When *IS* dance allowed at Mass?

[HOPEFUL_IN_UK]

I was just watching a video of the opening Mass for WYD in Sydney. The “Alleluia” was done in a dance. I don’t know if it was the “alleluia” but it was done while the Gospel was processed up to the lectern. It was a group of Aboriginal men in traditional dress (grass skirts, paint, and spears) dancing in a circle to some sort of chant. Now, I have to say: it looked pretty good. It didn’t look like some California ninnie traipsing about with scarves to insipid music. They looked serious and they looked like they knew what they were doing. I guess the problem is that I don’t know what they were doing. Did the dance mean something? Is it derived from some traditional dance that honors God or something?

Anyway, I am under the impression that the Catholic Church does allow for liturgical dance in places where worship has always been expressed through dance. Would that be the case here?

 

[Pani_Rose]

If the dance is part of the tradition/custom then yes.

I am not Roman Catholic, but if memory serves me right, the African-American Churches are allowed dance because it is part of who they are as a culture.

A friend that was a missionary to Africa, brought the most awesome footage of Mass there home with him. The women were dressed in beautiful contumes and they had these huge ostrich plumes that they were dancing with. It was extraordinary for us - but for them it was the norm.

So, I guess that is kind of what you saw, the aboriginal people doing what is native to their culture.

 

[Spirithound]

If the dance is part of the tradition/custom then yes.

So, I guess that is kind of what you saw, the aboriginal people doing what is native to their culture.

A follow-up question then, how do we know whether a dance is part of a “culture”?

 

[benedictgal]

The same question was raised in another thread. This is what Francis Cardinal Arinze, the Prefect for the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, said in answer to a question on “liturgical” dance:

There has never been a document from our Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments saying that dance is approved in the Mass.

The question of dance is difficult and delicate. However, it is good to know that the tradition of the Latin Church has not known the dance. It is something that people are introducing in the last ten years – or twenty years. It was not always so. Now it is spreading like wildfire, one can say, in all the continents – some more than others. In my own continent, Africa, it is spreading. In Asia, it is spreading.

Now, some priests and lay people think that Mass is never complete without dance. The difficulty is this: we come to Mass primarily to adore God – what we call the vertical dimension. We do not come to Mass to entertain one another. That’s not the purpose of Mass. The parish hall is for that.

…Somebody can say, “but the pope visited this county and the people danced”. A moment: Did the pope arrange it? Poor Holy Father – he comes, the people arranged. He does not know what they arranged. And somebody introduces something funny – is the pope responsible for that? Does that mean it is now approved? Did they put in on the table of the Congregation for Divine Worship? We would throw it out! If people want to dance, they know where to go.

Inasmuch as there are certain allowances made for inculturation, there is also the instance of taking things a tad bit too far. Yes, the aborigines and other native tribal groups from Oceania are certainly entitled to a degree of inculturation by the very nature of their missionary character; however, the WYD Mass was not about them, per se. This is an international Mass and the focus was not on the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice for this particular group.

The problem is that when strange things get introduced into the Mass and try to get passed off as inculturation, then, that creates confusion among the faithful. Then, when they return to their home dioceses, they think that they can do these same things simply because they had seen them done at WYD. This is a bad precedent.

 

[nate12387]

A follow-up question then, how do we know whether a dance is part of a “culture”?

My understanding is that if you have to explain that something is worship, then it shouldn’t be done. So if dance has to be explained as to why its worship, then it shouldn’t be done.

 

[Spirithound]

My understanding is that if you have to explain that something is worship, then it shouldn’t be done. So if dance has to be explained as to why its worship, then it shouldn’t be done.

Great answer, thank you

 

[LilyM]

My understanding is that if you have to explain that something is worship, then it shouldn’t be done. So if dance has to be explained as to why its worship, then it shouldn’t be done.

Oh ok, so all those native Africans who didn’t understand (at least at first) that one kneeled at Mass because to Europeans that constituted worship, or that one prayed the Mass in Latin for the same reason, or that the priest held up the host and chalice because that to Europeans is a gesture of adoration, or that candles should be lit because to Europeans that too is an act of worship shouldn’t have had to do any of these things?

 

[HOPEFUL_IN_UK]

The same question was raised in another thread. This is what Francis Cardinal Arinze, the Prefect for the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, said in answer to a question on “liturgical” dance:

Inasmuch as there are certain allowances made for inculturation, there is also the instance of taking things a tad bit too far. Yes, the aborigines and other native tribal groups from Oceania are certainly entitled to a degree of inculturation by the very nature of their missionary character; however, the WYD Mass was not about them, per se. This is an international Mass and the focus was not on the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice for this particular group.

