D
Diak
Guest
I would still disagree that the “only” orthodox" question is that of obligation. It is somewhat misleading to argue that simply because a Vesperal Divine Liturgy is appointed for very specific feast days that this provides a “precedent” to liberalize the usage over the rest of the year when there is no historical nor liturgical basis for the wider celebration of that very particular service, which is ONLY served within very specific liturgical, seasonal, and catechetical boundaries.Thanks, Jeff, for the additional context. The only “orthodox” question that remains is whether attendance at Saturday Vespers alone would fufill a Sunday obligation for a practicing Byzantine-Ruthenian Catholic (the real question at hand). Our particular law appears silent on the point. Any wisdom on this?
Introducing yet another syncretism (“Vespergy”) is not helpful, a neo-latinization (i.e. facilitating an existing latinization), and is yet something else that has to eventually be weaned from. Institute Vespers, wean off of Saturday evening Liturgy, and be done with it. In the end, you are still having Divine Liturgy on Saturday evening but covering it with a bit of Vespers to “look more Eastern”. As regards to the “familiarity with Vespers” argument I am still unconvinced that doing half of a service, truncated and amended, makes anyone that much more familiar as when the whole service is celebrated much of it will still be unfamiliar.
The provisions in the UGCC particular law have been of great use to me in catechizing the people - when they ask about “obligation” you can go right to the source of our UGCC particular law with specific citation and expound on that. We have a ways to go, but at least having the “canonical” road cleared is of great assistance in reassuring those worried about “obligation”.