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

Would it be sufficient to want to transfer because my spirituality is Latin? I don't really practice my faith in any way that is Eastern... I tend to use Latin rite prayers, etc.

I came across a quote in another forum about how it's necessary to attend Divine Liturgy. I want to check if it can refer to Mass too, or only DL.

John, thanks for the reply, what I meant is if I can attend Mass instead of Divine Liturgy on Sundays/feast days, if I'm Eastern Catholic... I don't work on Sundays. The quote seems to specify, "Divine Liturgy".. I was wondering if it matters if it's DL or Mass (Latin rite).

Fr Deacon Paul, thank you for the reply; I do belong to a parish and attend liturgy every Sunday.. but it is Mass, not Divine Liturgy. I am Eastern Catholic. So I'm trying to check if that matters, because the quote seems to specify "Divine Liturgy" in particular.

Monica,

What part do you not understand of the message that the Divine Liturgy is one and the same with: the Mass, the Soorp Badarak, the Qurbono Qadisho, the Ùér’ata Qéddase, the Service of the Divine and Holy Mysteries, the Qurbana Qadisha, the Holy Mass, the Eucharistic celebration?

Many years,

Neil

Makes sense to me, too. When push comes to shove, it's still all within the Catholic Communion of Churches.

We're diverse. Hallelujah!

Is there a book The Church According to Fr. Taft with just such quotes? I'd love to own it!

You aren't accepting of the correct answer you've been provided here. It's best to ask the priest where you are a parishoner and then be obedient to his response.

Little Flower,

You seem to be purposely looking for excuses. Byzantines and other Eastern Catholics simply do not use Roman Catholic (Latin) terminology (such as "Mass") in their books (even books written for us by Roman Catholics, such as the Eastern Canon Law). As a comparative example, if you're ever in Paris walk into a McDonald's and ask for an order of "French Fries". All you'll get is that famous French blank stare for they've never heard of such a thing. Then ask for an order of "Les Frites" and you'll be handed that instantly familiar red box flowing with salty, deep-fried potatoes. Same thing. Different name. Different package. Likewise, I'm sure you realize that McDonald's Big Mac and Burger King's Whopper are the same thing, only prepared and packaged slightly differently. I doubt you'd say that if you ate one or the other you really wouldn't be getting the same dinner, and that it didn't really count. The different names for the Eucharistic Celebration are just that - different names. Understand?

John

LittleFlower:

Christ is in our midst!!

I've read this and other posts you have made about your status and how to live out your Catholic Christian pilgrimage. At some point you need, IMHO, to sit down with the priest in the parish you belong to and lay this out for him. Then follow his advice, stop looking for every bit of advice on the internet, and give yourself some peace.

Russian Catholics are few and far between. How did you get to be one if there are no parishes anywhere near you? If memory serves, you once stated that your family does not struggle with this problem. What's that about?

You cannot be a Christian in isolation. It doesn't work. Find a parish, stick with that community, and be at peace. A canonical status doesn't really matter unless you are entering religious life. So why are you beating yourself up over this time and again.

A lot of us here are amalgams. We practice different prayer forms within other parishes, but that's private stuff. When it comes down to it all, in the Catholic Church, you reach out and touch Divinity in any parish in our communion. It comes down to any port in a storm. But no one beats himself up because he has a label. ISTM that this issue is harming your spiritual life rather than being a means to its enhancement.

Bob

Can someone please help this poor Latin Rite Catholic.
Can you explain how Eastern Catholics and Orthodox understand the concept of "obligation"?
I've always found the latin explanation to be legalistic and hard to reconcile, and have always looked for a more wholesome way to understand it.

Thanks.

If you are a Catholic or Orthodox Christian, obligation is only something necessary for those who must be forced to do something.

If we understand the Great Commandment--love the Lord your God with your whole heart, soul, mind, and strength--you understand that you're in a love affair. If you're in a love affair, nothing can keep you away from your beloved. So it is with the Mass or Divine Liturgy or whatever other name we describe our encounter with the Living God. For the Christian, life ought to be empty for the Sunday we miss our participation.

In Holy Communion, we receive Divinity and become deified. It's the most important action we can do this side of eternity. So does it take an "obligation" to force us to do this?

If I remember correctly from history, the obligation had to be imposed after Christianity became legal and the great mass of people came into the Church. As it is today, you have the spectrum of those totally committed to the twice a year attendees. So canons came along to mandate practice. But who needs mandates if one "gets" what this is all about?

