Does attending the DL at an Orthodox Parish fulfill my obligation?

[invocation]

I am Roman Catholic. If I attend the local OCA parish on a Sunday morning, does it fulfill my Sunday obligation?

thanks.

 

[wjp984]

My personal opinion is that it should but my personal opinion has no authority and is just that, a personal opinion. I have heard the answer is no. You can however attend an Eastern Catholic Divine Liturgy and this would fulfill the obligation. Why not go to both? It can’t hurt to give God an extra hour and a half of your Sunday one time.

 

[invocation]

that is in fact what i am currently doing. but i have to drive about half an hr to do that…

…which admittedly is no great hardship, except that i can walk right out my back door to attend the OCA (literally). it is painfully tempting, especially when i have a good relationship with the priest and several of the parishoners already. i understand of course that i can’t receive, but that is another matter.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Technically the answer is no, it does not. The obligation is to attend a Catholic liturgy, either Eastern or Western. If that is not possible, then there is no obligation and attendance at an Orthodox DL is certainly a good way to get spiritual nourishment.

Deacon Ed

 

[bobzills]

Technically the answer is no, it does not. The obligation is to attend a Catholic liturgy, either Eastern or Western. If that is not possible, then there is no obligation and attendance at an Orthodox DL is certainly a good way to get spiritual nourishment.

Deacon Ed

Suppose it were possible to attend a Catholic liturgy, but you didn’t go because you didn’t like the rock music that was going to be played there. So instead you attended a more reverent Eastern Orthodox Divine Litrugy. Would that be a mortal sin?

 

[LakaYaRabb]

All Orthodox Christians have a responsibility to attend thier Church. If for some reason they can’t, they attend another Orthodox Church in Communion with thiers. Finally, if for some reason they can’t attend a Divine Liturgy at all on Sunday, they are encouraged to at least attend Vespers the night before.

The Orthodox understanding is responsibility, not obligation. The Orthodox understanding/expression of sin is not the same as the Roman understanding/expression.

Now, for us Eastern Catholics, the idea of “obligation” is mostly foreign. However, some Eastern Catholics have adopted obligation as a mandate to attend Divine Services.

From a Catholic standpont, Father Deacon Ed provided a good answer.

 

[Fuerza]

All Orthodox Christians have a responsibility to attend thier Church. If for some reason they can’t, they attend another Orthodox Church in Communion with thiers. Finally, if for some reason they can’t attend a Divine Liturgy at all on Sunday, they are encouraged to at least attend Vespers the night before.

The Orthodox understanding is responsibility, not obligation. The Orthodox understanding/expression of sin is not the same as the Roman understanding/expression.
Now, for us Eastern Catholics, the idea of “obligation” is mostly foreign. However, some Eastern Catholics have adopted obligation as a mandate to attend Divine Services.

From a Catholic standpont, Father Deacon Ed provided a good answer.

First, in answer to the OP, no. Attending an Orthodox DL does not fulfill the Sunday obligation. If you are completely unable to attend a Catholic Mass or DL, the obligation is dispensed. In that case you may attend and Orthodox DL if you wish, but are not obligated to do so (although, at least in the US, I can’t imagine a situation in which one would have access to an Orthodox church but not a Catholic one).

Second, I’ve never really understood the highlighted portion of your post. From the Eastern perspective, how is obligation different from responsibility? In my experience, the two are complete synonyms. Does this mean that an EO or EC can miss a DL without good reason and not commit sin? Thanks.

Eric

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Now, for us Eastern Catholics, the idea of “obligation” is mostly foreign. However, some Eastern Catholics have adopted obligation as a mandate to attend Divine Services.

While traditionally this might be true. Officially Eastern Catholics are bound by the “obligation” to attend.

From the Code of Canons for Oriental Churches;

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.

What this second part is saying is that attendance at Great Vespers on Saturday evening may cover the Sunday obligation.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Second, I’ve never really understood the highlighted portion of your post. From the Eastern perspective, how is obligation different from responsibility? In my experience, the two are complete synonyms. Does this mean that an EO or EC can miss a DL without good reason and not commit sin? Thanks.

