Which Is More Important?

[VoTeckam]

After reading some of the threads on numerous boards I am curious to see these results.

Defend your opinion if you don't mind!

[puellapaschalis]

I voted for "Liturgical Orthodoxy," because it's our worship that underpins everything else.

[LouisvilleFan]

Here's a question: Is liturgy truely orthodox if worshipers are not challenged to greater personal sacrifice in the Church's social mission?

[VoTeckam]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1750260' date='Jan 13 2009, 03:11 PM']Here's a question: Is liturgy truely orthodox if worshipers are not challenged to greater personal sacrifice in the Church's social mission?[/quote]

Excellent question. Based on what I have observed here that depends on one's understanding of Orthodoxy. We must not reduce orthodoxy to ritualism.

[MithLuin]

Yeah...I think this is a clear matter of 'both-and' not 'either-or'. I know the poll asks for the *most* important, which implies that both are obviously important. But...is there really any reason to put one in front of the other if you are working for both?

You cannot do 'social work' without the strength of the liturgy, and you cannot be nourished by empty worship, either. Either alone isn't going to last very long - [i]ora et labora[/i].

I think I would consider liturgy itself to have a greater place of prominence, so I would put that first....but only if I get to consider the Social Mission of the Church to be of [u]great[/u] importance!

[CatherineM]

I believe it should be both, but if we only focus on the liturgy and never step out of the church doors, I don't think we are fulfilling what Jesus wanted for us.

[TotusTuusMaria]

[quote name='MithLuin' post='1750273' date='Jan 13 2009, 03:33 PM']Yeah...I think this is a clear matter of 'both-and' not 'either-or'. I know the poll asks for the *most* important, which implies that both are obviously important. But...is there really any reason to put one in front of the other if you are working for both?

You cannot do 'social work' without the strength of the liturgy, and you cannot be nourished by empty worship, either. Either alone isn't going to last very long - [i]ora et labora[/i].

I think I would consider liturgy itself to have a greater place of prominence, so I would put that first....but only if I get to consider the Social Mission of the Church to be of [u]great[/u] importance![/quote]

exactly.

[dairygirl4u2c]

it's not an either/or. but, the article wasn't making it one. all the comments about what i just stated, are important, but not that relevant to the actuall issue of which is better.

are people seriously split about which is more important? it's more important to ensure the prayers are said in XY order like father bob wants, instead of YX order like father jim wants?

i almost would say it's a no brainer, to true christians. but, then the apostles did object as wasting money that could be used for the poor by selling the perfume, and jesus did say not to hinder the woman who was pouring the perfume on his feet. i shouldn't be so quick to say it then.
and, maybe this is like asking "which is better, to love God more, or your neighbor more". and to my position's detirment, the first commandment is to love God, so arguably more important.
but, i think loving God is best done by, helping the poor etc, so it's not such a detrimental situation as it might appear.

but even after that reservation, i don't think it's really much debatable which is more important.
i'm sure if jesus had to choose which he'd rather have... either perfumed feet, or assited poor, he'd go for assisted poor.
his reasoning as he said is that we'll always have the poor and problems etc, so go for the perfumed feet. ie, in my mind, he was saying it's of secondary importance, but it is important, so we have to prioritize the variables and their weights and act accordingly.

Edited January 13, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[aalpha1989]

I put Liturgical Orthodoxy because the Church's first concern is always the people's spiritual welfare, not their material welfar.

[dairygirl4u2c]

also, i could see arguing that "some" liturgical orthodoxy might be ore important. like how to treat the eucharist etc.
are there any things of social concern that might trump a thing of liturgical concern? i'd think so, but would have to think more.

if you read into it like im doing, perhaps this poll isn't a real guage of what people think, so much as a psychological reflection of what they think is truly important, ie, letting them read their values into it.
(this is actuala method researchers do with polls, so instead of cricitizing hte ambiguity as many might do, i'd accept it as okay for that purpose)

Edited January 13, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[Galloglasses' Alt]

When Push comes to shove, I'd say Liturgical Orthdoxy is more important. If everyone's Catholic, and havin good results of the Catholic Social Mission, are they really Benefitting? And Vice versa,even if the social mission is bad, (which it should not be), at least they would have the benefit of good and wholsome worship and union with God if nothing else.

I'm not an either/or person in this regard, but I find the question moot, the Liturgy is more important.

[dairygirl4u2c]

so everyone here who voted per liturgy, thinks jesus would rather have perfumed feet than assited poor etc, if push came to shove?

[Aloysius]

Jesus would rather the souls of the poor be saved than their bodies. liturgical orthodoxy is not a question of good perfume for Christ's feet (that would be liturgical beauty, how much art and pomp and circumstance we put into the liturgy)... a good and orthodox liturgy can be said with the only expense being the precious metal chalice, which over the course of how many masses it is used probably comes out to cents per mass.

