Eucharistic Worship Or Cultural Display? - When Two Forms of Modernism Clash

Prologue: The Clash Between Modernist Clans

What happens when two modernist clans in Nigeria meet head-on over what they consider as “Blessed Sacrament”? One wants dancing, drumming and bodily exuberance in the “Eucharistic” adoration , benediction and procession. The other objects with some reservations; but not because it has recovered the traditional Roman principle of Eucharistic reverence.

In this we see a phase of the perpetual tension between the progressive versus the conservative wing of the modernist impostor church occupying Catholic buildings on the authentic expression of the so-called “spirit of Vatican II” “in the light of tradition”. No doubt, this is not by any means by accident. It gives a glimpse into the nature of the modernist impostor church as “a kingdom divided against itself”.  

From the standpoint of the traditional Catholic position defended here, the prior sacramental question is already settled: without a valid Catholic priesthood, which the modernist novus ordo church, with its revised rite episcopal consecration of 1968, certainly  lacks, there can be no valid Eucharistic Sacrifice. 

However, setting the sacramental question aside for the moment, the controversy remains revealing. It exposes the novel and uncatholic principles governing the modernist liturgical mentality.

Imagine the battle array:

• On one side is the more progressive or charismatic position, which defends dancing, drumming and bodily exuberance, by both the presider and the congregation, on the grounds that these expressions make Eucharistic celebrations joyful, lively and participatory in line with Vatican II’s call for “active participation”.
• On the other side is the more conservative Novus Ordo position, which attempts to restrain such practices by distinguishing the Eucharistic procession from Eucharistic Adoration and Benediction. 

In response to the question whether Nigerian Catholics could dance during Corpus Christi procession or not, a leading conservative voice wrote: 

“Corpus Christi is a procession; Adoration and Benediction are different. Therefore, some cultural expressions may accompany the procession, whereas dancing is inappropriate during Adoration and Benediction…. The people may dance during the procession, but the priest carrying the Blessed Sacrament does not dance.”

At first sight, this appears to be a defense of traditional Eucharistic reverence.

But from the standpoint of the traditional Roman liturgical discipline the conservative argument itself is grossly and dangerously misleading.

Why?

Because it leaves the unsuspecting reader with the impression that dancing, drumming and similar cultural expressions are positively legitimate components of the Eucharistic procession, provided they are conducted with sufficient “dignity”, while prescribing non-involvement of the “priest” in the processional dancing. 

That is not the same thing as the pre-Modernist Roman liturgical discipline.

So we must expose two errors:

• Error One: The progressive error;  reducing worship to expression. Because dancing, drumming and bodily exuberance are genuine cultural expressions of joy, they are assumed to be appropriate expressions of Eucharistic worship. But cultural legitimacy does not automatically confer liturgical legitimacy.
• Error Two: The conservative error; reducing reverence to restraint. By forbidding the priest from dancing while permitting the people to dance during the Eucharistic procession, the conservative position appears to correct an excess but it does not recover the underlying traditional principle. It leaves the impression that such expressions are compatible with Eucharistic rites provided they are performed with sufficient dignity.

So? The conservative and progressive camps disagree over the degree of cultural expression, while sharing the underlying modernist premise that cultural expressions are to be integrated into the sacred rites according to contemporary pastoral judgment.

But the traditional question is more fundamental:

What does the rite itself require, permit and exclude?

The issue, therefore, is not simply whether the priest dances while carrying the Blessed Sacrament. It is why dancing should be admitted into a Eucharistic procession in the first place.

Yes. “The priest does not dance” does not logically entail “dancing is appropriate for the people.”

1. The Progressive Error: “It Makes Worship Joyful!”

The progressive or charismatic argument is straightforward:

“Dancing, clapping, drumming and dramatic bodily movement make the occasion joyful, lively and participatory. Why restrict people when they are celebrating Jesus?”

Here, emotional enthusiasm becomes an important measure of successful worship.

If people are visibly excited, moving, clapping and dancing, and if the “presider” exhibits dramatic movements before or with the monstrance, the celebration is considered more alive.

But traditional Catholicism does not make emotional intensity the measure of Eucharistic worship.

The Blessed Sacrament does not become more worthy of adoration because the congregation becomes more animated in a spree of frenzy. 

The traditional Catholic asks:

Is this conduct fitting to the objective dignity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, truly present in the Blessed Sacrament?

That is the controlling question, and will always be. 

2. The Conservative Novus Ordo Response: “It Is Fine; Because It Is a Procession”

The conservative response is more restrained:

“Dancing may have a place during Corpus Christi because a Eucharistic procession is a public manifestation of faith and popular piety. But Adoration and Benediction require greater recollection and therefore dancing should stop.”

This sounds like a return to reverence.

But it does not return to the traditional Catholic Roman standard.

The problem is subtle.

