Obligation- weekly/holy

[zmyr88]

must one go to a catholic chruch to satisfy the obligation, or would another christian chruch satisify the obligation? ie, baptist.

 

[Phemie]

must one go to a catholic chruch to satisfy the obligation, or would another christian chruch satisify the obligation? ie, baptist.

If you are Catholic your obligation is to attend Mass, something you won’t find in a Baptist Church.

 

[cameron_lansing]

must one go to a catholic chruch to satisfy the obligation, or would another christian chruch satisify the obligation? ie, baptist.

No.

Neither the code of canon law nor the ecumenical directory of 1993 (I use a short “title” here) provide that attendance in some other Christian Church (e.g., Orthodox) or ecclesial community (e.g., Baptist or other Protestant) suffices to satisfy the obligation.

At one time, it could be satisfied by attendance at Divine Liturgy of the Orthodox, but the provision in the former ecumenical directory of 1967 was omitted in the 1993 directory.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

No.

Neither the code of canon law nor the ecumenical directory of 1993 (I use a short “title” here) provide that attendance in some other Christian Church (e.g., Orthodox) or ecclesial community (e.g., Baptist or other Protestant) suffices to satisfy the obligation.

At one time, it could be satisfied by attendance at Divine Liturgy of the Orthodox, but the provision in the former ecumenical directory of 1967 was omitted in the 1993 directory.

Attendance at an Eastern Catholic Divine Liturgy however does.
I didn’t realize that the 1993 Directory omitted that, I learn something new every day!

 

[FrDavid96]

I think that in spite of the fact that it’s no longer articulated in the Directory, attendance at an Eastern Divine Liturgy still satisfies the Sunday obligation. If the Directory specifically states that it’s no longer the case, then I’ll concede the point, but omitting the provision doesn’t necessarily imply that it has been rescinded, especially since all the other documentation (with which I’m familiar) continues to say that it fulfills the obligation.

 

[cameron_lansing]

I think that in spite of the fact that it’s no longer articulated in the Directory, attendance at an Eastern Divine Liturgy still satisfies the Sunday obligation. If the Directory specifically states that it’s no longer the case, then I’ll concede the point, but omitting the provision doesn’t necessarily imply that it has been rescinded, especially since all the other documentation (with which I’m familiar) continues to say that it fulfills the obligation.

I didn’t intend to convey that connection but understand how my comment could be so construed.

For clarity then, see n. 115 of the 1993 directory. The whole directory can be seen at the Vatican site, 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.

Could you share that other documentation that you referenced? I’m not certain I’m familiar with it and would appreciate being able to read it.

 

[FrDavid96]

I didn’t intend to convey that connection but understand how my comment could be so construed.

For clarity then, see n. 115 of the 1993 directory. The whole directory can be seen at the Vatican site, 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.

Could you share that other documentation that you referenced? I’m not certain I’m familiar with it and would appreciate being able to read it.

hmmm…
I’m not sure what’s meant by “services of other Churches.”

“Churches” refers specifically to communities with Apostolic Succession (Churches in the proper sense of the word). But “services” is used, and not “Divine Liturgy.” So that means that attending Orthodox Vespers for example would not fulfill the obligation. There’s no doubt that any kind of service in a Western ecclesial community would never fulfill the obligation.

Canon 844 allows Catholics to receive the Eucharist from a validly ordained priest (eg Orthodox) in cases of true necessity, so that leads me to believe that if the Eucharist can be received, then the Sunday obligation is likewise fulfilled. But what about other-than cases of necessity?

I’m searching for specific documentation on Catholics fulfulling the obligation by attending an Orthodox Divine Liturgy–other than the earlier directory. I’ll get back when (if) I find it.

 

[Aramis]

must one go to a catholic chruch to satisfy the obligation, or would another christian chruch satisify the obligation? ie, baptist.

Only Catholic, Orthodox, or Assyrian are licit choices, and then only if for some reason you can’t get to a Catholic Parish, or are of the parallel Eastern Catholic Rite.

