Which Is More Important?

[LouisvilleFan]

dairygurl, what's to say the poor do not also desire to perfume the feet of Jesus?

Liturgical orthodoxy is not difficult. It's a matter of following directions. Serving the poor isn't difficult either. We are commanded to do both, but from the looks of parish ministry, it tends to be one at the exclusion of the other.

[VoTeckam]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1751049' date='Jan 14 2009, 10:46 AM']dairygurl, what's to say the poor do not also desire to perfume the feet of Jesus?

Liturgical orthodoxy is not difficult. It's a matter of following directions. Serving the poor isn't difficult either. We are commanded to do both, but from the looks of parish ministry, it tends to be one at the exclusion of the other.[/quote]


Yes! That's what I was getting at! I am a cradle Catholic and I have NEVER been to a Church that has a handle on both aspects of the faith.

\

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='VoTeckam' post='1751054' date='Jan 14 2009, 11:04 AM']Yes! That's what I was getting at! I am a cradle Catholic and I have NEVER been to a Church that has a handle on both aspects of the faith.[/quote]

I've been dealing with this dichotomy several times recently. Once, following a conversation with a guy who spoke on social justice to a young adult Catholic group. Again, in a discussion on "Models of Church" by Cardinal Avery Dulles in a discipleship class. We even did a little exercise that was like this poll, only with about four more aspects of the parish that we ranked. It seems people are fine with the dichotomy... they even think it's [i]supposed[/i] to be that way. I'm perplexed.

FWIW, I didn't vote in this poll... I'm realizing this is another difference between the cultures of Protestantism and Catholicism. Most theologically orthodox Protestant churches involve their members in their neighborhoods and communities, even if it's something like Habitat for Humanity. But orthodox Catholic parishes will let you come and go every Sunday and hardly ask more of you than donating items for the homeless outreach. Maybe this is why I have trouble finding a home parish... it's like answering this poll, and I can't do it in good conscience.

Edited January 14, 2009 by LouisvilleFan

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1751049' date='Jan 14 2009, 10:46 AM']dairygurl, what's to say the poor do not also desire to perfume the feet of Jesus?

Liturgical orthodoxy is not difficult. It's a matter of following directions. Serving the poor isn't difficult either. We are commanded to do both, but from the looks of parish ministry, it tends to be one at the exclusion of the other.[/quote]

i never said it wasn't the case they wanted to perfume his feet.

the issues are how you read into the polls:
one to the exclusion of the other, v. which one to focus on when both are doing good, v. which one to focus on when one is doing good but the other less than good, etc.
there's too many ways to read into it to be very accurate in one's stance.

to qualify though, you might have meant by your question "what if the poor don't care they're neglected if that glorifies God?". that's an interesting idea whatever the case. but, i'd think God would want the poor asisted if it came down to one to the exclusion of the other. and we're to do what God wants, it's not the poor's decision to make (tho them making that sacrifice themself would surely be their call)

also as a point of distinction, there's one to the exclusion of the other 1 when it's neceessarily so. like, theoreticlaly i had a penny to spend on the poor or to glorify God when not giving to the poor would cause htem to die (theoretically). 2 or it's like the churches where it's not necessarily so, but tends to be that way where one is exluded at the expense of the other.

Edited January 14, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[VoTeckam]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1751283' date='Jan 14 2009, 03:29 PM']I've been dealing with this dichotomy several times recently. Once, following a conversation with a guy who spoke on social justice to a young adult Catholic group. Again, in a discussion on "Models of Church" by Cardinal Avery Dulles in a discipleship class. We even did a little exercise that was like this poll, only with about four more aspects of the parish that we ranked. It seems people are fine with the dichotomy... they even think it's [i]supposed[/i] to be that way. I'm perplexed.

FWIW, I didn't vote in this poll... I'm realizing this is another difference between the cultures of Protestantism and Catholicism. Most theologically orthodox Protestant churches involve their members in their neighborhoods and communities, even if it's something like Habitat for Humanity. But orthodox Catholic parishes will let you come and go every Sunday and hardly ask more of you than donating items for the homeless outreach. Maybe this is why I have trouble finding a home parish... it's like answering this poll, and I can't do it in good conscience.[/quote]

I am relieved it is impossible for you to pick. I am in the same boat.