It correctly recognizes that procession, exposition, adoration and Benediction are distinct sacred actions.

But it  then makes an unwarranted leap:

“Because the procession is different from Adoration and Benediction, cultural dancing can legitimately form part of the procession.”

That conclusion does not follow from the distinction.

A procession is indeed different from Benediction.

But different ceremonial function does not mean different standards of Eucharistic decorum.

It is perfectly legitimate to say:

“A procession is not Adoration, and Adoration is not Benediction.”

But it does not automatically follow:

“Therefore dancing can be an appropriate liturgical expression in the procession, while it becomes inappropriate only when we reach Adoration or Benediction.”

3. The Missing Third Position: The Pre-Modernist Vatican Standard

The traditional Catholic position stands outside this particular Novus Ordo dispute as an impartial arbiter. 

It does not ask:

“Which form of dancing is permitted?”

It asks a prior question:

“Why introduce dancing into a solemn Eucharistic procession in the first place?”

The pre-modernist Roman tradition already possessed a rich ceremonial language for expressing Eucharistic joy and triumph:

sacred hymns, processional order, incense, the canopy, clergy and servers, prayers, bells where prescribed, genuflections and solemn Eucharistic honours.

The procession itself was already a profoundly joyful and public confession of Catholic faith.

It did not require the congregation to imitate a secular or cultural dance procession in order to become “lively.”

That has not changed. Uncompromising Catholics remain faithful to the rich ceremonial language that expresses Eucharistic joy and triumph.

4. Same Eucharistic Lord; Different Sacred Actions

This is the point that both Novus Ordo camps  obscure.

Yes:

• procession is not exposition;
• exposition is not adoration;
• adoration is not Benediction;
• Benediction is not Mass.

Their ceremonies and liturgical functions differ.

But throughout these actions, the Eucharistic Lord remains the object of extraordinary worship and reverence.

Therefore, one cannot construct this false hierarchy:

• Procession: cultural exuberance permitted
• Adoration: reverence required
• Benediction: maximum reverence required

The traditional Catholic instinct is:

• Procession:  reverence.
   Exposition:  reverence.
   Adoration:  reverence.
   Benediction: reverence.

The precise ceremonial changes.

The fundamental Eucharistic reverence does not.

5. The “Priest” Carrying the Blessed Sacrament

There is something revealing in the common conservative argument:

“The people may dance during the procession, but the priest carrying the Blessed Sacrament does not dance.”

But why?

The answer is not simply that the supposed priest has a different role from the people. He is understood to be carrying the Eucharistic Lord. His bearing, movements and conduct are thus seen to be governed by the extraordinary dignity of the presumed Sacred Host he carries.

The traditional Catholic instinct asks us to apply that same principle consistently.

The priest’s solemnity, to the extent he is a priest, is not a matter of his personal temperament, nor does it mean that he is incapable of joy. His external restraint expresses an objective reality: Christ is truly present before the people.

And if the presence of Christ requires the minister carrying Him to conduct himself with such reverence, the congregation cannot simply regard the procession as an occasion for unrestricted cultural exuberance.

The priest does not carry the Blessed Sacrament through the streets as though leading a cultural parade. The people accompany Christ in a sacred procession.

That distinction is decisive.

The procession is not:

Nigerian celebration + Blessed Sacrament.

It is:

Eucharistic worship expressed in a solemn procession, within which legitimate cultural elements must remain subordinate to the honour of Christ.

Therefore, the question should never be merely, “Can Nigerians express joy in their own cultural way?”

Of course they can.

The question is:

“Does this particular expression serve the Eucharistic worship being offered, or does it make the sacred procession resemble a cultural spectacle?”

Once the latter occurs, the procession has ceased to be adequately ordered to its principal object.

Christ is not an accessory to the celebration. Christ is the reason for the procession.

And therefore everything, the priest, servers, faithful, music, movement and any legitimate cultural element; must take its character from the presence of the Eucharistic Lord.

6. Where “Inculturation” Can Become Misleading

Both novus ordo arguments  invoke inculturation.

But there is a crucial difference between saying:

“The Church can evangelize and elevate legitimate elements of Nigerian culture.”

and saying:

“A certain Nigerian cultural expression is therefore appropriate within a solemn Eucharistic rite.”

The second does not automatically follow from the first.

Not everything culturally meaningful belongs in the liturgy.

Traditional Catholicism does not begin by asking:

“What does our culture want to express?”

and then determining how the liturgy can accommodate it.

It begins with:

“What is this sacred action, and what does its sacred character demand?”

Only after that question has been answered can one properly consider legitimate cultural expression.

7. The Great Irony: The Conservative Defends the Progressive by Accident

This is perhaps the most important point.

The conservative Novus Ordo enthusiast thinks he is opposing the charismatic because he says:

“You cannot dance during Adoration and Benediction.”

