littleflower+JMJ Posted July 11, 2004 Share Posted July 11, 2004 [quote name='pionono' date='Jul 10 2004, 11:57 PM'] Agreed!!! [/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.SIGGA Posted July 11, 2004 Share Posted July 11, 2004 [quote name='pionono' date='Jul 10 2004, 11:25 PM'] So it is not a matter of who the Mass is for but on what chunk of land it is said on?? That makes no sense. [/quote] It's only for evangelism purposes - it helps missionaries make the transition easier for non-European/westerners to become introduced to Christianity. Adjustments are also made for Asians and African Americans and Native/South Americans too. The same arguments were made by the Jewish Christians as the Greeks and Romans and N.Africans were being converted, and then the Celts, and then the Persians, and then the Asians/Malabars, and then the Slavs, but that was about 2000 years ago so no one is looking back to remember when all that foshizzle went down. Heck, the first Irish immigrants in the USA were uneasy about the cultural-religious devotions of the Italians and Sicilian immigrants, and that came to include the Poles and Germans as well. Where I live, the flamboyant devotion of the local Vietnamese Catholics and their huge processions are getting the locals worried - but it's stuff like that which makes Christ's Church so cool. So much room for criticism, what are all the critics doing in the mean time to stretch the boundries of Christ's Kingdom? No one was ever saved by talkin' smack. Their bishop says it's ok, so it's ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmjtina Posted July 11, 2004 Share Posted July 11, 2004 It amazes me that ppl want to move to a different country to "sway" to the music. I thought it was about Jesus, present in the Holy Eucharist, no matter where it is. It is a liturgical abuse in the U.S. not in other countries. We are blessed to even have the Mass available to us. Love the Mass, not the dancing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.SIGGA Posted July 11, 2004 Share Posted July 11, 2004 Through Western eyes it looks like dancing to us, but to them it's a form of worship. The whole dancing in the Church-thing actually comes from when African people were converted to Christianity - it carried over more heavily in the Southern Protestant churches in the USA. When I was in France last month, there were actually fliers advertising "Afro-American style worship Gospel experience" at local churches. Since westerners only dance as a pastime, well I suppose you can figure it out why we don't normally at Mass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catholicguy Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 Sigga, please read about de Nobili and the condemnation of his inculteration practices which have become common today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JeffCR07 Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 de Nobili is not the end-all and be-all of this argument. For many cultures, such as Hawaiians and Africans, dance is a mode of speech and communication, not just the rhythmic movement of the body to music. As such, liturgical dance for those people is perfectly fine, as it is praise to God. Far too many people here do not have the proper idea of the "Universality" of the Church. To these people, the Church is "universal" because everyone else conforms to the way they do things. This is not in conformity with the Tradition of the Church. The liturgy of St. Andrew was different from that of St. Ambrose, on account of the culture in which it developed. The Byzantine Catholics are not "wrong" to have a cantor merely because that is not the way things are done in the West. Moreover, just because a "Hawaiian Rite" or "African Rite" doesn't exist should not mean that the culture and tradition of those people isn't valid for incorporation into the Mass. I would also like to point out that the Holy See has been very clear on the subject. It is ok for peoples whose cultural heritage is such to have liturgical dance, not for those whose cultural heritage does not. To speak against the Holy See is a dangerous thing to do, and leaves you on very shakey ground. - Your Brother In Christ, Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 [quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jul 12 2004, 02:54 PM'] de Nobili is not the end-all and be-all of this argument. For many cultures, such as Hawaiians and Africans, dance is a mode of speech and communication, not just the rhythmic movement of the body to music. As such, liturgical dance for those people is perfectly fine, as it is praise to God. Far too many people here do not have the proper idea of the "Universality" of the Church. To these people, the Church is "universal" because everyone else conforms to the way they do things. This is not in conformity with the Tradition of the Church. The liturgy of St. Andrew was different from that of St. Ambrose, on account of the culture in which it developed. The Byzantine Catholics are not "wrong" to have a cantor merely because that is not the way things are done in the West. Moreover, just because a "Hawaiian Rite" or "African Rite" doesn't exist should not mean that the culture and tradition of those people isn't valid for incorporation into the Mass. I would also like to point out that the Holy See has been very clear on the subject. It is ok for peoples whose cultural heritage is such to have liturgical dance, not for those whose cultural heritage does not. To speak against the Holy See is a dangerous thing to do, and leaves you on very shakey ground. - Your Brother In Christ, Jeff [/quote] Word! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pionono Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 [quote name='jmjtina' date='Jul 11 2004, 01:13 AM'] It amazes me that ppl want to move to a different country to "sway" to the music. I thought it was about Jesus, present in the Holy Eucharist, no matter where it is. It is a liturgical abuse in the U.S. not in other countries. We are blessed to even have the Mass available to us. Love the Mass, not the dancing. [/quote] But my question is, how does geographic boundy play into this if the people are the same (ethnically). If it is an abuse for a Church made up of african imigrants who happen to be in the US, then how could it be ok for those same people to do on another chunk of land? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 Culture, not geography is the key. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conservativecatholic Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 (edited) [quote] The Church is one, as the Catholic Encyclopedia says, because its members: 1. Are all united under one government 2. All profess the same faith 3. All join in a common worship[/quote] I'll have to agree; although, I believe that this charismatic movement is necessary to promote Roman Catholicism in predominantly Protestant nations such as Nigeria and South Africa. Edited July 12, 2004 by conservativecatholic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pionono Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 [quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Jul 12 2004, 03:45 PM'] Culture, not geography is the key. [/quote] But you yourself said that in the US the dancing stuff would be an abuse (which I agree.) But what if the African Church's want to do that. Is that an abuse? Or is it ok because it is thier culture? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pionono Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 Geography has some relevance. If I live two miles from the border of another diocese and the other diocese has moved the feast of Ascension to Sunday, but mine has not I commit a Mortal Sin by not going. Even though my neighbor who lives two miles away does not have to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JeffCR07 Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 pio, I believe the answer to your question is that within the united states, a dispensation from a bishop is necessary (to make absolutely sure that it is a matter of culture and not wierd US-catholics), but I have been lead to believe that, with the proper dispensation, the senario you have outlined is not illicit. Please look to a higher authority than myself, however, before anyone considers the case closed. - Your Brother In Christ, Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pionono Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 So then it is not a matter of geography and is one of episcopal judgement? I am getting two answers here. Someone please help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 If you are in Africa, you would follow whatever norms and indults are established by the bishops there. Here you follow you own bishop in your diocese. Someone did tell me dioceses near the Mexican border has some different indults than the rest of us, but I haven't confirmed that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now