BTW, I'm a Latin CAtholic just like you and a Sunday when I've had to work and miss out is an empty day--like being in a tomb.

Bob

We want willing volunteers, not reluctant conscripts.

I'm a huge booster of legalism. It's not that I shoot for bare minimums. It's that all the important relationships in my life, at one weak time or another have been supported and sustained by duty, and little else. And since we're all volunteers here, conscription doesn't really enter into it.

And anyway the whole point is little more than easty-westy posturing. "We're not legalistic at all! We just have a canon that imposes excommunication for missing a couple of Sundays! It's *not* an obligation, but you *are* excommunicated". Um... right. Potato... potato (which works way better said than written).

Thanks for the responses. For some reason the website is not letting me reply to each individually, with quotes.. so I'll address everything here. I wanted to clarify, I'm not looking for any excuses. I would be happy to be able to go to Mass on Sundays (I mean Roman Catholic Mass). If Divine Liturgy is the same as the Mass in Canon Law, then that's good. But I wanted to check for the simple reason that I don't know. A few of you have suggested speaking to my pastor; my pastor is Roman Catholic and might not know such a small detail in Eastern Canon Law which is why I was wondering if anyone here does.

If it's true that there's an excommunication for missing a couple Sundays, that means that Eastern Canon Law is precise on these points.. I always thought that we fulfill our Sunday obligation at either Mass or Divine Liturgy. It was surprising for me to read that quote saying "Divine Liturgy" in particular and not mentioning the Mass. Since this is an important point I wanted to check what it means. I don't miss Sunday Masses through choice.. I attend church on Sunday. However, it's a Roman Catholic church. I wanted to check that this is okay according to Canon Law, or if I should attend Divine Liturgy instead.

Theophan, I understand what you are saying about obligation and love for God, but I don't work on Sundays and I always go to church on Sundays. I'm glad to go to church. I just wanted to check if it matters if it's not Divine Liturgy, because the quote in Canon Law seems to indicate Divine Liturgy in particular. (and the excommunication for missing Sundays was mentioned.. I dont know if the Mass covers this obligation?)

I was wondering if anyone has any quotes from Canon Law that explain this statement more fully.

Theophan, you asked about how I became Russian Catholic. My family is Eastern (Russian) Orthodox and I became Catholic a few years ago. I became Catholic in a Roman Catholic parish, and thought I'm Latin rite. However, then I found out (and this was confirmed later on by my diocese) that I am indeed a Russian Catholic, because I was placed in the "sui iuris" church closest to Russian Orthodox. I was also told that I should follow the Eastern fasts and feast days. I sometimes find this difficult because I do live like this in isolation. My family is not Catholic, and I don't know any other Russian Catholics. There's a Ukrainian Catholic parish in my town but I don't fully understand Ukrainian, and my spirituality is more "Roman", so I've been attending the Roman Catholic parish. To be honest, I wish I could switch rites, because it would fit my spirituality better. Anyway, I have been fulfilling my Sunday obligation in the Roman Catholic parish, but then I came across this quote that mentions going to Divine Liturgy, and I wanted to check if I should be going to DL instead of the Mass on Sundays. I don't know if there's anything in Canon Law that clarifies this point. That's why I asked.

God bless

Maybe i didn't really ask the right question.

I feel much the same way as theophan. I love my faith, but I find it hard to reconcile that missing a holy day of obligation is serious sin (that becomes mortal when all of the legalisms are met).

I'm born and bred a Latin. The legalism is what I was raised in. I accept it obediently because I love the Lord and his Church, but i see something in the Eastern Church that is not so... well... stifling. It is a wholesomeness that I sometimes find lacking in the western expression of things, which is often legalistic.

I live my faith out of love, which means it is experiential. But it's hard to explain to others sometimes. That's why i was looking for how you all would explain it from your Eastern spirituality.

thanks

Are your marriage vows similarly stifling? (This isn't me being flippant. I assume the answer is "of course not"). Anyway I don't know. I'm Roman too, and as I said, a big booster of legalism. I don't see all that big a difference in the East. The "legalism" difference seems like one of those straw-men set to make the divide seem bigger.

"We're not legalistic at all! We just have a canon that imposes excommunication for missing a couple of Sundays! It's *not* an obligation, but you *are* excommunicated". Um... right. Potato... potato (which works way better said than written).

