Can I attend an Orthodox "Mass"?

[The_Prodigal]

With all due respect to “The Apologist”, I’ve never heard of any Latin Catholic bishop instructing any of his faithful that they had to attend Mass again after attending an Orthodox Liturgy, and in fact have heard several bishops say the opposite.

Citing the Canons is fine, but it has to be done in the fullness of Magisterial teaching (which does not seem to be reflected in “The Apologist’s” answer but rather a very literal interpretation of one or two canons).

This is from *Orientale Lumen *(Pope John Paul II):

One cannot “be familiar” if one never attends and Eastern Church. There is no negative indication here at all.

From Unitatis Redintegratio of the Second Vatican Council, Paragraph 15:

Again, it can’t be known or venerated if it is never experienced, nor can the desire of the Council and the Holy Father for the understanding and veneration by Western Christians of Eastern Christianity ever occur if there is no experience of Eastern Christianity.

Another key citation is Paragraph 16 of UR (the same document referred to above):

“Full Catholic and apostolic character of the Church”. It simply does not make sense in the full light of Magisterial teaching to think you have any remaining obligation after attending an Orthodox liturgy for beneficial purposes (educational, spiritual, etc.) as a Latin Catholic.

Also, at least for Ukrainian Greek Catholics, attendance at any of the Divine Praises or the Divine Liturgy (Vespers, Matins, or the Divine Liturgy) fulfills any festal or Sunday “obligation”.

1. 
   *]Names. Diak, many would interpret your referring to me by a name of your own invention – in quotation marks, no less – as an attempt to undermine my credibility or to mock me. I hope you will not insult my intelligence by feigning incomprehension of this point. Do me the courtesy of referring to me or addressing me by my username, and I will do the same for you.
   
   *]Bishops. Since you seem to acknowledge the authority of bishops in your post, you will no doubt lament the fact that bishops sometimes make statements that are heterodox and that undermine the plainly stated law of the church embodied by canon law; such statements cause dismay among the faithful because of the inherent contradiction. You may also be aware that the scope of authority of a bishop is his diocese. It is irresponsible to suggest to the OP that an Orthodox liturgy can substitute for a Catholic one with respect to the Sunday obligation, when canon law clearly indicates that it can not, unless you have heard the OP’s bishop say that.
   
   *]Documents. The OP’s questions concern the sacraments and the Sunday obligation. My posts address those very specific questions in light of clearly stated, public church teaching. You’re right, there is no negative indication in the documents; nor did I suggest that the OP ought not to go with the family to the Orthodox liturgy. Just because you put the maximally generous interpretation on these documents and phrases such as “full Catholic and apostolic character of the Church” does not mean that everyone must share your opinion, or that it is necessarily the correct understanding!

 

[Diak]

I was not referring to you at all, but to a response that was given some time ago in the “Ask the Apologist” thread. Since the “Apologist” changes often there, my use of quotes was because there is no one person who has answered those questions over time.

But since you have brought up this subject, I would point out that first of all Magisterial teaching ranks above Canon Law. Canon Law is NOT dogma nor doctrine, but legislation of Church order and affairs that can be modified (codes are amended, rewritten, etc.).

It is irresponsible to suggest to the OP that an Orthodox liturgy can substitute for a Catholic one with respect to the Sunday obligation, when canon law clearly indicates that it can not, unless you have heard the OP’s bishop say that.

What is irresponsible is ignoring Magisterial documents of the Church and a clear and systematic laudation of Eastern Christian worship and sacraments from the highest authority in the Church. One can never presume the legislative intent of the Church and divorce it from Magisterial teaching.

you will no doubt lament the fact that bishops sometimes make statements that are heterodox and that undermine the plainly stated law of the church embodied by canon law;

I will not presume to pass my own judgement over those placed in legitimate legislative authority within the Church. You have presented no substantiation of this statement specifically regarding the subject at hand.

And since Canon Law was brought up, your previous statements of 844 need clarification.

Whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it, and provided the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, Christ’s faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister, may lawfully receive the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose churches these sacraments are valid (canon 844 §2).

