www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Sunday Obligation for Eastern Catholics

Except for divorce, we do mostly use the same canons as the Orthodox - the CCEO has not been a howling success, probably because it is too thick to read.

There was no attempt to impose the 1917 Code on us; it was understood from the beginning that there would have to be a separate codification for the Eastern Churches, and they got to work in the nineteen-thirties. The marriage legislation was of crucial importance, since in most of the Middle East matrimonial questions are governed by the Church which did the wedding. But there were so many protests arising from the De Personis, that John XXIII revoked the parts already promulgated and rule that Vatican II would determine what was to be done. Vatican II duly determined that a separate code would be compiled, but the CCEO is not satisfactory either. Ironically enough, the marriage legislation is a particular problem, largely because there simply is no marriage that cannot be annulled on the basis of the new Codes. Lawyers all over the Middle East are laughing, and hierarchs are furious. The Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch actually found it necessary to issue a public warning, cautioning Orthodox women NOT to get married in Catholic churches, because if they were so imprudent as to do so, the Orthodox Church had no means of protecting them if the Catholic husband decided he wanted a divorce (not to mince words). A divorce in the Middle East is considered an utter disgrace, particularly for the wife and her family.

Fr. Serge

As I remember, Patriarch Maximos requested that the Holy See waive the requirement that, in the case of "mixed" marriages between Melkites and Orthodox, there must be a declaration that the children would be raised in the Catholic Church. His Beatitude pointed out the legal and pastoral difficulties with this requirement and was rebuffed. As I understand it, the Melkites pretty much ignore the canon.

I also recall that Archbishop Joseph (Raya) had some pretty stringent words of his own regarding the Latin Church's penchant for nullifying marriages but not allowing remarriage according to the Byzantine Orthodox Tradition.

Father Ambrose does understand this and in fact he mentioned it yesterday. :-)

The ultimate point is there is no consensus with the Eastern Catholic Churches regarding the issue of whether one's "obligation" to attend the Divine Liturgy on Sundays is fulfilled by doing so at an Orthodox Church. There are a number of hierarchs--including Patriarchs--on record as saying it does. On the other hand, there are a number who take the "Catholic is Catholic" line, and insist that one must go to a Catholic church, even if it is a Latin one. Most Latin Catholics tend to agree, as do some Orthodox. Of course, for the Greek Catholic Churches, that attitude, ultimately, is suicidal, given the ubiquity of Latin parishes and their proliferation of Masses. Our massive losses to the Latin Church over the past sixty years testifies to that.

I think that two questions are being conflated here.

1) Is Rome right in legislating that Catholics can fulfil their Sunday obligation only in a Catholic Church, and not in an Orthodox Church?

2) Should Rome be obeyed, and should Catholics always go to a Catholic Church in order to fulfil their obligation (regardless of whether a visit to an Orthodox Church will come before or after that), even if one thinks that Rome has erred on this issue?

It seems to me that some are saying, "Rome is wrong, so we need not obey what she says on this one." Now, I understand that there are certain circumstances where disobedience would be warranted, but still, I must ask: is this one of those? And, if yes, then to what extent do Eastern Catholics actually think that they owe any obedience and loyalty to Rome? These are questions that I ask with all respect, even if I often get insulted in this Forum merely for asking this and other similar questions.

To be utterly blunt, Rome has taught clearly, for at least the past thousand years, that to be united to it is to be subjected to it. Perhaps you and many other Eastern Catholics believe that this is wrong, but the fact remains that this is what Rome has been teaching for quite some time now -- and the Orthodox recognize that clearly as well, which is one of many reasons why they will not yet reunite with Rome.

Now, I know people here will shout at me: "you don't understand us!" Yes, my brothers and sisters, I DO understand you! I do understand that many Eastern Catholics believe exactly as the Orthodox do, all the while insisting on living this belief while retaining communion with Rome -- and I do not condemn this at all. Not at all! My point is simple: Rome, in all her proclamations of the past thousand years, has made it clear that she expects to be obeyed, and that she expects her doctrinal statements to be believed by all who are in communion with her, regardless of sui juris Church or rite. Is it a sin to point out this crystal-clear fact?

You may believe this. Does this mean that you will not obey the CCEO? Or should we obey only those things that we like?

A simple question, and I ask for a simple answer.

Don't you think that where there is no consensus, it is better to err on the side of caution?

No. You do not understand at all.

You know what, I think the time has come for the following to happen:

Let those Eastern Catholics who are fully Orthodox in belief, and who wish to follow Orthodox canon law and practice, openly tell Rome: "we do not consider the last 14 Councils of the West to be Ecumenical Councils. We do not believe in papal infallibility, and we reject your jurisdiction over us. We wish to give you primacy of honor, nothing more. And we will go back to our canons, as these existed before the various unions between our local Churches and Rome. Now, decide whether to keep communion with us, or to sever it."

I think that everyone will be appreciative and respectful of the honesty that such a move will demonstrate. It will also be productive of greater clarity and peace.

How so? Please explain, then.

It means that our hierarchs follow the CCEO to the extent that it is consistent with the Tradition of the Eastern Churches, and no farther. For instance, there is a canon that requires converts to be received into their parallel Catholic Church; i.e., Eastern Orthodox into the proper Greek Catholic Church, Coptic Orthodox into the Coptic Catholic Church, Assyrians into the Chaldean Catholic Church, etc. Under this canon, all Protestant converts are required to be received into the Latin Church, as though a Baptist was some form of lapsed Roman Catholic, even if he wishes to be received into an Eastern Catholic Church. The effect of this canon, if followed, would be closing off most of North America to us as mission territory, and would require us to forego our obligations under the Great Commission. As a result, I do not know of any Eastern Catholic jurisdiction that pays the slightest attention to it.

Now, THAT is the kind of reply that I appreciate. No insults.

At the same time, this makes me wonder why the Eastern Catholic Churches don't reject the CCEO publicly.

So, you are saying in its ecumenical dialogue with the Orthodox that the Church of Rome has been utterly disingenuous at best, cynically deceitful at worst? And why would you wish to be in communion with a Church that would behave in such a disgraceful manner?

By the way, you really need to read some of the important ecumenical documents of the Catholic Church, starting with Unitatis redintegratio, Ut unum sint, and all of the declarations of the Joint International Theological Commission. You might be surprised to discover just what the Catholic Church says it wants from the Eastern Orthodox.

You might also consider what a young firebrand named Joseph Ratizinger said in a speech delivered at Graz in 1977, which he repeated in his 1985 book, Introduction to Catholic Theology (in English by Ignatius Press):


The normative nature of first millennium ecclesiology in all its respects has been accepted by both Catholic and Orthodox theologians as the foundation on which the ecumenical dialogue is grounded.

"At the same time, this makes me wonder why the Eastern Catholic Churches don't reject the CCEO publicly."

Because, to a large extent, many Eastern Catholic Churches are still dependent upon the Oriental Congregation for support.