When *IS* dance allowed at Mass?

[nate12387]

It is interesting how Jesus’ words are often used to justify something completely out of context. Jeuss said these words, in last week’s Gospel reading (daily Msas) because the Pharisees were attacking Him and HIs disciples for plucking the grains from the wheat and eating them. This was not in the context of the cultic worship of the Lord.

The problem with the repeated justification of what happened during yesterday’s Mass is that the issue of incuilturation only and directly applies to those folks who are indigenous to the territory and who comprise the majority of the fatihful assembled for the Mass. Just like the Chlidren’s Eucharistic Prayers can only be used when children make up the majority of the faithful, the same concept holds true here.

WYD is an international venue. Multi-cultural celebrations are left to welcoming ceremonies and the like, but, should not happen during the Mass. Diversity also means division. We are ONE Church. Although we are made up of different peoples, cultures and nationalities, all of these divisions and diversities end when we begin the Mass. There is no such thing as an American Church, an Australian Church, a Mexican Church, an Italian Church nor an African Church. Catholic means universal. The Church recognizes diversity, but, it doesn’t make it the focal point of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

The passage that I just wrote on there would apply because the mass can be changed whenever the pope feels like it and when the country’s conference of bishops changes it with the approval of the pope.

The Dance in question was approved by the Hierarchy of the church. Everything that went on there, I would guess, had to go though Cardinal Pell. He is church Hierarchy. By saying that the dance shouldn’t have gone on, you are going against church Hierarchy.

Yes we are one church, but each country can have changes in the mass with the permission of the pope. In addition to the New mass and the traditional latin mass, The church also allows each eastern catholic rite to have there own form of the mass and the Anglican use parishes have there own Anglican rite that they use. So allready we have over 20 different catholic rites.

Yes we are one church, but the mass does not have to be the same. If the pope wanted to, he could order every catholic Perish to insert dance in there mass and none of them could do a thing about it.

 

[nate12387]

Again, I direct you to the quote from Francis Cardinal Arinze who notes that:

The bottom line is that something was introduced into the Mass that had no business being there. Furthermore, the Book of the Gospels is normally carried in during the Entrance Procession, something that was not done at either Mass.

The comments of the Cardinal to not prove your point at all. All he is saying is that its not the pope fault that dance is going on since the pope didn’t plan it. He said nothing about if it should be allowed or not.

 

[Frosty]

Since there was not a traditional entrance procession at Sunday’s Mass, when would you suggest the Gospel Book have been carried in?

 

[benedictgal]

The passage that I just wrote on there would apply because the mass can be changed whenever the pope feels like it and when the country’s conference of bishops changes it with the approval of the pope.

The Dance in question was approved by the Hierarchy of the church. Everything that went on there, I would guess, had to go though Cardinal Pell. He is church Hierarchy. By saying that the dance shouldn’t have gone on, you are going against church Hierarchy.

Yes we are one church, but each country can have changes in the mass with the permission of the pope. In addition to the New mass and the traditional latin mass, The church also allows each eastern catholic rite to have there own form of the mass and the Anglican use parishes have there own Anglican rite that they use. So allready we have over 20 different catholic rites.

Yes we are one church, but the mass does not have to be the same. If the pope wanted to, he could order every catholic Perish to insert dance in there mass and none of them could do a thing about it.

Nate, inasmuch as we have 20+ different Rites in the Church, the fact remains that we do not take it upon ourselves to do wth the Mass as we please. With all due respect, your throwing in the various rites of the Church to justify what happened at World Youth Day is merely an attempt at grasping straws since the two items are distinctively different and amount to comparing srawberries with limes.

Furthermore, the bishops conferences petition Rome for the necessary recogntio that permits certain things. The issue of dance is not a part of the Latin Church, the particular Rite that was celebrated during the WYD Mass. Furthermore, to make a blanket statement saying that the hierarchy approved the “dance” is incorrect. As Cardinal Arinze noted, no such approval would come from his Congregation and that particular Curial ofice oversees all matters cnocerning Divine Worship and the Sacraments.

Before you begin to dismiss the comments made by Cardinal Arinze, this is what he said at the beginning:

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.

Furthermore, regarding Frosty’s comments, there was a “traditional” entrance. Did you not see the prelates and the Holy Father process up to the sanctuary and venerate the altar? Did you not see the Cross, incense and candles precede them? That was an entrance procession. You don’t have to meander throughout the entire racetrack to have an entrance procession.

