Orthodox (OCA) getting married in a RC Church

[Formosus]

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[/INDENT].

Yes, the sacraments in the Orthodox Churches are valid so a Catholic who was attending Divine Liturgy *could *receive the Eucharist (if the Orthodox would allow it). But, attending Orthodox Divine Liturgy does **not **fulfill one’s obligation to assist at Mass.

An Orthodox Divine Liturgy is a Catholic Rite, as it is a liturgical rite recognized as valid and practiced by the Catholic Church.

 

[1ke]

An Orthodox Divine Liturgy is a Catholic Rite, as it is a liturgical rite recognized as valid and practiced by the Catholic Church.

Divine Liturgy in any of the *Eastern Rite Catholic Churches *fulfills the obligation for any Catholic as does Mass in the Latin Rite.

The Orthodox are not Eastern Rite Catholic Churches, and their Divine Liturgy does NOT satisfy the obligation because they are not in communion with the Catholic Church.

I refer you to the New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, page 1445, which discusses Canon 1248 and states that Mass or Divine Liturgy at Churches *not in full communion with Rome *do **not **fulfill the obligation per the 1983 code-- which makes no exception for Eastern non-Catholic Churches.

Also, the 1993 Directory for the Application of the Principles and Norms on Ecumenism specifically states that even when Catholics participate in services of other Churches, the obligation of participating at Mass on these days remains.

 

[1ke]

What I find odd is that, if the other church is in schism, then the Catholic really has no business taking communion there in the first place for any reason **unless it’s some sort of emergency **

Yes, that’s exactly what the Church says. I already posted Canon 844, but I shall post it again.

Can. 844 §1. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone, who likewise receive them licitly from Catholic ministers alone, without prejudice to the prescripts of §§2, 3, and 4 of this canon, and ⇒ can. 861, §2.

§2. **Whenever necessity requires it **or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful **for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted **to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

I can’t see why the Church is ok with them taking communion in a schismatic group and yet they must also go to the Catholic parish to fulfill the obligation.

The Catholic must meet the requirements of Canon 844 in order to be doing so. For example, no Catholic Church is available-- maybe someone is in some other country where they can only attend an Orthodox Church b/c there is no Catholic Church. In such a case, they actually have no Sunday obligation because there isn’t a Church to attend. If they had some compelling reason to ask for the sacraments-- maybe Reconciliation b/c of moratl sin-- they could do so. If they don’t have a reason that qualifies under 844 they could still attend Divine Liturgy but shouldn’t receive.

In cases where, for example, a Catholic is married to an Orthodox (or a Presbyterian, or whatever) the could **attend **the *Divine Liturgy *with their spouse (or *service *in the case of ecclesial communiteis) but they should not present themselves for communion (since they don’t meet the criteria of canon 844) and would also need to attend Mass.

If the Eucharist is not only the body, blood, soul, divinity of Christ Jesus, but also the ultimate sign of unity, it’s odd to allow a Catholic to partake of a Eucharist that is not in alignment with Catholic unity itself. And if it doesn’t fullfill the obligation, then don’t allow it at all. If it is not in the unity of the Catholic Church, don’t partake. I guess I’m a simpleton here.

It is allowed for the reasons under 844 b/c no one should be left without viaticum, or spiritual nourishment if they have some grave reason and are unable to access a Catholci priest.

Sorry if you were interpreting me to say a Catholic could receive in a schismatic Church any old time they want to, that is not what I was saying at all. My starting premise was that they already met the canonical requirements of 844.

 

[Formosus]

Divine Liturgy in any of the *Eastern Rite Catholic Churches *fulfills the obligation for any Catholic as does Mass in the Latin Rite.

The Orthodox are not Eastern Rite Catholic Churches, and their Divine Liturgy does NOT satisfy the obligation because they are not in communion with the Catholic Church.

I refer you to the New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, page 1445, which discusses Canon 1248 and states that Mass or Divine Liturgy at Churches *not in full communion with Rome *do **not **fulfill the obligation per the 1983 code-- which makes no exception for Eastern non-Catholic Churches.

