Can an Eastern Catholic fulfill his Sunday obligation at an Orthodox DL?

[Digitonomy]

I read in the New Commentary on Canon Law (2002):

the former Ecumenical Directory of 1967 granted a privilege permitting Catholics to fulfill their Sunday and holy day obligation at the divine liturgy of a separated Eastern church. This privilege was suppressed in the 1993 Directory for the Application of the Principles and Norms on Ecumenism

However, in a quick scan of the 1993 Directory I couldn’t find where that was the case.

 

[Vico]

I read in the New Commentary on Canon Law (2002): However, in a quick scan of the 1993 Directory I couldn’t find where that was the case.

In the New Commentary… it refers to # 115. It also states that this ability to fufill the mass oblication in an Orthodox liturgy was likely revoked earlier in the (Latin) 1983 CIC. References to 1983 CCEO and 1990 CIC are included. SC = Sacrosanctum Concillium.

In that directory you gave the link for:

1. Since the celebration of the Eucharist on the Lord’s Day is the foundation and centre of the whole liturgical year,(120) Catholics—but those of Eastern Churches according to their own Law (121)—are obliged to attend Mass on that day and on days of precept. (122) It is not advisable therefore to organize ecumenical services on Sundays, and it must be remembered that even when Catholics participate in ecumenical services or in services of other Churches and ecclesial Communities, the obligation of participating at Mass on these days remains.

120 Cf. *SC, *n. 106.
121 Cf. *CCEO, *can. 881, 1; *CIC, *can. 1247.
122 Cf. *CIC, *can. 1247; *CCEO, *can. 881, 1.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Canon Law appears to require that one attend mass by a celebrant who is in union with the Pope.

Can. 1247 On Sundays and other holy days of obligation, the faithful are obliged to participate in the Mass.
Moreover, they are to abstain from those works and affairs which hinder the worship to be rendered to God, the joy proper to the Lord’s day, or the suitable relaxation of mind and body.
Can. 1248 §1. A person who assists at a Mass celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the feast day itself or in the evening of the preceding day satisfies the obligation of participating in the Mass.

Note that attending in an Eastern Church in union with Rome satisfies the obligation.

 

[James_Miller]

Only if the person could not get to a Catholic church. A priest in an Orthodox bookshop told me I could go to Holy Communion in the Orthodox cathedral. But I can’t as there are 4 types of Catholic churches in this town: Latin, Malabar, Malankara and Kayana.

 

[5Loaves]

Can. 844 §1. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone, who likewise receive them licitly from Catholic ministers alone, without prejudice to the prescripts of §§2, 3, and 4 of this canon, and can. 861, §2.

**§2. **Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

This Canon has been parsed a variety of ways here and elsewhere in the past. Basically if a Catholic has access to any of the Eastern, Oriental or Latin, Catholic Churches then a Catholic may not licitly take Holy Eucharist at an Orthodox Church. ,From Catholic perspective a Catholic can worship at any time in an Orthodox Divine Liturgy in all ways except Holy Eucharist.

 

[Aramis]

Actually, the requirement is that the person be unable to attend a Catholic service.

It permits that for physical (no parish in ability to travel) or moral (the local priest is theologically or liturgically problematic) reasons.

In most places, no issue; you are obligated to go to the catholic parish.

But, say you’re in a remote town, and there are two churches, one Catholic and one Orthodox… a Catholic goes to the Catholic one and hears the priest preaching heresy, he may then, of clear conscience, fulfill his mass obligations in the Orthodox parish (but he’s also obligated under Redemptoris Sacramentum to report said heretical teaching by the Catholic priest to said priest’s bishop), and if permitted by the local orthodox pastor, to receive.

Likewise, one is in one of the small villages in Alaska or the Middle East, and there is only one parish, and it’s Orthodox, one may, in good conscience, attend the local Orthodox parish, and again, if permitted by the Orthodox pastor, receive.