Indiffrentism clearly here only applies to the **reception of sacraments **in Churches outside of communion with Rome (which would also apply to the SSPX and others even of the Latin tradition not in communion with Rome). Indiffrentism is most certainly not actively experiencing Eastern Christianity while respecting one’s Catholic identity, something actually encouraged by the Magisterium in the documents I have cited (in addition to others).

Once again the canons cannot be cited without a full understanding of the Magisterial teaching. Canon law actually does NOT “clearly indicate that it can not” meet the Sunday obligation. Re-read Canon 844, and re-read Lumen Gentium, *Unitatis Redintegratio *and *Orientale Lumen *regarding “Catholic”, and ask any credible canon lawyer about this (I have yet to have any of them oppine that obligation is not met by attending an Orthodox liturgy in the full spirit of Magisterial teaching).

Anyone can cite canons. As far as “understanding” Catholics should know far more than the Canons, especially the Magisterial teachings that give clarity to these issues. Every canon lawyer I have spoken (probably about 15 different diocesan CLs as well as those attached to the Pro-Nuncio) ascribes to Malphono’s interpretation of Canon 1248 in the light of *Unitatis Redintegratio. *

My posts address those very specific questions in light of clearly stated, public church teaching.

Actually not because, as previously mentioned, crucial Magisterial teaching regarding the Eastern Churches is ignored.

I did not make up “Full Catholic and Apostolic character”. It is Magisterial teaching declared by a legitimate Council of the Church and ratified by the standing Holy Father. And that is good enough for me. While it is lamentable that full Eucharistic communion is not yet restored, the respect by Rome for the Eastern Christian tradition is apparent and obvious.

And as I have stated, no sensible legislative authority, whether canon lawyer or bishop, would require someone to attend Mass again when they have attended an Orthodox liturgy out of genuine spiritual benefit and educational premises.

 

[Aramis]

For Eastern Catholics:
Canon 903
The Eastern Catholic Churches have a special duty of fostering unity among all Eastern Churches, first of all through prayers, by the example of life, by the religious fidelity to the ancient traditions of the Eastern Churches, by mutual and better knowledge of each other, and by collaboration and brotherly respect in practice and spirit.

Canon 670

1. For a just cause Catholics can attend the liturgical worship of other Christians and take part in the same, observing those things which, by reason of the degree of communion with the Catholic Church, are established by the eparchial bishop or by a superior authority.
2. If non-Catholic Christians lack a place in which divine worship can be celebrated with dignity, the eparchial bishop can grant the use of a Catholic building or cemetery or church according to the norm of particular law of his own Church sui iuris.

Canon 671

1. Catholic ministers licitly administer the sacraments only to Catholic Christian faithful, who, likewise, licitly receive the sacraments only from Catholic ministers.
2. If necessity requires it or genuine spiritual advantage suggests it and provided that the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, it is permitted for Catholic Christian faithful, for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister, to receive the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers, in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.
3. Likewise Catholic ministers licitly administer the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick to Christian faithful of Eastern Churches, who do not have full communion with the Catholic Church, if they ask for them on their own and are properly disposed. This holds also for the Christian faithful of other Churches, who according to the judgment of the Apostolic See, are in the same condition as the Eastern Churches as far as the sacraments are concerned.
4. If there is a danger of death or another matter of serious necessity in the judgment of the eparchial bishop, the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church or the council of hierarchs, Catholic ministers licitly administer the same sacraments also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach the ministers of their own ecclesial communities and who request them on their own, provided they manifest a faith consonant with that of the Catholic Church concerning these sacraments and are rightly disposed.
5. For the cases in 2, 3 and 4, norms of particular law are to be enacted only after consultation with at least the local competent authority of the non-Catholic Church or ecclesial community concerned.

intratext.com/IXT/ENG1199/_INDEX.HTM

“Spiritual advantage” suggests strongly that at least confession and attending Divine Liturgy in an Orthodox parish is preferable to no liturgy at all; UGCC clerics have routinely implied that, if one can’t get to a valid and reverent Catholic Liturgy, one should go to a valid and reverent Orthodox liturgy.