Even during Pope Benedict’s Masses at St. Peter’s Square, the entrance is abreviated. However, the Book of the Gospels is always a part of the Entrance procession.

 

[BSHoop96]

The comments of the Cardinal to not prove your point at all. All he is saying is that its not the pope fault that dance is going on since the pope didn’t plan it. He said nothing about if it should be allowed or not.

I think the point she was making with the quote clearly says that just because the Pope visits a country, and something is done at the Mass, it does not necessarily equate approval by the Pope.

 

[po18guy]

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?

As I understand it, the aboriginal culture uses dance only/mainly in worship, and not in daily life. Thus, the dance itself is holy, since it is directed at and dedicated to God, and stems from worship of Him.

In America, dance is mainly secular and not directed at the Lord. Thus, it tends to confuse and dilute worship, and is inappropriate during the mass. The American church is infested with liturgical abuses and errors. Keeping dance out is but one effort among many to restore holiness to the mass.

Christ’s peace.

 

[benedictgal]

As I understand it, the aboriginal culture uses dance only/mainly in worship, and not in daily life. Thus, the dance itself is holy, since it is directed at and dedicated to God, and stems from worship of Him.

In America, dance is mainly secular and not directed at the Lord. Thus, it tends to confuse and dilute worship, and is inappropriate during the mass. The American church is infested with liturgical abuses and errors. Keeping dance out is but one effort among many to restore holiness to the mass.

Christ’s peace.

However, if the Mass were celebrated mainly for the Aborigininal tribes (or for the Fiji tribes), then, this is where one can certainly make a case for inculturation. However, as I have repeatedly stated, the venue of both WYD Masses was not appropriate at all. The Mass was not for the tribal groups. It was universal in nature. It is the time when the Church, drawing from the many lands, comes together as one and is united in worship of God.

Furthermore, this kind of activity only breeds confusion because people can come back and try to justify having “dance” incorporated into the Mass simply because it happpened with the Pope.

In my neck of the woods, we have the Matachines, as I’ve mentioned before. These are descendents fo the Aztecs who perform a sacred, ritual dance in honor of Our Lady of Guadalupe. They’ve been doing this for several centuries. However, this dance does not occur during the Mass. It happens while the image of OLG is carried in procession. The dance stops at the steps of the Church door and then the Mass begins. It is a sacred dance, but, it does not interfere with the Mass.

 

[nate12387]

Nate, inasmuch as we have 20+ different Rites in the Church, the fact remains that we do not take it upon ourselves to do wth the Mass as we please. With all due respect, your throwing in the various rites of the Church to justify what happened at World Youth Day is merely an attempt at grasping straws since the two items are distinctively different and amount to comparing srawberries with limes.

Furthermore, the bishops conferences petition Rome for the necessary recogntio that permits certain things. The issue of dance is not a part of the Latin Church, the particular Rite that was celebrated during the WYD Mass. Furthermore, to make a blanket statement saying that the hierarchy approved the “dance” is incorrect. As Cardinal Arinze noted, no such approval would come from his Congregation and that particular Curial ofice oversees all matters cnocerning Divine Worship and the Sacraments.

Before you begin to dismiss the comments made by Cardinal Arinze, this is what he said at the beginning:

Furthermore, regarding Frosty’s comments, there was a “traditional” entrance. Did you not see the prelates and the Holy Father process up to the sanctuary and venerate the altar? Did you not see the Cross, incense and candles precede them? That was an entrance procession. You don’t have to meander throughout the entire racetrack to have an entrance procession.

Even during Pope Benedict’s Masses at St. Peter’s Square, the entrance is abreviated. However, the Book of the Gospels is always a part of the Entrance procession.

Cardinal Pell approved of it. He is part of the Magisteriam of the church. I never said anything about Rome giving a document about dancing. All I said was that Cardinal Pell approved of it and because he is a Cardinal Bishop in a culture that I know nothing about, I trust is decision to allow the dance to happen.

I was also just trying to say that the mass is already different in every country that we go to because Rome allows changes that they approve.

This also means that the pope could approve dancing to be done in a certain churches. He could also order all church in the Roman rite to have dancing as a part of the mass and there is nothing anyone can do about it. The Mass is ritual and can be changed anytime the pope feels like it.

You also said that for inculturation to happen there needs to be a majority of that group. I would disagree. I don’t that a tribal group should change there worship just because a bunch of tourists came there or because they worship in a different place. I think that a reason why WYD a good is because the youth see the different cultures there and the ways they worship. It teaches the youth something about different cultures.