Also, the 1993 Directory for the Application of the Principles and Norms on Ecumenism specifically states that even when Catholics participate in services of other Churches, the obligation of participating at Mass on these days remains.

I wasn’t aware that commentaries are authoritative and binding. The Canon says a Catholic Rite. The Byzantine DL at an Orthodox Church is a Catholic rite, therefore one can fulfill their obligation at an Orthodox Church.

 

[1ke]

I wasn’t aware that commentaries are authoritative and binding.

The documents listed in the commentary certainly are. The commentary comes from canonists and from various documents issued that explain, clarify, or update canon law.

The Byzantine DL at an Orthodox Church is a Catholic rite,

No it isn’t.

Not according to both Canon Law itself and the Directory for the Application of the Principles and Norms on Ecumenism (which are both authoritative documents).

therefore one can fulfill their obligation at an Orthodox Church.

No, one cannot.

 

[Formosus]

The full quote of the directory is

1. Since the celebration of the Eucharist on the Lord’s Day is the foundation and centre of the whole liturgical year,120 Catholics—but those of Eastern Churches according to their own Law121—are obliged to attend Mass on that day and on days of precept.122 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.

Yes, the obligation to attend Divine Liturgy or Mass remains because “services” are not the same thing as Divine Liturgy or Mass. In the full context, this passage is not talking about attending divine Liturgy at an Orthodox Church, but attending ecumenical prayer services. Note the section it is under is even called Prayer in Common.

From the same document in the section called “Sharing in Sacramental Life”

1. Between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Churches not in full communion with it, there is still a very close communion in matters of faith.125 Moreover, “through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches, the Church of God is built up and grows in stature” and “although separated from us, these Churches still possess true sacraments, above all—by apostolic succession—the priesthood and the Eucharist…”.126 This offers ecclesiological and sacramental grounds, according to the understanding of the Catholic Church, for allowing and even encouraging some sharing in liturgical worship, even of the Eucharist, with these Churches, “given suitable circumstances and the approval of church authorities”.127 It is recognized, however, that Eastern Churches, on the basis of their own ecclesiological understanding, may have more restrictive disciplines in this matter, which others should respect. Pastors should carefully instruct the faithful so that they will be clearly aware of the proper reasons for this kind of sharing in liturgical worship and of the variety of discipline which may exist in this connection.

With the full context of the document you cited uncovered, the only ground you have to stand on is an un-authoritative nonbinding commentary. Unless you wish to provide further documentation of your claim.

 

[1ke]

The full quote of the directory is

Yes, the obligation to attend Divine Liturgy or Mass remains because “services” are not the same thing as Divine Liturgy or Mass. In the full context, this passage is not talking about attending divine Liturgy at an Orthodox Church, but attending ecumenical prayer services. Note the section it is under is even called Prayer in Common.

From the same document in the section called “Sharing in Sacramental Life”

With the full context of the document you cited uncovered, the only ground you have to stand on is an un-authoritative nonbinding commentary. Unless you wish to provide further documentation of your claim.

It’s clear that you don’t want to accept that you are misusing the term Catholic Rite to mean something it doesn’t mean. That’s fine, I can’t make you.

 

[Bluegoat]

I’d reply but I can bet the farm your reply will be “no, ___________” But what the heck…

What I find odd is that, if the other church is in schism, then the Catholic really has no business taking communion there in the first place for any reason unless it’s some sort of emergency. I can’t see why the Church is ok with them taking communion in a schismatic group and yet they must also go to the Catholic parish to fulfill the obligation. If the Eucharist is not only the body, blood, soul, divinity of Christ Jesus, but also the ultimate sign of unity, it’s odd to allow a Catholic to partake of a Eucharist that is not in alignment with Catholic unity itself. And if it doesn’t fullfill the obligation, then don’t allow it at all. If it is not in the unity of the Catholic Church, don’t partake. I guess I’m a simpleton here.

It is weird, but lots of people around here go to SSPX chapels and participate. I actually find that a little more weird.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Agreed. I don’t fully understand the minds of SSPXers myself. I think their argument is that Pius V declared the Tridentine Mass to be THE ordinary Mass for all time and not one word added or deleted from it or altered, period. Enter Vatican II and the Novus Ordo and I guess they think that is contradicting/countermanding an infallible papal bull by Pius V. I think that’s their argument, but I’m not an expert in traditional Catholics or sedevacantists or SSPX.