But by simultaneously telling the faithful:

“Dancing is a legitimate cultural expression during Corpus Christi procession,”

He unintentionally reinforces the very principle he is trying to restrain.

He has already conceded the fundamental premise:

That dancing can be an appropriate expression of Eucharistic worship simply because it is culturally meaningful and devotional.

The progressive then asks the obvious question:

“If it is genuinely an appropriate expression of Eucharistic joy, why should the Eucharistic Lord become less worthy of that expression when He is exposed for Adoration?”

The conservative can answer by appealing to different liturgical functions.

But the deeper traditional answer is more fundamental:

The problem is not merely where the dancing occurs. The problem is whether dancing belongs to the sacred Eucharistic ceremonial at all.

That is a much more radical, and truly Catholic, critique.

8. Two Modernisms, One Postconciliar Framework

Thus, the two positions can be summarized:

Progressive/Charismatic Modernism

• “Dancing and bodily enthusiasm make worship joyful and participatory; therefore restrictions should be minimal.”

Conservative Novus Ordo Modernism

• “Dancing may be appropriate as cultural expression during the procession, but Adoration and Benediction require greater restraint. And, while others may dance during the procession, the presiding priest may not.”

Pre-Modernist Vatican Traditional Catholicism

• “The Eucharistic rites themselves possess an objective sacred character and established ceremonial discipline. Cultural enthusiasm does not determine what belongs to them.”

This is why the traditional Catholic cannot simply choose the conservative modernist side and declare the controversy solved.

The conservative modernist poses to correct his progressive comrade while still operating from assumptions that the traditional Roman Catholic liturgical discipline itself does not accept. 

9. The Faithful Must Not Be Given a False Choice

In the novus ordo wonderland, the unsuspecting pew sitter is presented with a false choice:

“Either you are a progressive Catholic who supports dancing everywhere, or you are a conservative Catholic who permits dancing during Corpus Christi but forbids it during Adoration.”

Noteworthy is that some conservatives also forbid dancing during the modernist ecumenical service falsely called the new order of the Mass. 

Be that as it may, there is a third position:

The traditional Catholic position does not begin with the question of how much dancing the liturgy can tolerate. It begins with the objective dignity of the Blessed Sacrament and the Church’s established Eucharistic discipline.

This remains the guiding principle for uncompromising Catholics till-date. 

The issue is therefore not Nigerian culture versus Catholicism.

Nor is it joy versus solemnity.

Nor is it progressive versus conservative.

It is fundamentally a question of:

Who/what determines the character of Eucharistic worship; the sacred rite, or the preferences of contemporary culture and religious psychology?

Summing Up: Eucharistic Ceremonial? No Room For Cultural Display! 

The progressive says:

“Dance! It makes worship joyful!”

The conservative replies:

“Dance during Corpus Christi, but stop during Adoration and Benediction.”

The traditional Catholic asks:

“Before we discuss where dancing should stop, why make dancing an element of Eucharistic ceremonial in the first place?”

That is the deeper question.

Irrespective of the fact that the modernist novus ordo does not have the Eucharistic because it lacks valid Orders, conservative modernist deserves credit for recognizing that Adoration and Benediction demand reverence. 

But since he presents cultural dancing as intrinsically legitimate within the Eucharistic procession merely because it is Nigerian, he shows himself to be one who has not fully recovered the pre-Modernist Vatican standard.

He has merely drawn a more conservative boundary within the modernist aggiornamento framework. Quite unfortunate.

And that is precisely why the unsuspecting faithful must not be misled by the apparent opposition between the two camps.

• The progressive modernist says: “Make the liturgy lively.”
• The conservative modernist says: “Make it lively; but within limits.”
• The traditional Catholic says: “Let the sacred rite determine how we worship Christ.”

The issue is not how much modernist updating that must be accommodated. 

The deeper question is whether those who identify as Catholics today will allow the liturgy to form them; or whether they will keep reforming the liturgy according to themselves, having been formed by worldly tastes and standards. 

Somehow, the conservative modernist agrees with the uncompromising Catholic that the liturgy is not a stage for our creativity, emotions, or preferences. It is worship offered to God. Yet, by a twist of logic, he bends over to accommodate progressive modernist framework with a perfunctory caution. 

The uncompromising Catholic knows that 

• the Eucharist does not need our theatricality to be joyful.
• Christ does not need our choreography to be worshipped.
• The Blessed Sacrament never ceases to deserve our highest reverence.

True liturgical joy is not measured by noise, movement, or performance, but by the profound reality of Christ truly present.

Oh that those misled by the stage performances of the two modernist clans may learn to let the perennial liturgy of the Church teach them reverence, silence, humility, recollection, and adoration!

Yes.  Rather than reshape the liturgy around ourselves, we must let it reshape us around Christ until our sojourn here below ends.