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

[Alveus_Lacuna]

What is one’s Orthodoxy defined by?

Glad you asked! By faithfully maintaining the Orthodox faith!

But on a more helpful note, I would say that it visible by the mutual support and recognition of one another, and of course in a shared faith. So the Russian Church is Orthodox and Catholic by virtue of its properly maintained faith, which is mutually visible and recognized by the Patriarchate of Antioch, Constantinople, Alexandria, Serbia, Romania, Georgia, et cetera. These clergy concelebrate and readily recognize each other’s faith. One looks at the other and says, “Yes, this is the faith which we received from the apostles and maintained.” In other words, the Orthodox are visible by their communion with one another, not by communion with some supreme administrative head.

Perhaps other posters can be more helpful than me in this regard.

 

[5Loaves]

5Loaves;6842503:

Without responding to the rest of your comment I’d just want to be clear that the “Sunday Obligation” is an obligation to assist in the Holy Mass on Sunday. One need not receive Holy Eucharist in order to fulfill the Sunday Obligation. If for example one is not properly disposed to receive Communion one can still assist in Mass and fulfill his/her “obligation”.

Your question is a kind of a paradigm in that you are correct that you do not have to receive Holy Communion to fulfill the Obligation of going to Mass on Sunday but the question would logically follow that by not missing Sunday Mass you are not committing serious sin, **yet in not receiving Holy Communion one must be conscious of Mortal sin **hence I would ask that it would be a good idea to heal that rift in what causes you to miss Holy Communion as soon as possible albeit, there are many reasons why that cannot be corrected by a simple act of Confession; i.e. cohabitation, illicit marriage, etc… I would refer you to a priest asap in those latter issues.
We must be aware that by going to Sunday Mass with the knowledge of Mortal sin, grace is impeded within us…

Mortal sin is actually not the only reason why one may not be properly disposed to receive Holy Communion. For example, one may realize he/she has inadvertently broken the fast and therefore choose not to receive. Additionally, there are other reasons at least in Russian traditions why someone may not receive Holy Eucharist which have nothing to do with sin. I mention this, since it is a fact, and since if you are seated in a pew and notice your fellow parishioner is not going up to receive I would encourage you not to assume as you have here that the reason is because he or she is in a state of mortal sin.

 

[Vico]

… In other words, the Orthodox are visible by their communion with one another, not by communion with some supreme administrative head…

Some 1 : being an unknown, undetermined, or unspecified unit or thing

Just wondered if you intended the word “some” in what you wrote “some supreme administrative head”, since an Orthodox exarch is not some supreme administrative head, rather a sucessor of the apostles. The people are in communion with their exarchs, but the exarchs are also in communion with each other.

Or maybe you mean the Orthodox Churches are visible…

It is not clear.

 

[Digitonomy]

kaiserhaus, I can see that you are a very positive person that loves her faith and wants to share her insights. That’s wonderful.

I don’t happen to share your view that asking questions about canon law technicalities means that I am “caught up in” this aspect and thus demeaning worship. Regardless of whether I’m right, technicalities were what I asked for in the OP. I don’t think it’s fair of you to find fault with other members for trotting out books and quoting quotes, when that’s what was requested.

As a new member here, welcome! But keep in mind that it’s a big and diverse community, and not everyone will think like you do - therefore, some threads will be more your cup of tea than others. When you find the very premise of a thread demeaning, that may be one you won’t enjoy. And if you state something contrary to canon law, when the OP is about canon law, it’s reasonable to expect you’ll get targeted in some of the crossfire of the more enthusiastic members.

I hope your other thread experiences are less rocky, because I believe you will be a real asset to CAF.:tiphat:

 

[trophybearer]

I don’t celebrate Division just as I don’t celebrate inconceivably “Sin”. You are showing exactly what The Protestants do when the celebrate “Reformation” Sunday every year. That is wrong. Catholics don’t celebrate SIN! You should be ashamed of yourself for even suggesting such a hideous notion. You made me angry. Holy anger is justifiable.

Is that what you think your anger is, “holy”? Who cares if you’re angry? Go be angry then!

 

[TP2]

Is that what you think your anger is, “holy”? Who cares if you’re angry? Go be angry then!

I’m not angry… where do you get these things?

