Our Sunday Obligation

[ConstantineTG]

• The 22 sui iuris Eastern Catholic Churches in communion with Rome: yes they have the same obligation.
• As for the other Eastern Churches: I don’t know.

Meeting and breaking bread on the Lord’s Day is universal among the true Church. Its been done since the time of the Apostles.

Although for Eastern Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) I believe Saturday night Vespers can count as fulfilling their obligation. Vespers is not equivalent to Mass, there is no Eucharist. Roman Catholics cannot fulfill their Sunday Obligation with Vespers though because its clear in Canon Law that we need to attend a Mass in any Catholic Rite. A Mass is a Liturgical celebration of the Eucharist. Divine Liturgy is its equivalent, Vespers is not.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Meeting and breaking bread on the Lord’s Day is universal among the true Church. Its been done since the time of the Apostles.

Although for Eastern Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) I believe Saturday night Vespers can count as fulfilling their obligation. Vespers is not equivalent to Mass, there is no Eucharist. Roman Catholics cannot fulfill their Sunday Obligation with Vespers though because its clear in Canon Law that we need to attend a Mass in any Catholic Rite. A Mass is a Liturgical celebration of the Eucharist. Divine Liturgy is its equivalent, Vespers is not.

CTG I am left a little confused by your answer. A poster asked if there is an obligation to go to Mass on Sunday in the Eastern Churches. I answered their question. I know for the 22 Eastern Catholic Churches there is an obligation. I do not know what the answer is for the other Eastern Chruches not in communion with Rome (Assyrian, Oriental, Orthodox).

I know the usual English language name for the Eucharist in the east is Divine Liturgy.

I do not understand why you have responded to my post talking about Vespers.

 

[ConstantineTG]

CTG I am left a little confused by your answer. A poster asked if there is an obligation to go to Mass on Sunday in the Eastern Churches. I answered their question. I know for the 22 Eastern Catholic Churches there is an obligation. I do not know what the answer is for the other Eastern Chruches not in communion with Rome (Assyrian, Oriental, Orthodox).

I know the usual English language name for the Eucharist in the east is Divine Liturgy.

I do not understand why you have responded to my post talking about Vespers.

For Eastern Catholics, they can fulfill their Sunday Obligation by going to Vespers. Here is what is stated in the CCEO

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**.
2. In order for the Christian faithful to fulfill this obligation more easily, the available time runs from the evening of the vigil until the end of the Sunday or feast day.
3. The Christian faithful are strongly recommended to receive the Divine Eucharist on these days and indeed more frequently, even daily.

1. The Christian faithful should abstain from those labors or business matters which impede the worship to be rendered to God, the joy which is proper to the Lord’s day, or to the proper relaxation of mind and body.

As highlighted, it should be the Divine Liturgy or where allowed by their own partcular Church, divine praises, which would be Vespers. Remember that CCEO is binding to Eastern Catholics but not Roman Catholics. For Roman Catholics, this is the proper Canon:

Canon 1248

1. The precept of participating in the Mass is satisfied by assistance at a Mass which is celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the holy day or on the evening of the preceding day.

For Roman Catholics we can only satisfy our obligation at Mass. Divine Liturgy is the equivalent of a Mass, Vespers is not.

I mentioned Vespers because its valid for Eastern Catholics, but not Roman Catholics. So people who may hear of ECs going to Vespers but not DL will not make the mistake of thinking the same Canon applies to us.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

For Eastern Catholics, they can fulfill their Sunday Obligation by going to Vespers. Here is what is stated in the CCEO

As highlighted, it should be the Divine Liturgy or where allowed by their own partcular Church, divine praises, which would be Vespers. Remember that CCEO is binding to Eastern Catholics but not Roman Catholics. For Roman Catholics, this is the proper Canon:

Canon 1248

1. The precept of participating in the Mass is satisfied by assistance at a Mass which is celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the holy day or on the evening of the preceding day.

For Roman Catholics we can only satisfy our obligation at Mass. Divine Liturgy is the equivalent of a Mass, Vespers is not.

I mentioned Vespers because its valid for Eastern Catholics, but not Roman Catholics. So people who may hear of ECs going to Vespers but not DL will not make the mistake of thinking the same Canon applies to us.

