarship, much of which involves multiple literary approaches. Just look at the exhaustive list in Raymond Brown’s Introduction to the New Testament.

So, again, relativism and absolutism inevitably dance together in our understanding of faith.

 

[Yggdrasil]

Exceptions make for poor law. Dance has never been a part of the Mass in the Latin Rite and every Church document dealing with the phenomenon has discouraged it in every case except when dealing with cultures where dance has always been a part of their religious expressions (mainly Asian and African cultures).

That the prerogative belongs to the bishop is the explicit recommendation of the Council. The bottom line in this discussion is that not only are Episcopalian churches incorporating dance into the liturgy, but Catholic churches are as well. It’s easy enough for Joe Catholic to whine about how the bishops who condone it are “loonies,” “liberals,” “radicals,” and “renegades,” but absent any kind of public or formal rebuke from Rome, the Mahonys et al. don’t appear to be violating their capacity of office.

Even papal Masses and papal religious ceremonies have seen liturgical dancing in recent decades, so it’s left for us to wonder how to interpret any document that “discourages it in every case.” There’s a pretty serious disconnect between whatever mandates have been squirreled away in the obscurantia of Church documents versus what the Church opts to broadcast to the world. Liturgical dance has become almost de rigueur at the World Youth Day celebrations, even in Western cities like Denver and Toronto. It might be argued that John Paul II and Benedict XVI are special cases, but that little caveat certainly hasn’t been made known to all and sundry. The conductor of the orchestra sets the tempo.

In other words, changing the Mass to incorporate dancing where it has not been known is not what the Church was authorizing; allowing for inculturation when dance has always been a part of their legitimate religious expression is. This would exclude pretty much any example of liturgical dance in the Latin Rite in the Americas or Europe since it is not part of liturgical tradition for those cultures.

Well, every single culture on earth knew and loved dance before being Christianized, including the Judaic culture that served as the Christian religion’s womb. Doubtless we’re all familiar with the bible stories of Miriam leading “a song to the Lord” with timbrels and dances, and of David “dancing with all his might before the Lord.” The thing about dancing in the West is that long after Europe became Christian, dance remained an expression of popular piety in many places—in the cloisters of cathedrals and even, according to the Jesuit Ménestrier, “in the church while singing hymns of joy.”

Sacrosanctum Concilium makes no mention of maintaining liturgical dance where it is already practiced, or of excluding it from the Latin Rite; it merely allows that such a practice can be “admitted into the liturgy itself.” Since the history of the European peoples is rich in dance, this would not seem to be a problem. From maypole dancing in the Marian month of May, to morris dancing on Whitsunday, dance has been a notable part of European religious expression. Obviously any kind of dance that is performed at Mass ought to be characterized by a certain solemnity and restraint—and the mannered Western style of contemporary ballet (favored by most liturgical dancers) is perfectly suitable on such terms. Some of the indigenous styles of religious dance favored in Africa are actually closer to the kinds of frenzied dances that us Westerners might associate with the ecstatic reveries of a Dionysian festival, whereas we might find Japanese dance styles somewhat stilted and overly formal. It’s variations on a theme, though. The Church, by her own admission, seeks no “rigid uniformity” here.

Or, as Maurice T.T. Rodriguez put it: “wear what you dig.”

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Could you give me three or four examples from Scripture itself to illustrate your meaning, Usbek? Thanks.

The Bible is, of course, a piece of literature. By itself, it consists of words on pages. Much can be gleaned by reading the Bible by looking at it in terms of modern literary study. However, we Christians look on the Bible as more than a very interesting collection of ancient literature. In this way, I think we can see a place for both a relativistic approach, and an absolutist approach. Both inform the other.

This is not inimical to Christian faith. Christians of nearly all stripes engage in biblical scholarship, much of which involves multiple literary approaches. Just look at the exhaustive list in Raymond Brown’s Introduction to the New Testament.

So, again, relativism and absolutism inevitably dance together in our understanding of faith.

 

[chris_molter]

That the prerogative belongs to the bishop is the explicit recommendation of the Council. The bottom line in this discussion is that not only are Episcopalian churches incorporating dance into the liturgy, but Catholic churches are as well. It’s easy enough for Joe Catholic to whine about how the bishops who condone it are “loonies,” “liberals,” “radicals,” and “renegades,” but absent any kind of public or formal rebuke from Rome, the Mahonys et al. don’t appear to be violating their capacity of office.

