When *IS* dance allowed at Mass?

[JPUSC]

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.

Well, I mean it is called “World” Youth Day to gather the diverse youth from different cultures. And one’s cultural heritage is certainly important to God as evidenced by the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe in which God used the traditional Aztec symbols to send his Message to the natives. He used their man-made symbols and iconography to speak to them. Our Lady has also appeared wearing clothing that is traditionally accepted in the specific region’s culture such as in the Church recognized apparitions of La Vang, Vietnam, Lourdes and Fatima. So, recognizing and celebrating cultural diversity is not wrong, especially for the Mass.

The Procession clearly was directed towards God and was not horizontal in nature. All attention was focused on the carrying of the Gospel. The GIRM states, “[The Alleluia acclamation] constitutes a rite or act in itself, by which the assembly of the faithful welcomes and greets the Lord who is about to speak to them in the Gospel and professes their faith by means of the chant”. The procession illustrated the joyous welcoming of the Word of God.

The procession did not affect the faith or the well-being of the entire community gathered at the Mass and as the ritual is part of the regular Mass of the aboriginal peoples, it certainly was not displeasing to God.

The article also states that dance was part of the Papal liturgies for canonizations which is not an event solely for missionary peoples. I’m not trying to defend the practice of liturgical dance as something that should be included in all Masses, but in this specific case, it was perfectly fine.

Instead of dwelling on this one small portion of the Mass, let’s remember that Gregorian Chant and the organ was given the pride of place in the liturgy and it truly was an awe-inspiring act of worship and adoration to God.

 

[Michael_Neal]

Just say No to liturgical dance!

 

[Cobbfmly]

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.

If WYD was held in a country that had a large number of citizens that was members of an Eastern rite would you object to the WYD mass using the Eastern rite liturgy rather than the Latin rite liturgy? If you don’t object to this, why do you object to a Australia, which has a large number of citizens that legitimately use dance as part of the Latin rite liturgy, incorporating these citizens’ Latin rite traditions into the WYD mass?

 

[LilyM]

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.

‘The Church sees culture as having to do with indigenous tribes and peoples’ Well, yes of course - and the dances at WYD were done by indigenous tribes and peoples.

Youth culture? That argument was not about youth culture per se, but about permissible adaptations to the Mass that are specifically designed for and appropriate to young people. You know, of course, that within the legitimate options of the OF are special Eucharistic prayers that have been written for Masses where the majority of participants are children? What about the use of hymns in such Masses that are written at a level that makes them appropriate for children? So it is certainly permissible to adapt the Mass in various ways to cater for younger folks.

Remember, dance IS appropriate in the Mass at times, even Cardinal Arinze said so. I’d say that in a Mass that primarily young people are attending (and yes, whether you call it ‘culture’ or not, young people do tend to dance more both in worship contexts and out of them) - many of which young people additionally DO come from cultures where dance is a part of their worship - is quite possibly one of those times.

Yes, I know you’re going to say that ‘it must be done in the territories of the indigenous peoples to be appropriate’ but repetition doesn’t make that any truer. You’ve got to back such opinion up with something - a church document, or canon, or even a quote from someone in an interview - that says so if you expect anyone to accept it.

Nothing that you’ve put forth, not even Cardinal Arinze’s interview, says or even implies that dance it must be restricted to Masses that are ‘about missionary peoples’ or Masses the majority of whose congregations are of that same culture, much as you’d like them to say so.

 

[benedictgal]

If WYD was held in a country that had a large number of citizens that was members of an Eastern rite would you object to the WYD mass using the Eastern rite liturgy rather than the Latin rite liturgy? If you don’t object to this, why do you object to a Australia, which has a large number of citizens that legitimately use dance as part of the Latin rite liturgy, incorporating these citizens’ Latin rite traditions into the WYD mass?

First of all, since I am Latin Rite, I am not familiar with what the Eastern Churches do. Suffice to say, though, that, to my limited knowledge, I do not know of any Eastern rite that celebrates its Divine Liturgy a) outside of the church building and b) in a large-scale manner where tens of thousands, if not, hundreds of thousands, were in attendance.