The problem is that when strange things get introduced into the Mass and try to get passed off as inculturation, then, that creates confusion among the faithful. Then, when they return to their home dioceses, they think that they can do these same things simply because they had seen them done at WYD. This is a bad precedent.

I think that’s an excellent point. Thanks for that.

 

[benedictgal]

Oh ok, so all those native Africans who didn’t understand (at least at first) that one kneeled at Mass because to Europeans that constituted worship, or that one prayed the Mass in Latin for the same reason, or that the priest held up the host and chalice because that to Europeans is a gesture of adoration, or that candles should be lit because to Europeans that too is an act of worship shouldn’t have had to do any of these things?

I think that the post meant that if we had to explain something strange going on in the Mass to presumably fellow Catholics, then there are problems. By strange I mean any novelty or innovation that creative geniuses seem to think will “improve” the Mass.

 

[LilyM]

I think that the post meant that if we had to explain something strange going on in the Mass to presumably fellow Catholics, then there are problems. By strange I mean any novelty or innovation that creative geniuses seem to think will “improve” the Mass.

Are you genuinely unaware that the host and chalice weren’t always elevated, prayers weren’t always said in Latin, candles weren’t always used?

At some point in history each and every one of these things WERE strange even to Catholics. They were in fact, exactly as you phrase it, novelties that creative geniuses thought would improve the Mass - and you know what, those kooky geniuses were absolutely right! They DID improve the Mass!

I’m not saying that US-style liturgical dance would improve it, it’s been tried for 30-some years and clearly doesn’t. But introduction of the sort of element we saw at WYD could be the exception - IMHO it hasn’t been tried often enough to judge.

 

[benedictgal]

Are you genuinely unaware that the host and chalice weren’t always elevated, prayers weren’t always said in Latin, candles weren’t always used?

At some point in history each and every one of these things WERE strange even to Catholics. They were in fact, exactly as you phrase it, novelties that creative geniuses thought would improve the Mass - and you know what, those kooky geniuses were absolutely right! They DID improve the Mass!

I’m not saying that US-style liturgical dance would improve it, it’s been tried for 30-some years and clearly doesn’t. But introduction of the sort of element we saw at WYD could be the exception - IMHO it hasn’t been tried often enough to judge.

However, these are two entirely different matters. Please re-read the response given by Francis Cardinal Arinze. The Latin Rite has no tradition of “dance”. What was done at WYD was more of a novelty that should not have been done.

 

[LilyM]

However, these are two entirely different matters. Please re-read the response given by Francis Cardinal Arinze. The Latin Rite has no tradition of “dance”. What was done at WYD was more of a novelty that should not have been done.

But as I said, for hundreds of years if not a millenium or more, the Roman Rite ALSO had no tradition of saying Mass in Latin, no tradition of using candles at Mass, and no tradition of elevating the Host either.

At some point someone decided to do each of these things for the very first time, in spite of the fact that there had been no tradition of having done them previously, prior to them being done for the first time. And rather than bindly blasting them as novelties, which they were, the Church took them on board and they eventually became the norm.

The point is all of these ‘traditions’ started out being novelties in the Mass, in exactly the same fashion as indigenous dance is a novelty today. If the Church had had your attitude back then we’d have none of these most cherished parts of our Mass today.

 

[benedictgal]

But as I said, for hundreds of years if not a millenium or more, the Roman Rite ALSO had no tradition of saying Mass in Latin, no tradition of using candles at Mass, and no tradition of elevating the Host either.

At some point someone decided to do each of these things for the very first time, in spite of the fact that there had been no tradition of having done them previously, prior to them being done for the first time. And rather than bindly blasting them as novelties, which they were, the Church took them on board and they eventually became the norm.

The point is all of these ‘traditions’ started out being novelties in the Mass, in exactly the same fashion as indigenous dance is a novelty today. If the Church had had your attitude back then we’d have none of these most cherished parts of our Mass today.

But, you are mistaken in your notion. Dancing is not an organic development to tne Mass because there is nothing in the history of the Latin Rite, let alone the Eastern, that indicates that such an activity existed.

It seems that people who try to defend novelty and try to justify it will throw every argument htey can, no matter how sincere. It does not work that way.

 

[LilyM]

But, you are mistaken in your notion. Dancing is not an organic development to tne Mass because there is nothing in the history of the Latin Rite, let alone the Eastern, that indicates that such an activity existed.

