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

[Diak]

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”.

Directories do not establish obligation. This is done by particular law. The general law is referred to, but this is only oblique. Once again the competent authorities of the particular law should be consulted, and not self-interpretation of general norms. A look at 1247 and its clarifier of 1248 reveals:

CIC 1248 (1) states:

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.

When analyzed in light of the Magisterial proclamation of Unitatis Redintegratio, as is the current precedental trend amongst Latin canon lawyers when examining this point, one can see 17:

All this heritage of spirituality and liturgy, of discipline and theology, in its various traditions, this holy synod declares to belong to the full Catholic and apostolic character of the Church.

along with 15:

These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments and above all, by apostolic succession, the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are linked with us in closest intimacy. Therefore some worship in common (communicatio in sacris), given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not only possible but to be encouraged.

The very rich liturgical and spiritual heritage of the Eastern Churches should be known,** venerated, preserved and cherished by all. **They must recognize that this is of supreme importance for the faithful preservation of the fullness of Christian tradition, and for bringing about reconciliation between Eastern and Western Christians.

 

[Vico]

Directories do not establish obligation. This is done by particular law. The general law is referred to, but this is only oblique. Once again the competent authorities of the particular law should be consulted, and not self-interpretation of general norms.

I make no statement on what the particular obligation is that applies to a particular person, only what is stated, that it does not suffice.

 

[Diak]

I make no statement on what the particular obligation is that applies to a particular person, only what is stated, that it does not suffice.

Does not suffice of what? Nowhere does this Directory or anything else as statements of law not exclude an Orthodox liturgy from meeting “the obligation of participating at Mass” consistent with Magisterial teaching as demonstrated above.

While I do not disagree that additional clarification would help, there is no direct stated requirement of dual attendance at a Mass celebrated by a Catholic priest with valid faculties after specific attendance at an Orthodox liturgy. In fact the preponderance of Magisterial teaching (which is definitive, and not the mutable law) tends to the opposite.

 

[Diak]

It’s really very simple. If this subject is a serious question of conscience to anyone, instead of trusting armchair canonists on Internet forums, call your local chancery (who **is **the competent authority to adjudicate all local canonical questions).

Ask the bishop or his delegated judicial vicar one question: “Do I need to go to Mass again if I have attended an Orthodox Church for a Sunday liturgy to experience the riches of the Christian East (genuine spiritual benefit) consistent with the desires of the Holy Fathers?”

 

[malphono]

Does not suffice of what? Nowhere does this Directory or anything else as statements of law not exclude an Orthodox liturgy from meeting “the obligation of participating at Mass” consistent with Magisterial teaching as demonstrated above.

While I do not disagree that additional clarification would help, there is no direct stated requirement of dual attendance at a Mass celebrated by a Catholic priest with valid faculties after specific attendance at an Orthodox liturgy. In fact the preponderance of Magisterial teaching (which is definitive, and not the mutable law) tends to the opposite.

This issue has, (as we all know far too well), come up in myriad and sundry threads in this forum. Without commenting on the resurgence of the legalisms, FWLIW I continue to agree with your position.

 

[Vico]

Does not suffice of what? Nowhere does this Directory or anything else as statements of law not exclude an Orthodox liturgy from meeting “the obligation of participating at Mass” consistent with Magisterial teaching as demonstrated above.

While I do not disagree that additional clarification would help, there is no direct stated requirement of dual attendance at a Mass celebrated by a Catholic priest with valid faculties after specific attendance at an Orthodox liturgy. In fact the preponderance of Magisterial teaching (which is definitive, and not the mutable law) tends to the opposite.

When I said “does not suffice” I am refering to the services mentioned here: “… 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.”

 

[kaiserhaus]

If the canon refers to some sort of Ecumenical service and not a full Divine Liturgy with reception of the Eucharist, then perhaps that holds. To say that attending an Orthodox Divine Liturgy does not fulfill your Sunday “obligation” would negate the holiness of the Orthodox liturgy and imply that the sole source of legitimate worship, and Eucharistic worship, only occurs in the Latin rite and that is absurd. It would further imply that only Latin Rite “Mass” has the “true presence” and that sets the entire process of unification back hundreds of years.