[TotusTuusMaria]

[quote name='VoTeckam' post='1751054' date='Jan 14 2009, 11:04 AM']Yes! That's what I was getting at! I am a cradle Catholic and I have NEVER been to a Church that has a handle on both aspects of the faith.

\[/quote]

I don't know. I attend a local parish which sometimes has a few liturgical abuses depending on which priest is celebrating. I don't approve of these, but compared to other parishes in the city though, it is a fairly orthodox parish. I went to dinner one night with a Baptist friend of mine. We actually ran into each other at the restaurant and decided to have dinner together. We were talking and she asked me where I attended church. I told her, and she said, "That is a good church." I was like, "Oh yeah?" She said that she had found a woman walking on the street that needed help. She was poor, and she just needed some help. She took her to her Baptist church and they couldn't help her, and now this is one of the biggest Baptist churches in the south. They are on tv every week. One of the women there told her to take her to my parish. She did, and she said as soon as she told them about the woman they wanted to know where she was and they took the woman and helped her out a lot. We have some charitable societies in the parish, but nothing that makes our parish well-known for aiding the poor. We are not in a poor part of the city by any means, and it wasn't something I thought we really were well-known for focusing on. We just don't have that image, but ... apparently we do and I (who has attended there for years) didn't even know it.

And then I was in a poorer part of the city doing a pro-life event one night and we were packing up the supplies. It was fairly late, and this Latin-American woman comes in with her daughter at one point. And then at another point this young black guy comes in. I know the second was not Catholic, and they were just using the Church as a safe place. The woman who locks up the church knew them, and I don't think this is anything new. They really reach out to these people and try to protect them. But, that is not known. I think maybe a lot of charitable activities that our parishes take part in are unknown to us.

I think those who are receiving an orthodox liturgy are more apt to help the poor when the opportunity arises. And, from experience, we shouldn't judge our parishes so harshly. Like me, you just may not know all the good your parish is doing for the poor. You may be very surprised.

And also this doesn't relate to the above but, look at Mother Teresa's community. They help the poor a great deal. They are very well known for it, but they will tell you that without the liturgy or adoration they could do nothing. An orthodox liturgy is more important then social justice because without it there would be no social justice. It is in the sacraments that we receive the grace to do the things we do. It is through prayer and in worshiping and honoring God. Without that grace we wouldn't be able to help anyone.

And if you look at the communities who went after social justice (which is good), but left behind the Eucharist and an orthodox liturgy... well they aren't able to do much help anymore. They are dying away and they just don't have a lot of power to continue to help and aid the poor.

Orthodox Liturgy > Social Justice.

Edited January 14, 2009 by TotusTuusMaria

[aalpha1989]

Helping the poor is important, but as Jesus said, "The poor will be with you always". We should definitely sacrifice to make their lives better, but, again, the [b][i]purpose[/i][/b] of the church is spiritual, NOT material.

That being said, one of the best parishes I've ever been to is a Latin Mass community. They are liturgically orthodox (duh), but they also do a lot to help the poor.

I think one thing that turns conservative parishes off to the idea of helping the poor is that people who do want to help use the words "social justice". Social justice is something that is good to fight for, but when most people say "social justice" they really mean a form of injustice- They mean a system in which the government literally steals from the rich to give to the poor. "Social justice" has come to mean socialism and also degradation of values (homosexual unions, legalized abortion, euthenasia, etc.). That is why parishes do not often have both orthodox liturgies and socially active groups.

[jckinsman]

St.Marks parish in Shoreline,in Seattle Washington. A wonderful blend of both.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1751319' date='Jan 14 2009, 04:05 PM']i never said it wasn't the case they wanted to perfume his feet.

the issues are how you read into the polls:
one to the exclusion of the other, v. which one to focus on when both are doing good, v. which one to focus on when one is doing good but the other less than good, etc.
there's too many ways to read into it to be very accurate in one's stance.

to qualify though, you might have meant by your question "what if the poor don't care they're neglected if that glorifies God?". that's an interesting idea whatever the case. but, i'd think God would want the poor asisted if it came down to one to the exclusion of the other. and we're to do what God wants, it's not the poor's decision to make (tho them making that sacrifice themself would surely be their call)

also as a point of distinction, there's one to the exclusion of the other 1 when it's neceessarily so. like, theoreticlaly i had a penny to spend on the poor or to glorify God when not giving to the poor would cause htem to die (theoretically). 2 or it's like the churches where it's not necessarily so, but tends to be that way where one is exluded at the expense of the other.[/quote]

The point is true orthodoxy means we [i]never[/i] choose one obligation of our Faith at the exclusion of another. To be truely Catholic means carrying on the complete and universal truth: we buy the whole package. That means everything from the practice of our liturgies and rites to our beliefs, our morals, our virtues, and our service to every person we meet. Even the suggestion that we should ever need to pick one and exclude the other is like asking a mother to love some of her children at the exclusion of the rest. Even more, it's insulting to the Creator of our Faith, as if we need to proofread His work. We get to enjoy this fine banquet in the Catholic Church and it's treated like a regular cafeteria by Catholics on the left, right, and even the middle. Few people will believe and follow the Truth universally. I don't... I spend too much time on phatmass instead of actually working at work. Unfortunately, most Catholics aren't challenged in their faith, so we'll keep languishing from one generation to the next until we are finally persecuted into believing.

