aalpha1989 Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 [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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puellapaschalis Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 [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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lounge Daddy Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 [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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MithLuin Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 (edited) 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resurrexi Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LouisvilleFan Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 [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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puellapaschalis Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 [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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LouisvilleFan Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puellapaschalis Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LouisvilleFan Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 [quote name='puellapaschalis' post='1755411' date='Jan 19 2009, 03:47 PM']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.[/quote] That's what I've been saying should be the case, but that's not what I observe in the Catholic Church today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Didn't know we had to meet your standards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puellapaschalis Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 [quote name='puellapaschalis' post='1755411' date='Jan 19 2009, 09:47 PM']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.[/quote] I think I need to clarify what I said here. The more we advance in liturgical orthodoxy, the more we will advance in "social action". This is because our prayer life underpins everything else we do. I'm not sure that the converse will also be true, because "social action" does not underpin our prayer life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CSK001 Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Hi, I would say that all religions have same messages " peace and prosperity, live and let live". Therefore, there is no question of which religion is superior than others. CSK [mod]spam - Lil Red[/mod] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MithLuin Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 (edited) This thread is not about which religion is superior, but [i]within[/i] religion, which aspect is more important? And....seriously? Peace and [i]prosperity[/i]? Which religion is that??? Edited January 21, 2009 by MithLuin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now