Latin Rites need to accept that there are other forms of worship equally divine, holy, and legitimate. Peter was not the sole apostle establishing a Church. If you hold to that, you are loosing out on the Gospel message of peace and love to others. How sad for you. The posts here should be more inclusive of our Eastern brethren, of whom I am one. I used to be Latin rite but the legalistic and exclusive attitude is what drove me away. God’s mansion has many rooms and His tent is bigger than all of us can comprehend. So many souls who were once Catholic have fled to Protestant and other forms of worship because of this exclusive, and ofttimes haughty, attitude.

I pray your heart softens and that when you read these legal terms, you seek, with eyes focused on God, the correct interpretation of them. God looks for each lost sheep, not just the ones attending a Latin rite Mass. :byzsoc:

 

[Cecilianus]

If the canon refers to some sort of Ecumenical service and not a full Divine Liturgy with reception of the Eucharist, then perhaps that holds. To say that attending an Orthodox Divine Liturgy does not fulfill your Sunday “obligation” would negate the holiness of the Orthodox liturgy and imply that the sole source of legitimate worship, and Eucharistic worship, only occurs in the Latin rite and that is absurd. It would further imply that only Latin Rite “Mass” has the “true presence” and that sets the entire process of unification back hundreds of years.

Latin Rites need to accept that there are other forms of worship equally divine, holy, and legitimate. Peter was not the sole apostle establishing a Church. If you hold to that, you are loosing out on the Gospel message of peace and love to others. How sad for you. The posts here should be more inclusive of our Eastern brethren, of whom I am one. I used to be Latin rite but the legalistic and exclusive attitude is what drove me away. God’s mansion has many rooms and His tent is bigger than all of us can comprehend. So many souls who were once Catholic have fled to Protestant and other forms of worship because of this exclusive, and ofttimes haughty, attitude.

I pray your heart softens and that when you read these legal terms, you seek, with eyes focused on God, the correct interpretation of them. God looks for each lost sheep, not just the ones attending a Latin rite Mass. :byzsoc:

Denying the holiness of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom would not just be absurd, haughty, unecumenical etc., it would just plain be wrong. The Church DOES accept the validity of Orthodox and Eastern Catholic orders, so the Byzantine Divine Liturgy is AT LEAST of equal dignity and value with the Roman.

I think the question is more to the issue of whether attending Liturgies performed by people in schism from Rome fulfills our legal obligation coming from Rome to hear Mass on holy days of obligation. I don’t like legalism either, but abusus non tollit usam - the Church does impose legal obligations on us without separating the law from the spirit, and She isn’t legalistic for doing so. And attending Liturgies of schismatics could be spiritually dangerous if we risk committing schism ourselves - there is so much beauty and truth in Orthodox and SSPX liturgies that I am afraid that if I attended one myself I would leave communion with the Catholic Church. So I could understand if the Church insisted that only Catholic worship could fill our obligation, and I certainly do understand her actual regulations - that we can indeed fill our Sunday obligation whenever the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is celebrated (whether by Catholics or Orthodox), but that we should only go to Orthodox liturgies for good reasons (which the Church is pretty lenient about defining - “desire to be better informed” is specifically listed as one of them).

 

[Seamus_L]

I have no doubt that there are many Catholic priests who believe one can fulfill there Sunday obligation in an Orthodox Church, just as I know there are others who will say you cannot. Personally, I think the best advice is to look at what the Orthodox themselves (and not Catholics) say about our church.

                     From the Orthodox Church In America's Official website

oca.org/QA.asp?ID=197&SID=3
oca.org/QA.asp?ID=200&SID=3
oca.org/QA.asp?ID=207&SID=3

 

[Cecilianus]

I have no doubt that there are many Catholic priests who believe one can fulfill there Sunday obligation in an Orthodox Church, just as I know there are others who will say you cannot. Personally, I think the best advice is to look at what the Orthodox themselves (and not Catholics) say about our church.