I would agree that we should do with the mass as we please and that its not in the tradition either. But I know that its easier for you I to say that because the mass was made by Americans and Europeans, Not by Africans or anyone that would allow dance. I wander if there would have been a significant amount of African bishops at Vatican II if dance would have been allowed.

 

[benedictgal]

I like Cardinal Pell. He has done a good job trying to clean up the ICEL. He is well-meaning and has been unjustly and unfairly treated by the drive-by media with regard to the clergy abuse in Austraila.

However, I respectfully disagree with what happened at both WYD Masses. You may not realize this but the Australain Bishops Conference had been taken to the liturgical woodshed once before over the matter of the bishops’ wholseale use of General Absolution. Nate claims that the bishops (Cardinal Pell, included) are part of the Magisterium. However, Pope John Paul II had to correct them for this very serious and grave error. Therefore, bishops conferences aren’t free from making mistakes. Cardinal Pell is no exception.

Nate, first of all, inasmuch as George Cardinal Pell is in charge of his Metropolitan See, he does not speak for the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. This is the Roman curial office charged with overseeing the Church’s liturgical and sacramental life. The prefect for this Congregation is Francis Cardinal Arinze. He is the authority on these matters.

This is what the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments does (per Redemptionis Sacramentum):

17.] “The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments attends to those matters that pertain to the Apostolic See as regards the regulation and promotion of the Sacred Liturgy, and especially the Sacraments, with due regard for the competence of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It fosters and enforces sacramental discipline, especially as regards their validity and their licit celebration”. Finally, it "carefully seeks to ensure that the liturgical regulations are observed with precision, and that abuses are prevented or eliminated whenever they are detected".37 In this regard, according to the tradition of the universal Church, pre-eminent solicitude is accorded the celebration of Holy Mass, and also to the worship that is given to the Holy Eucharist even outside Mass.

In fact, because Cardinal Arinze is the authority, he has the right to speak on whether or not something is appropriate.

As the Prefect noted,

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.

Now, as I stated earlier, inculturation kicks in when the Mass is celebrated specifically with and for the indegenous peoples in their land. They comprise a majority of the faithful.

Now, regarding the Mass being a ritual that can be changed any time the Pope feels like it, please read this from Redemptionis Sacramentum:

[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

While Redemptionis Sacramentum points out that:

[15.] The Roman Pontiff, “the Vicar of Christ and the Pastor of the universal Church on earth, by virtue of his supreme office enjoys full, immediate and universal ordinary power, which he may always freely exercise”,35 also by means of communication with the pastors and with the members of the flock.

[16.] “It pertains to the Apostolic See to regulate the Sacred Liturgy of the universal Church, to publish the liturgical books and to grant the recognitio for their translation into vernacular languages, as well as to ensure that the liturgical regulations, especially those governing the celebration of the most exalted celebration of the Sacrifice of the Mass, are everywhere faithfully observed”.36

this doesn’t indicate that he has carte blanche to do with as he pleases. Pope Benedict, nor his predecessors, for that matter, would never buy into that line of thinking.

You mention the issue of African bishops. Cardinal Arinze is the highest ranking African prelate in the Holy See. He does not take the issue of “dance” lightly and has spoken fairly clearly and plainly about the matter.

Your insistence on this being a multi-cultural event may not, I respectfully observe, take into full account what the Church’s stance has been on the subject. To repeatedly use the argument of inculturation to justify something that should not have happened may not take into account what the concept actually means. Inculturation pertains to the particular indigenous people or tribe that is affected. The practices used for inculturation are peculiar to that circumstance and do not apply universally. Had the Fijian dancers performed their ritual at a Mass specifically designated for them and in their territory, then there would not have been a problem. But, to insert something into the Mass simply because it’s the politically anc culturally en vogue thing to do is wrong.

 

[JPUSC]

I personally loved the Gospel Procession and I’m the type who attends the Tridentine Mass. I found the reverence they had for the Gospel very profound and was, in a way, similiar to the reverence of Corpus Christi Processions in the West. It really gave a sense of great importance to the Gospel, the Word of God, which was carried on the shoulders of the people as if it were a living king. Honestly, it looked more so like a procession than a dance. I found it very moving to see the deacon and the altar servers with the incense on one side and the native dancers guarding the Gospel on the other - it illustrates that the Church is universal and that the Mass is essentially the same everywhere.