We all know Rome is not quick to pounce on a Bishop for ANYTHING (sexual abuse crisis, anyone?), so saying that absence of condemnation is approval is a bit of a stretch, to say the least. In any case, your derision of “Joe Catholic” is duly noted and appreciated.

Even papal Masses and papal religious ceremonies have seen liturgical dancing in recent decades, so it’s left for us to wonder how to interpret any document that “discourages it in every case.”

I can’t think of an instance where dancing was done within the Mass itself OR by any non-African or Asian culture.

There’s a pretty serious disconnect between whatever mandates have been squirreled away in the obscurantia of Church documents versus what the Church opts to broadcast to the world.

So once again, when Rome is lax in enforcing its own discipline, we can feel free to characterize her guidance and rubrics as “obscurantia”? How is that different from folks like McBrien or Chittister?

Liturgical dance has become almost de rigueur at the World Youth Day celebrations, even in Western cities like Denver and Toronto. It might be argued that John Paul II and Benedict XVI are special cases, but that little caveat certainly hasn’t been made known to all and sundry. The conductor of the orchestra sets the tempo.

Bringing WYD into it isn’t helping the case for liturgical dancing being an authentic part of Catholic liturgical tradition. And if the conductor sets the tempo, I hope you’ll take Pope Benedicts emphasis on solemn liturgies and Sacrosanctum Concilium AS WRITTEN to heart. If you haven’t already read The Spirit of the Liturgy, I’d highly recommend reading and internalizing it. That’s the direction our “conductor” wishes to go.

Well, every single culture on earth knew and loved dance before being Christianized, including the Judaic culture that served as the Christian religion’s womb.

None of which shows dance to be part of Catholic liturgical tradition. You have to reach back to pre-Christianity to find it as part of western cultural religious tradition. Trying to reintroduce it now is not an organic or authentic development of the liturgy. It’s a rupture, jarring to the senses and horrifyingly out of place in the Mass.

Sacrosanctum Concilium makes no mention of maintaining liturgical dance where it is already practiced, or of excluding it from the Latin Rite; it merely allows that such a practice can be “admitted into the liturgy itself.” Since the history of the European peoples is rich in dance, this would not seem to be a problem. From maypole dancing in the Marian month of May, to morris dancing on Whitsunday, dance has been a notable part of European religious expression. Obviously any kind of dance that is performed at Mass ought to be characterized by a certain solemnity and restraint—and the mannered Western style of contemporary ballet (favored by most liturgical dancers) is perfectly suitable on such terms. Some of the indigenous styles of religious dance favored in Africa are actually closer to the kinds of frenzied dances that us Westerners might associate with the ecstatic reveries of a Dionysian festival, whereas we might find Japanese dance styles somewhat stilted and overly formal. It’s variations on a theme, though. The Church, by her own admission, seeks no “rigid uniformity” here.

Or, as Maurice T.T. Rodriguez put it: “wear what you dig.”

I’m unable to find “dance” in Sacrosanctum Concilium at all. Ballet is not part of Catholic liturgical tradition in the West. If the Japanese Catholics wish to introduce kabuki theatre into the Mass, or Maori Catholics wish to continue tribal dancing as part of the liturgy, well, good on them. None of it is relevant to our traditions in the Western Church. If we truly want to implement the liturgical norms of Vatican II, we should hear Gregorian Chant or polyphony at almost every Mass (Sacrosanctum Concilium 116).

At no time in its long history has dance been a part of the Mass. I challenge you to show me examples of where dancing was included as part of Catholic liturgical life in the West. If you cannot, then you should admit that inclusion of dancing as part of the Mass is a rupture with tradition and not an authentic development in our liturgy. The Church’s official word on the subject is:

The dance has never been made an integral part of the official worship of the Latin Church.

If local churches have accepted the dance, sometimes even in the church building, that was on the occasion of feasts in order to manifest sentiments of joy and devotion. But that always took place outside of liturgical services.

Conciliar decisions have often condemned the religious dance because it conduces little to worship and because it could degenerate into disorders.

Of course, nothing’s stopping dance fans from becoming members of a cultural parish where dance would be permissable.
To put it another way… “You can dance if you want to. You can leave your friends behind”

 

[chris_molter]

PS, We’re splitting the thread here, so perhaps we should start a new thread under liturgy and sacraments.