Second, if your assertion regarding the notion that whole-sale dance exists in Australian liturgies, why, oh, why, weren’t the tribal groups invited to perform their dance during the dedication of the new altar at St. Mary’s Cathedral? After all, you seem to think that dance is part of the Australian tradition. If that’s the case, then, why wasn’t it incorporated into the Mass?

So far, not one of the dance proponents has been able to adequately answer the question. One poster said that it was because it was for the archdiocese of Sydney. Well, if Australia has a large number of aborigines, wouldn’t it stand to reason that many of them live in Sydney? Or, is Sydney not aboringinal territory? If that is the case, then, even the idea of inculturation doesn’t hold water.

The bottom line is that if WYD wants to spotlight multi-culturalism, it is better to do it in a venue that doesn’t involve the Mass. The Church is universal. In the Mass, the walls of nationalities, cultures, ethnicities and races fall down. Did St. Paul not say that there are no Jews, nor Greeks, there are no freedmen or slaves, there are no men nor women. All make up the one body of Christ, that is the Church.

Now, the kids who presented the offerings to the Holy Father wore their native dress. There is nothing wrong with that. However, the issue of making the event a wholesale multi-cultural experience is not right. We are not there to pay homage to a culture. We are there to adore and worship God within the parameters of the Church’s supreme prayer, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

 

[LilyM]

First of all, since I am Latin Rite, I am not familiar with what the Eastern Churches do. Suffice to say, though, that, to my limited knowledge, I do not know of any Eastern rite that celebrates its Divine Liturgy a) outside of the church building and b) in a large-scale manner where tens of thousands, if not, hundreds of thousands, were in attendance.

Second, if your assertion regarding the notion that whole-sale dance exists in Australian liturgies, why, oh, why, weren’t the tribal groups invited to perform their dance during the dedication of the new altar at St. Mary’s Cathedral? After all, you seem to think that dance is part of the Australian tradition. If that’s the case, then, why wasn’t it incorporated into the Mass?

So far, not one of the dance proponents has been able to adequately answer the question. One poster said that it was because it was for the archdiocese of Sydney. Well, if Australia has a large number of aborigines, wouldn’t it stand to reason that many of them live in Sydney? Or, is Sydney not aboringinal territory? If that is the case, then, even the idea of inculturation doesn’t hold water.

The bottom line is that if WYD wants to spotlight multi-culturalism, it is better to do it in a venue that doesn’t involve the Mass. The Church is universal. In the Mass, the walls of nationalities, cultures, ethnicities and races fall down. Did St. Paul not say that there are no Jews, nor Greeks, there are no freedmen or slaves, there are no men nor women. All make up the one body of Christ, that is the Church.

Now, the kids who presented the offerings to the Holy Father wore their native dress. There is nothing wrong with that. However, the issue of making the event a wholesale multi-cultural experience is not right. We are not there to pay homage to a culture. We are there to adore and worship God within the parameters of the Church’s supreme prayer, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Hang on - you’re saying that because it wasn’t done at the Dedication Mass at the Cathedral therefore it’s never OK in Australia?

That was the choice of the organisers of the Mass, (the same organisers, mind you, who chose to include it at the Opening and Closing Masses).

They could very well have legitimately gone with indigenous dance in the Cathedral if they had so desired, but they were not obliged to do so - they are never obliged to do so. It’s simply a matter of preference, and dare I say a bit of considerate ‘inculturation’ within the Dedication Mass just as in the others, of the type which catered in that case for the cultures of those who don’t incorporate dance into their worship.

Mind you they could just as legitimately (although perhaps with some difficulties for some of the concelebrating priests and bishops if not for His Holiness or Cardinal Pell) have celebrated one or more of these Masses as a TLM or an ad orientem Latin OF if they had so desired.

Every Mass involves these sorts of liturgical choices, and within the parameters (which permit but do not mandate dance) one doesn’t have to justify one’s choices any more than one would have to justify choosing Mozart as opposed to Gregorian chant for the music. Neither does choosing Gregorian chant and Latin TLM for one Mass preclude one from choosing Mozart and vernacular OF for the next.