I agree that the procession looked similar to the Knights of Columbus guard of honor, which also isn’t specifically mentioned in the GIRM.

The other music used for the Mass (besides the Gregorian Chant) was European in origin/nature (i.e., Opening Hymn “Gloria a te, Criso Gesu”, the operatic Kyrie Eleison/Gloria), so including the Aboriginal ritual/music was not wrong, especially since there were many people there from non-Western nations.

The Church is now thriving in areas such as Africa, Latin America and India where these practices are common. I however wouldn’t find it right for an American parish to perform these rituals because it would primarily have entertainment value and not fulfill it’s true purpose.

I think that the litugical innovations I have seen in the U.S. seem phony and take away from the solemnity of the Mass and diminishes reverence towards the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Mixing “pop” culture with the Mass (vs. the true culture of the area) by having rock music, pop-styled singers and people with leotards doing interpretive dance in a Ballet style was not the intent of the Second Vatican Council. I should know…I’m from the Diocese that had the one parish with the Halloween/Barney Mass. Most teens here look bored when we they see the 40 year old singers with the guitars singing Christian rock during the “Teen” Masses.

Although I think there are some liturgical abuses going on that need to be corrected, I think we should remember what our Holy Father said when he visited America, that we should be more united within the Church. Sometimes it seems like people nit-pick way too much about little things these days. I used to nit-pick too, especially when it came to music, but when I saw how calmly the Holy Father reacted to the Mass in Nationals Park in the U.S. then I realized that criticizing every abuse in the Mass was not leading me closer to God.

“For all of us, I think, one of the great disappointments which followed the Second Vatican Council, with its call for a greater engagement in the Church’s mission to the world, has been the experience of division between different groups, different generations, different members of the same religious family. We can only move forward if we turn our gaze together to Christ!” Looking to the history of the Church in America, the Holy Father asked, “Was not this unity of vision and purpose–rooted in faith and a spirit of constant conversion and self-sacrifice–the secret of the impressive growth of the Church in this country?”

• Pope Benedict XVI, April 19, 2008, Mass at St. Patrick’s Cathedral

 

[BSHoop96]

Sometimes it seems like people nit-pick way too much about little things these days. I used to nit-pick too, especially when it came to music, but when I saw how calmly the Holy Father reacted to the Mass in Nationals Park in the U.S. then I realized that criticizing every abuse in the Mass was not leading me closer to God.

Yes but he gets to go home to the Vatican!

Seriously, of course he was calm. He wouldn’t make a scene over it. I think we all know his preferences for music in the Mass.

 

[JPUSC]

Haha, yeah he gets to go back home.

But seriously, I meant he didn’t publicly reprimand those in charge of the music or issue any statements concerning appropriate music immediately after the visit. So if the Pope didn’t make a big fuss, then maybe we shouldn’t either. Change will come eventually, and the resurrection of the practice of Communion on the tongue in Rome and the WYD Mass is an indicator of the future.

 

[benedictgal]

[QUOTEQuote by ]JPUSC:
I personally loved the Gospel Procession and I’m the type who attends the Tridentine Mass. I found the reverence they had for the Gospel very profound and was, in a way, similiar to the reverence of Corpus Christi Processions in the West. It really gave a sense of great importance to the Gospel, the Word of God, which was carried on the shoulders of the people as if it were a living king. Honestly, it looked more so like a procession than a dance. I found it very moving to see the deacon and the altar servers with the incense on one side and the native dancers guarding the Gospel on the other - it illustrates that the Church is universal and that the Mass is essentially the same everywhere.

I agree that the procession looked similar to the Knights of Columbus guard of honor, which also isn’t specifically mentioned in the GIRM.

The big difference between what went on with the Gospel and the Corpus Christi processional is that the latter is not done in the context of the Mass. It is done after the Mass. Just because the Mass is international in nature, that is not to say that things that are not a part of the Latin Rite should be included, just for the sake of multi-culturalism. If you want culture, then, insert it into the wecloming ceremony, not during the Mass.

Now, my father is a 4th Degree Knight. The honor guard that they do for the celebrant is only for the entrance procession and the recessional. Some will stand guard for Holy Communion (and, they’ve actually helped by gently reminding some communicants to consume the Sacred Host). But, to say that what the Fijians did was similar to what the KC do is a bit of a stretch. Furthermore, I don’t know if anyone caught the commentary, but, the folks performing the dance were actually Catholic priests and seminarians from Fiji.

