www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall The Holy Can-Can

Perhaps they are just itching for a chance to paint over the walls...

more likely a chance to earn some spending money....

For a full list of the Dancing Saints, with bios, and feast days indicated, see:

Dancing Saints [godsfriends.org]

They are nothing if not ecumenical. John XXIII, of blessed memory, is listed, among others of "ours" (also St. Patrick ). (Try to picture our beloved and ever-smiling Good Pope John dancing, which I actually find isn't all that hard to imagine; it's a rather gently humerous thought.)

Gaudior et al,

I do think we're being harsh, judgmental, and pompously pious in suggesting that these folks are in any grave danger of imminent punishment from God, by lightning bolt or otherwise. Neither their style (e.g., liturgical dance) nor their theology is mine and, honestly, their place of worship puts one more in mind of an arts and cultural center than a church. (As the former, it is truly a magnificent collection of beautiful objects drawn from the liturgical experiences and styles of an incredible variety of religious cultures. They even have a sprung wooden dance floor with an inset labyrinth, a beautiful recreation of an architectural feature not uncommonly found in the worship spaces of the Shaker communities - and, btw, a great surface on which to enjoy dancing .)

As Dave said:

I'd go a bit further even. Canonicity doesn't apply, because they are not "of us". And, I don't think we can say it's not right - what is wrong about it? They have chosen to recognize and venerate, through their iconographic-style presentation, a diverse community of persons, many (perhaps not all, in our personal opinions, but that's what they are - our personal opinions) of whom have contributed to the betterment of the lives of God's peoples. I rather think that there are worse things they could have done. We, as the good Christians we claim to be, owe them respect for having taken the time and made the effort to see good in the world and to acknowledge by whom such good was done, even though some of those persons may be outside the confines of our own space, place, times, and comfort zones.

There are many persons, both famous and relatively unknown, who would not readily be adopted into the Catholic calendar, Eastern or Western, perhaps because of their theological ideology, maybe because what they accomplished in life didn't quite achieve that standard, but who have contributed in some not insignificant way to the betterment of man's existence, brought him closer to an understanding of God's will and plan, or exhibited a caring for their fellow human beings that mirrors, in its own way, what Jesus taught and did. I rather think that, if solicited, each of us could come up with the names of one or two such folks who would be worthy of inclusion in the type of memorial these folks have created. IMHO, that we could do so speaks to the legitimacy of what they have done.

Many years,

Neil

Dear Neil,

And if one day this parish ever comes into communion with Rome - these dancing saints may just become part of the canon . . .

I saw a documentary about an African-American Catholic parish in New York City.

The liturgy there lasts three hours, with all the hymn-singing and . . . dancing.

The priest comes out and dances around with his deacons and altar-servers.

During the Consecration, they continue to sway and move to rhythmic beats etc.

At their Sunday School, a deacon asked a girl what she would tell someone who was trying to get her involved in drugs and sex.

She enthusiastically replied, "I would say that there is no way I was going to risk my relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ by getting involved with sin of any kind!"

Admittedly, such dancing in St Peter's Basilica would definitely cause comment . . .

God bless, Irishman!

Alex

This topic brings up many thought-provoking questions.

Does the Orthodox Church/Christian East have exclusive rights to the Byzantine iconographic style?

Is it truly wrong for those NOT of this tradition to use and adapt it for their own purpose? Examples would be these icons in San Francisco, Lentz's work, the Anabaptist icons that were the subject of a recent thread, and, to an extent, icons of Roman Catholic saints.

Is the Byzantine iconographic style inherently sanctified and thus off limits to "other" artists?

Is the interest in iconography expressed by large numbers of non-Easterners a good or bad thing? Is the desire of these individuals to paint icons of their saints positive or negative?

What does everybody think?

Dave, iconographer

Dear Dave,

I think it is ALL positive.

A strength of this Episcopal Church is its "multi-ritual" character and blending of Roman, Anglican, Ethiopian and Byzantine elements.

It is also a strength of the Catholic Church herself.

Alex

Yesterday 60 minutes featured an interview with "Bishop" Gene Robinson with parts of his consecration ceremony.

The so called consecration was like a fashion parade, men dressed as Bishops in blue and pink colour, they all laid their hands over his head while a crowd shouted.