Pastors can, when it would be to the advantage of souls, waive the obligation in order to attend non-catholic services. It normally is done when a community has only one or two catholic liturgies, and for educational reasons the Catholic is required to attend. However, the “good of souls” is intentionally vague, and CCEO Canon 903 encourages EC’s to maintain brotherhood in practice. Easiest way to know their Orthodox Brethren’s praxis is to attend; that’s usually an either/or.

Further, specific churches sui iuris have agreements with their Orthodox brethren for pastoral equity of the faithful. The Syrian Orthodox and the Syrian Catholics; The ACE and the Chaldean Catholics; during the persecutions, the majority of slavo-byzantine particular churches permitted attending the orthodox church; many Catholic ministers were hidden within those orthodox churches.

So while Fr. Deacon Diak’s literal wording may not be congruent with canon law as it is now, it’s both historical praxis in the UGCC and not opposite to current canon law; it is a special case within the UGCC that has become tradition, and thus has force of law.

 

[Diak]

So while Fr. Deacon Diak’s literal wording may not be congruent with canon law as it is now,

How so? Canon 1248 interpreted in the light of Magisterial teaching regarding “Catholic rite” from the Second Vatican Council onwards (the documents I have cited in addition to others) as Malphono mentioned earlier **is **the general interpretation even amongst Latin canon lawyers and bishops. The canons are not “violated” but rather given meaning by the Magisterial teaching.

Not one bishop or canon lawyer has made an official opinion that anyone should have to attend Mass again after attending an Orthodox church for Liturgy under educational premises consistent with the teaching of the Church. Were this a dangerous practice detrimental to the souls of the faithful, it would certainly be specifically denounced and a clarification made to the implementation of the law. Nothing of the sort has occurred. It does not seem sensible when the Catholic Church offers the Sacraments to any Orthodox who approaches in good conscience that some sort of artificial prohibition would exist the other way regarding the “Sunday obligation”.

As the late Holy Father said in Ut Unum Sint specifically regarding the Orthodox:

Contact with this glorious tradition is most fruitful for the Church. As the Council points out: “From their very origins the Churches of the East have had a treasury from which the Church of the West has amply drawn for its liturgy, spiritual tradition and jurisprudence”.

Most fruitful - again the Holy Father’s words. I don’t believe any practice that could be detrimental to souls would be called “most fruitful”.

 

[Aramis]

Fr. Deacon,

The canons themselves, at least in the English translation, imply strongly that attending an Orthodox service is a “last resort”…

The decree on ecumenism provides a guideline of “for the good of souls”, and it is clear on the ground that it’s acceptable, even as the canons of the CCEO don’t make it explicit, and make it clear that receiving the sacraments is permitted as a matter of necessity, not a matter of choice.

And I’ve met two canon lawyers who HAVE made that point… and have heard it stated as such by Archbishop Francis + Hurley. It is, for Romans, flat out emergency or by pastoral indult; for the east, it varies more widely. For the Ukrainians, Russians, and other Soviet-suppressed churches, it was a matter of survival, and it still is a worthy practice, because your own hierarchy encourages it, as they are permitted to.

The canons alone, however, do not agree with your statement; the canons alone are not the sole guideline, either.

 

[The_Prodigal]

Anyone can cite canons. As far as “understanding” Catholics should know far more than the Canons, especially the Magisterial teachings that give clarity to these issues. Every canon lawyer I have spoken (probably about 15 different diocesan CLs as well as those attached to the Pro-Nuncio) ascribes to Malphono’s interpretation of Canon 1248 in the light of *Unitatis Redintegratio. *

Anyone can cite documents and private conversations with canon lawyers. The documents you cite don’t address the specific issue of the Sunday obligation - nor should they; neither OL or UR concerns itself with the minutiae of ecclesiastical law and discipline.