 

[JPUSC]

Ever since the beginning of the Church, there has always been variations of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. There were several historic apostolic rites in existence and the Church finally codified the Roman Rite with the Tridentine Mass, which had been developing organically in Rome and other parts of Europe since the 300’s. The use of Latin, the Greek Kyrie Eleison and other European customs and traditions, was the product of inculturation by the early Church.

“From the beginning of her history, [the Church] has learned to express the message of Christ with the help of the ideas and terminology of various peoples” (Gaudium et Spes, 44)

“In one direction, the Gospel reveals to each culture the supreme truth of the values that the culture embodies and allows the culture to unleash that truth; in the other, each culture expresses the Gospel in an original way and reveals new aspects of it.” (Commissione teologica internazionale, Temi di ecclesiologia (Ecclesiological Themes), 4, 2)

Cardinal Arinze stated at the Catholic University of Eastern Africa: …the Church is a living entity - “the Church does not live in the Vatican Museum” - aspects of form and liturgical rites can be retouched, according to pastoral needs. But inculturation should be compatible with the Christian message and communion with the universal Church.

An essay from Stuart C. Bate OMI reads:
Each culture provides a dimension of the faith which illuminates the whole and which evangelises the whole of humanity. Many expressions of Christianity which began as local phenomenon have come to have universal significance: Monasticism, the Celtic forms of penance, as well as Greek and Latin ritual processes to name but three…Devotions too have begun in one place and spread. Consider the Rosary, the Infant Jesus of Prague, the Sacred Heart of Jesus, Corpus Christi processions, Our Lady of Guadalupe and Pentecostalism. All of these represent part of the inculturation process emerging in one part of the Church’s history and in different cultural contexts. All have spread and affected the Church elsewhere. **Inculturation, whilst it happens locally, is never just a local affair. **

---

As the Church is a living entity, the Mass continues to evolve and adapt to culture. Statistically, Africa, Latin America and Asia now constitute over half of the Church, and many cultures within these regions use dance as worship. As certain kinds of reverent “dance” is now normative in the Latin Rite in many cultures, it is no less Catholic in nature than the customs observed in the United States or Europe. The Church continues to develop organically according to the current situation in the world.

Roman Catholicism in Africa: 12.57%
Roman Catholicism in Latin America: 32.65%
Roman Catholicism in Asia: 11.24%
= 56.46%

The Mass at Sydney’s St. Mary’s Cathedral was intended primarily for Bishops, seminarians and male and female novices and not for the general World Youth Day pilgrims, so the Diocese made a pastoral decision not to include any aboriginal dances for their own reasons.

Perhaps they decided to include the aboriginal Gospel procession in the Closing Mass and not the Mass intended for the clergy and religious because it was a perfect opportunity for catechetical instruction for the youth. The procession emphasized the importance of the Word of God. Traditionally, the church has used everything from stained glass windows to doctrine in hymns to cathecize. Our Church is a visual church and perhaps the Gospel procession serves as a visual aid to the aboriginal peoples in their understanding of the Gospel.

Resources:
adoremus.org/1103ArinzeAddress.html
holytrinitygerman.org/tridrite.html
cisanewsafrica.org/story.asp?ID=2995
home.worldonline.co.za/~20058871/Inculturation%20in%20South%20Africa.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholicism_by_country

 

[benedictgal]

Cardinal Arinze stated at the Catholic University of Eastern Africa: …the Church is a living entity - “the Church does not live in the Vatican Museum” - aspects of form and liturgical rites can be retouched, according to pastoral needs. But inculturation should be compatible with the Christian message and communion with the universal Church.

---

As the Church is a living entity, the Mass continues to evolve and adapt to culture. Statistically, Africa, Latin America and Asia now constitute over half of the Church, and many cultures within these regions use dance as worship. As certain kinds of reverent “dance” is now normative in the Latin Rite in many cultures, it is no less Catholic in nature than the customs observed in the United States or Europe. The Church continues to develop organically according to the current situation in the world.