In either case, if the Orthodox pastor says “No,” then the Catholic may not receive in that parish, but may otherwise fulfill their canonical obligations.

Pretty much, the same applies to the SSPX parishes*, the Assyrian Church of the East, the Oriental Orthodox Communion, the Jacobites, and the PNCC parishes, and those other “Old Catholic” parishes of jurisdictions not ordaining women to the presbyterate (priesthood) nor episcopacy (bishops).

It does not apply to Episcopal/Anglican churches, nor Lutheran parishes, nor Methodist parishes.

*SSPX parishes are still officially part of the church, but their liturgies are illicit, and some sacraments (Marriage and Reconciliation) technically invalid due to lack of jurisdiction. Many of the adherents have a moral objection to the local mainstream parishes, and use that to justify their attendance at an SSPX parish; some of them even seem justified in so doing.

 

[Vico]

…
In most places, no issue; you are obligated to go to the catholic parish.

But, say you’re in a remote town, and there are two churches, one Catholic and one Orthodox… a Catholic goes to the Catholic one and hears the priest preaching heresy, he may then, of clear conscience, fulfill his mass obligations in the Orthodox parish (but he’s also obligated under Redemptoris Sacramentum to report said heretical teaching by the Catholic priest to said priest’s bishop), and if permitted by the local orthodox pastor, to receive.

…

The "fulfill his mass obligations in the Orthodox parish " directly contradicts the statements quoted earlier from the Catholic Church. Is that what you intended to say?

I was taught that there is no mass or liturgy/praises obligation to assist except in a Catholic Church. CIC 1247-1248. CCEO 881 allows divine praises if one’s Church allows it.

 

[5Loaves]

The "fulfill his mass obligations in the Orthodox parish " directly contradicts the statements quoted earlier from the Catholic Church. Is that what you intended to say?

I was taught that there is no mass or liturgy/praises obligation to assist except in a Catholic Church. CIC 1247-1248. CCEO 881 allows divine praises if one’s Church allows it.

That’s correct. If no Catholic Mass is available then the obligation to assist in Mass is dispensed. Like Can. 844 §2, I’ve seen this parsed in different ways. (And clearly the obligation is to assist in Mass, not to receive Holy Eucharist.)

Can. 1247 On Sundays and other holy days of obligation, the faithful are obliged to participate in the Mass.

Moreover, they are to abstain from those works and aVairs [sic] which hinder the worship to be rendered to God, the joy proper to the Lord’s day, or the suitable relaxation of mind and body.

Can. 1248 §1. A person who assists at a Mass celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the feast day itself or in the evening of the preceding day satisfies the obligation of participating in the Mass.

§2. If participation in the eucharistic celebration becomes impossible because of the absence of a sacred minister or for another grave cause, it is strongly recommended that the faithful take part in a liturgy of the word if such a liturgy is celebrated in a parish church or other sacred place according to the prescripts of the diocesan bishop or that they devote themselves to prayer for a suitable time alone, as a family, or, as the occasion permits, in groups of families.

 

[Aramis]

The obligation for sundays and certain holy days is required to be met, if possible.

The obligation can be filled by attending Vespers or Matins, if permitted by the Church Sui Iuris, and by attending a Liturgy of the Word scheduled in place of a mass due to lack of priest. It can also be filled by attending an Orthodox parish. It can be nullified by lacking a parish to attend… different pastors have put forth differing interpretations on whether the obligation is voided when an Orthodox liturgy is available and a Catholic one is not; some say the obligation remains, other say it doesn’t.

My pastor clearly has stated that we are NOT voided of our obligation if we are in reasonable reach of an Orthodox parish. Prior pastors have said that it is better to attend, but not obligatory in such cases.

Until one is a pastor, the decision is a matter for the pastor, in consultation with his bishop, and one that he needs to make his flock aware of.

Based upon recent (last month’s) homilies, for my parish, the obligation looks like:
Home parish, if able; failing that, Latin Rite liturgy. If no Latin Rite liturgy, Orthodox liturgy. Failing all of those, contact the pastor for permission for Reader’s Matins in home. Essentially, it boils down to “If one can assist at a valid liturgy, one is obligated to do so.”