As I’ve said in previous posts, if the Holy Father had celebrated Mass in Fiji or in the Aboriginal territories were the majority of the faithful were from the tribes, then, what happened with the Gospel procession would certainly have been appropriate because this is what constitutes inculturation. However, this was not the case at all for the WYD Masses.

 

[LilyM]

As I’ve said in previous posts, if the Holy Father had celebrated Mass in Fiji or in the Aboriginal territories were the majority of the faithful were from the tribes, then, what happened with the Gospel procession would certainly have been appropriate because this is what constitutes inculturation. However, this was not the case at all for the WYD Masses.

Could you provide your source for this definition - ie that inculturation is only permissible where the majority of people attending the Mass are of that particular culture? What document, speech or canon does the idea come from?

I certainly don’t see it the quote from Cardinal Arinze, for example, which could just as easily be referring to white American or Western ‘liturgical dance’ only, and NOT to all the indigenous dance of different parts of the world.

 

[benedictgal]

Could you provide your source for this definition - ie that inculturation is only permissible where the majority of people attending the Mass are of that particular culture? What document, speech or canon does the idea come from?

I certainly don’t see it the quote from Cardinal Arinze, for example, which could just as easily be referring to white American or Western ‘liturgical dance’ only, and NOT to all the indigenous dance of different parts of the world.

First of all, the issue of dance has no tradition in the Latin Church. The Rite celebrated during WYD was the Latin Rite. That is the first instance.

The second involves the difficulty in adapting certain things from missionary lands, which is treated by the Sacrosantum Concilium, the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy, which notes:

In some places and circumstances, however, an even more radical adaptation of the Liturgy is needed, and this entails greater difficulties. Wherefore:

1. The competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, must, in this matter, carefully and prudently consider which elements from the traditions and culture of individual peoples might appropriately be admitted into Divine Worship. Adaptations which are judged to be useful or necessary should when be submitted to the Apostolic See, by whose consent they may be introduced.

1. To ensure that adaptations may be made with all the circumspection which they demand, the Apostolic See will grant power to this same territorial ecclesiastical authority to permit and to direct, as the case requires, the necessary preliminary experiments over a determined period of time among certain groups suited for the purpose.

1. Because liturgical laws often involve special difficulties with respect to adaptation, particularly in mission lands, men who are experts in these matters must be employed to formulate them.

The language here restricts it to territorial and missionary lands, LilyM. Now, I live on the Texas side of the US/Mexican border. The Mexicans have a cultural tradition called the Matachines, dancers who specialize in an ancient cultic Aztec dance that was modified several centuries ago, to honor Our Lady of Guadalupe. This dance is performed on an annual basis every December 12th (her feast-day); however, the dance is performed outside of the realm of the Mass and is often done when the image of OLG is carried in procession. Now, the dancers will dance up the aisle prior to the Mass. Once their ritual is ended, they retire to their pews and the entrance procession for the Mass begins.

Thus, for territorial and missionary lands, the culture of the peoples and tribes is taken into account. However, in the case of what happened at WYD, it was a misguided attempt at inserting something into the Mass that just doesn’t belong there. As Cardinal Arinze pointed out:

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.

…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.

LilyM, Cardinal Arinze is the highers African prelate in the Vatican. He is also the Holy Father’s pointman on all things liturgical,. He is the authority in interpreting these documents. I trust his interpretation of the matter.

 

[LilyM]

The language here restricts it to territorial and missionary lands, LilyM.

No it doesn’t. It says ‘particularly in mission lands’ but that is not the same thing as restricting it entirely to those lands. And again - absolutely nothing saying the majority of people present at the Mass must also be of that same culture as the dancers - what do you base such a conclusion upon?

Now, I live on the Texas side of the US/Mexican border. The Mexicans have a cultural tradition called the Matachines, dancers who specialize in an ancient cultic Aztec dance that was modified several centuries ago, to honor Our Lady of Guadalupe. This dance is performed on an annual basis every December 12th (her feast-day); however, the dance is performed outside of the realm of the Mass and is often done when the image of OLG is carried in procession. Now, the dancers will dance up the aisle prior to the Mass. Once their ritual is ended, they retire to their pews and the entrance procession for the Mass begins.

So you’ve stated several times. And? They stop before Mass starts, good for them, it doesn’t mean either they or our Aboriginal peoples are required to do so.

LilyM, Cardinal Arinze is the highers African prelate in the Vatican. He is also the Holy Father’s pointman on all things liturgical,. He is the authority in interpreting these documents. I trust his interpretation of the matter.