I’d be interested to hear how these canon lawyers you converese with apply the teaching contained in another magisterial document bearing directly on the issue and not mentioned by you and perhaps not known by you or them: The Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism, promulgated by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity in 1993, available here. Quote:

“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.”

In light of this, I draw the conclusion that attendance at the liturgy of “other Churches” (Orthodox) can not substitute for Mass with respect to the Sunday obligation for Latin Catholics. This corresponds to the more restrictive interpretation of canon 1248.

 

[Ghosty]

In light of this, I draw the conclusion that attendance at the liturgy of “other Churches” (Orthodox) can not substitute for Mass with respect to the Sunday obligation for Latin Catholics. This corresponds to the more restrictive interpretation of canon 1248.

An ecumenical service is not the same thing as a Divine Liturgy. A prayer service is never a substitute for the Mass/Divine Liturgy, so your point does miss the mark a bit.

Peace and God bless!

 

[The_Prodigal]

“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.”

An ecumenical service is not the same thing as a Divine Liturgy. A prayer service is never a substitute for the Mass/Divine Liturgy, so your point does miss the mark a bit.

Peace and God bless!

I think rather that you miss the point. For the purposes of the teaching in the quoted document, ecumenical services, services of other Churches (=Orthodox), and services of ecclesial communities (=Protestants) are grouped in a set. None of them fulfills the Sunday obligation.

 

[Ghosty]

I think rather that you miss the point. For the purposes of the teaching in the quoted document, ecumenical services, services of other Churches (=Orthodox), and services of ecclesial communities (=Protestants) are grouped in a set. None of them fulfills the Sunday obligation.

Ecumenical services are not the same thing as a Divine Liturgy, however, which is my point. There have been many, many ecumenical prayers services between Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, many attended even by the Pope, and they weren’t Divine Liturgies.

It’s not about whether it’s Protestant or Orthodox, but whether it’s an ecumenical prayer service or a Divine Liturgy. For what it’s worth, there is no such thing as an “ecumenical service” that is also an Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgy; such a thing would be utterly against Eastern Orthodox belief and practice.

Peace and God bless!

 

[The_Prodigal]

Ghosty,

I’m not saying that the Divine Liturgy is an ecumenical service. I understand the difference.

The teaching groups them together because some Catholics might naively think that attending one or the other would satisfy the Sunday obligation, since they are both (in different ways) “religious services” that take place in churches.

 

[Ghosty]

Ghosty,

I’m not saying that the Divine Liturgy is an ecumenical service. I understand the difference.

The teaching groups them together because some Catholics might naively think that attending one or the other would satisfy the Sunday obligation, since they are both (in different ways) “religious services” that take place in churches.

But, again, it’s talking about ecumenical services, not regular Divine Liturgy. It’s a totally different issue, and Divine Liturgies are not dealt with by the Canon you’re citing here.

Peace and God bless!

 

[The_Prodigal]

But, again, it’s talking about ecumenical services, not regular Divine Liturgy. It’s a totally different issue, and Divine Liturgies are not dealt with by the Canon you’re citing here.

Peace and God bless!

The document is talking about the Divine Liturgy.

“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.”

In the language used by the Catholic Church, “other Churches” has a very specific meaning and is understood to mean “Orthodox Churches.”

The meaning of “services of other Churches” is any organized religious services in Orthodox churches - including the Divine Liturgy. The document doesn’t specify Divine Liturgy and is deliberately vague as to the nature of the “services” because some Catholics may naively believe that any sort of Orthodox Church attendance would count for the Sunday obligation - be it at the Divine Liturgy, Vespers on Saturday evening, or Matins. The point of the document is not to differentiate various liturgies and services by their nature, but to lump them together.

It was brought up that for Ukrainian Greek Catholics, either the Divine Liturgy or Vespers or Matins “counts” with respect to the festal or Sunday obligation. A Roman Catholic might mistakenly believe that attendance at one or the other of the Divine Praises (“services”) in an Orthodox church would satisfy the obligation. That is not the case.