You simply misconstrue the meaning of the canon, which is intended to protect the communicant from receiving unworthily. Unlike in the West, abstention from communion is considered a normal form of spiritual medicine, not a punishment for violating a law. Abstaining from food clears the system, hones the appetite and makes one yearn more for the meal. It has a totally different meaning for Eastern Christians than it does for Western Christians, who tend to equate excommunication with the much more grave and formal anathema.

The canons say that a person who, for unworthy reasons (e.g., my tee time clashed with Liturgy) failed to receive the Eucharist (note--not "failed to attend Liturgy") could not receive again until having confessed and been forgiven. The canon originally applied as much to those who went but abstained on their own because of feelings of unworthiness, as it did to those who did not go at all.

Because communion became so infrequent (in both the Western and Eastern Churches), despite the repeated admonitions of the Fathers, almost everyone was in violation of the canon, therefore everyone had to confess before receiving communion; i.e., everyone was in a technical state of excommunication. After confession, and receiving communion, they were not--unless they did not receive over the next three weeks.

The West began to recover the concept of frequent communion at the end of the 19th century; some Orthodox jurisdictions have recently begun doing the same. The West no longer requires confession before communion, on the assumption that people are receiving regularly (probably a faulty assumption), whereas the East has, for the most part, not abandoned that requirement, which is tantamount to a "boots and suspenders" approach for those who receive the Eucharist on a weekly basis. On the other hand, many Orthodox continue to receive just once or twice a year, so the requirement for confession is seen as prudent.

What if the person does not receive Communion because they did not make it to Confession? In many parishes, Confession is not offered before Mass but on another day, like Saturday...

what is meant by excommunication here? Is it meant as a sin that they'd need to confess, or a real excommunication which needs to be lifted somehow, in a special way, not just through absolution?

I find this puzzling.. I never heard anywhere that not receiving Communion is a sin. I think it's spiritually better to receive often, if the person is in a state of grace. But if they don't, yet still go to Mass, are they really excommunicated? do they then just need to confess this, or can the excommunication only be lifted by a bishop or in a special way?

I'm asking because it happened to me that I did not receive Communion for a long time, longer than 3 weeks, while still attending Mass. My priest then helped me to receive Communion again. To the East, is that really an excommunication?

Please, folks, let's not confuse this issue more - if anyone wants to debate legalism in the Canons, take it to another thread! And for purposes of this thread let us not delve into the full historical basis and play mix and match between EC and EO praxis!

Monica,

The Eastern Catholic Churches do not impose excommunication for failure to receive the Eucharist for a period of 3 weeks. Some of the Eastern Orthodox Churches are much more strict on this point. As you are an Eastern Catholic, you are not bound by the praxis of our Orthodox brethren.

Do not expect the Eastern Canons to say 'Divine Liturgy = Mass' nor the Latin Canons to say 'Mass = Divine Liturgy'. All else aside, the opportunities for fulfillment of the 'obligation' - if you must focus on that word - in the East is much broader than in the West, as the Canon indicates when it says "or according to the prescriptions or legitimate customs of their own Church sui iuris, in the celebration of the divine praises" - because the Eastern Churches have ordinarily had a much richer array of liturgical services available to their faithful than has the West, where not many Divine Services (Hours, etc) are any longer served in the parish environment.

Please, see your priest on this matter. You are clearly unwilling to accept the word of anyone here on this point. Unlike CAF, where everyone is an 'expert', we have a plethora of very knowledgeable folk here, who know these issues and have spent extraordinary time dealing with them over the years. I don't know what else to tell you because you are determined to believe that the entirety of Catholicism, East and West, is somewhere reduced to text between covers and labeled authoritatively. It isn't!

Many years,

Neil

Given that you find the Latin rite to be spiritually fulfilling, and that you are in regular attendance at a Latin rite parish, and that you converted to Catholicism in a Latin rite church and had not expected to be considered a Russian Catholic, and that you have trouble reconciling East-West differences and similarities ...

It may be that officially becoming a Latin rite Catholic makes the most sense for you and would be the most beneficial to your spiritual welfare.

Of course not, as you said. But i'm sure you know how difficult it is for many people (especially those in RCIA) to understand that missing mass on Sunday without good reason is a mortal sin that will condemn one to hell if not confessed.

Many people have a hard time understanding how that is a mortal sin and somehow that murder is also a mortal sin.