It seems that people who try to defend novelty and try to justify it will throw every argument htey can, no matter how sincere. It does not work that way.

And I suppose you think Latin was an organic development from the original Greek? Of course not - it was entirely a novelty and a concession to the culture of the time where Latin became the vernacular.

And how, pray tell, does one organically develop from NOT elevating the Host to elevating the Host? The two (action v non-action) are diametrically opposed to each other, one cannot be considered an organic development of the other.

It seems that you think that Latin was used at the Last Supper and nothing has changed or been ‘innovated’ or introduced into the Mass since. It seems that you are the one who does not understand how things work.

 

[nate12387]

And I suppose you think Latin was an organic development from the original Greek? Of course not - it was entirely a novelty and a concession to the culture of the time where Latin became the vernacular.

And how, pray tell, does one organically develop from NOT elevating the Host to elevating the Host? The two (action v non-action) are diametrically opposed to each other, one cannot be considered an organic development of the other.

It seems that you think that Latin was used at the Last Supper and nothing has changed or been ‘innovated’ or introduced into the Mass since. It seems that you are the one who does not understand how things work.

I would have to say that these are different things because the things written above are all mandated from the Vatican, his Holiness the Pope, and the magisteriam. The things in quotes are in the GORM, and other document that came out of the Vatican. Dancing has not been really talked about from the Vatican. That is why these are two different issues. Those traditions mentioned above came from the magisteriam, dancing didn’t.

I am not trying to go against dancing. Dancing is ok when the culture already see it as worship. This has to be the way its done because the Vatican has not said anything, or very little, about it.

 

[palmas85]

Are you genuinely unaware that the host and chalice weren’t always elevated, prayers weren’t always said in Latin, candles weren’t always used?

At some point in history each and every one of these things WERE strange even to Catholics. They were in fact, exactly as you phrase it, novelties that creative geniuses thought would improve the Mass - and you know what, those kooky geniuses were absolutely right! They DID improve the Mass!

I’m not saying that US-style liturgical dance would improve it, it’s been tried for 30-some years and clearly doesn’t. But introduction of the sort of element we saw at WYD could be the exception - IMHO it hasn’t been tried often enough to judge.

I trust Cardinal Arinze in this matter. And his opinion is pretty clear on the subject…

 

[ProVobis]

Isn’t dancing as a part of worshiping God in the Bible?

I’ve seen choreography done in good taste and I see nothing really wrong with it. When it becomes provocative, however, I have to draw a line. I simply say that it’s not part of my culture, but yet I cannot say it’s not a valid service.

 

[LilyM]

I trust Cardinal Arinze in this matter. And his opinion is pretty clear on the subject…

Yep, he’s clear that it’s OK in countries where it is part of the culture. The whole darn country being Aboriginal land (not like they signed over the title deeds or anything), it’s fine for Australian Aboriginals to do so in their land, Australia.

 

[Spirithound]

I would have to say that these are different things because the things written above are all mandated from the Vatican, his Holiness the Pope, and the magisteriam. The things in quotes are in the GORM, and other document that came out of the Vatican. Dancing has not been really talked about from the Vatican. That is why these are two different issues. Those traditions mentioned above came from the magisteriam, dancing didn’t.

But do we really know that those changes previously mentioned were originally mandated by the Magesterium?

 

[Ohwesty]

But do we really know that those changes previously mentioned were originally mandated by the Magesterium?

Liturgical dance has never been made an integral part of the official worship of the Latin Church. It is not mandated, but only allowed in certain circumstances.

I am sure I read Cardinal Arinze say in an interview that when the Africans bring up the gifts at the offertory with dance-like movement in their bodies, it is *not *equated as “liturgical dance.” But when you have ballerinas flitting around the sanctuary followed by applause in the congregation, that is just wrong. I am going to look for that quote.

Ah, found it.

Moreover, there is a difference between those who come in procession at Offertory; they bring their gifts, with joy. There is a movement of the body right and left. They bring their gifts to God. That is good, really. And some of the choir, they sing. They have a little bit of movement. Nobody is going to condemn that. And when you are going out again, a little movement, it’s all right.

But when you introduce wholesale, say, a ballerina, then I want to ask you what is it all about. What exactly are you arranging? When the people finish dancing in the Mass and then when the dance group finishes and people clap – don’t you see what it means? It means we have enjoyed it. We come for enjoyment. Repeat. So, there is something wrong. Whenever the people clap – there is something wrong – immediately.

• Francis Cardinal Arinze

The whole interview is here: adoremus.org/1003Arinze.html