www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Vespers obligatory for the faithful?

Hello!

I have encountered a Wikipedia article [en.wikipedia.org] in which you can find such statement:


I was unable to find any information about that, so I would like to ask you which particular sui juris Church holds other liturgical services than the Divine Liturgy (namely the aforementioned Vespers) obligatory for the faithful and under which circumstances (every Sunday? every major Feast?) ?

Thank you very much for your answer!

Peter:

Christ is in our midst!!

Welcome to the Byzantine Forum.

Some of our other members will be along to help you understand what this means in terms of the Eastern Catholic Churches of which there are several represented in the United States.

Bob
Moderator

In order to encourage the restoration of the Divine Office in the Eastern Catholic Churches, the Congregation for the Oriental Churches, in its Instructions for Implementation of the Liturgical Provisions of the CICEO (1996) directed that the faithful could fulfill their "Sunday obligation" by attending Saturday Vespers or the All-Night Vigil (depending on the usage of their particular Church), without the need to attend the Divine Liturgy the following day.

Though this directive is on the books, the hierarchy of the Ruthenian Church refuse to "receive" it, and persist in celebrating the bowdlerized Vespers-Divine Liturgy service, or worse, just the Sunday Divine Liturgy on Saturday evenings. Call it "Seventh Day Adventist Catholicism", as served at Our Lady of Perpetual Convenience and the Church of St. Pragmatica.

Dear Peter, the Particular Law for the UGCC in the USA, often called the Pastoral Guide , states that Vespers, Matins or the Divine Liturgy satisfies the Sunday and festal obligation. I don't have my copy in front of me for the particular citation, but I will look that up later.

I do not know if that has been extended within the UGCC outside of the particular law for the USA. But since the Synod of the UGCC has made the Instruction mandatory for the entire UGCC, it would follow implicitly that it could be used UGCC-wide.

From the CANONS OF THE PARTICULAR LAW OF THE UKRAINIAN GREEK CATHOLIC CHURCH (2006) located here [archeparchy.ca] in Ukrainian and English for the UGCC [emphasis mine]:

Can. 114 (CCEO cc. 880 §3, 881 §4) Besides Sundays, the faithful are obliged to observe the
following Holy Days:

1. The Nativity of Christ;
2. The Theophany of our Lord;
3. The Ascension of our Lord;
4. The Annunciation of the Holy Mother of God;
5. The Dormition of the Holy Mother of God;
6. The Feast of the holy apostles Sts. Peter and Paul;

On these days, the faithful are obligated to take full part in the Divine Liturgy, to hear the
homily, and not to engage in strenuous physical labour.

The synod of bishops encourages all the faithful to take part in the Divine Services during the traditional holy days on the Church calendar.

A vigil divine liturgy is not, in and of itself, an error; it is, however, not normative outside the highly latinized praxis of the Ruthenian church, tho' I've read that, at one point, it was not uncommon in the UGCC within the US.


The evening divine liturgy is an American anomaly, in both Orthodoxy and Catholicism. Perhaps it is a Latinization... But would the Orthodox ever admit that?

Perhaps, however, it is a legitimate development, instead.

The allowance to satisfy the Sunday obligation with the Divine Office is an option left to each Church to enact not a directive each Church is to receive. The same canon also allows Saturday evening Liturgies.

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.

4. 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.

"A vigil divine liturgy is not, in and of itself, an error"

The Typicon of each particular Church determines the times when the Divine Liturgy is celebrated in the evening, as opposed to its normal time in mid-morning. Also, the Byzantine norm of one Eucharist per parish per day is not served by such "Saturday evening liturgies", because, of course, the day runs from sundown to sundown.

Since the routine celebration of the Divine Liturgy on Saturday evening is alien to the Byzantine Tradition, and dilutes the celebration of the Divine Praises, it ought to be suppressed entirely, and reserved either for those liturgical occasions when the Typicon directs evening celebration, or for special occasions of prayer and/or thanksgiving, which fall outside of the Church's liturgical cycle.

Some interesting discussion indeed, and a subject to which I have particular interest and strong feelings because of the diasporal situation we live in the American West and Southwest (or anywhere outside of a few major cities, for that matter).

The following citations I will make are from PASTORAL GUIDE OF THE UKRAINIAN CATHOLIC CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (1999), Phildelphia, Pennsylvania. At our last Eparchial clergy retreat, our Hierarch made perfectly clear this was and still is the definitive particular law for the UGCC in the USA. The development of eparchial or archeparchial particular law from the more generic particular law of the Church sui iuris is, of course, recommended not only from the CCEO but also from the Instruction, and I would say even necessary as certain Eparchial or Archeparchial circumstances certainly necessitate the clarification of some aspects of the law.

The last paragraph of the Decree of Promulgation reads (emphasis likewise mine) (and here follows the signatures of the Metropolitan and the Eparchs of Stamford, Chicago, and Parma in that order).

What is as important as the actual force of the promulgation is the statement "with our future in mind". That should not be detached from the rest of the following points. To govern a Church with the extreme diasporal situation as the UGCC in North America, a great deal of economia is necessary as well as trying to make the particular law, to the extent possible, fitting for the diasporal conditions over which it is to govern.





In a situation where there may be one UGCC priest or a deacon or a bi-ritualist covering one or more states, this becomes a very important means of keeping the liturgical identity of the community intact as a Greek Catholic community.

I can see where a priest might be wary of an "out" for the faithful to minimalize their attendance at services. I can see that, but there is also a serious flip side to the coin.