Yes, and you really seem to be reading more into this than the good Cardinal intended. I quote him from that same interview:

“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.” (my emphases)

Not only does it seem the good Cardinal did NOT intend to totally eliminate dance from the Mass - ihe says on the contrary that it is in fact GOOD to dance within the Mass (ie the Offertory) in some circumstances, and not merely tolerable or acceptable.

I saw the Aboriginal and Fijian peoples bringing the Gospel to God’s representative, the priest, with joy, expressed in movement, as the Cardinal describes with the offertory gifts. A good thing.

 

[JPUSC]

Excerpts from EWTN based on “Sacrosanctum Concilium”:
ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur52.htm

Q: Is so-called liturgical dancing allowed in English-speaking countries where traditionally dancing is not regarded as culturally proper? Can it be carried out during solemn occasions such as the celebration of the Mass? — F.Y., Auckland, New Zealand

…

On some recent occasions a certain form of dance has been introduced within the context of papal liturgies on the occasion of regional synods of bishops or canonization ceremonies. But these were usually associated with elements of African or Asian culture and are to be considered as special exceptions in virtue of the Pope’s universal mission.

On recent occasions Cardinal Francis Arinze, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments, has publicly criticized certain forms of introducing dance into **Western liturgy **especially in forms which reduce the sacred rite to a spectacle.

…

The 1975 article from The Canon Law Digest follows:

— The Religious Dance, an Expression of Spiritual Joy —

The dance can be an art: a synthesis of the measured arts (music and poetry) and the spatial arts (architecture, sculpture, painting).

As an art which, by means of the body, expresses human feelings, the dance is especially adapted to signify joy.

Thus, among the mystics, we find intervals of dancing as an expression of the fullness of their love of God. Recall the cases of St. Theresa of Avila, St. Philip Neri, St. Gerard Majella.

…

Actually, in favor of dance in the liturgy, an argument could be drawn from the passage of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, “Sacrosanctum Concilium,” in which are given the norms for adaptation of the liturgy to the character and the traditions of the various peoples:

“In matters which do not affect the faith or the well-being of an entire community, **the Church does not wish, even in the Liturgy, to impose a rigid uniformity; on the contrary, she respects and fosters the genius and talents of various races and people. **Whatever in their way of life is not indissolubly bound up with superstition and error, she looks upon with benevolence and if possible keeps it intact, and sometimes even admits it into the Liturgy provided it accords with the genuine and authentic liturgical spirit.” [1]

Theoretically, it could be deduced from that passage that** certain forms of dancing and certain dance patterns could be introduced into Catholic worship. **
Nevertheless, **two conditions could not be prescinded from.

The first: to the extent in which the body is a reflection of the soul, dancing, with all its manifestations, would have to express sentiments of faith and adoration in order to become a prayer.

The second condition: just as all the gestures and movements found in the liturgy are regulated by the competent ecclesiastical authority, so also dancing as a gesture would have to be under its discipline. **

Concretely: there are cultures in which this is possible insofar as dancing is still reflective of religious values and becomes a clear manifestation of them. Such is the case of the Ethiopians. In their culture, even today, there is the religious ritualized dance, clearly distinct from the martial dance and from the amorous dance. The ritual dance is performed by priests and levites before beginning a ceremony and in the open are in front of the church. The dance accompanies the chanting of psalms during the procession. When the procession enters the church, then the chanting of the psalms is carried out with and accompanied by bodily movement.

The same thing is found in the Syriac liturgy by means of chanting of psalms.

**In the Byzantine Liturgy, there is an extremely simplified dance **on the occasion of a wedding when the crowned spouses make a circular revolution around the lectern together with the celebrant.

…

Neither can acceptance be had of the proposal to introduce into the liturgy the so-called artistic ballet 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.

We can recall how much was derived from the presence of the Samoans at Rome for the missionary festival of 1971. At the end of the Mass, they carried out their dance in St. Peter’s square: and all were joyful.

---

My commentary:

In summary, the article says that liturgical dance is permitted in the Latin Rite as long as it is not a spectacle, it expresses sentiments of faith and adoration in order to become a prayer, has been approved by the local ecclesiastical authority, and has meaning to the culture where the ritual is performed. The article specifically mentioned that liturgical dance is not allowed in the Western liturgy because it could be seen as a spectacle. Being that WYD was attended and viewed on television by a large percentage of non-Western people and that even to Westerners, the meaning of the “dance” was clear, the “dance”/procession was permissable. To say that the procession was wrong and only silence and kneeling is reverent is being eurocentric. The Divine Liturgy of the Eastern-Rite Catholics also has different customs because of regional differences.