Roman Catholicism in Africa: 12.57%
Roman Catholicism in Latin America: 32.65%
Roman Catholicism in Asia: 11.24%
= 56.46%

The Mass at Sydney’s St. Mary’s Cathedral was intended primarily for Bishops, seminarians and male and female novices and not for the general World Youth Day pilgrims, so the Diocese made a pastoral decision not to include any aboriginal dances for their own reasons.

Perhaps they decided to include the aboriginal Gospel procession in the Closing Mass and not the Mass intended for the clergy and religious because it was a perfect opportunity for catechetical instruction for the youth. The procession emphasized the importance of the Word of God. Traditionally, the church has used everything from stained glass windows to doctrine in hymns to cathecize. Our Church is a visual church and perhaps the Gospel procession serves as a visual aid to the aboriginal peoples in their understanding of the Gospel.

The part in your quote that I highlighted pretty much blew apart your whole argument. Thus, the notion of inculturation is meant, despite the article you posted from the Benedictine, for the affected missionary tribe. Furthermore, the same article isn’t as authoritative as a document from the Holy See, which, as Cardinal Arinze noted in the quote I posted, doesn’t exist for liturgical dance. So far, the only culture that has received approval, based on the documents I’ve seen, is the Democratic Republic of the Congo. And, as Cardinal Arinze noted, “dance” would work only for the presentation of the gifts, not for what we saw at the closing WYD Mass.

Now, regarding your argument as to why the dance wasn’t included for the dedication of the altar at St. Mary’s, aren’t there any aboriginals in the seminary or in the convent? The party doing the dancing at WYD consisted of priests and seminarians. Why not have them do the dance, if they are part of the group for which the Mass was held at St. Mary’s?

Furthermore, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass isn’t the time to catechize. It is the time to offer adoration and worship to God according to the norms established by the Church. Nor is it the time to celebrate multi-culturalism. You do that at the Welcoming Ceremony, but, not at the Mass.

 

[benedictgal]

That was the choice of the organisers of the Mass, (the same organisers, mind you, who chose to include it at the Opening and Closing Masses).

They could very well have legitimately gone with indigenous dance in the Cathedral if they had so desired, but they were not obliged to do so - they are never obliged to do so. It’s simply a matter of preference, and dare I say a bit of considerate ‘inculturation’ within the Dedication Mass just as in the others, of the type which catered in that case for the cultures of those who don’t incorporate dance into their worship.

Mind you they could just as legitimately (although perhaps with some difficulties for some of the concelebrating priests and bishops if not for His Holiness or Cardinal Pell) have celebrated one or more of these Masses as a TLM or an ad orientem Latin OF if they had so desired.

Every Mass involves these sorts of liturgical choices, and within the parameters (which permit but do not mandate dance) one doesn’t have to justify one’s choices any more than one would have to justify choosing Mozart as opposed to Gregorian chant for the music. Neither does choosing Gregorian chant and Latin TLM for one Mass preclude one from choosing Mozart and vernacular OF for the next.

Here is what Cardinal Arinze noted regarding “creativity” and “choice” as far as the Mass is concerned:

1. Creativity in Liturgical Celebrations
   One may now ask whether there is any room for creativity in the liturgy. The answer is that there is, but it has to be properly understood.

First of all, it is necessary to bear in mind that the public worship of the Church is something that we receive in faith through the Church. It is not something that we invent. Indeed the essentials of the sacraments are established by Christ Himself. And the detailed rites, including words and actions, have been carefully worked out, guarded and handed down by the Church along the centuries. It would, therefore, not be the proper attitude for an individual or a committee to keep thinking and planning each week how to invent a new way of celebrating Mass.

Moreover, a priority at Mass and other liturgical acts is worship of God. The liturgy is not a field for self-expression, free creation and the demonstration of personal tastes. Idiosyncrasies tend to attract attention to the person rather than to the mysteries of Christ being celebrated. They can also upset, puzzle, annoy, mislead or confuse the congregation.

