Which Is More Important?

[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.

[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.