The Mass today evolved from the Church adapting to different cultures, including Europe. It is true that dance is not originally part of the tradition of the Latin Rite, but the Church has adapted over the centuries. The explosion of Catholicism in Latin America, the Philippines and Africa (now the center of the Church in modern times) when the first missionaries arrived is a good example of how the Church has adapted to regional cultures. The elevating of the Host, is one example of an addition to the Latin Rite.

As Redemptionis Sacramentum states: “the Church does not wish, even in the Liturgy, to impose a rigid uniformity; on the contrary, she respects and fosters the genius and talents of various races and people”.

 

[benedictgal]

Excerpts from EWTN based on “Sacrosanctum Concilium”:
ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur52.htm

Q: Is so-called liturgical dancing allowed in English-speaking countries where traditionally dancing is not regarded as culturally proper? Can it be carried out during solemn occasions such as the celebration of the Mass? — F.Y., Auckland, New Zealand

…

On some recent occasions a certain form of dance has been introduced within the context of papal liturgies on the occasion of regional synods of bishops or canonization ceremonies. But these were usually associated with elements of African or Asian culture and are to be considered as special exceptions in virtue of the Pope’s universal mission.

On recent occasions Cardinal Francis Arinze, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments, has publicly criticized certain forms of introducing dance into **Western liturgy **especially in forms which reduce the sacred rite to a spectacle.

…

The 1975 article from The Canon Law Digest follows:

— The Religious Dance, an Expression of Spiritual Joy —

The dance can be an art: a synthesis of the measured arts (music and poetry) and the spatial arts (architecture, sculpture, painting).

As an art which, by means of the body, expresses human feelings, the dance is especially adapted to signify joy.

Thus, among the mystics, we find intervals of dancing as an expression of the fullness of their love of God. Recall the cases of St. Theresa of Avila, St. Philip Neri, St. Gerard Majella.

…

Actually, in favor of dance in the liturgy, an argument could be drawn from the passage of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, “Sacrosanctum Concilium,” in which are given the norms for adaptation of the liturgy to the character and the traditions of the various peoples:

“In matters which do not affect the faith or the well-being of an entire community, **the Church does not wish, even in the Liturgy, to impose a rigid uniformity; on the contrary, she respects and fosters the genius and talents of various races and people. **Whatever in their way of life is not indissolubly bound up with superstition and error, she looks upon with benevolence and if possible keeps it intact, and sometimes even admits it into the Liturgy provided it accords with the genuine and authentic liturgical spirit.” [1]

Theoretically, it could be deduced from that passage that** certain forms of dancing and certain dance patterns could be introduced into Catholic worship. **
Nevertheless, **two conditions **could not be prescinded from.

The first: to the extent in which the body is a reflection of the soul, dancing, with all its manifestations, would have to express sentiments of faith and adoration in order to become a prayer.

The second condition: just as all the gestures and movements found in the liturgy are regulated by the competent ecclesiastical authority, so also dancing as a gesture would have to be under its discipline.

Concretely: there are cultures in which this is possible insofar as dancing is still reflective of religious values and becomes a clear manifestation of them. Such is the case of the Ethiopians. In their culture, even today, there is the religious ritualized dance, clearly distinct from the martial dance and from the amorous dance. The ritual dance is performed by priests and levites before beginning a ceremony and in the open are in front of the church. The dance accompanies the chanting of psalms during the procession. When the procession enters the church, then the chanting of the psalms is carried out with and accompanied by bodily movement.

The same thing is found in the Syriac liturgy by means of chanting of psalms.

**In the Byzantine Liturgy, there is an extremely simplified dance **on the occasion of a wedding when the crowned spouses make a circular revolution around the lectern together with the celebrant.

…

Neither can acceptance be had of the proposal to introduce into the liturgy the so-called artistic ballet 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.