Thanks! You’ve cleared it up now with your latest post. I knew of CCEO Can. 881. What I didn’t know was that the divine praises referred to Vespers.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Thanks! You’ve cleared it up now with your latest post. I knew of CCEO Can. 881. What I didn’t know was that the divine praises referred to Vespers.

Its a generic term, I guess some Eastern Churches may not call it Vespers but an equivalent local term. The term may even extend to Matins. But Matins normally is attached to Divine Liturgy (end of Matins is start of DL) but I also heard that attending Matins would also fulfill EC obligation. But for an RC who is attending an Eastern Catholic Rite Liturgy, it should be the Eucharistic Liturgy (Divine Liturgy, Holy Qurbana/Qurbono).

 

[revert_jen]

• What are the pros and cons of the Catholic Church making Sunday Mass attendance “optional” for lay Catholics?
• How would this policy-change affect your diocese, your parish, your family, your weekend plans?

One of the really comforting things about returning to the Church was not having to decide whether to go to church on Sunday anymore. I no longer had to think about whether some particular excuse was good enough to miss church. By the time I came back, I was probably down to 1-2 times a month when I actually went. “Uh-oh, by the time I find a parking space I’ll be 5 minutes late. Guess I’ll turn around and go home.” “I just don’t feel it right now; there wouldn’t be any point in going.” And so forth.

But since I came back I’ve realized that there are a lot of reasons to go to Mass every week, even if I don’t “feel like it.” Besides, the Mass is NOT about ME. Anyway, it’s nice knowing that I don’t have to talk myself into/out of it every week. And it’s not like it’s a huge hardship.

I don’t see any pros to making it optional. Fortunately I agree with other posters who say that it is probably not changeable.

–Jen

 

[At_Trent]

I did not begin this thread to debate the technical minutia of cannon law or the merits of revisionist theology. Not my thing. When the church has wanted something changed, it has managed to get it done, even before the concept of papal infallibility was the rule of the road.

If you really need a response, OK. You are partially correct. The 3rd Commandment pre-dated the Church herself. Indeed, the Sunday obligation is what it is.

The 3rd Commandment - given to Moses by God the Father - established the Sabbath, associated it with the creation of the earth, and ordered it to be observed on the Seventh Day. Jesus Christ gave credibility to the meaning and authority of the 3rd commandment by observing the traditional Saturday Sabbath.

First ecumenical Council of Nicaea revised and extended the meaning of the “Sabbath”, first by associating the word with the Resurrection of Christ, then by changing the day of observance from Saturday to Sunday. Wala, a precept is born, and the 3rd Commandment remains intact. The same Council also promulgated the original text of the Nicaean Creed. How does the original text square with the one you recited in Mass last Sabbath day? Isn’t it great how these things work?

I’m not advocating nor resisting a revision to the Sunday obligation. I am merely acknowledging that the Supreme Pontiff, on the advise of the Holy Spirit, while exercising the authority granted to the Chair of Peter by Christ Himself, can modify decrees made by previous Church Councils. Those unable to accept this premise certainly cannot proceed to the questions posed in the OP.

Thanks for sharing.

I just don’t see the point in entertaining such an idea, because of the answers to one of your questions.

The pro is obeying the Commandment of God. The con of simply “encouraging”, which the Church won’t do, ever, is eternal fire.

I fail to see the Holy Spirit ever deceiving a pope. That’s Satan’s gig.

 

[mick321]

I just don’t see the point in entertaining such an idea, because of the answers to one of your questions.

The pro is obeying the Commandment of God. The con of simply “encouraging”, which the Church won’t do, ever, is eternal fire.

I fail to see the Holy Spirit ever deceiving a pope. That’s Satan’s gig.

Indeed, it is.

And he’s on tour.

 

[stormy99]

**Sunday obligation might be better called our Sunday opportunity to know Christ better…that’s how I feel…I’m a convert and I take going to Mass every week and often more often seriously…

stormy**

 

[mariyka]

**Sunday obligation might be better called our Sunday opportunity to know Christ better…that’s how I feel…I’m a convert and I take going to Mass every week and often more often seriously…

stormy**