Likewise, the current USCCB ecumenical directory permits fulfilling one’s obligation by attending an Orthodox liturgy for educational reasons…

 

[dans0622]

However, in a quick scan of the 1993 Directory I couldn’t find where that was the case.

Hi Digitonomy,

I guess what is meant is that this “privilege” was “suppressed” by its non-inclusion in the new ecumenical directory, not that there is a statement saying that such-and-such is hereby suppressed.

Also, the relevant canon from the Eastern Code says: “Canon 881 - §1. The Christian faithful are bound by the obligation to participate on Sundays and feast days in the Divine Liturgy, or according to the prescriptions or legitimate customs of their own Church sui iuris, in the celebration of the divine praises. …”

This Code has a comparable canon to c. 844 of the Latin Code, that being c. 671.

If the Eastern Code had included the term “Catholic rite,” as in c. 1248 of the Latin Code, this question would be easier to answer. As it is, my own answer to your question would be “No.”

Dan

 

[Vico]

"aramis:

My pastor clearly has stated that we are NOT voided of our obligation if we are in reasonable reach of an Orthodox parish. Prior pastors have said that it is better to attend, but not obligatory in such cases.

Hi Digitonomy,

I guess what is meant is that this “privilege” was “suppressed” by its non-inclusion in the new ecumenical directory, not that there is a statement saying that such-and-such is hereby suppressed.

Also, the relevant canon from the Eastern Code says: “Canon 881 - §1. The Christian faithful are bound by the obligation to participate on Sundays and feast days in the Divine Liturgy, or according to the prescriptions or legitimate customs of their own Church sui iuris, in the celebration of the divine praises. …”

This Code has a comparable canon to c. 844 of the Latin Code, that being c. 671.

If the Eastern Code had included the term “Catholic rite,” as in c. 1248 of the Latin Code, this question would be easier to answer. As it is, my own answer to your question would be “No.”

Dan

For the Latin Church there is no obligation to assist in a non-Catholic Church, which includes those faithful enrolled in the Latin Church but regularly assisting in an Eastern Catholic parish.

CIC (1983) Can. 1248 §2. If participation in the eucharistic celebration becomes impossible because of the absence of a sacred minister or for another grave cause, it is strongly recommended that the faithful take part in a liturgy of the word if such a liturgy is celebrated in a parish church or other sacred place according to the prescripts of the diocesan bishop or that they devote themselves to prayer for a suitable time alone, as a family, or, as the occasion permits, in groups of families.

I cannot prove that the same (Latin Church) rule in in effect for those enrolled in the Eastern Catholic churches.

 

[5Loaves]

The obligation for sundays and certain holy days is required to be met, if possible.

The obligation can be filled by attending Vespers or Matins, if permitted by the Church Sui Iuris, and by attending a Liturgy of the Word scheduled in place of a mass due to lack of priest. It can also be filled by attending an Orthodox parish. It can be nullified by lacking a parish to attend… different pastors have put forth differing interpretations on whether the obligation is voided when an Orthodox liturgy is available and a Catholic one is not; some say the obligation remains, other say it doesn’t.

My pastor clearly has stated that we are NOT voided of our obligation if we are in reasonable reach of an Orthodox parish. Prior pastors have said that it is better to attend, but not obligatory in such cases.

Until one is a pastor, the decision is a matter for the pastor, in consultation with his bishop, and one that he needs to make his flock aware of.

Based upon recent (last month’s) homilies, for my parish, the obligation looks like:
Home parish, if able; failing that, Latin Rite liturgy. If no Latin Rite liturgy, Orthodox liturgy. Failing all of those, contact the pastor for permission for Reader’s Matins in home. Essentially, it boils down to “If one can assist at a valid liturgy, one is obligated to do so.”