 

[trophybearer]

I’m not angry… where do you get these things?

“You made me angry. Holy anger is justifiable.” Those are your exact words. You can read them quoted in my reply. Are you having some sort of memory/ability to read lapse? Look two posts above the one you’re looking at now.

 

[TP2]

“You made me angry. Holy anger is justifiable.” Those are your exact words. You can read them quoted in my reply. Are you having some sort of memory/ability to read lapse? Look two posts above the one you’re looking at now.

That is not sounding “as angry”…that is a definition of a feeling… hahaha…unreal…

 

[trophybearer]

That is not sounding “as angry”…that is a definition of a feeling… hahaha…unreal…

What are you even talking about now? You SAID you were angry and that holy anger is justifiable. I said to go ahead and be angry if you think your anger is holy and justified. Meaning, “who cares?” I’m not sure if your last post was even English… What are you not understanding about what I said??

I don’t know about “unreal”, but surreal sounds about right.

 

[TP2]

What are you even talking about now? You SAID you were angry and that holy anger is justifiable. I said to go ahead and be angry if you think your anger is holy and justified. Meaning, “who cares?” I’m not sure if your last post was even English… What are you not understanding about what I said??

I don’t know about “unreal”, but surreal sounds about right.

Yes, Holy anger is. Hateful anger is not. Got it now? Know the difference.

 

[trophybearer]

Yes, Holy anger is. Hateful anger is not. Got it now? Know the difference.

There was no confusion over that. Apparently you were confused. I said "You’re angry? Who cares? Go be angry and imagine it’s holy. " You responded that you never said you were angry when you clearly did. Glad that confusion is over.

 

[Vico]

When the posters have bitter battle with their words in a blog full of posts on a internet brower, it’s a blog poster internet browser post blog word bitter battle.

 

[Kokomoka]

Amen! I know I hold a liberal and unpopular view, but I agree with you. I think our Lord would be pleased that we attend either Liturgy.
Peace

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Dear Friends,

As a Ukrainian Catholic, I would always attend Divine Liturgy in my Church. I’ve gone to Orthodox parishes to venerate miraculous icons when they were visiting (such as the Pochayiv icon - venerated by both Catholics and Orthodox).

During Holy Week, I go to venerate the Epitaphia of as many Eastern Catholic and Orthodox parishes as I can as well.

There are plenty of EC churches around to be sure. But if there were no EC church around, would I attend an Orthodox DL or attend the RC Mass?

There are issues for me all around. For one thing, when I’ve gone to some Orthodox parishes, while the people were friendly enough, I was often accosted (sometimes by the zealous wife of the parish priest) and told to simply become Orthodox, that Eastern Catholicism is not the same thing etc. I wound up just leaving. But this is an exception to the rule.

On the other hand, I find that the Novus Ordo and the way it is celebrated in a number of our parishes is simply difficult for me. A little too much horizontal as opposed to vertical spirituality. At least by going to an Orthodox DL I’m praying within the spiritual tradition of my Church’s Byzantine origins.

The Tridentine Liturgy of the Roman Catholic Church is something I would attend at the drop of a hat. But these are few and far between.

So such a decision by me would involve many considerations. The fact that I could not attend Communion in an Orthodox parish would probably also keep me away. I would have no problem attending Vespers or other services in an Orthodox parish.

Given the many EC and RC parishes we have, I think this issue would just never come up, except if I was visiting a largely Orthodox country.

Alex

 

[kaiserhaus]

I agree. There is far too much horizontal action in the Novus Ordo. The Tridentine has been accepted by our Bishop, but he certainly keeps it tightly monitored. Which is just wrong…but let’s not get into that kettle of fish!! I am so happy being eastern rite, that I try to attend EC almost every week. I rarely attend Latin rite masses; they just seem so dry to me. The Orthodox in our area are really nice and encourage our participation. We even work together weekly on a homeless program…our EC and their Orthodox members flow freely from one to another. Because our parish hosts many newly arrived people from the “mother” country, we have found that quite a lot are actually Orthodox, but prefer the languages at our parish, so they attend with us. When we construct barriers to authentic communion with other Churches, it feels to me like we are saying others are not welcome. Behavior like that stifles any hope of true ecumenism developing…we have a fragile relationship that needs fostering, not further breaking. I have become much more comfortable and less rigid in my older years. My older kids tease me that their dad and I are not as strict with the younger kids and they are right. There are things to stand firm about and most others can wobble on the line a little bit. Life is too short for all this angst.:byzsoc:

 

[Cecilianus]

I agree too - the Tridentine Liturgy is very beautiful and very authentic, though I am at home with our own liturgy and not going anywhere. The Orthodox have indicated on a number of occasions that relations with them would be greatly improved if we restored the authenticity of the Roman Rite.