Nevertheless, it is also true that the liturgical norms do allow some flexibility. With reference to the central and most important liturgical action, the Mass, for example, we can speak of three levels of flexibility. First, there are in the Missal and the Lectionary some alternative texts, rites, chants, readings and blessings from which the priest celebrant can choose. (cf GIRM 24, RS 39) Then there are choices left at the competence of the diocesan bishop or the Conference of Bishops. Examples are regulation of concelebration, norms regarding the distribution of Communion under both kinds, the construction and ordering of churches, translations and some gestures. (cf SC 38, 40; GIRM 387, 390) Some such alternatives require recognitio from the Holy See. The most demanding level of variability concerns inculturation in the strictest sense. It involves action by the Conference of Bishops, after the conducting of deep interdisciplinary studies and recognitio from the Holy See.

Redemptionis Sacramentum is therefore able to say that “ample flexibility is given for appropriate creativity aimed at allowing each celebration to be adapted to the needs of the participants, to their comprehension, their interior preparation and their gifts, according to established liturgical norms”. (RS 39) The last phrase is important: “according to established liturgical norms”. The paragraph of Redemptionis Sacramentum concludes with a recall of the crucial observation that “it should be remembered that the power of the liturgical celebrations does not consist in frequently altering the rites, but in probing more deeply the word of God and the mystery being celebrated”. What the people are asking for every Sunday from their pastor is not a novelty but a celebration of the sacred mysteries that nourishes faith, manifests devotion, awakens piety, leads to prayer and incites to active charity in daily life.

That’s an important section right there. You can’t do whatever you want just to please the crowds, or a certain group, or whomever. You can’t just use the Mass to justify “multi-culturalism.” That is why you have special events outside the confines of the Mass.

Again, inculturation is mentioned, but, it is mentioned in the strictest sense, meaning that it is specifically geared towards a particular indigenous people in a missionary land or territory. What happened at WYD doesn’t apply to the “strictest sense”.

 

[LilyM]

.

Again, inculturation is mentioned, but, it is mentioned in the strictest sense, meaning that it is specifically geared towards a particular indigenous people in a missionary land or territory. What happened at WYD doesn’t apply to the “strictest sense”.

Again - I haven’t seen ANY document or interview or other official definition that says inculturation is only appropriate in a missionary land or territory. I’ve asked you several times already to quote me any document or interview that says that it IS only appropriate in a missionary land or territory.

Unless and until you produce such a quote or document, my only alternative is to assume that the bolded words actually aren’t in any document, and are purely your own interpretation and embellishment.

As for ‘self-expression’ - the Fijians and Aboriginals were not dancing merely as entertainment, nor were they adding anything at all to the Mass - they were doing precisely what they regularly do, perfectly legitimately, within the Mass.

There was ample commentary upon what they were doing that I think very few people (other than the those who complain naturally complain about almost everything about most Masses anyway, who seem mainly to congregate here and at similar sites by the way) would either not understand or be offended by it.

Furthermore, your quote speaks to making use of people’s GIFTS within the liturgy. These people - as is very obvious - have an immense GIFT of sacred dance, which Cardinal Arinze said is a good thing on occasion. Most of those who saw it on this occasion thought it was a good thing.

 

[benedictgal]

Again - I haven’t seen ANY document or interview or other official definition that says inculturation is only appropriate in a missionary land or territory. I’ve asked you several times already to quote me any document or interview that says that it IS only appropriate in a missionary land or territory.

Unless and until you produce such a quote or document, my only alternative is to assume that the bolded words actually aren’t in any document, and are purely your own interpretation and embellishment.

Lily, now the shoe is on the other foot. You have yet to provide any documentation from the Holy See that supports your point of view. The fact of the matter remains, as Cardinal Arinze stated, that there is no documentation from the Holy See approving liturgical dance. Period.

What I posted in my previous post comes from a speech delivered by Cardinal Arinze regarding liturgical norms. He is the authoritative voice on the matter.

Now, someone mentioned the other rites of the Church. According to Cardinal Arinze, the only approved rite that has provisions for liturgical dance for the Gospel is the Ethiopian Rite. It would be a stretch to claim that the aborigines and the Fijians are a part of the Ethiopian Rite, wouldn’t it?

Inculturation is designed specifically to help mainstream, so to speak, the indigenous peoples into the Church. It is not some form of multi-cultural showcase for international Masses.