Likewise, the current USCCB ecumenical directory permits fulfilling one’s obligation by attending an Orthodox liturgy for educational reasons…

As I indicated I’ve seen this parsed in different ways as your post evidences. It’s interesting that your clergy addressed this in recent homilies.

off topic: I always find it so interesting when you give us a glimpse into the environment you are part of there in Alaska. I think it is really unique in No America. I’d love to hear more about it. Have you ever written anything in a general way about the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox intermixing there?

 

[Aramis]

As I indicated I’ve seen this parsed in different ways as your post evidences. It’s interesting that your clergy addressed this in recent homilies.

off topic: I always find it so interesting when you give us a glimpse into the environment you are part of there in Alaska. I think it is really unique in No America. I’d love to hear more about it. Have you ever written anything in a general way about the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox intermixing there?

between 1/6th and 1/5th is Orthodox (18% is the most recent figure I’ve seen), mostly Russian (some old believer, some OCA, some ROCOR), and between 1/5th and 1/4th Roman Catholic (24%). Of the roughly 750,000 people in Alaska, only about 200 are practicing Eastern Catholics. Something like 2-3% of the state is Quaker… It’s decidedly odd.

I’ve been dumped by Catholic ladies (back in my single days) who rejected that such a thing could exist, and rejected by Orthodox girls for not being OCA. People see my cross and just assume I’m OCA Russian Orthodox… unless they happen to be OCA.

There are villages where the only parish is Catholic, and others where it’s Orthodox. The OCA are FAR more aware of the Byzantine Catholic parish than most Latins… and on holy days, we still get a handful of Orthodox, who, coming in, can’t quite figure out where St. Nicholas fits…

 

[Vico]

This is a reference to Ad totam ecclesiam, the Directory Concerning Ecumenical Matters, published on May 14, 1967 by the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity.

Note that this directory has been superceeded in 1993, but is quoted to show the original intention was for occasional use, and it is coupled with the 1917 Canons. The directory was updated in 1993 because of the new canon law 1983 CIC and 1990 CCEO.

1. A Catholic who occasionally, for reasons set out below (cf. n. 50), attends the holy liturgy (Mass) on a Sunday or holiday of obligation in an Orthodox Church is not then bound to assist at Mass in a Catholic Church…
2. Catholics may be allowed to attend Orthodox liturgical services if they have reasonable grounds, e.g. arising out of a public office or function, blood relationships, friendships, desire to be better informed, etc. In such cases there is nothing against their taking part in the common responses, hymns, and actions of the Church in which they ae guests…

From: “Vatican II: The Conciliar and Postconciliar Documents” edited by Fr. Austin Flannery OP and published by Liturgical Press in 1977, pp. 497-498.

According to Rev. Fathers Dimitrios Salacas and Krzysztof Nitkiewicz (undersecretary of the Congregation for the Eastern Churches), in Rapporti Interecclesiali tra Cattolici Orientali e Latini, Pontificio Instituto Orientale, 2007, the Latin code includes a number of canons that directly bind Eastern Catholics, which includes the 1983 CIC 1248 §1:

Can. 1248 §1. A person who assists at a Mass celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the feast day itself or in the evening of the preceding day satisfies the obligation of participating in the Mass.

So there is no specific mention in the 1983 CIC or 1990 CCEO or in 1993 Directory, of non-Catholic church obligation fulfillment for Sunday or Holy Day.

 

[Digitonomy]

"dans0622:

I guess what is meant is that this “privilege” was “suppressed” by its non-inclusion in the new ecumenical directory, not that there is a statement saying that such-and-such is hereby suppressed.

Ah, that makes sense.

This is a reference to Ad totam ecclesiam, the Directory Concerning Ecumenical Matters, published on May 14, 1967 by the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity.

Note that this directory has been superceeded in 1993, but is quoted to show the original intention was for occasional use, and it is coupled with the 1917 Canons. The directory was updated in 1993 because of the new canon law 1983 CIC and 1990 CCEO.

