Opinions on Liturgical Dancers

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ignatius
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I would be more than content if I never saw another one again!

Dancers are fine. Liturgical dancers can stay away.
 
…oh Lord NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

anything but liturgical dancers… i can handle anything but liturgical dancers… i know this is a test from above…

i’m doomed!
Peace:thumbsup:
 
Liturgical dancers are an all around bad idea. They seem to consist mainly of people desperate to be noticed. I can see Africans or even Native Americans dancing in a procession, but not the majority population, as it is not a part of our cultural expression, at least not in church. I think most people’s natural reaction to liturgical dance is to laugh at it, but we don’t because it’s rude. If we gave way to our laughter, each and every time we saw liturgical dance, I firmly believe that it would go the way of dodo.
 
40.png
Ignatius:
How do you feel about Liturgical Dancers? (BE HONEST PLEASE :eek: )
Click to expand...
Just so everyone knows, here’s what the NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS has to say about it.

"all dancing, (ballet, children’s gesture as dancing, the clown liturgy) are not permitted to be “introduced into liturgical celebrations of any kind whatever.”
 
Here’s my experience with liturgical dance.

I was at a Sunday evning mass at a Neuman Center with myson (this was at SIUE) several years ago. Was surprised when I walked in to see our Bishop was there, going to celebrate the mass…I was very excited about this, and was telling my son about the bishop being a direct successor to the Apostles, etc.

Anyway, after Communion, all were “treated” to this gal and her liturgical dance - I was shocked and disgusted. Felt like covering my sons eyes, as the gal was wearing tights and a wispy see through skirt, and was prancing around like a wiccan around a bonfire. The bishop sat there looking down at the ground, seemed embarrassed (maybe a little upset!). When it was over, he didn’t say a word about the dancer and gave the final blessing.

Afterwards I heard the Neuman center priest (since sent somewhere else - not sure where) and the “sister” (liberal, no habit) congradulating the dancer, et al.

A couple of months later I was there when the priest had a woman read the gospel and give the homily - all about the “authentic” role of women in the church - totally unorthodox. I was completely disgusted about this episode, wrote a letter to the bishop, and have never been back.

I have since learned that about a year later, the priest that was running the center has been moved (out of his home parish as well) - not sure where he is now or why he was moved. The “sister” is still there.

That is all,

DustinsDad
 
The only thing worse then liturgical dancers is … another THREAD on liturgical dancers!!! :eek:
kidding… 😉
 
I am in agreement with Benedict XVI’s thoughts on this issue:
Dancing is not a form of expression for the Christian liturgy. In about the third century, there was an attempt in certain Gnostic-Docetic circles to introduce it into the liturgy. For these people, the Crucifixion was only an appearance. . . . Dancing could take the place of the liturgy of the Cross, because, after all, the Cross was only an appearance. The cultic dances of the different religions have different purposes - incantation, imitative magic, mystical ecstasy - none of which is compatible with the essential purpose of the liturgy as the “reasonable sacrifice”. It is totally absurd to try to make the liturgy “attractive” by introducing dancing pantomimes (wherever possible performed by professional dance troupes), which frequently (and rightly, from the professionals’ point of view) end with applause. Wherever applause breaks out in the liturgy because of some human achievement, it is a sure sign that the essence of liturgy has totally disappeared and been replaced by a kind of religious entertainment. Such attraction fades quickly - it cannot compete in the market of leisure pursuits, incorporating as it increasingly does various forms of religious titillation.
This action of God, which takes place through human speech, is the real “action” for which all creation is in expectation. The elements of the earth are transubstantiated, pulled, so to speak, from their creaturely anchorage, grasped at the deepest ground of their being, and changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord. The New Heaven and the New Earth are anticipated. The real “action” in the liturgy in which we are all supposed to participate is the action of God himself. This is what is new and distinctive about the Christian liturgy: God himself acts and does what is essential.
Click to expand...
 
40.png
DustinsDad:
Here’s my experience with liturgical dance.

I was at a Sunday evning mass at a Neuman Center with myson (this was at SIUE) several years ago. Was surprised when I walked in to see our Bishop was there, going to celebrate the mass…I was very excited about this, and was telling my son about the bishop being a direct successor to the Apostles, etc.

Anyway, after Communion, all were “treated” to this gal and her liturgical dance - I was shocked and disgusted. Felt like covering my sons eyes, as the gal was wearing tights and a wispy see through skirt, and was prancing around like a wiccan around a bonfire. The bishop sat there looking down at the ground, seemed embarrassed (maybe a little upset!). When it was over, he didn’t say a word about the dancer and gave the final blessing.

Afterwards I heard the Neuman center priest (since sent somewhere else - not sure where) and the “sister” (liberal, no habit) congradulating the dancer, et al.