Additionally unlike for Ukrainian Greek Catholics, a Roman Catholic who attend Vespers or Matins at an Eastern Catholic Church do not thereby satisfy his obligation, as the teaching makes clear. Only attendance at Divine Liturgy (the “celebration of the Eucharist” in the words of the document) in an Eastern Catholic church satisfies the obligation for Roman Catholics.

 

[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.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Dear Friends,

Just a note to say that for Eastern Christians as a whole, the idea of “Sunday obligation to hear Mass” does not exist and is foreign to our way of thinking.

St Basil the Great did establish a canon saying that when a Christian deliberately misses the Divine Liturgy on three consecutive Sundays, he or she is to be excommunicated (i.e. consigned to the status of someone who is not allowed to receive Holy Communion until suitable penance and permission from the clergy is to be had).

But the attitude of the East is that one should attend Divine Liturgy and participate in the Divine Praises (daily Office) as often as one can. The “obligation” is to be open to come to Church frequently and even daily. In Greece, I saw people wandering into Church at their lunch-hour and other times to say a prayer, stay for a service or to simply light a candle and to kiss an icon. The church had several icons on stands around the entrance where people lit candles and also covered them with little “devotionals” or plastic/metal plates with images of body parts or entire human beings on them - this is a thanksgiving for a cure - some of the icons were so covered with these that one could not see the icon itself! (Very much like all the pieces of paper one will find covering statues of St Rite of Cascia in western Europe - the patron saint against cancer).

This attitude among the Eastern Christians is what has led to so many of them not only praying the psalms and Church prayers daily - but also committing them to memory, carrying books of Hours and psalters to read on buses, wearing prayer ropes as a reminder to say the Jesus Prayer throughout the day etc.

The Orthodox do rock!

Alex

 

[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.

Dear Friends,

Just a note to say that for Eastern Christians as a whole, the idea of “Sunday obligation to hear Mass” does not exist and is foreign to our way of thinking.

St Basil the Great did establish a canon saying that when a Christian deliberately misses the Divine Liturgy on three consecutive Sundays, he or she is to be excommunicated (i.e. consigned to the status of someone who is not allowed to receive Holy Communion until suitable penance and permission from the clergy is to be had).

But the attitude of the East is that one should attend Divine Liturgy and participate in the Divine Praises (daily Office) as often as one can. The “obligation” is to be open to come to Church frequently and even daily. In Greece, I saw people wandering into Church at their lunch-hour and other times to say a prayer, stay for a service or to simply light a candle and to kiss an icon. The church had several icons on stands around the entrance where people lit candles and also covered them with little “devotionals” or plastic/metal plates with images of body parts or entire human beings on them - this is a thanksgiving for a cure - some of the icons were so covered with these that one could not see the icon itself! (Very much like all the pieces of paper one will find covering statues of St Rite of Cascia in western Europe - the patron saint against cancer).

This attitude among the Eastern Christians is what has led to so many of them not only praying the psalms and Church prayers daily - but also committing them to memory, carrying books of Hours and psalters to read on buses, wearing prayer ropes as a reminder to say the Jesus Prayer throughout the day etc.

The Orthodox do rock!

Alex

That makes sense. Yet, when the canon laws were written, CCEO and the Ukrainian particular laws both mention the obligation to participate: Ukr. C.C. Canon 114, and CCEO 880 and 881.

 

[Diak]

Additionally unlike for Ukrainian Greek Catholics, a Roman Catholic who attend Vespers or Matins at an Eastern Catholic Church do not thereby satisfy his obligation, as the teaching makes clear. Only attendance at Divine Liturgy (the “celebration of the Eucharist” in the words of the document) in an Eastern Catholic church satisfies the obligation for Roman Catholics.

Anyone can cite documents and private conversations with canon lawyers. The documents you cite don’t address the specific issue of the Sunday obligation - nor should they; neither OL or UR concerns itself with the minutiae of ecclesiastical law and discipline.

You yourself have made a distinction between discipline and teaching, and seem to want to disparage the actual “teaching” in favor of “discipline”. One must always start with the teaching, and not the law or “disclipline” - the law is not intended to negate, circumvent, or denegrate the teaching and is most certainly not an end in itself. Laws are mutable interpretations, subject to local interpretations by competent authorities, and are most certainly not “teaching”.