[quote name='VoTeckam' post='1751320' date='Jan 14 2009, 04:06 PM']I am relieved it is impossible for you to pick. I am in the same boat.[/quote]

Good to know others can relate. I do need to settle into a parish eventually and I suppose it will come down to finding a balance between liturgy and social action.

[quote name='aalpha1989' post='1751391' date='Jan 14 2009, 06:10 PM']Helping the poor is important, but as Jesus said, "The poor will be with you always". We should definitely sacrifice to make their lives better, but, again, the [b][i]purpose[/i][/b] of the church is spiritual, NOT material.[/quote]

And in another place, Jesus says, "I will be with you always." I know the context and meaning are different, but on the face the apparent contradiction in words I think is worth noting and contemplating. For example, if we metaphorically perfume the feet of Jesus with loving, orthodox liturgies, the way we help our neighbor outside of church should reflect the same love and care for Christ. If we care enough about our Faith to teach that our priests provide the sacraments [i]in persona Christe[/i], we should recognize the person of Christ in the poor. We cannot separate the two any more than we can separate the human and divine natures of Christ. Any time we do raise one above the other, I think we risk our actions preaching a Christ who is more divine than human, or vice versa.

Edited January 15, 2009 by LouisvilleFan

[VoTeckam]

Thank you for teh wonderful post Louisvillefan. Your explantion of true orthodoxy was spot on.

I also think that those who pin the Church as strictly spiritual are doing both the Church and themselves a disservice. You are charged with aiding eachother in both ways. Christ demands it in the gospels and Paul addresses both throughout his letters.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1752021' date='Jan 15 2009, 02:03 PM']The point is true orthodoxy means we [i]never[/i] choose one obligation of our Faith at the exclusion of another. To be truely Catholic means carrying on the complete and universal truth: we buy the whole package. That means everything from the practice of our liturgies and rites to our beliefs, our morals, our virtues, and our service to every person we meet. Even the suggestion that we should ever need to pick one and exclude the other is like asking a mother to love some of her children at the exclusion of the rest. Even more, it's insulting to the Creator of our Faith, as if we need to proofread His work. We get to enjoy this fine banquet in the Catholic Church and it's treated like a regular cafeteria by Catholics on the left, right, and even the middle. Few people will believe and follow the Truth universally. I don't... I spend too much time on phatmass instead of actually working at work. Unfortunately, most Catholics aren't challenged in their faith, so we'll keep languishing from one generation to the next until we are finally persecuted into believing.



Good to know others can relate. I do need to settle into a parish eventually and I suppose it will come down to finding a balance between liturgy and social action.



And in another place, Jesus says, "I will be with you always." I know the context and meaning are different, but on the face the apparent contradiction in words I think is worth noting and contemplating. For example, if we metaphorically perfume the feet of Jesus with loving, orthodox liturgies, the way we help our neighbor outside of church should reflect the same love and care for Christ. If we care enough about our Faith to teach that our priests provide the sacraments [i]in persona Christe[/i], we should recognize the person of Christ in the poor. We cannot separate the two any more than we can separate the human and divine natures of Christ. Any time we do raise one above the other, I think we risk our actions preaching a Christ who is more divine than human, or vice versa.[/quote]


You mention the difference in context an meaning but you discard it- not a good idea. The story with the perfume where Jesus says "The poor will be with you always" relates directly to the worship of God... the Liturgy. You are attempting to use a completely seperate passage (which does not talk about the poor vs. the liturgy, as the first does) completely out of context to negate the first. My point is that the perfume passage spells it out that the Church's primary mission was, is, and always will be spiritual. [i]Always[/i]. And again, I know that you mentioned and recognize the difference in context and meaning, but all that means is that you are intentionally twisting the meaning. Don't.

