Diak, you say that the labeling of feastdays as
an obligation is a Latinization. But if these are
"mandatory feastdays", as it is thought to be in most Orthodox Churches, is it not a Latinization to label these as "Solemn feastdays", meaning they are not as important as those feastdays that honor Christ or the Mother of God? When were these feastdays toned down, and what bishops
allowed these particular feastdays to be celebrated in a lesser manor? I'm not singling out any particualr Ukrainian parish, but I know of many that still have June Molebens to the Sacred Heart and Roman Eucharistic Benediction afterwards. Why not celebrate the Feast of SS Peter & Paul with more honor other than just passing it off as a mere "lower" feastday? I'm not critizing the Ukrainian Byzantine Catholic Church, I just wanted to know why it is celebrated in a lesser manner.

Ung-Certez

Just some general comments:

Dormition, Christmas, Theophany, Ascension, SS Peter & Paul are codifed in the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches as Holy Days of Obligation (in addition to all Sundays) for all Eastern Catholic Churches. Particular Churches may add to them or subtract from them. The Ruthenian Byzantine Metropolia has not added any.

According to the Synod of the Ukrainian Catholic Church:

"Holy Days of Obligation

'In order to accommodate the faithful, the Synod has resolved that the faithful of the Ukrainian Catholic Church are obliged to observe, in addition to Sundays, the following church holydays, and to adhere to the following obligations: to participate in the Divine Liturgy, to hear the homily and to refrain from servile work.

In addition to Sundays, the following Church holydays are considered Holy Days of Obligation:

Nativity of Our Lord (Dec. 25)
Theophany of Our Lord (Jan. 6)
Ascension of Our Lord (40 days after Easter)
Annunciation of the Blessed Theotokos (Mar. 25)
Dormition of Blessed Virgin Mary (Aug. 15)
Feast of the Apostles Peter & Paul (Jun. 29)

The Synod enourages all faithful to take part in the liturgical services on the following traditional feast days of our Church:

Circumcision of Our Lord Jesus Christ (Jan. 1)
Transfiguration of Our Lord (Aug. 6)
Exaltation of the Holy Cross (Sep. 14)'

Synod of the Ukrainian Catholic Church held on Jan. 20, 1998"

I believe that formerly, at least in the US Metropolia, the Conception of the Mother of God and the Circumcision of Our Lord were included. Obviously they no longer are.

As to Holy days of "Obligation" I think it is unfare to blame this on the Latins as we invented this one. Very early, Eastern Councils legislated fasting, confession, and reception of the Eucharist on Pascha, Christmas, Dormition and a little later SS Peter & Paul.

Also the OCA counts SS Peter & Paul and The Birth and Beheading of St. John the Forerunner as Great Feasts alongside the traditional 12 Great Feasts.

In Christ,
Reader Lance

Whoa, here. It seems being so "canonical" as to rely on Canon Law to direct our liturgical observances is, well, highly Latin, Lance. I had to study and be tested on the CCEO and the Particular Law in my diaconate program, also.

This understanding is certainly not present in mystogical thought in such fathers as Cyril of Jerusalem, or most of the Fathers for that matter.

Every Christian should feel a need not an obligation to worship God on solemn feast days. That's my point. For example, the Old Believer communities don't have to post "days of obligation". They simply worship together on those days.

And to be exact, the promulgation for holydays in the UGCC in North America was done through the promulgation of the Pastoral Guide/Archeparchial Statutes signed by the Metropolitan and all Bishops of the USA on November 8, 1999. This references and confirms the decision of the Synod of September, 1997 which first established these.

These days to be observed under a "serious obligation" are:
All Sundays of the year; the Nativity of Christ; the Theophany; the Ascension; the Annunciation; the Dormition; and THE PRIME APOSTLES PETER AND PAUL. No mention of Sacred Heart, Corpus Christi, etc. These days are, of course, in addition to the Easter observance.

The Apostles Fast is also mentioned in the section on fasting times in the Pastoral Guide/Archeparchial Statutes for the UGCC in the USA.

Subdeacon Randolph,

I am not trying to be contentious, please forgive me if I came off that way. I too would agree that legislating Holy Days of Obligation is not the best way to go. From my own observation it has no effect on minimlaist parishes, the people blow them off anyway. In fervent parishes the people go far beyond the minimum five mandated.

I just think it is unfare to call it a Latinization as I stated above we started it althought the concept was slightly different and was directed at a minimum level of Eucharistic Participation in order to remain in good standing as opposed to being required to santify this or that feast.

As well, while it may not fit into our traditional mystagogy, if it is on the books there is no use pretending it is not, as those who wish to malign us love to point out such things.

In Christ,
Reader Lance

I agree Lance. It is difficult to crawl into the minds of the legislators and figure out what is making the clock tick.

I would still maintain that the whole idea of the establishment of "obligation" for Eucharistic observace is at least partly derived from a post-medieval Latin approach to the sacraments, in which the mystical was to a great degree abandoned for a more empirical or "bottom line" approach to sacramental thought, which also produced such concepts as form and matter, liceity vs. validity, etc.

The manifestation of this more empirical approach can be seen in this sense of obligation rather than focusing on the catechetical and legislative approaches to foster the need or love for becoming closer to God, to realizing theosis through the reception of the Mysteries and worship of God.

Have a great and holy Apostles Fast!

Dear Ung-Certez,

If we can just step away from those liturgical experts, Lance and Diak, for a moment

I could not agree more with you.

I too don't understand why our Latinized Ukie Catholic Basilians and parishes insist on celebrating those Latin feasts EVEN when the Vatican doesn't expect us to any longer.

It was because the feasts of Corpus Christi and the Sacred Heart come first that the feast of All Saints of Rus'-Ukraine had to be placed on the FOURTH Sunday after Pentecost, rather than on the Second Sunday - like the Orthodox Churches do.

But no, we can't be made to resemble the Orthodox! Not at all - people might catch the "schismatic bug!"

So Vatican II and the Decree on Eastern Catholic Churchs, for these, is something that happened to other people . . .

One would think that the Feast of Sts Peter and Paul would figure more prominently among so papalist a crowd too

Unless we all make the commitment to study our Eastern Church traditions, we will continue to be Eastern on the outside but Western on the inside.

Alex

I know there's a forest beyond these trees somewhere...

I would posit, Alex, as I did above, that Patriarch Josyp's transformation of the Sacred Heart feast/devotions to Christ the Lover of Mankind was a brilliant move to "byzantinize" a latinization in a positive way and perhaps an example of how to replace latinizations with Byzantine practices.

We just can't simply remove devotions which we can't deny are still present and adhered to by some. These must be replaced in a sensible manner with those closer to the tradition.