For “teaching” I would refer to actual magisterial statements on this matter as I did previously, such as Orientale Lumen. Laws can be mitigated, abrogated, changed, and suppressed either locally or generally.

Cite one Latin bishop who has commanded any of his faithful to attend Mass again if they have, for positive spiritual reasons, participated in the Sunday Divine Praises or Liturgy in an Orthodox parish. Likewise cite any Latin bishop who has commanded his faithful to attend Mass again if they have completed the “obligation” in a Ukrainian Catholic parish in the US by attending the Divine Praises that are manifestly part of the Eucharistic cycle.

The intent of the OP was attendence in good faith for spiritual enrichment, and not apostasy.

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.

Orientale Lumen, 1995

 

[ronin67]

Hey Everyone,

I have been invited to join my boss (I am a nanny, so it is more like I am a family member) to their Church, which is Russian Orthodox.

I know that it probably wouldn’t fill my weekly Mass obligation, but at the same time, I think it is recognized that the Eucharist in both Catholic and Orthodox churches is the authentic Body of Christ.

I also know that in emergencies (such as if you were dying on the side of a road in Russia and you happened to be next to an Orthodox Church) you can receive the sacraments.

I also think that Orthodox Christians can receive the Eucharist in Catholic Churches, but can Catholics receive it in Orthodox ones?

Would going to a protestant service meet biblical requirement?

Thanks.

Ed

If attending was done in the spirit of ecumenism, would it be ok as long as I still went to Catholic Mass as well?

 

[Aramis]

There is no sin in a catholic attending the Orthodox Divine Liturgy, nor even participating in the liturgy, provided that they do not receive communion without the explicit informed consent of the pastor.

The question of whether it fulfills one’s obligation is a wholly different matter; My pastor says it will for me and mine. I have my answer from him. Unless and until my bishop replaces him, tells me otherwise, or canon law forbids one’s pastor from indulting it, I can do so if I need to.

 

[AnnAsher]

I think indifferentism avoided means we realize we are Latin Rite and therefor that us where we regularly belong while on occasion making use of the option to attend elsewhere for serious reason. I, myself, can not imagine a more serious reason than giving due Praise and Worship to God. Therefor, I am choosing to believe that reverent ritual of DL and humble God focused people are preferable to Our Lord in the Sunday Obligation than are a beach attire wearing, sandy waterbottle bringing, gaggle, chatting their way through a hoolabaloo they call Mass.
Peace

 

[Fidi]

Hey Everyone,

I have been invited to join my boss (I am a nanny, so it is more like I am a family member) to their Church, which is Russian Orthodox.

I know that it probably wouldn’t fill my weekly Mass obligation, but at the same time, I think it is recognized that the Eucharist in both Catholic and Orthodox churches is the authentic Body of Christ.

I also know that in emergencies (such as if you were dying on the side of a road in Russia and you happened to be next to an Orthodox Church) you can receive the sacraments.

I also think that Orthodox Christians can receive the Eucharist in Catholic Churches, but can Catholics receive it in Orthodox ones?

If attending was done in the spirit of ecumenism, would it be ok as long as I still went to Catholic Mass as well?

Yeah youd better go to a saturday vigil, because if you dont you wont have time to go to one sunday. Youll probably start around 9 or half past nine and be there until like 2 or 3 in the afternoon. If its a ROCOR church yeah thats about right.

I got out of my OCA Liturgy/coffee hour at noon and got there around 9:20 and I was late for the Hours. I mean I was being funny above but you will probably have to go to saturday vigil unless you can find one of those sinner’s masses in the evening and go to that. If you dont like the ROCOR Liturgy you are probably redneck who listens to lynard skynard and thinks its the best music ever from e-mar-ica. This does not sound like you but Im just sayin… If you have any sense of beauty and or sacredness, I really dont think you will find a more beautiful Liturgy ANYWHERE (if its ROCOR other places may vary…). So Enjoy.