OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 22, 2014, 02:40:04 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Sunday obligation  (Read 3381 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,909


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #45 on: February 25, 2013, 10:30:09 PM »

How would they 'benefit' since they would be attending knowing it would be a Mortal Sin to do so?  IOW, No Obligation, No benefit. There is a confusion here........IF what you say is true, then an 'obligation' is being satisfied and No Mortal Sin is a result.......or am I not seeing this dichotomy correctly?

First of all there is no sin in attending an Orthodox Liturgy.  Second, th obligation is to attend a Catholic Litrugy if reasonably available, if it is not no obligation.  That is a seperate issue from being able to derive personal spiritual benefit from attending an Orthodox Liturgy.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
ErmyCath
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (inquiring with GOA)
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Mobile
Posts: 184



« Reply #46 on: February 25, 2013, 10:41:20 PM »

Joe, From the Catholic perspective, it is a sin for a Catholic to attend an Orthodox Divine Liturgy and participate in that Liturgy. It is the sin of schism, actually. So, it would not be spiritually beneficial for a Catholic to do so.

There could, however, be a situation in which one's bishop allowed for attendance at an Orthodox Liturgy. In that case, it would be neither sinful nor spiritually harmful. 

The mindset is the issue here: if one went to an Orthodox Liturgy to "see how it works" without participating, that would not be sinful. If one did so as defiance to the Catholic Church or the Pope, it is schismatic in intent and sinful. This is why many contend, actually, that attendance at SSPX chapels is sinful - the so-called schismatic intent.
Logged

"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic
Maximum Bob
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catechumen
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,561


Personal Text? We can have personal text?


« Reply #47 on: February 25, 2013, 11:17:31 PM »

So, let me ask again even if it involves speculation can anyone of you, my Roman Catholic friends suggest why one of my Roman Catholic relatives might have been under the impression that if they couldn't make a Roman Mass they could fulfill their obligation by going to an Orthodox Liturgy?

I'm just curious. I mean I've got this in my memory banks, I just don't remember any of the details, like who it was that told me.
Logged

Countdown to our Baptisms and Chrismations:


Psalm 37:23 The Lord guides a man safely in the way he should go.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,909


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #48 on: February 25, 2013, 11:26:23 PM »

So, let me ask again even if it involves speculation can anyone of you, my Roman Catholic friends suggest why one of my Roman Catholic relatives might have been under the impression that if they couldn't make a Roman Mass they could fulfill their obligation by going to an Orthodox Liturgy?

I'm just curious. I mean I've got this in my memory banks, I just don't remember any of the details, like who it was that told me.

Misinformation?
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #49 on: February 26, 2013, 12:21:30 AM »

So, let me ask again even if it involves speculation can anyone of you, my Roman Catholic friends suggest why one of my Roman Catholic relatives might have been under the impression that if they couldn't make a Roman Mass they could fulfill their obligation by going to an Orthodox Liturgy?

I'm just curious. I mean I've got this in my memory banks, I just don't remember any of the details, like who it was that told me.

As mentioned earlier, if one can't attend a Catholic Liturgy then the obligation is dispensed.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,666



« Reply #50 on: February 26, 2013, 12:27:51 AM »

So, let me ask again even if it involves speculation can anyone of you, my Roman Catholic friends suggest why one of my Roman Catholic relatives might have been under the impression that if they couldn't make a Roman Mass they could fulfill their obligation by going to an Orthodox Liturgy?

I'm just curious. I mean I've got this in my memory banks, I just don't remember any of the details, like who it was that told me.

Misinformation?
If it is, it is widespread.  I'll seen/heard it said in reputable sources promoting the Vatican (the proviso is that there is no church of theirs around).
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,666



« Reply #51 on: February 26, 2013, 12:29:31 AM »

How would they 'benefit' since they would be attending knowing it would be a Mortal Sin to do so?  IOW, No Obligation, No benefit. There is a confusion here........IF what you say is true, then an 'obligation' is being satisfied and No Mortal Sin is a result.......or am I not seeing this dichotomy correctly?