From: “Vatican II: The Conciliar and Postconciliar Documents” edited by Fr. Austin Flannery OP and published by Liturgical Press in 1977, pp. 497-498.

So there is no specific mention in the 1983 CIC or 1990 CCEO or in 1993 Directory, of non-Catholic church obligation fulfillment for Sunday or Holy Day.

Thanks for that detailed and well-sourced reply. I wish the Ecumenical Directory a.k.a. Ad Totam Ecclesiam were available online; I notice another poster sought this a couple years ago with no takers.

Vico:

According to Rev. Fathers Dimitrios Salacas and Krzysztof Nitkiewicz (undersecretary of the Congregation for the Eastern Churches), in Rapporti Interecclesiali tra Cattolici Orientali e Latini, Pontificio Instituto Orientale, 2007, the Latin code includes a number of canons that directly bind Eastern Catholics, which includes the 1983 CIC 1248 §1

I find that strange. I had always assumed that Eastern Catholics were not bound at all by the CIC.
Indeed, Canon 1 is

The canons of this Code regard only the Latin Church.

 

[TP2]

The simple answer is “NO”. The Eastern Orthodox are still not in union with The Catholic Church and their Eastern Liturgy still is not “licit” under the laws of Rome even though Their Liturgy is Valid. OK. Having said that, if you are not near a Catholic Church and attend The EO church instead, I would say you would have fulfilled your Sunday Obligation. But it would have to be of serious matter in either the distance to a Catholic Church or other serious matter or issue.

 

[Vico]

Ah, that makes sense.Thanks for that detailed and well-sourced reply. I wish the Ecumenical Directory a.k.a. Ad Totam Ecclesiam were available online; I notice another poster sought this a couple years ago with no takers.I find that strange. I had always assumed that Eastern Catholics were not bound at all by the CIC.
Indeed, Canon 1 is

There is some of the Ecumenical Director of 1967 here on line:
catholicdoors.com/misc/marriage/vat2ec.htm

CIC is for Latin Church and CCEO is for Eastern Churches, coupled with their particular laws, and also the personal or territorial laws for any of the Churches (see CIC 12 & 13), plus any rescripts published in AAS. But, there are Universal laws in both that overlap, and specific references to Latin or Eastern in both canons so they are not mutually exclusive. And sometimes a lacuna exists, requiring an interpretation, based on the other. (See CCEO 1499 and CIC 17.)

CCEO refers to the Latin Church in these nine canons: 41, 207, 322.1, 432, 696, 830.1, 916.5, 1465. Also sui iuris includes the Latin Church so there are many canons in CCEO that apply to the Latin Church, and general canons requiring all to work together.

The CIC canons that directly bind the Eastern Churches are: 111.1, 112.2, 214, 372.2, 383.2, 450.1, 476, 479.2, 518, 535.2, 846.2, 923, 991, 1015.2, 1021, 1109, 1248.1.

 

[Vico]

The simple answer is “NO”. The Eastern Orthodox are still not in union with The Catholic Church and their Eastern Liturgy still is not “licit” under the laws of Rome even though Their Liturgy is Valid. OK. Having said that, if you are not near a Catholic Church and attend The EO church instead, I would say you would have fulfilled your Sunday Obligation. But it would have to be of serious matter in either the distance to a Catholic Church or other serious matter or issue.

The canons are saying that there is no obligation to assist in any non-Catholic Church. Rather than saying it if fulfilled, it is excused, and there is a recommendation instead.

 

[TP2]

I don’t know how this Thread has veered from the original inent, but going to an Eastern Rite Catholic Church on Sunday DOES fulfill the Sunday Obligation for Catholics. Eastern Rite Catholics are in Communion with Rome. Simple enough?

 

[TP2]

The canons are saying that there is no obligation to assist in any non-Catholic Church. Rather than saying it if fulfilled, it is excused, and there is a recommendation instead.

Splitting hairs? It is Fullfilled IF there are no other Catholic Churches in the area or in matters of Serious reason.