 

[cameron_lansing]

A respite from shoveling and de-icing before time to prepare for the blessed evening (and early morning). Blessed Christmas above all and to all.

Not all Churches of the East are of the Byzantine tradition and use the term “Divine Liturgy.” Service would encompass all of them.

We should take into account that the 1967 directory preceded and the 1993 directory followed the 1983 code for the Latin Church. (See the new CLSA commentary on c. 1248; p 1445, which asserts the suppression of the privilege by the 1993 directory and likely with the 1983 code itself.)

In c. 1248 §1 of the 1983 Latin code, the legislator provides that the precept of participating in the Mass is satisfied by assistance at a Mass which is celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite . . .

Had he wished to establish an exception, as he did in canon 844 §2 regarding three sacraments, one thinks he would have presented one regarding the precept of c. 1248 or used language other than “Catholic rite,” and that the 1993 directory would have preserved the substance of n. 47 of the former directory. Neither action was taken though.

Certainly canon 844 §2 includes among other conditions, the physical or moral impossibility of approaching a Catholic minister for the sacraments of Eucharist, penance and anointing.

However, we must remember there is a distinction, the precept is one of participating in Mass rather than receiving Holy Communion. The first is obligatory and the second is facultative. One may participate in Mass without reception and discharge the obligation.

We know that physical or moral impossibility excuse from an obligation of ecclesiastical law. But what does the legislator provide when this is true for participation in Mass?

Here, c. 1248 §2 states this preference: “If because of lack of a sacred minister or for other grave cause participation in the celebration of the Eucharist is impossible, it is specially recommended that the faithful take part in the liturgy of the word if it is celebrated in the parish church or in another sacred place according to the prescriptions of the diocesan bishop, or engage in prayer for an appropriate amount of time personally or in a family or, as occasion offers, in groups of families.”

Again, one suspects that had he wanted to, the legislator would have provided something.

 

[FrDavid96]

A respite from shoveling and de-icing before time to prepare for the blessed evening (and early morning). Blessed Christmas above all and to all.

Not all Churches of the East are of the Byzantine tradition and use the term “Divine Liturgy.” Service would encompass all of them.

We should take into account that the 1967 directory preceded and the 1993 directory followed the 1983 code for the Latin Church. (See the new CLSA commentary on c. 1248; p 1445, which asserts the suppression of the privilege by the 1993 directory and likely with the 1983 code itself.)

In c. 1248 §1 of the 1983 Latin code, the legislator provides that the precept of participating in the Mass is satisfied by assistance at a Mass which is celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite . . .

Had he wished to establish an exception, as he did in canon 844 §2 regarding three sacraments, one thinks he would have presented one regarding the precept of c. 1248 or used language other than “Catholic rite,” and that the 1993 directory would have preserved the substance of n. 47 of the former directory. Neither action was taken though.

Certainly canon 844 §2 includes among other conditions, the physical or moral impossibility of approaching a Catholic minister for the sacraments of Eucharist, penance and anointing.

However, we must remember there is a distinction, the precept is one of participating in Mass rather than receiving Holy Communion. The first is obligatory and the second is facultative. One may participate in Mass without reception and discharge the obligation.

We know that physical or moral impossibility excuse from an obligation of ecclesiastical law. But what does the legislator provide when this is true for participation in Mass?

Here, c. 1248 §2 states this preference: “If because of lack of a sacred minister or for other grave cause participation in the celebration of the Eucharist is impossible, it is specially recommended that the faithful take part in the liturgy of the word if it is celebrated in the parish church or in another sacred place according to the prescriptions of the diocesan bishop, or engage in prayer for an appropriate amount of time personally or in a family or, as occasion offers, in groups of families.”

Again, one suspects that had he wanted to, the legislator would have provided something.

Intellectually, I must agree 100%. Had the legislator (John Paul II) intended for c. 1248 to include Orthodox Divine Liturgy, he probably would have said as much. Was this an oversight? Probably not–I’m not trying to claim that it was.