                     From the Orthodox Church In America's Official website

oca.org/QA.asp?ID=197&SID=3
oca.org/QA.asp?ID=200&SID=3
oca.org/QA.asp?ID=207&SID=3

Seamus,

the question is concerning Sunday obligation to be physically present at Divine Liturgy, not reception of Holy Communion which we only have the obligation to partake of once a year. We are not supposed to receive Holy Communion from the Orthodox under ordinary circumstances. But where and how the Catholic Church accepts the fulfillment of our Sunday obligation is a question that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church determines, not the Orthodox (or individual Catholic priests, for that matter).

 

[Vico]

If the canon refers to some sort of Ecumenical service and not a full Divine Liturgy with reception of the Eucharist, then perhaps that holds. To say that attending an Orthodox Divine Liturgy does not fulfill your Sunday “obligation” would negate the holiness of the Orthodox liturgy and imply that the sole source of legitimate worship, and Eucharistic worship, only occurs in the Latin rite and that is absurd. It would further imply that only Latin Rite “Mass” has the “true presence” and that sets the entire process of unification back hundreds of years.

Latin Rites need to accept that there are other forms of worship equally divine, holy, and legitimate. Peter was not the sole apostle establishing a Church. If you hold to that, you are loosing out on the Gospel message of peace and love to others. How sad for you. The posts here should be more inclusive of our Eastern brethren, of whom I am one. I used to be Latin rite but the legalistic and exclusive attitude is what drove me away. God’s mansion has many rooms and His tent is bigger than all of us can comprehend. So many souls who were once Catholic have fled to Protestant and other forms of worship because of this exclusive, and ofttimes haughty, attitude.

I pray your heart softens and that when you read these legal terms, you seek, with eyes focused on God, the correct interpretation of them. God looks for each lost sheep, not just the ones attending a Latin rite Mass. :byzsoc:

No. 115 pertains to reception of the Eucharist, it is not limited to the Latin Church but also to Eastern Catholic Churches which are obliged to attend Mass or Divine Liturgy on Sundays and days of precept. There is no expectation that the Eucharist could be received by Catholics in non-Catholic Churches, even though validly confected.

“115. 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.”

 

[Seamus_L]

Personally, I could not feel I fulfilled my Sunday obligation in an Orthodox Church simply because we are not in communion and have quite different beliefs. To those who think they can fulfill there Sunday obligation, I just like to remind them to be sure to ask the priest and parishoners there views on Catholicism.

 

[Cecilianus]

Personally, I could not feel I fulfilled my Sunday obligation in an Orthodox Church simply because we are not in communion and have quite different beliefs. To those who think they can fulfill there Sunday obligation, I just like to remind them to be sure to ask the priest and parishoners there views on Catholicism.

The law is set by Rome though, not by you. I don’t feel like I’ve fulfilled my Sunday obligation at a Novus Ordo Mass because I don’t even feel like I’ve been to church, but Rome says I have so I know I haven’t committed a mortal sin by going to a Roman church. The Orthodox are not in full communion - though as a whole they never formally went into schism either; their situation is complicated - and their beliefs are actually almost identical to ours. Their bleak views on Catholicism are due partly to misunderstanding of Catholic doctrine, partly to the fact that we are in schism from them and should not be which leads to no small amount of resentment on both sides, and partly due to disgust at the progressive secularization, reduction, and de-sacralization of the Roman rite through the ages culminating in the 1970s. I don’t blame them. They often have a higher view of Catholicism than I do.

 

[Cecilianus]

Personally, I could not feel I fulfilled my Sunday obligation in an Orthodox Church simply because we are not in communion and have quite different beliefs. To those who think they can fulfill there Sunday obligation, I just like to remind them to be sure to ask the priest and parishoners there views on Catholicism.