First of all there is no sin in attending an Orthodox Liturgy.  Second, th obligation is to attend a Catholic Litrugy if reasonably available, if it is not no obligation.  That is a seperate issue from being able to derive personal spiritual benefit from attending an Orthodox Liturgy.
Vatican II sort of open that can of worms by saying that its followers could commune at our chalice, something, of course, it cannot authorize.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,909


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #52 on: February 26, 2013, 12:55:49 AM »

How would they 'benefit' since they would be attending knowing it would be a Mortal Sin to do so?  IOW, No Obligation, No benefit. There is a confusion here........IF what you say is true, then an 'obligation' is being satisfied and No Mortal Sin is a result.......or am I not seeing this dichotomy correctly?

First of all there is no sin in attending an Orthodox Liturgy.  Second, th obligation is to attend a Catholic Litrugy if reasonably available, if it is not no obligation.  That is a seperate issue from being able to derive personal spiritual benefit from attending an Orthodox Liturgy.
Vatican II sort of open that can of worms by saying that its followers could commune at our chalice, something, of course, it cannot authorize.

It said in extreme cases Catholics could approach Orthodox priests with the request, at that point it is up to the Orthodox.  This is something Rome wouldn't have allowed under any circumstances before VII.  The Russian Orthodox Church in Russia had a general accomdation while the Iron Curtain was up as the Antiochians in the Middle East still do.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2013, 01:16:41 AM by Deacon Lance » Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Maximum Bob
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catechumen
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,561


Personal Text? We can have personal text?


« Reply #53 on: February 26, 2013, 12:59:47 AM »

How would they 'benefit' since they would be attending knowing it would be a Mortal Sin to do so?  IOW, No Obligation, No benefit. There is a confusion here........IF what you say is true, then an 'obligation' is being satisfied and No Mortal Sin is a result.......or am I not seeing this dichotomy correctly?

First of all there is no sin in attending an Orthodox Liturgy.  Second, th obligation is to attend a Catholic Litrugy if reasonably available, if it is not no obligation.  That is a seperate issue from being able to derive personal spiritual benefit from attending an Orthodox Liturgy.
Vatican II sort of open that can of worms by saying that its followers could commune at our chalice, something, of course, it cannot authorize.

It said in extreme cases Catholics could approach Orthodox priests with the request, at that point it is up to the Orthodox.  This is something Rome wouldn't have allowed under any circumstances before VII.  The Russian Orthodox Church in Russia had a general accomdation while the Iron Curtain was up as the Antiochians in the Middle ast still do.
That sounds like the answer to what I was asking.
Logged

Countdown to our Baptisms and Chrismations:


Psalm 37:23 The Lord guides a man safely in the way he should go.
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox. With some feta, please.
Posts: 6,743



« Reply #54 on: February 26, 2013, 02:40:37 PM »

So, our obligation is to love the Lord, and we fulfill it, in part anyway, by going to Church.

Does this make any sense?  Or am I missing the mark again and/or over-simplifying?

It does make sense and I have no problem with an idea of sunday obligation. However "going to Church" is the part is the part I don't understand since we are indeed a church and we do have sacraments according to RCC. However I could understand the logic if RCC said that our churches and sacraments are illegitimate. Does it?
Logged

J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,128


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #55 on: February 26, 2013, 02:46:14 PM »

So, our obligation is to love the Lord, and we fulfill it, in part anyway, by going to Church.

Does this make any sense?  Or am I missing the mark again and/or over-simplifying?

It does make sense and I have no problem with an idea of sunday obligation. However "going to Church" is the part is the part I don't understand since we are indeed a church and we do have sacraments according to RCC. However I could understand the logic if RCC said that our churches and sacraments are illegitimate. Does it?
Afaik, the Catholic Church does not consider Orthodox "churches and sacraments" to be illegitimate.  But that's a whole other can of worms, especially as the OP was concerning the Catholic Sunday obligation.

What don't you get about "going to Church"?  Putting it in the simplest possible terms, according to us, we're the Church.  According to you, you're the Church.  We fulfill our obligation in our Church--you know, THE Church.  You fulfill your Sunday non-obligation (Grin), in *your* Church--you know, THE Church.  Grin  See how simple it all is  Roll Eyes?
« Last Edit: February 26, 2013, 02:52:42 PM by J Michael » Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #56 on: February 26, 2013, 02:52:01 PM »

So, our obligation is to love the Lord, and we fulfill it, in part anyway, by going to Church.

