Ultimately the problem can be pointed to the Roman Catholic Church. And this is not something that they are intentionally doing to Eastern Catholics. Just them being themselves. EC parishes have to compete for their own flock against the RC parishes. So if people says, “we’re busy Sunday, we can’t come. If you don’t offer Communion Saturday evening, we’ll just go to the RC parish down the street.” What would the bishop do?
The Bishop should support his own traditions and not let the people bully him into changing things.
Of course he can do that and close the parish as well.
The Eastern Catholic Church has Vespers on Saturday evening, not a Divine Liturgy. The priest said that this Vespers fulfills the Sunday obligation (which I now have learned only applies to Eastern Catholics).
To be honest, that’s not our tradition either. We were also bullied into it by “pastoral necessity” (read: laziness).
Thank you. One thing to note is that vespers only fulfills the Sunday obligation on the previous evening for members of a Church sui iuris where that is the legitimate tradition.
Amen CONSTANTINE…amen! The whole idea of obligation is repugnant.
Do you find it repugnant in other areas of life (such as: your obligations to your spouse, your children/parents, your employer/employees, etc.)? Or just in the religious arena (your obligations to God and your church?)?
I agree to a point, do I have an obligation to wife and family or do I provide for them because I love them and want to do these things? Its not the same way of looking at things. Its the same with attending church services. If it an obligation or an desire?Do you find it repugnant in other areas of life (such as: your obligations to your spouse, your children/parents, your employer/employees, etc.)? Or just in the religious arena (your obligations to God and your church?)?
I must say, I keep encountering this “anti-obligation” mentality and have on occasion succumbed to it myself. Yet isn’t that what Christ was trying to teach us - that we are all under “obligation” to God and our neighbor?
What was the obligation of the priest, Levite and Samaritan? Which one fulfilled his obligation?
Sermon over … coffee …
I myself find it ridiculous to assign “obligations” to thing that should be naturally part of your life. I shouldn’t be obligated to provide for my family, they are my family, I should naturally provide for them. Obligation is such a legalistic term and implies a legal responsibility that should be carried out or else you receive a just punishment for failure to do so. Of course it is sad to see deadbeat dads and husbands out there, but family is about love and if one loves one’s family one need not be obligated to do anything.Do you find it repugnant in other areas of life (such as: your obligations to your spouse, your children/parents, your employer/employees, etc.)? Or just in the religious arena (your obligations to God and your church?)?
I must say, I keep encountering this “anti-obligation” mentality and have on occasion succumbed to it myself. Yet isn’t that what Christ was trying to teach us - that we are all under “obligation” to God and our neighbor?
What was the obligation of the priest, Levite and Samaritan? Which one fulfilled his obligation?
Sermon over … coffee …
This is why the same Father Stephen Freeman said that morality is not Christian. And I agree. We should stop thinking of Christianity as some sort of contest where we do some tasks and if we do them all we get a prize (heaven).
The problem is that “love” is a subjective term. And those “deadbeat dads and husbands out there” are breaking the law. Whether you think it’s “legalistic” or not, they do have an obligation to support any children they have fathered.
But that legal obligation only came from modern law.
So you don’t think fathers should have any obligation, legal or otherwise, to support their children?
The legal obligation was society’s way of holding people responsible to uphold their moral obligations.
Well said, better than me, and with fewer words. Thanks!
No. I think its sad that we have to come up with laws to force fathers to support their children. I certainly do not get up in the morning and go to work to feed my kids because I fear being dragged into court. We can live in an island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean with no laws or anything, I’d still do what I can to provide for them.So you don’t think fathers should have any obligation, legal or otherwise, to support their children?
People still run away from their obligation. Sometime it is what drives people to abortion, because they are afraid to acquire an obligation. Better to abort than to have an obligation, that is what they think.Well, I think that modern law is a good thing - an improvement on what was a bad situation in the past. I think fathers SHOULD be obligated - legally - to support any children they father. Frankly I think that you’ve gone down an argumentative road that’s going to be difficult to sustain.
Of course. And for them it is not about obligation, it is about love.And by the way, we should remember that for many Christians around the world, this whole conversation would be ludicrous: here we are arguing about whether it’s OK to find reasons NOT to go to church on Sunday - while they are literally giving their lives for the chance to go whenever they possibly can.
Back read and see what I said about morality. Hint, its not Christian.