 

[LilyM]

Lily, now the shoe is on the other foot. You have yet to provide any documentation from the Holy See that supports your point of view. The fact of the matter remains, as Cardinal Arinze stated, that there is no documentation from the Holy See approving liturgical dance. Period.

What I posted in my previous post comes from a speech delivered by Cardinal Arinze regarding liturgical norms. He is the authoritative voice on the matter.

Now, someone mentioned the other rites of the Church. According to Cardinal Arinze, the only approved rite that has provisions for liturgical dance for the Gospel is the Ethiopian Rite. It would be a stretch to claim that the aborigines and the Fijians are a part of the Ethiopian Rite, wouldn’t it?

Inculturation is designed specifically to help mainstream, so to speak, the indigenous peoples into the Church. It is not some form of multi-cultural showcase for international Masses.

I’ve done so and I’ll repeat myself. Cardinal Arinze’s OWN interview says that dance WITHIN the Mass - specifically the Mass and not the liturgies of the Ethiopian or any other Rite or Church - is a good thing on occasion. For example at the Offertory (note he uses the word ‘offertory’, which is not a word that occurs in the Liturgies of the Ethiopian or any other Rite or Church)

 

[benedictgal]

I’ve done so and I’ll repeat myself. Cardinal Arinze’s OWN interview says that dance WITHIN the Mass - specifically the Mass and not the liturgies of the Ethiopian or any other Rite or Church - is a good thing on occasion. For example at the Offertory (note he uses the word ‘offertory’, which is not a word that occurs in the Liturgies of the Ethiopian or any other Rite or Church)

But, it is only within the context of the Offertory (which means the presentation of the gifts), not during the procession for the Book of the Gospel. Furthermore, it only affects indigenous cultures and it is not meant for use in Masses such as what happened in WYD.

Again, Lily, no such document from the Holy See exists approving liturgical dance. If such a dance is to be done, it is done within the strictest of parameters. What part of that do you not understand?

You defend something which really is only meant in liturgies for those particular cultures and not on an international, nor universal, scale. You have yet to produce anything from the Holy See that would make your case.

 

[LilyM]

But, it is only within the context of the Offertory (which means the presentation of the gifts), not during the procession for the Book of the Gospel. Furthermore, it only affects indigenous cultures and it is not meant for use in Masses such as what happened in WYD.

Again, Lily, no such document from the Holy See exists approving liturgical dance. If such a dance is to be done, it is done within the strictest of parameters. What part of that do you not understand?

You defend something which really is only meant in liturgies for those particular cultures and not on an international, nor universal, scale. You have yet to produce anything from the Holy See that would make your case.

You know as well as I do that Cardinal Arinze used the offertory as an example of one instance where dance would be appropriate in the Mass, just as he used Africa as one example of a place where it might be done. By your logic, he’d be saying in his statement that only Africans can dance, which is patently illogical.

Cardinal Arinze, as you keep pointing out, is the highest Church authority on liturgical matters. You were happy enough to take his words as gospel without any further evidence required when you thought they supported your view, and now you want to do a 180 and say they’re not so reliable and must be accompanied by further evidence now that I’ve used them to support mine? :ehh:

 

[benedictgal]

You know as well as I do that Cardinal Arinze used the offertory as an example of one instance where dance would be appropriate in the Mass, just as he used Africa as one example of a place where it might be done. By your logic, he’d be saying in his statement that only Africans can dance, which is patently illogical.

Cardinal Arinze, as you keep pointing out, is the highest Church authority on liturgical matters. You were happy enough to take his words as gospel without any further evidence required when you thought they supported your view, and now you want to do a 180 and say they’re not so reliable and must be accompanied by further evidence now that I’ve used them to support mine? :ehh:

I’m not doing a 180, I am just reminding you that no document exists that approves dance in the Latin Rite of the Church. His comments, in all actuality, do not support yours. Incidentally, you played that same game when you criticized me for using Cardinal Arinze’s words.