I do wonder what the parallel canon in the Eastern Code has to say on the matter, since the Eastern Code was published after the Roman one.

What I’m not sure about however is the revision of the Eccumenical Directory. Was this omission intentional? Was it meant to specifically say that Orthodox Liturgy no longer counts toward the Sunday obligation? I can see the history, and the timeline, but I still wonder if we can say that the intent was there. Those are questions, not conclusions.

Here’s where I have trouble understanding it. If it was possible prior to 1993 to fulfill the Sunday obligation by attending a Divine Liturgy, how can we now say that it’s no longer possible? What has changed? Granted, the code of canon law changed, but the Sunday obligation is a divine precept, and while matters of discipline might change (like the vigil Mass being more broadly permitted for example), how can fulfilling the obligation change apart from that?

I don’t see how anything short of the Orthodox losing Apostolic Succession (which by no means whatsoever am I implying) could cause a change in the fact that in 1992 the obligation was fulfilled, but in 1994 it is not. How could this happen? I can see it with the Old Catholics for example, because their Apostolic Succession is now, at best, questionable while it was not that way in the past.

That’s where I keep getting “stuck.”

 

[Digitonomy]

Here’s where I have trouble understanding it. If it was possible prior to 1993 to fulfill the Sunday obligation by attending a Divine Liturgy, how can we now say that it’s no longer possible? What has changed? Granted, the code of canon law changed, but the Sunday obligation is a divine precept, and while matters of discipline might change (like the vigil Mass being more broadly permitted for example), how can fulfilling the obligation change apart from that?

Your approach calls into question not just whether the Church meant what cameron_lansing infers, but whether the Church has any power to create such a rule, whether implicitly or explicitly.

Is it not possible that while one fulfills the divine precept, one fails to meet his canonical obligation? A Christian who does not recognize the authority of the Church could fulfill his divine precept of keeping holy the Lord’s day. It seems to me that we can do so as well - but as Catholics we have the additional obligation to fulfill it in conformity with canon law.

I used to think Church law on such matter could not significantly deviate from divine law, but now I lean more toward the views others put forth in this thread from last year - that the Church has very broad latitude, though perhaps not unlimited latitude, to set the terms of our obligations.

Can Vatican rule Sunday obligation not met despite valid mass?

 

[Aramis]

The “Generic” term including the Mass, the DL (Coptic and Byzantine), Quorbono/Qurbana (Syriac), and whatever the armenians term theirs, in canon law is “Acts of Divine Worship” and “Eucharistic Celebration”

Dcn John: The CIC is NOT binding on EC’s; the CCEO replaces it… and also lacks the sunday obligation. Further, the Syrian Orthodox and Syrian Catholics, ACE and Chadeans, Armenian Orthodox and Armenian Catholics all have treaties permitting interchange for the faithful.

 

[cameron_lansing]

The “Generic” term including the Mass, the DL (Coptic and Byzantine), Quorbono/Qurbana (Syriac), and whatever the armenians term theirs, in canon law is “Acts of Divine Worship” and “Eucharistic Celebration”

Dcn John: The CIC is NOT binding on EC’s; the CCEO replaces it… and also lacks the sunday obligation. Further, the Syrian Orthodox and Syrian Catholics, ACE and Chadeans, Armenian Orthodox and Armenian Catholics all have treaties permitting interchange for the faithful.

Aramis, my comments were only from the perspective of the Latin Church obligation. The Eastern Catholic obligation would be presented in CCEO c. 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.

In the Latin code, Book IV, Sanctifying Function, “acts of divine worship” is not a generic term that is confined to the Mass, etc. Rather the notion encompasses sacraments, funerals, liturgy of the house, oaths, vows, etc.

Blessed Christmas.

 

[puzzleannie]

must one go to a catholic chruch to satisfy the obligation, or would another christian chruch satisify the obligation? ie, baptist.

for a Catholic, the obligation is to assist at Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of obligation, so by definition, only a Catholic Church will do.