A couple of months later I was there when the priest had a woman read the gospel and give the homily - all about the “authentic” role of women in the church - totally unorthodox. I was completely disgusted about this episode, wrote a letter to the bishop, and have never been back.

I have since learned that about a year later, the priest that was running the center has been moved (out of his home parish as well) - not sure where he is now or why he was moved. The “sister” is still there.

That is all,

DustinsDad
Click to expand...
Was this Bishop Gregory? And, good for you for writing a letter!
 
40.png
Genesis315:
I am in agreement with Benedict XVI’s thoughts on this issue:
"
Dancing is not a form of expression for the Christian liturgy. In about the third century, there was an attempt in certain Gnostic-Docetic circles to introduce it into the liturgy. For these people, the Crucifixion was only an appearance. . . . Dancing could take the place of the liturgy of the Cross, because, after all, the Cross was only an appearance. The cultic dances of the different religions have different purposes - incantation, imitative magic, mystical ecstasy - none of which is compatible with the essential purpose of the liturgy as the “reasonable sacrifice”. It is totally absurd to try to make the liturgy “attractive” by introducing dancing pantomimes (wherever possible performed by professional dance troupes), which frequently (and rightly, from the professionals’ point of view) end with applause. Wherever applause breaks out in the liturgy because of some human achievement, it is a sure sign that the essence of liturgy has totally disappeared and been replaced by a kind of religious entertainment. Such attraction fades quickly - it cannot compete in the market of leisure pursuits, incorporating as it increasingly does various forms of religious titillation.
This action of God, which takes place through human speech, is the real “action” for which all creation is in expectation. The elements of the earth are transubstantiated, pulled, so to speak, from their creaturely anchorage, grasped at the deepest ground of their being, and changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord. The New Heaven and the New Earth are anticipated. The real “action” in the liturgy in which we are all supposed to participate is the action of God himself. This is what is new and distinctive about the Christian liturgy: God himself acts and does what is essential. "
Click to expand...
Thank you
 
You mean like Mick Jagger?

But he only does rock concert liturgies. . .
 
Maybe “sacrilige (sp?)” is a bit harsh. I’ve never seen this and pray that I never will. It’s an awful institute. We don’t go to mass to see dancing. We go to hear the gospel. And dancing is not the form it should be in. :gopray: :bible1: :twocents:
 
It is a liturgical abuse. I don’t think the people involved are meaning to be disrespectful, but it is innapropriate in the context of the Mass. I have seen it a few times. I don’t remember feeling disgusted as some report, but when given the reasons it is not acceptable I can see the point. I accept that it has no place at Mass.
 
40.png
Elzee:
Was this Bishop Gregory? And, good for you for writing a letter!
Click to expand...
Nope…Bishop George Lucas - Springfield, IL Diocese.

Peace,

DustinsDad
 
I don’t think it is appropriate in the U.S.

Generally dancing in Western Culture has been a fun, social activity, sometimes for couples, sometimes for groups, sometimes theatrical or showy, sometimes more sexually suggestive, sometimes about showing off the body. But it doesn’t work as liturgy. Why not? Because for the most part, Western dance doesn’t “say” anything.

For something “symbolic” to work in liturgy, the audience has to “get it”, and for the most part your typical congregation in the U.S. isn’t going to have the slightest idea what a liturgical dance is trying to say. People will just sit there scratching their heads. Some people will try to get into it, and make up their own meanings to fit the dance. Others will just be annoyed or offended. But there’s not going to be any universal truth or meaning being conveyed that a large percentage of the congregation will catch on to.

As a counterexample, I recently visited Hawaii (poor me!). There, you can see people dancing Hula, either traditional styles or more contemporary versions. But it was clear just from watching several different dancers that each dance tells a story. Each movement of the arms, hands, or body has a specific meaning. So the motions of the dance form a kind of “sign language”, which is consistent from one dancer to the next, and (importantly) would be understood by the right audience. People who were raised in the Hawaiian culture would be familiar with what the different motions meant, and could recognize the story from watching the dancer. And among the sories that could be told with such dance include those with sacred or religious meanings.

Not so with Western dance. There’s no consistent lexicon of dance that most of us are familiar with. We may see a dancer skillfully performing graceful motions, and we say “ah, look at those graceful motions”. But we don’t translate those graceful motions to specific meanings, at least not consistently - 10 different observers will come up with 10 different interpretations. In something like ballet, we may get some additional cues from music, costuming, staging and theatrical effects. But it’s not nearly so definite as some of the non-Western dance traditions.

This is why liturgical dance can make sense in some places like Polynesia or parts of Africa or among some Native Americans, where there is a tradition of dance used in rituals, where the dance can be used to convey religious meaning. But not in most of European and American culture, because sacred dance is just not part of our tradition.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top