The fact of the matter remains is that he has been consistent in what he has said. Furthermore, the only notations he has said concern the “offertory” and the Book of the Gospel procession which is used in the Ethiopian Rite, which is different from the Latin Rite, the rite used at both WYD Masses.

As I said, if you are so adamant that dance be used, why are you not complaining that it wasn’t done for the Mass at St. Mary’s? Aren’t you the one saying that this “dance” isn’t just for the tribal groups? If we follow your line of reasoning, shouldn’t they have been a part of the Mass, since, I’m sure that there are aboriginal priests and seminiarians in the Archdiocese of Sydney?

I don’t see any commentary from you complaining that they should have had a presence there, since, it is there diocese as well. You can’t have it both ways, Lily.

 

[LilyM]

I’m not doing a 180, I am just reminding you that no document exists that approves dance in the Latin Rite of the Church. His comments, in all actuality, do not support yours. Incidentally, you played that same game when you criticized me for using Cardinal Arinze’s words.

I criticised you for going further than what he said - for example by asserting without evidence that inculturation is only to be done in missionary territories. Which assertion you still have to substantiate, since you made it.

The fact of the matter remains is that he has been consistent in what he has said.

Yes, however what he said (that dance is a good thing in Mass in some circumstances) doesn’t support your assertion that is is to be restricted only to missionary territories and masses with a majority participants of the same culture as the dancers.

Furthermore, the only notations he has said concern the “offertory” and the Book of the Gospel procession which is used in the Ethiopian Rite, which is different from the Latin Rite, the rite used at both WYD Masses.

Where does he even mention, let alone restrict his comments to, the Ethiopian Rite? The only references I saw were to Africa in general. Are you saying the Ethiopians are the only people in the world who are to be permitted to dance? It’s patently illogical to suggest that Cardinal Arinze intended to be so restrictive.

As I said, if you are so adamant that dance be used, why are you not complaining that it wasn’t done for the Mass at St. Mary’s? Aren’t you the one saying that this “dance” isn’t just for the tribal groups? If we follow your line of reasoning, shouldn’t they have been a part of the Mass, since, I’m sure that there are aboriginal priests and seminiarians in the Archdiocese of Sydney?

I’m very disappointed that you should so completely misread my words as to construe them into an argument that dance must be part of the Mass. I’ve only ever been arguing that it should be permitted - where sacred dance is a legitimate part of the culture of the dancers - never that it should be required.

 

[benedictgal]

Lily, the fact that you have been defending this and saying that the dance is part of the Australian culture leads me to wonder if you think that this should be applied in all liturgies celebrated in your country. After all, you keep insisting that “inculturation” doens’t just limit itself to the missionary territories. If you hold that line of reasoning, then, the next jump should be that it should have occurred at St. Mary’s.

Furthermore, according to an article in Adoremus (the same magazine that was quoted by another person posting), it states that:

the Holy See has addressed the matter of dance, constantly stressing the proper distinction between permitting ***indigenous cultural traditions and introducing innovations into the celebration of the Liturgy./***QUOTE]

That means that it only applies to them when Mass is being celebrated within the context of their particular culture. It is not to say that such things are approriate for venues like WYD.

Furthermore, a document, an instruction on Inculturation, released by the Holy See in 1994 indicates that:

1. Among some peoples, singing is instinctively accompanied by handclapping, rhythmic swaying and dance movements on the part of the participants. Such forms of external expression can have a place in the liturgical actions of these peoples on condition that they are always the expression of true communal prayer of adoration, praise, offering and supplication, and not simply a performance.

The same document views inculturation in this manner:

1. Inculturation thus understood has its place in worship as in other areas of the life of the Church.[14] It constitutes one of the aspects of the inculturation of the Gospel, which calls for true integration[15] in the life of faith of each people of the permanent values of a culture, rather than their transient expressions. It must, then, be in full solidarity with a much greater action, a unified pastoral strategy which takes account of the human situation.[16] As in all forms of the work of evangelization, this patient and complex undertaking calls for methodical research and ongoing discernment.[17] The inculturation of the Christian life and of liturgical celebrations must be the fruit of a progressive maturity in the faith of the people.[18]

Thus, the idea is to mainstream these peoples, as I’ve indicated in my previous remarks.

