Hello,

Tomorrow is the feast day of Our Blessed Mother and it's also Sunday, so I was planning on going to Mass. I thought this would be fine. Then I came across this quote in a thread..

"Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches 'Canon 880 -..
§3. Holy days of obligation common to all the Eastern Churches, beyond Sundays, are the Nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Epiphany, the Ascension, the Dormition of the Holy Mary Mother of God and the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul except for the particular law of a Church sui iuris approved by the Apostolic See which suppresses a holy days of obligation or transfers them to a Sunday.

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.'"

My question is, is this quote saying that it needs to be Divine Litugy? What about (Latin rite) Mass? I'm just confused by this quote. If it means Divine Liturgy, that means that I'm not fulfilling my obligation unless I go to DL every single Sunday. Before, I was told that it's okay to just go to Mass, now this quote seems to be saying something else. I'm Eastern Catholic but more Latin in practice (I know I should follow the fasts and feast days, but I thought I could do so by attending Mass in a Latin rite church). I don't live near any of my own sui iuris church (Russian Catholic) but there is a Ukrainian Catholic church in my town.

I'm not really sure what this means... I would appreciate any help. Thanks!

There isn't really a sense of obligation in the eastern church so don't worry about it.

Monica,

While what Ned says is accurate, past experience tells me that it will not be sufficient to satisfy you. So, ...







Were "Divine Liturgy" to be understood as narrowly as you suggest, there would be no liturgical option for Catholics of 7 of the 8 Oriental Catholic Churches sui iuris (who are also governed by the CCEO), since those Churches term their liturgical celebration neither as "Mass" nor as "Divine Liturgy" (among those 8 Churches, only the Coptic Catholics properly term their liturgical celebration as "Holy Mass").

Armenians Catholics - Soorp Badarak
Chaldean Catholics - Qurbono Qadisho
Ethiopian & Eritrean (Ge'ez) Catholics - Ùér’ata Qéddase
Maronite Catholics - Service of the Divine and Holy Mysteries
Syriac Catholics - Qurbana Qadisha
Syro-Malabarese Catholics - Qurbono Qadisho
Syro-Malankara Catholics - Qurbana Qadisha

Please stop trying to utilize the Code as the guide to how you live your life as a Catholic, Russian Byzantine or otherwise. That is not the purpose for which it is intended. If it were, we'd all have been taught the Code alongside the Catechism in our formative religious education - and we are not.

Were it not for the internet (and before it existed), most Catholics - Latin or Eastern or Oriental - would never have known a single word of the Codes and would not have been the worse for that. You are employing it for a purpose which was never intended.

Many years,

Neil

As Fr. Bob Taft says, tongue in cheek, "Canon Law is the bad side of the Good News."

A senior cleric once told me that canon law exists for "our protection" and is not a guide for living the faith. I found that an interesting idea.

Not that I'm some kinda paradigm but when circumstances arise which prevent me from attending Divine Liturgy at a Greek Catholic church, I usually just go to one of the local Orthodox churches (and abstain from approaching the Chalice); or just attend Vespers there the evening before. And that MO doesn't cause me any conscience qualms at all.

Now if I want to receive Holy Communion I go to a Latin parish - when I can't get to the Greek Catholic Liturgy.

thanks for the replies.. I honestly think that it might be best for me to just transfer rites, not because it's difficult to be Eastern Catholic in this situation, but mostly because I've always been "Latin" in practice since I became Catholic. I don't know though, I'd have to pray about this and talk to my priest.

I was always told that there is no obligation in the Eastern churches, but it's strange how in the Canon, it talks about an "obligation". I guess that's one of the things I don't understand.

One may not 'transfer' rites for insubstantial assumptions such as these! The mind of the Church is pellucidly clear on this point.

Scrupulosity is a great sin.

Today's epistle (Eph 4:1-6)has St Paul telling the Christians of Ephesus to bond together. Today's interpretation would state that one should belong to a parish and worship together with your Christian brothers and sisters. This obligation is the same today as it was in the 1st century. Anyone who claims that a Christian has no such obligation is rationalizing. The details are open to some interpretation but the general obligation is clear.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Fr Deacon Paul

Monica,

What the Canon says (but I didn't address in my prior response) is that there is an obligation to participate 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".

Keeping in mind that it is unclear to what extent the CCEO represents the work of Eastern versus Western authors, that final phrasing is much more accurately Eastern in its presentation of the nature of such 'obligation' and how it might be fulfilled. There is an obligation to pray, to celebrate the divine praises, to worship God. The form by which we do so and the place in which we do so, are much less narrowly defined than they are historically in the Latin Church.

Many years,

Neil

Little Flower,

Look at it this way. The difference is one of legislation and record-keeping. Roman Catholics have always done things like create legislation compelling you to worship on certain days but not on others (think "Holydays of Obligation"). [Some Eastern Catholics also do this, copying the RCs.] Byzantines, on the other hand simply stated that each Christian has an obligation to praise and worship with the Church. Ordinarily (for Byzantines) each Christian should join with the Church for Vespers, Matins and Divine Liturgy for every Sunday and (at last major) Feast Day. Do you have to work on Sunday morning, so that you can't make Divine Liturgy? Then make sure you get to Vigil on Saturday night. Can't make Vigil that's held on Tuesday evening for the big Feast on Wednesday? Make sure you get to Divine Liturgy. Do you have to work every Sunday morning? Not a good thing, and look down the road to a job that gives you Sundays off if you can. [But some professions - like nurses and doctors and police and firemen - are just like that and you can't have everything.] The point here not a lack of obligation to praise and worship God with the Church, it's a lack of obligation that comes from legislation and record-keeping by canon lawyers, along with expecting Christians to be adults and organize their lives correctly so that they can join the Church regularly to worship the Savior. Hope this makes sense.

John

Ned,

With our understanding of mental health issues today that was generally unavailable to the early authorities of the Church, I rather suspect that the sinfulness of scrupulosity may be better understood as being aware that one has such a trait and wilfully fails to act on obtaining treatment for it, with the resultant risk that satisfying the behavior may become prideful. Any sinfulness inherent in the trait itself, it seems to me, is mitigated, accordingly, by the psychological condition.

Many years,

Neil

Bless, Father Roman,

While I generally agree with your statement and am strongly opposed to transfers for what would appear to be the 'convenience' of the transferee, past interactions with the young lady here and elsewhere are more than convincing that it would be to her spiritual benefit to transfer to the Latin Church. She requires structure to the exercise of her faith and with no opportunity to exercise her Russian Byzantine Catholicity in a formal parish setting and an inability to understand how she might continue to do so in any other ecclesial environment (even another Byzantine Church unless circumstances have changed recently), I'd have to agree with her. In this particular instance, a transfer to the Latin Church would be seriously beneficial for her spiritual and psychological well-being.

Many years,

Neil

John,

Well-said!

Many years,

Neil