 

[nhylan]

Hi again nhylan,

Could you give me an example, if you don’t mind, where relativism is ok in your opinion, where absolutism and relativism need to be “balanced,” as you put it? Just curious to understand where you’re coming from?

Sorry I’m so late responding, I stopped reading when you guys were talking about dancing.

Here are some ideas of absolutism I’m sure most will agree with:

1. There is good and evil in this world.
2. Murder is bad
3. There is one Church

Heres what I’m talking about with relativism
There is one Church: Many protestant denominations believe this as well. It just means different things to different people. For Catholics it is mostly referring to the Roman Catholic Church for protestants it refers to all Christians.

There isn’t one exact way to interpet the bible: This is pretty self explanitory.

The very idea of faith requires the idea of Relatavism. There is a mystery to faith and I’m not just talking about “Christ has dies, Christ is risen, Christ will come again”. People have personal mysteries in their faith, thats what I love about being Episcopalian. Unanswered questions are ok, some would even say good. It is uncertainty that helps define our faith. Is relatavism wasn’t required in faith it wouldn’t be called faith, it would be called fact. There are things beyond our ken to know, God is still speaks to us, why would we assume when the bible closed the message was complete?

 

[CMatt25]

Sorry I’m so late responding, I stopped reading when you guys were talking about dancing.

Here are some ideas of absolutism I’m sure most will agree with:

1. There is good and evil in this world.
2. Murder is bad
3. There is one Church

Heres what I’m talking about with relativism
There is one Church: Many protestant denominations believe this as well. It just means different things to different people. For Catholics it is mostly referring to the Roman Catholic Church for protestants it refers to all Christians.

There isn’t one exact way to interpet the bible: This is pretty self explanitory.

The very idea of faith requires the idea of Relatavism. There is a mystery to faith and I’m not just talking about “Christ has dies, Christ is risen, Christ will come again”. People have personal mysteries in their faith, thats what I love about being Episcopalian. Unanswered questions are ok, some would even say good. It is uncertainty that helps define our faith. Is relatavism wasn’t required in faith it wouldn’t be called faith, it would be called fact. There are things beyond our ken to know, God is still speaks to us, why would we assume when the bible closed the message was complete?

Sorry but I do have to :dancing: for a moment. Because for mos I have been preaching this fact!

Fact: **"The very idea of faith requires the idea of Relatavism. If relatavism wasn’t required in faith it wouldn’t be called faith, it would be called fact. **

Thank you Nhylan!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

A well-written post, nhylan. I’m not sure I agree on all counts, but well-said. But I must take issue with your departure when dancing came up! LOL
For God’s sake man, live a little!

Sorry I’m so late responding, I stopped reading when you guys were talking about dancing.

Here are some ideas of absolutism I’m sure most will agree with:

1. There is good and evil in this world.
2. Murder is bad
3. There is one Church

Heres what I’m talking about with relativism
There is one Church: Many protestant denominations believe this as well. It just means different things to different people. For Catholics it is mostly referring to the Roman Catholic Church for protestants it refers to all Christians.

There isn’t one exact way to interpet the bible: This is pretty self explanitory.

The very idea of faith requires the idea of Relatavism. There is a mystery to faith and I’m not just talking about “Christ has dies, Christ is risen, Christ will come again”. People have personal mysteries in their faith, thats what I love about being Episcopalian. Unanswered questions are ok, some would even say good. It is uncertainty that helps define our faith. Is relatavism wasn’t required in faith it wouldn’t be called faith, it would be called fact. There are things beyond our ken to know, God is still speaks to us, why would we assume when the bible closed the message was complete?

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

Teach, I’m working on it.

But for one example let me give an incomplete statement:

John 15 (the adulterous woman about to be stoned). Many manuscripts of John do not contain this passage. Was it scriptural? Depends on what you think about the passage. It sounds like Jesus to me. But according to sources I have, it also sounds like a Luke passage more than a John passage. Our understanding of scripture must be informed by the human sciences of textual interpretation.

For many centuries, the biblical account of creation was considered literal. Now many, including many Catholics, believe it was true, but not in a literal sense. Also the fact that there are actually two accounts makes literalness a bit obscure, which one is right? Do we throw out the book of Genesis? Not me. Not you.

Sorry for the short response.

Could you give me three or four examples from Scripture itself to illustrate your meaning, Usbek? Thanks.