Even Pope John Paul II addressed the issue of inculturation. While not referring to dance in any way, these words certainly apply to the discussion at hand:

Song and music demanded by the liturgical reform – it is well to emphasize – must also respond to the legitimate demands of adaptation and of inculturation. Yet it is clear that every innovation in this delicate area must respect special criteria, such as the search for musical expressions that answer to the necessary involvement of the entire assembly in the celebration and that avoid, at the same time, whatever concession to levity or to superficiality. On the other hand are also to be avoided, in general, those forms of “inculturation” of an elitist stripe, which introduce into the Liturgy ancient or contemporary compositions which are perhaps of artistic value, but which indulge in a most incomprehensible language. [T]he sacred sphere of the liturgical celebration must never become a laboratory for experimentation or compositional and performance practices introduced without careful control.

Here, he is noting that inculturation does not mean that it is a laboratory for experimentation. Inculturation affects only the particular culture towards which it is geared, not the entire Church. Thus, this kind of thing does not work at WYD.

 

[ethelzguy]

Furthermore, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass isn’t the time to catechize.

Holy Shamoley! You ARE kidding, right?

After reading countless posts as to how our priests should be doing a better job of catechesis from the pulpit, now this?

uch: :doh2:

 

[Michael038]

I’ve never been to a Mass where there is dancing.

 

[LilyM]

Lily, the fact that you have been defending this and saying that the dance is part of the Australian culture leads me to wonder if you think that this should be applied in all liturgies celebrated in your country. After all, you keep insisting that “inculturation” doens’t just limit itself to the missionary territories. If you hold that line of reasoning, then, the next jump should be that it should have occurred at St. Mary’s.

Already answered - look up a dictionary sometime, note the difference in meaning between the word ‘necessary’ and the word ‘permissible’ - I am arguing, as I have always BEEN arguing, that it was permissible at WYD, and would have been permissible at St Marys too - never that it was necessary at any event.

Furthermore, according to an article in Adoremus (the same magazine that was quoted by another person posting), it states that:

the Holy See has addressed the matter of dance, constantly stressing the proper distinction between permitting indigenous cultural traditions and introducing innovations into the celebration of the Liturgy.

That means that it only applies to them when Mass is being celebrated within the context of their particular culture.

‘Within the context of their particular culture’ - yes. Which phrase doesn’t have anything to do with the physical territory or the cultural composition of the congregation.

It means, for example, that not being African I couldn’t DO African dancing within the context of a Mass. Nothing in those documents means, however, that we can’t permit Africans to express their culture by doing their dance (or anything else that is culturally appropriate for them) within Masses in our city simply because the congregation won’t be majority African.

I grew up going to what was called a ‘Tongan’ Mass - a lot, but not the majority, of attendees were Tongan, but they basically took over all the music and it was their own style of music. Absolutely wonderful, very worshipful and lifted the hearts of everyone who attended, Tongan or not, to heaven.

How ever much you hate the word, those two WYD Masses WERE being celebrated in a multicultural context - a mix of different cultures - there’s no other way to describe it. Hence the readings in different languages, hence the people of different cultures in their national dress bringing up the gifts. Which parts of the Mass you seem not to object to.

To apply your logic consistently, though, would mean that both of these were improper - since a Mass must be all about one (majority) culture and stick, come heck or high water, to that culture. In this case meaning English should have been the only vernacular used, since the majority were English speakers, which would permit of no readings in other languages (the Mass is not within non-English speaking territory and is NOT, according to you, a multicultural event) and no foreign national costumes.

Here, he is noting that inculturation does not mean that it is a laboratory for experimentation. Inculturation affects only the particular culture towards which it is geared, not the entire Church. Thus, this kind of thing does not work at WYD.

What experimentation is there in Aboriginals and Fijians doing sacred dance that they’ve done in the context of the Mass probably ever since they started HAVING Masses however many centuries ago?

And as above, how can you argue that Aboriginal or Fijian dance is wrong where, for example, having one or more of the readings or prayers of the faithful in an Aboriginal or Fijian language would have been perfectly OK?