The portion that was highlighted referred to the concept of “obligation” in the Eastern Churches. This is a little tricky, but I’ll see if I can make it clear. The Eastern Code of Canon Law does contain the word “obligation” – but that is really a Latin concept, not an Eastern Concept. For the East we have no “obligation” which implies an externally applied force or standard. Rather, we have a “need” which is an internally applied force. The example that I normally use is that we have no more obligation to go to the Divine Liturgy than we have to breath or eat. These are needs that must be met in order to live. Food and air are necessary for physical life and the Divine Liturgy is needed for spiritual life.

Sin arises from missing the Divine Liturgy on Sundays not because one didn’t go but could have but, rather, because one did not care for the spiritual life that God has given us. This slight shift in emphasis is more consistent with the Eastern understanding that sin is a “sickness” and the Mysteries are medicinal in nature. Thus, the Divine Liturgy (read, the Eucharist) is medicine that we need to take in order to be spiritually healthy. Note, too, that, as Br. David has pointed out, Eastern Catholics may meet their “obligation” through attending Vespers or Orthros (a combination of Matins and Lauds celebrated in the morning).

Does that help to clarify the question?

Deacon Ed

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Suppose it were possible to attend a Catholic liturgy, but you didn’t go because you didn’t like the rock music that was going to be played there. So instead you attended a more reverent Eastern Orthodox Divine Litrugy. Would that be a mortal sin?

Here we have an issue where personal preference seems to be the deciding factor. First, I would have to ask if that were the only Mass being served. If it were and attendance at that Mass was “morally impossible” (meaning that you would not derive any spiritual benefit and would, in fact, be harmed spiritually by attending) then the obligation would be mitigated. However, that is a question that needs to be addressed by a priest in confession or a spiritual director – not by a deacon or anyone else on a public forum. Note that if attendance at such a Mass were “morally impossible” then the cessation of the obligation means that attendance at an Orthodox DL would be a spiritually beneficial thing but would not replace/meet the obligation since the obligation would have ceased to exist.

This is a complex question and I beg you not to consider my answer as permission to skip Mass in order to attend the Orthodox Liturgy – it is not and is not intended to be that!

Deacon Ed

 

[wjp984]

The portion that was highlighted referred to the concept of “obligation” in the Eastern Churches. This is a little tricky, but I’ll see if I can make it clear. The Eastern Code of Canon Law does contain the word “obligation” – but that is really a Latin concept, not an Eastern Concept. For the East we have no “obligation” which implies an externally applied force or standard. Rather, we have a “need” which is an internally applied force. The example that I normally use is that we have no more obligation to go to the Divine Liturgy than we have to breath or eat. These are needs that must be met in order to live. Food and air are necessary for physical life and the Divine Liturgy is needed for spiritual life.

Sin arises from missing the Divine Liturgy on Sundays not because one didn’t go but could have but, rather, because one did not care for the spiritual life that God has given us. This slight shift in emphasis is more consistent with the Eastern understanding that sin is a “sickness” and the Mysteries are medicinal in nature. Thus, the Divine Liturgy (read, the Eucharist) is medicine that we need to take in order to be spiritually healthy. Note, too, that, as Br. David has pointed out, Eastern Catholics may meet their “obligation” through attending Vespers or Orthros (a combination of Matins and Lauds celebrated in the morning).

Does that help to clarify the question?

Deacon Ed

That makes sense to me. Though what I do not understand is whether it is an obligation or a necessity, it really is essentially saying the same thing using different words. One should attend mass or a divine liturgy if possible. Why is there such controversy over the issue?

 

[Deacon_Ed]

That makes sense to me. Though what I do not understand is whether it is an obligation or a necessity, it really is essentially saying the same thing using different words. One should attend mass or a divine liturgy if possible. Why is there such controversy over the issue?

I don’t know that there is controversy. The “issue” is whether the need to attend is internal or external. In the West it’s expressed externally (obligation) while in the East it’s internal.

Deacon Ed

 

[griego_catolico]

I am Roman Catholic. If I attend the local OCA parish on a Sunday morning, does it fulfill my Sunday obligation?

thanks.

This is taken from the New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, page 1145:

“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”

 

[bobzills]

This is taken from the New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, page 1145:

“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”

So the rule was changed back and forth within a 26 year period?