We can recall how much was derived from the presence of the Samoans at Rome for the missionary festival of 1971. ***At the end of the Mass, they carried out their dance in St. Peter’s square: and all were joyful. ***_____________________

My commentary:

In summary, the article says that liturgical dance is permitted in the Latin Rite as long as it is not a spectacle, it expresses sentiments of faith and adoration in order to become a prayer, has been approved by the local ecclesiastical authority, and has meaning to the culture where the ritual is performed. The article specifically mentioned that liturgical dance is not allowed in the Western liturgy because it could be seen as a spectacle. Being that WYD was attended and viewed on television by a large percentage of non-Western people and that even to Westerners, the meaning of the “dance” was clear, the “dance”/procession was permissable. To say that the procession was wrong and only silence and kneeling is reverent is being eurocentric. The Divine Liturgy of the Eastern-Rite Catholics also has different customs because of regional differences.

The Mass today evolved from the Church adapting to different cultures, including Europe. It is true that dance is not originally part of the tradition of the Latin Rite, but the Church has adapted over the centuries. The explosion of Catholicism in Latin America, the Philippines and Africa (now the center of the Church in modern times) when the first missionaries arrived is a good example of how the Church has adapted to regional cultures. The elevating of the Host, is one example of an addition to the Latin Rite.

As Redemptionis Sacramentum states: “the Church does not wish, even in the Liturgy, to impose a rigid uniformity; on the contrary, she respects and fosters the genius and talents of various races and people”.

Note that the key phrase in the example that you cited was

the end of the Mass, they carried out their dance in St. Peter’s square: and all were joyful

It didn’t happen during, it happened at the end, just as in the case of the Matachine example. Furthermore, the Mass was in the context of “Missionary lands”. That is not the same as WYD. There are some big differences here.

I can understand LulyM’s insistance on defending this issue, but, there are some clear lines of demarcation. WYD is not one of them. If that were the case, then, why didn’t the Ethiopians have a dance, or the one group that has this apparoved, the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Heck, for that matter, the Matachines should have been there dancing away. If you are arguing the sake of universality, then, where were these other groups? Why aren’t you clamoring to have seen them, if you truly believed this to be a multi-cultural event?

 

[LilyM]

It didn’t happen during, it happened at the end, just as in the case of the Matachine example. Furthermore, the Mass was in the context of “Missionary lands”. That is not the same as WYD. There are some big differences here.

Again, the fact that it occured after Mass on this occasion is no argument that it must always occur outside Mass. Even the good Cardinal Arinze on the contrary said there were occasions where it might be good that dance occur during Mass. His example was during the Offertory procession (the bringing up of the Gifts to the altar).

And the document quoted by JPUSC mentioned a Syriac tradition of dance accompanying the Psalms - clearly then there’s a case there for such dance to accompany the Responsorial Psalm of the OF as well.

I can understand LulyM’s insistance on defending this issue, but, there are some clear lines of demarcation. WYD is not one of them. If that were the case, then, why didn’t the Ethiopians have a dance, or the one group that has this apparoved, the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Heck, for that matter, the Matachines should have been there dancing away. If you are arguing the sake of universality, then, where were these other groups? Why aren’t you clamoring to have seen them, if you truly believed this to be a multi-cultural event?

Several reasons, none having anything to do with whether it is liturgically appropriate. The first is lack of space - for a large number of people to be dancing they need more room than those who are simply standing or sitting. Secondly lack of time - how many scores of different groups were there at WYD? Even with a short two or three minute dance from each group (or from a lot of the groups) the Masses would easily be twice the length they were.

 

[benedictgal]

Again, the fact that it occured after Mass on this occasion is no argument that it must always occur outside Mass. Even the good Cardinal Arinze on the contrary said there were occasions where it might be good that dance occur during Mass. His example was during the Offertory procession (the bringing up of the Gifts to the altar).

And the document quoted by JPUSC mentioned a Syriac tradition of dance accompanying the Psalms - clearly then there’s a case there for such dance to accompany the Responsorial Psalm of the OF as well.

Several reasons, none having anything to do with whether it is liturgically appropriate. The first is lack of space - for a large number of people to be dancing they need more room than those who are simply standing or sitting. Secondly lack of time - how many scores of different groups were there at WYD? Even with a short two or three minute dance from each group (or from a lot of the groups) the Masses would easily be twice the length they were.

Your assertions still don’t justify why this took place during WYD. First of all, the context is entirely different. Had this liturgy been about missionary peoples, then, the dance would have had an appropriate part because of inculturation. Youth don’t qualify as a culture, as far as the tradutional understanding of the word goes. The Church sees culture as having to do with indigenous tribes adn peoples, not with age. Furthermore, WYD Mass is not about celebrating cultural diversity. It is about offering God the adoration and worship that is due to Him. It does not call for celebrating ourselves.