I do think it’s weird indeed. “More Catholic than the pope” truly!

It is weird, but lots of people around here go to SSPX chapels and participate. I actually find that a little more weird.

 

[JohnVIII]

Plenty of fine commentary, but no one can answer my question.

I wasn’t seeking for a reiteration of canon law. I was simply asking: what is it that is better than Christ? Let me try to ask it in another way: What is more important at Mass, Jesus, or who the priest is that performs the Mass that makes Jesus present? Or, here’s another way to ask the question: If the priest who does the Mass is not in communion with Rome, yet the Mass is a true Mass, then is Jesus in the Mass also not in communion with Rome? How can it be that Jesus is not in communion with Rome?!?!? So in an Orthodox DL we have a priest not in communion with Rome, but Jesus is made present there and Jesus is in communion with Rome; but this is not good enough! Do we go to Mass so we can be in communion with Rome through the priest, or to be in communion with Rome through Christ??? It would appear to me that who the priest is in communion with is more important than Christ.

If you eat the Body and Blood of Christ who are you communing with??? If it is not possible for the Pope to be not in communion with Christ, then anyone who communes Christ must also be in communion with the Pope. If it is possible to communion Christ, but not be in communion with the Pope, then it must also be possible for the Pope to not be in communion with Christ.

Once again the question: If partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ is not good enough, than what part of the Mass is more important than Christ to make it good enough to fulfill your obligation?

 

[alepine3]

I think the whole premise of “obligation” is problematic for me. You shouldn’t attend DL or Mass and receive the sacraments out of any sense of obligation, regardless of whether it’s stated in Canon Law or not. (This whole focus on Canon Law is very reminiscent of the Pharisees in the Gospels.) You should go because you feel a longing to be in communion with Christ and because it reconnects you with His Divinity.

Additionally, I wanted to speak to the concept of the OC being “schismatics.” That thinking is part and parcel of the belief that the CC is the “universal church,” while others including the OC are all in schism with it. I don’t wish to spark a new argument here but I don’t agree with that at all (and history doesn’t either), and I take offense to it.

 

[Esdra]

The Catholic must meet the requirements of Canon 844 in order to be doing so. For example, no Catholic Church is available-- maybe someone is in some other country where they can only attend an Orthodox Church b/c there is no Catholic Church. In such a case, they actually have no Sunday obligation because there isn’t a Church to attend. If they had some compelling reason to ask for the sacraments-- maybe Reconciliation b/c of moratl sin-- they could do so. If they don’t have a reason that qualifies under 844 they could still attend Divine Liturgy but shouldn’t receive.

In cases where, for example, a Catholic is married to an Orthodox (or a Presbyterian, or whatever) the could **attend **the *Divine Liturgy *with their spouse (or *service *in the case of ecclesial communiteis) but they should not present themselves for communion (since they don’t meet the criteria of canon 844) and would also need to attend Mass.

It is allowed for the reasons under 844 b/c no one should be left without viaticum, or spiritual nourishment if they have some grave reason and are unable to access a Catholci priest.

Sorry if you were interpreting me to say a Catholic could receive in a schismatic Church any old time they want to, that is not what I was saying at all. My starting premise was that they already met the canonical requirements of 844.

Just a side-note: I’ve been in a Serbian-Orthodox Divine Liturgy, and the priest would not have given me the Chalice with Jesus’ Blood. However, I got the bread. (Don’t know why they use leavened bread there…)
So I guess, an Orthodox priest will always ask you if you are Orthodox or not if you attend Divine Worship and he doesn’t know you. - And normally, you won’t be able to partake at the Orthodox Eucharist.

 

[JohnVIII]

Just a side-note: I’ve been in a Serbian-Orthodox Divine Liturgy, and the priest would not have given me the Chalice with Jesus’ Blood. However, I got the bread. (Don’t know why they use leavened bread there…)
So I guess, an Orthodox priest will always ask you if you are Orthodox or not if you attend Divine Worship and he doesn’t know you. - And normally, you won’t be able to partake at the Orthodox Eucharist.