In a diasporal situation without a priest this added economia of the Pastoral Guide, which fully embraces the recommendations of the Instruction, becomes a life-saver in keeping the liturgical identity of the community intact and not continuing to foster atrophy to the Latins.

I am administrator of two communities without a full-time priest, and one of those communities may only have a few Divine Liturgies the entire year. Without these prescriptions, I would have lost most if not all to the Latins a long time ago ("why go - it's just Vespers and we can go to the Latin parish for Mass?"). The particular law in the US backs me up, so to speak, and rightly so in accordance with the Instruction. It is difficult enough in these far-flung diasporal situations WITH the additional canonical support.

Again, I think the key phrase in all of this is "with the future in mind" and not to any particular legal parsing. There will be no future in some diasporal situations in the short term without this sort of economia, nor in many cases any motivation to start a new community if everything hinges on a priest to come serve the Divine Liturgy as the only means to fulfill the "obligation".

n.b. and a tangent: I noticed that the English translation of the Particular Law cited above at http://www.archeparchy.ca/docs.htm does not carry the approval of any English-speaking bishops, and I would hope would have at least the signature of the metropolitan over which it is assumed to have force as an approved English translation. Perhaps someday the senior canonist(s) in Canada and the US can consult to produce a jointly agreed translation.

Many years to all of those laboring in the vineyards for our Church. Многая Літа!


FDRLB

I wish I had seen this thread before I posted my question on this board, but may I point out that because the liturgical day begins at sunset, these liturgies are not on the day before.

The problem with Saturday evening Divine Liturgies (to "fulfill Sunday obligation") is that it trains the faithful to keep Sunday mornings free for more important things then worship - like sleeping late and going to a nice brunch, or taking the kids to football or soccer practice. The multiplication of Divine Liturgies also leads to a parish being not formed into a single community as best as it can.

The best way forward is to return to a traditional schedule. Vespers, Matins and Divine Liturgy with a single Divine Liturgy being the high point of Sunday. If people can't make the Sunday Divine Liturgy for legitimate reasons, so be it.

The Instruction and at least the particular law for the UGCC in the USA are clear about the importance of Vespers and Matins as part of the complete Eucharistic cycle of Sundays and feasts. Thankfully the UGCC particular law in the USA gives important acknowledgment of Vespers and Matins as being part of the Eucharistic cycle in the wording that allows those two services as well as the Divine Liturgy to meet any perceived "obligation".

Tthe exigencies of modern society requiring Sunday work schedules are not of our choosing, but have to be acknowledged. For those who cannot attend the Sunday or festal Divine Liturgy, they should be confident and reinforced by the particular Church that their attendance in the traditional Eucharistic cycle is indeed important not only for themselves but for the particular Church, and their attendance is important, desired and meaningful for whatever portion they can attend.

There is simply no need for a regular Saturday evening "Vespergy" in this context outside of the four Vesperal Divine Liturgies that are appointed at and because of very special liturgical times. In fact such a thing seems to be an innovation oppposed to the prescriptions to restore the authentic cycle of services.

I'm a Latin Rite Catholic and am familiar with the various problems with virtually having lost Vespers at the parish level, and with the "advantages" of having Sundays "free" (Never the intention of this option in the west either. I personally think people in our RC parishes like mine, are "spoiled" by so many options, and frankly confused-- confused about what the Church is indirectly teaching about the priority of the Mass in our lives, which I think we all are agreeing is an issue.)

It was my understanding that the option for the Eastern Catholic Churches being discussed here was allowed for the very real and grave concerns you, Diak, have fleshed out in your post. It's very unfortunate if some parishes with adequate resources are using it for other reasons, but that really seems a separate issue from the situations like yours.

Since we are talking about the Eastern Catholic Churches, I would like to add that His Holiness Benedict XVI has declared this the “Year for Priests” [usccb.org] beginning recently on June 19. We should all be praying earnestly for all vocations and certainly with this shortage in mind be remembering especially our Eastern Catholic Churches.

In the Byzantine CC I attend we are incredibly blessed at the moment to have a terrific RC priest training (there is probably another term for this) with our priest in order that he may become bi-ritual, and also a Dominican brother sometimes assisting our deacon. It's very fortunate that we continue to be blessed with having this ECC parish, which is so tiny, with Divine Liturgy every Sunday as well as for major Feast Days.

It is wonderful that we will, Lord willing, have this additional bi-ritual priest but, no insult intended, there is so much more than the ability to celebrate the Divine Liturgy involved in being a pastor for a community, not the task I think this priest is in fact preparing for as we hopefully will continue with our beloved Hieromonk as priest/pastor. We Latins who venture East are well aware of how much difference there is in the Eastern and Western sacramental liturgical world views all of which, coming from the outside, is a profound formation process for any RC priest seeking to become bi-ritual, IMHO.

This is a good question which I think also reflects the loss of the fullness of faith community, rooted in Eucharist, but extending into all of daily life which is a profound challenge at the heart of the diasporal situation you labor with. This fullness of our faith in our daily life is most certainly also lost in many RC families/communities, tho less so in strong ethnic communities which are continuing to preserve the sacramental traditions in daily life.

My special love and gratitude to all here who are priests and deacons! Thank you for your great gift to the Church. You are in my prayers.

-Marylouise

""why go - it's just Vespers and we can go to the Latin parish for Mass?""

I call this the "Cracker Jack" theology of liturgy: If there isn't a prize in every box, then what's the point? It says a lot about the mindset of our hierarchs that they would continue diddling with the text of the Divine Liturgy and do absolutely nothing to improve the liturgical consciousness of our people.