[dairygirl4u2c]

maybe it's just how people are reading into it and not genuine differences....
i could see jesus saying "let's have good liturgy" as he said "let her pour perfume on my feet", if one assumes the poor are being helped as much as poosible, even if not completely.

i'm reading into it though, the analogy i said in my last post. i doubt many would seriously agree with that (i hope) rhetorical question.

so i think it should come down to what the actual situation is on the ground, where we have to pick one to the exclusion of the other, or where we pick one where the other isn't being excluded.
it makes a difference.

then, maybe i'm wrong as to what people think, cause as al is getting at, that if one had to pick at the exclusion of the other, that he'd rather have liturgy.
that might be what he's saying.

so maybe the question is.... why can't you have more soul saving etc, and more glorification of God, by assisting the poor (given that's what al is arguing is a premise that i might accept, ie you have to do good, but it's all meaningless if no one has a soul etc)

Edited January 14, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]Jesus would rather the souls of the poor be saved than their bodies. liturgical orthodoxy is not a question of good perfume for Christ's feet (that would be liturgical beauty, how much art and pomp and circumstance we put into the liturgy)... a good and orthodox liturgy can be said with the only expense being the precious metal chalice, which over the course of how many masses it is used probably comes out to cents per mass.[/quote]

i think you're not necessarily disagreeing with me.
the way you're phrasing your argument, looks like you're just repeating what jesus said about perfume v. poor, essentially (even if not completely the same).
so maybe the better question is, would jesus rather have a worthy chalice with no poor being helped, or a lukewarm chalice with at least some poor being helped.

i think i might see the idea from the other side better, ie 'would he rather have no chalice at all, or no poor helped at all'. which reflects the idea that you have to have a way to do the spiritual side, and that matters if you're to help the poor in a way that's meaningful. or, 'liturgy or helping the poor, choose', would i could see as reasonable lend itself to 'we need to do good works but only if we do it with a soul etc'
but, even though i see the good point, if there's one to the *complete* exclusion of the other, it'd seem like the most glorifiation, and soul saving, would come from helping others. ie, if you have to pick one at the exclusion of others. and if there's any lack of soul in doing good, it's having liturgy when you could be helping others.

Edited January 14, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

for practical purpose, there'd never be a situation where we had to choose one to the exclusion of the other.
and so i think i might change my position, such that for practical purposes, since you can have both, theoretically should should do both to some degree.

but for theoretical purposes, if you had to choose one to the exclusion, i'd say not liturgy.

this question was deeper than i first realized.

[MithLuin]

Yeah, it does get involved, doesn't it? I mean, the nitpicky details of liturgical orthodoxy certainly seem to pale in comparison to the big social issues. But you don't want to say 'do whatever' for the liturgy and ignore [i]how we worship God[/i]...kinda a biggie, there!

I do not see it as the end of the world if someone uses a glass chalice. Yes, I know they are not supposed to. But again, I said, it's not the end of the world. As someone I know puts it, "On this salvation does not turn."

If I could imagine a parish where everyone was hyper-sensitive about the liturgy, and getting all the details right, and everyone was watching very critically to see if everyone bowed deeply enough at the right place and time.....I'd say they missed the point of liturgy. Again, let me re-iterate -- it is good to get it right. But it is not good, perhaps, to fixate on that to the detriment of something else. There are certainly [i]aspects[/i] of liturgical orthodoxy that are much less important. And some that are hugely important - I'm not sure how many people would have heart attacks if someone suggested using oreos and koolaid for communion, but I am absolutely certain it should never, ever, ever be done. Not ever.

So, to go back to my first example - if a parish/priest was given a glass chalice as a gift, and they used that instead of the more appropriate gold one...and then donated what money would have been spent on a new chalice to a program that furthered the church's social mission (say, inviting homeless into the church hall and feeding them)....was it right for this hypothetical church/priest to value the social mission over liturgical orthodoxy? Or should he have found a way to do both?

I'm kinda in the 'find a way to do both' camp, because I really don't see them conflicting - I see them building each other up. As St. James put it, [i]"Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world."[/i] We serve God by serving our neighbor, and liturgy gives us the strength to go out and serve God.



As for the perfume. She gave something valuable that she had to Jesus. Most of the sermons I've heard on this passage focus on the woman breaking her alabastar jar. It seems so final; she can't take the leftover perfume home and use it later for something else. She is giving this gift totally to Jesus. Jesus will not accept criticism of this action done in love. Likewise, if we offer orthodox worship to him out of love, he'll accept that. If we serve the poor in love, he'll accept that. He doesn't want us to do just one or the other. He wants us to serve and give of ourselves...in love. Either one (liturgical orthodoxy or social mission) can be empty and devoid of love. I think we get to the lovely imagery of being spewn out of his mouth over such lukewarm behavior .

Martha doesn't get criticized for working while Mary contemplates Jesus - she is criticized for being concerned about many things and forgetting the one thing that is important. Mary has chosen the better part because she listens to Jesus. If we are concerned about the Social Mission of the Church, we have to take the time to listen to Jesus, too. That is why everyone picks the Liturgy - not because it is so important that the vestments be the correct color and every mass have incense, but because we need Jesus in the Eucharist. [b]I know you wanted to focus on the orthodoxy of the liturgy, not just having the liturgy,[/b] but the two are more closely intertwined that one might at first glance notice. Because what makes the liturgy what it is....well, it has to be defined. And while some of the lesser known minor details might not matter that much in the scheme of things - I can't help but come back to the oreos and koolaid.

(It is, by the way, a real example, though not from a Catholic mass. It was a children's liturgy at a church of another denomination. I was not present; I just heard about it afterwards. The person relating the story to me was suitably horrified.)

[Nihil Obstat]

In my opinion you absolutely cannot have one without the other. Neglecting one or the other would be a direct betrayal of our faith.
So I nulled my vote.

[VoTeckam]

Has anyone ever been to a parish that seemed to balance the two well? I assume most phatmassers go to liturgically Orthodox parishes so do you beleive you Parish pays an equal amount of time and attention to the larger community? How so? Could they/ should they do more?

[VoTeckam]

BTW. I know these are not mutually exclusive. I was just curious to see what everyone would pick if faced with the decision of making one the priority.