This all was like a parody of a Catholic liturgy and a consacration of a true bishop, a mockery of the holy orders and a clearly countereit religion.
I just can't believe how Catholics can stabd this episcopalian sect and its sacrilegous ceremonies.

Toleration of apostasy is not a virtue [and by apostasy I do not mean dancing in liturgy, which can be perfectly appropriate in some cultures; rather I mean moral laxity about abortion and homosexuality and toleration for clerics who deny essential Christian doctrine.]
Iconography is not a "style" of art so much as an expression of theological truth in line and color, and one is not free to express one's own theological ideas. To use the techniques of iconography to paint images of people who were not holy, as the Church understands holiness, or to promote a political or religious agenda is to commit sacrilege.
Daniel, an iconographer

It seems that "icons" of people who were not saints are nothing new.

Apparently there were paintings in Russia known as "parsuna" (from "persona"). They were essentially iconographic portraits of living people or people who were not saints. I don't know much about it, but it seems to be related to this thread.

http://www.galleries.ru/sorokin/index.asp?series=\'parsun\'

http://www.museum.ru/tretyakov/hid/Images/Img/15272.jpg

http://www.ihavelovedyouso.com/ivantheterrible.jpg

http://www.galleries.ru/sorokin/thumbnails/P8133910.jpg

More food for our eyes, and for thought.

Dave

Abuses are nothing new....

And what's up with Lentz's use of "OFM"? Anybody?
Somehow I devoutly hope that he is not a canonical Franciscan...

Daniel,

Lentz was a Franciscan in some formative capacity from about 1964 through 1974 or 1975. I don't believe he ever took vows of any sort. Since I haven't seen any suggestion anywhere that he is using ofm after his name, I suspect it was added by a copywriter who didn't accurately read his bio or did and decided to gild the lily as it were.

Many years,

Neil

Daniel,

I am an iconophile but not an iconographer, so we are looking at this from two different perspectives. Although iconography is an expression of theological truth from the point of view of we of the Eastern Churches, it remains that it is a style of art and, as such, is available for the use of those artisans who choose to employ it. We neither hold any patent on its techniques nor otherwise enjoy any exclusivity with respect to it. Although Impressionism was the style of Monet and others, and purist devotees may object to its use by pedestrian painters of the 20th century, it does not preclude the production of paintings in the Impressionistic-style; the same is true of paintings in the style of iconography. We can, if we choose, point out that such are only paintings and not "written" in the classical meaning of such, that they do not necessarily follow the canons of iconography, that those who produce them are not iconographers as we mean the term, but we cannot term what they do to be sacrilege.

One is indeed free to express one's own theological ideas, as long as those do not contravene or reject theological dogma. Postulating that a person is holy and is worthy of veneration in one's eyes, does not appear to me to be a rejection of dogma. In fact, it's very Eastern, as we have long been quicker than the West to permit and even encourage local venerations. And who is to say that those portrayed are not holy in the sense that the Church understands holiness? Was Martin Luther King's struggle to bring about equality and afford civil rights to minorities not a holy act? Why? Because he committed indiscretions at times in his life? The list of those now called "Saint" by the Church who committed indiscretions in their life is not a short one. And I, for one, feel much more comfortable acknowledging the holy good done by others, of which I have an awareness as a conscious, thinking, observant human, than I do in judging them for that which they did which was unholy. The latter, it seems to me, is the province of a higher Judge than me.

Many years,

Neil

Well, to be fair, St Gregory's is one of the most "way out" of Episcopal parishes in that diocese. It really is not representative of even Episcopalian views.

All,

St. Gregory of Nyssa Episcopal church seems to be a model for the new ECUSA-that is to say, the Episcopal church USA which has emerged after their last General Convention. Which many, even in their own Anglican Communion have deemed, "non-Christian."

It is a shame that this hodge-podge of venerable liturgical traditions has been melded into a confusing, if not ridiculous farce.

Why am I so critical? Basically I do not like to see some of my own Catholic traditions performed a) by "priesteses" b) alongside with heretical innovations c) by a group claiming true catholicity.

Thankfully there are still those Anglicans/Episcopals who have not resorted to these types of practices. In fact this has now made me wonder-whatever happened to the Anglican-rite Catholic Church/diocese which was supposed to be formed as a result of the ECUSA's actions last year?

I am aware that a new Network of conservative Episcopalian parishes has been formed in the U.S though. If any one has any information on this let us know please.

God Bless,

ProCatholico