On the other hand, it is certainly laudable and pious to avoid churches that are in schism if you don’t have a good reason not to go there (and, again, I’ve never actually been through a whole Liturgy at a schismatic church for precisely that reason). I didn’t mean to criticize you for doing so - just pointing out that it is PERMISSIBLE to fill your obligation at an Orthodox Divine Liturgy, and one may have to do so for one’s spiritual sustenance if there is no Eastern Catholic or Tridentine Liturgy available.

 

[Diak]

Personally, I could not feel I fulfilled my Sunday obligation in an Orthodox Church simply because we are not in communion and have quite different beliefs. To those who think they can fulfill there Sunday obligation, I just like to remind them to be sure to ask the priest and parishoners there views on Catholicism.

But you’ve also amply indicated your sympathy on this Forum for the SSPX, who are also not in communion, so we will take this statement accordingly. According to numerous Magisterial documents, “quite different beliefs” is not necessarily true. Of course, one is free to dispute the teaching of the Church over one’s “personal” view.

From Ut Unum Sint:

By reason of the very close sacramental bonds between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches, the Decree on Eastern Catholic Churches Orientalium Ecclesiarum has stated: “Pastoral experience clearly shows that with respect to our Eastern brethren there should and can be taken into consideration various circumstances affecting individuals, wherein the unity of the Church is not jeopardized nor are intolerable risks involved, but in which salvation itself and the spiritual profit of souls are urgently at issue. Hence, in view of special circumstances of time, place and personage, the Catholic Church has often adopted and now adopts a milder policy, offering to all the means of salvation and an example of charity among Christians through participation in the Sacraments and in other sacred functions and objects”

The question I recommended is simple, and does not require any subjective personal analysis of the Catholicity of a priest or bishop’s faith by another (which can only lead to spiritual pride), but rather submits to the competency of the designated diocesan authority who is the local representative of the Holy See in canonical matters.

 

[Seamus_L]

Yes, but I would only attend mass (still never have) in an SSPX Chapel as a last resort. Their are places in the world, perhaps some dioceses in the Netherlands, Germany, etc where I might well feel it’s time for that last resort if I was a resident of those countries. The Orthodox have a different belief system, and I’m simply inviting people to learn how different it is from the Orthodox themselves.

 

[Diak]

but I would only attend mass (still never have) in an SSPX Chapel as a last resort.

Point made (“would attend”).

and I’m simply inviting people to learn how different it is from the Orthodox themselves.

Rather than the Magisterium???

And which Orthodox - Ware, Zizoulas, Evdokimov, +Vsevelod, …???

 

[Seamus_L]

Yes, because the Magesterium does not speak for the Orthodox anymore then they do for the Southern Baptists or Jehovah’s Witnesses.

 

[Diak]

Yes, because the Magesterium does not speak for the Orthodox anymore then they do for the Southern Baptists or Jehovah’s Witnesses.

So we ignore everything the Magisterium teaches us about the Orthodox. Seamus, you’ve gone farther than ever this time. And it seems the only “Orthodox” you want to include are those who directly fit your personal view.

 

[AnnAsher]

My understanding regarding Canon Law is that if a rule is not specifically abrogated in later editions (eg: women veiling from 1917 to 1983) then the former rule stands.

Is this also true regarding Ad Totem Ecclesiam?

I am in Myrtle Beach on vacation. Over two hours away, in two places there are Traditional Latin Masses. I’ve been to the Novus Ordo Masses here before and they rife with abuses and heresy by disregard for Christ in the Eucharist if not always spoken outright. They are horrible painful experiences for me, where I grieve for Our Lord called down into such a place/atmosphere. They are confusing to the formation of my children.

I intend to go to Divine Liturgy, 20 minutes away- where I know reverence and ritual will be employed in a worthy fashion. My children will witness honor toward our Eucharistic Lord.

We will not Commune.

Sunday Obligation?