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