[puellapaschalis]

[quote name='VoTeckam' post='1752111' date='Jan 15 2009, 11:10 PM']I also think that those who pin the Church as strictly spiritual are doing both the Church and themselves a disservice. You are charged with aiding eachother in both ways. Christ demands it in the gospels and Paul addresses both throughout his letters.[/quote]

My reasoning is that without the foundations laid by holy liturgy, attempts at outward apostolates like social responsability or the like will fail. Like the way doughnuts-with-holes are never as yummy as doughnuts-with-good-stuff-in-the-middle (strawberry jam, or chocolate, or both if you're hardcore). It's not a case of one or the other, but recognising which is the senior partner - which one is MORE IMPORTANT - as the original question stated.

[cmotherofpirl]

If you can't do a simple thing like get the liturgy right, how are you going to accomplish social justice? This is never an either/or proposition, you have to have both.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='VoTeckam' post='1750232' date='Jan 13 2009, 02:37 PM']After reading some of the threads on numerous boards I am curious to see these results.

Defend your opinion if you don't mind! [/quote]
Orthodoxy is always more important, because acting through orthodoxy or heterodoxy ultimately forms the Church in the execution of the mission.

[MithLuin]

IF the question is, [i]which is more important?[/i] - I would give precedence to the liturgy over the social mission, for the reasons already stated - prayer is at the root of everything in the Christian life. BUT, if the question is, 'A particular church can only get one of these two things right; choose one,' I would have to respond "No."

It is not a matter of choosing between them, and we should not comfort ourselves with a technically accurate liturgy if we are simultaneously neglecting the social mission of the church. That worship would be empty, and ignore St. James' instruction that 'true worship' is to comfort widows and orphans in their distress. Now, it is possible that we personally could attend such a church, and then individually engage in charitable activities, volunteer work, etc. - 'on our own'. That is still a compromise, though.

If we see that something is missing from a church that we attend, we can always make the effort to introduce it ourselves. I'm not saying to take over or force our own way, but rather to get involved. If there is a liturgy or social action committee, that would be the place to start. If there is a paucity of social outreach...maybe start some. If there is no prayer group or bible study...start one (or at the very least talk to the pastor about the posibility). Whatever is needed, whatever is missing - we are the church, so we can do something about it. (Or, if not practical, at least support someone else in doing so.)

Edited January 17, 2009 by MithLuin

[Resurrexi]

Though I think both are extremely important, if I had to choose a parish based upon one or the other, I would without a doubt choose my parish based on liturgical orthodoxy.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='aalpha1989' post='1752392' date='Jan 15 2009, 08:48 PM']You mention the difference in context an meaning but you discard it- not a good idea. The story with the perfume where Jesus says "The poor will be with you always" relates directly to the worship of God... the Liturgy. You are attempting to use a completely seperate passage (which does not talk about the poor vs. the liturgy, as the first does) completely out of context to negate the first. My point is that the perfume passage spells it out that the Church's primary mission was, is, and always will be spiritual. [i]Always[/i]. And again, I know that you mentioned and recognize the difference in context and meaning, but all that means is that you are intentionally twisting the meaning. Don't.[/quote]

I wasn't offering a commentary on the Scriptures. It was a reflection, and as I said, the "apparent" contradiction is worth contemplating in order to think about all the stuff you just said. For example, people who stress social justice over liturgical orthodoxy like to quote Jesus telling the woman perfuming his feet, "the poor will be with you always," in order to justify their position, but as you've shown, Scripture shouldn't be quoted so loosely. I don't think most people even think about what Jesus was actually saying... they hear it from one person and think it sounds good, so they repeat the same verse to others, and since the presumed interpretation tickles their ears, they never question it.

Now, why do you say the Church's primary mission was, is, and always will be spiritual? I don't see that in Scripture. The first division in Church history wasn't about liturgy or theology: it was about feeding the widows. I could rattle off a hundred things Jesus commands us about serving and loving others, not to mention all of Jesus' miracles. So, how do you justify your claim that the Church should prioritize spiritual needs above physical needs? Why not meet both, seeing as Jesus never gave us a choice in the matter?

[puellapaschalis]

[quote name='MithLuin' post='1753908' date='Jan 17 2009, 11:57 PM']IF the question is, [i]which is more important?[/i]...[/quote]

That is indeed what the question is.

[LouisvilleFan]

I'd reject the "if" by not choosing If there's an alternative that meets somewhere between either extreme, I'll go that route, since that's basically what I'm looking to do now in choosing a parish.

[puellapaschalis]

The question didn't ask for one to the exclusion of the other. There is nothing here about extremes; in fact, I'd dare to say that the more "extreme" one is in one direction, the more "extreme" one will also be in the other.