The fact of the matter is, many, if not most latins think this way (and at times i struggle with it myself), and there is a great lack of pastoral catechesis on this. I asked because I seriously doubt that the Eastern Catholics here have the same understanding that missing mass or a holy day = mortal sin = damnation if not confessed. So i was seeking their wisdom and understanding in, what i feel, is a more wholistic way to view our relationship with God, rather than viewing this in such a legalistic way (can anyone deny that this common latin view is anything else but legalism.)

Flower,
Usually I encourage people to check out the forums on Byzcath, but in your situation I think it's spiritually healthier for you if you DON'T follow this forum or any other. The attention to detail and, yes, "legalism," is distracting and misleading for you. Theophan gave you good advice in his post.

Please be assured that you are not sinning because you are attending RC Mass; neither is it a sin to receive Commuunion less than once a year (though weekly is better if you are so disposed.)

You appear to be a good person who loves God; I encourage you to continue your practices just as they are.

I also suggest you ignore the "excommunication" comments. There are few people that the Church excommunicates; mostly a person does it to oneself through lack of Faith, charity or total dislike for the Church.

Christ is amongst us!
Fr Deacon Paul

Neil, I am not unwilling to accept what people are telling me here.. I just don't seem to understand. I'm trying to understand.

thanks

When you are crowned in marriage, there are no "vows". Because it's not a contract.

Yeah, but the West does have vows, so it would apply there.

I sincerely doubt that. Scaring people into church is never a good idea.

Stuart,
You're right. It's never a good idea, but that's the fact of the matter. It is considered serious sin to miss mass. Serious sin can be mortal if certain criteria are met. In any case, all serious sins should be confessed where the priest can help the penitent. We are still encouraged to confess how many times we miss mass.

Since there really is no easy way around this, it's normally glossed over because it's an elephant in the room and many people simply don't take it as authoritative, so they ignore it (which many also do when it comes to the talk on birth control).
People won't accept the obey or else line anymore.

Obviously, the East doesn't hold to such a narrow view of things. That's why I'm asking the question.

The Mass is the Divine Liturgy of the Roman Rite. They are one and the same. Although Latin Rite Catholics don't typically refer to it as such, referring to the "Holy Sacrifice of the Mass" as "The Divine Liturgy" would not be incorrect at all.


From The Catechism of the Catholic Church:

II. What is This Sacrament [The Eucharist] Called?
....
1330 The memorial of the Lord's Passion and Resurrection.
The Holy Sacrifice, because it makes present the one sacrifice of Christ the Savior and includes the Church's offering. the terms holy sacrifice of the Mass, "sacrifice of praise," spiritual sacrifice, pure and holy sacrifice are also used, since it completes and surpasses all the sacrifices of the Old Covenant.
The Holy and Divine Liturgy, because the Church's whole liturgy finds its center and most intense expression in the celebration of this sacrament; in the same sense we also call its celebration the Sacred Mysteries. We speak of the Most Blessed Sacrament because it is the Sacrament of sacraments. the Eucharistic species reserved in the tabernacle are designated by this same name.

I don't know how to help you have peace and understanding about this, but I join those who have told you to seek good spiritual guidance from someone who knows you personally.

Little Flower,

Numerous people have explained that different Churches have different names for the same things. What we Byzantines call "Divine Liturgy" the Roman Catholics call "Mass". Other Churches have different names for the Eucharistic Celebration.

You can understand that English speakers have "Christmas Trees" while in France they have an identical Tree called "Arbre de Noël" and in Germany they have the same tree and call it a "Tannenbaum". Can you explain exactly why you are having such a difficult time with different terms for the same thing?

John

Thanks for the reply! I guess I'm scrupulous and need things to be really specific but I'll accept what you all are saying here God bless!

Not to belabor the point but I must admit that I may be in somewhat the same situation as L-F and could use a bit of guidance along similar lines.

In my case, I raised in the Latin Rite though my father's family were all Byzantine Catholics. I would like to adopt the practices of the Byzantine Catholic Rite but want it to be something more than just stopping attending Mass one week and start attending a BC Church the next.

IMVHO perhaps L-F is being a bit obsessive-compulsive about things, IDK. In my own case I am not so concerned with Canon Law as I am with observing the practice of B-C Rite correctly.

Currently I am reflecting on how I would conduct my "confession" (now known in the RC as the "Sacrament of Reconciliation"). In similar manner it would be helpful to have some guidance on participation in services on Sunday and Holy Days of Obligation.

BTW: When I was growing-up we had a Missal which usually guided us in our practices and through the Liturgical Year. I have not heard anyone reference such an item. Do Byzantine Catholics use such an item?

Best Wishes,

Bruce