Just FYI. I could be wrong, but I think it likely that the “bread” you eat was not the Body of Christ, but rather the alter bread, which is only blessed bread.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Formosus,

With the full context of the document you cited uncovered, the only ground you have to stand on is an un-authoritative nonbinding commentary. Unless you wish to provide further documentation of your claim.

I would tend to agree with you. The relevant portion for me is “given suitable circumstances and the approval of church authorities.” I can’t really speak to what “suitable circumstances” entails. I think one’s conscience has a good part to play in that, though. It seems that if your bishop permits you to attend an Orthodox DL once in a while, it would fulfill your Sunday obligation. We know that local bishops have the authority to dispense even from universal Canon laws for the good of their flock. I suppose that an Eastern or Oriental bishop would be willing to do this for good reasons.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Oh, and I also want to say that I believe that Father David is correct in his assessment of the matter, and brother 1ke is mistaken regarding the canonical status of the OP. The OP was obviously a practicing Orthodox Christian.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Michael,

So if you do not fully agree with the above, you are anathema to the Catholic church and are excommunicated Latae Senteniae. You would have plenty of company, there are many cafeteria Catholics who will present themselves for communion in spite of this decree, but the above is the church’s formal position on the subject composed about 140 years ago and never yet rescinded.

I appreciate the trepidation that you express in approaching this sensitive topic.

I would like to say, however, that latae sententiae excommunications are deserved only by virtue of obstinate denial of the Faith. Having doubts or reservations is not tantamount to “obstinate denial.”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[1ke]

brother 1ke is mistaken regarding the canonical status of the OP.

I am not a brother. I am a “sister.”

If I am mistaken, please provide the canons from the Eastern Code of Canon Law that prove the OP ceased to be a Eastern Rite Catholic.

The OP was obviously a practicing Orthodox Christian.

He obviously did become Orthodox from the Orthodox perpsective.

That’s not relevant to his *canonical status *in the Catholic Church by virtue of his Catholic baptism.

 

[Hesychios]

Dear brother Michael,

I appreciate the trepidation that you express in approaching this sensitive topic.

I would like to say, however, that latae sententiae excommunications are deserved only by virtue of obstinate denial of the Faith. Having doubts or reservations is not tantamount to “obstinate denial.”

Blessings,
Marduk

Do you deny that there are Catholics who openly deny the dogma? Eastern Catholics especially, I have personally met and known my fair share.

If people do not agree with the church’s dogma, they are cafeteria Catholics, and the church is already swarming with such people to the rafters. From where I sit the problem is getting worse year by year, should anyone encourage that?

For those who are not certain I say ‘do an examination of conscience’ and clear the matter up.

Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope …

 

[Hesychios]

That’s not relevant to his *canonical status *in the Catholic Church by virtue of his Catholic baptism.

No one cares. That was not one of the original questions.

He asked if he had become a Latin Catholic … the answer is no, he would be a Ukrainian Greek Catholic canonically.

He asked if he can receive the Sacred Mysteries in an Orthodox church … the answer is no. He cannot be both Catholic and Orthodox, he has to choose.

 

[JohnVIII]

…there are Catholics who openly deny the dogma … Eastern Catholics especially … For those who are not certain I say ‘do an examination of conscience’ and clear the matter up.

Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope …

Before I accepted (or so I thought I did) the supremacy of the Pope, I had concluded (with the help of a prior thread) that it would be unethical to join the Catholic Church unless I accept Papal supremacy. You quoted from Vatican I and made your point and made me realism that I don’t fully accept it. The part were it says, “…or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful … Let him be anathema”. I don’t see that the authority is ordinary and immediate, except only in the Roman Church. So maybe I should not have joined communion with Rome; not until I had fully accepted this tenant. I also confess that I don’t see Papal authority coming by virtue of the see of the Roman Church, rather I see it as potentially independent of Rome and coming only by virtue of being the successor to St Peter. Without full agreement with Vatican I, and yet consenting to it by virtue of open communion with Rome, I might be bringing that anathema on me!