 

[Diak]

As a former Pro Nuncio was heard to say at one of the Orientale Lumen conference discussions, no Latin Catholic bishop would or should make someone attend Mass again if they have attended an Orthodox Church for positive spiritual reasons (educational, etc.) in the spirit of magisterial direction such as Orientale Lumen, Ut Unum Sint, and Unitatis Redintegratio. In large areas of the US there simply are no Eastern Catholic churches for one to become familiar with the Christian East, and there is no alternative if one wants to be consistent with the spirit of Orientale Lumen:

Since, in fact, we believe that the venerable and ancient tradition of the Eastern Churches is an integral part of the heritage of Christ’s Church, the first need for Catholics is to be familiar with that tradition, so as to be nourished by it and to encourage the process of unity in the best way possible for each.

 

[Vico]

Directory For The Application Of Principles And Norms On Ecumenism

Vatican (1993)

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/general-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19930325_directory_en.html

1. Since the celebration of the Eucharist on the Lord’s Day is the foundation and centre of the whole liturgical year, Catholics—but those of Eastern Churches according to their own Law—are obliged to attend Mass on that day and on days of precept. 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.

 

[Diak]

It’s interesting that 115 of the 1993 Directory does not clarify “Mass” to be of any one ritual tradition. Furthermore 124 actually provides guidelines for the Eucharistic participation in non-Catholic Eastern Churches

1. Since practice differs between Catholics and Eastern Christians in the matter of frequent communion, confession before communion and the Eucharistic fast, care must be taken to avoid scandal and suspicion among Eastern Christians through Catholics not following the Eastern usage. A Catholic who legitimately wishes to communicate with Eastern Christians must respect the Eastern discipline as much as possible and refrain from communicating if that Church restricts sacramental communion to its own members to the exclusion of others.

I (and all canonists queried) do not interpret 115 of the 1993 Directory as a mandate for dual attendance at a Latin-rite Mass when one attends an Orthodox church for positive spiritiul reasons (or “genuine spiritual advantage” as the Directory itself states). It is obviously pre-supposed that this section refers to non-Eastern Catholic Churches from the use of the term “Christians” as compared with “Eastern Catholics” used in all Magisterial documents when speaking specifically of the Eastern Catholic Churches in full Eucharistic communion with Rome.

122 of the 1993 Directory reminds

"This offers ecclesiological and sacramental grounds, according to the understanding of the Catholic Church, for allowing **and even encouraging some sharing in liturgical worship, **even of the Eucharist, with these Churches, “given suitable circumstances and the approval of church authorities”.

It should be reminded that “principles and norms” are just that, and still subject to interpretations based on the particular law and competent authorities of any particular Church.

 

[Vico]

It’s interesting that 115 of the 1993 Directory does not clarify “Mass” to be of any one ritual tradition. Furthermore 124 actually provides guidelines for the Eucharistic participation in non-Catholic Eastern Churches

I (and all canonists queried) do not interpret 115 of the 1993 Directory as a mandate for dual attendance at a Latin-rite Mass when one attends an Orthodox church for positive spiritiul reasons (or “genuine spiritual advantage” as the Directory itself states). It is obviously pre-supposed that this section refers to non-Eastern Catholic Churches from the use of the term “Christians” as compared with “Eastern Catholics” used in all Magisterial documents when speaking specifically of the Eastern Catholic Churches in full Eucharistic communion with Rome.

122 of the 1993 Directory reminds

It should be reminded that “principles and norms” are just that, and still subject to interpretations based on the particular law and competent authorities of any particular Church.

As these two 115 and 122 combined indicate, it is good to participate, yet does not fulfil the obligation, so “It is not advisable therefore to organize ecumenical services on Sundays”.