Does this make any sense?  Or am I missing the mark again and/or over-simplifying?

It does make sense and I have no problem with an idea of sunday obligation. However "going to Church" is the part is the part I don't understand since we are indeed a church and we do have sacraments according to RCC. However I could understand the logic if RCC said that our churches and sacraments are illegitimate. Does it?
Afaik, the Catholic Church does not consider Orthodox "churches and sacraments" to be illegitimate.  But that's a whole other can of worms, especially as the OP was concerning the Catholic Sunday obligation.

Right.  Although there is something interesting I dug up about this.  In the CIC (Code of Canon Law) which applies to Roman Catholics (or Latin Catholics, whatever floats your boat), it is explicitly clear that the Sunday obligation is fulfilled by going to a "Mass (ie. Eucharistic Liturgy) or any Catholic Rite".  In the CCEO which covers Eastern Catholics, there is no such wording.  The CCEO says the obligation is fulfilled by attending any one of the Divine Praises on the eve or day itself of the Day of Obligation.  That is, Vespers and Matins are enough to fulfill one's obligation, not necessarily a Eucharistic Liturgy such as the Divine Liturgy.  And the biggest omission in the CCEO is that there is no "of a Catholic Rite" clause.  Which opens the possibility that Eastern Catholics can fulfill their Sunday Obligation in an Orthodox Church, but not one who is canonically ascribed to the Roman/Latin Catholic Church.
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,128


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #57 on: February 26, 2013, 02:57:46 PM »

So, our obligation is to love the Lord, and we fulfill it, in part anyway, by going to Church.

Does this make any sense?  Or am I missing the mark again and/or over-simplifying?

It does make sense and I have no problem with an idea of sunday obligation. However "going to Church" is the part is the part I don't understand since we are indeed a church and we do have sacraments according to RCC. However I could understand the logic if RCC said that our churches and sacraments are illegitimate. Does it?
Afaik, the Catholic Church does not consider Orthodox "churches and sacraments" to be illegitimate.  But that's a whole other can of worms, especially as the OP was concerning the Catholic Sunday obligation.

Right.  Although there is something interesting I dug up about this.  In the CIC (Code of Canon Law) which applies to Roman Catholics (or Latin Catholics, whatever floats your boat), it is explicitly clear that the Sunday obligation is fulfilled by going to a "Mass (ie. Eucharistic Liturgy) or any Catholic Rite".  In the CCEO which covers Eastern Catholics, there is no such wording.  The CCEO says the obligation is fulfilled by attending any one of the Divine Praises on the eve or day itself of the Day of Obligation.  That is, Vespers and Matins are enough to fulfill one's obligation, not necessarily a Eucharistic Liturgy such as the Divine Liturgy.  And the biggest omission in the CCEO is that there is no "of a Catholic Rite" clause.  Which opens the possibility that Eastern Catholics can fulfill their Sunday Obligation in an Orthodox Church, but not one who is canonically ascribed to the Roman/Latin Catholic Church.

Interesting--I've never come across that.  Do you have a link to that?  I'd be willing to bet that any EC priest would say that the obligation is fulfilled by attendance at either a Mass or a Divine Liturgy, and that Vespers and Matins do not count towards the obligation.  But...I could be wrong  Grin.
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox. With some feta, please.
Posts: 6,743



« Reply #58 on: February 26, 2013, 02:58:53 PM »

What don't you get about "going to Church"?  Putting it in the simplest possible terms, according to us, we're the Church.  According to you, you're the Church.  We fulfill our obligation in our Church--you know, THE Church.  You fulfill your Sunday non-obligation (Grin), in *your* Church--you know, THE Church.  Grin  See how simple it all is  Roll Eyes?

But if a Catholic attends Orthodox liturgy he attends valid and legitimate eucharistic service. I don't understand why it doesn't qualify as "going to Church".
Logged

J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,128


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #59 on: February 26, 2013, 03:07:39 PM »

What don't you get about "going to Church"?  Putting it in the simplest possible terms, according to us, we're the Church.  According to you, you're the Church.  We fulfill our obligation in our Church--you know, THE Church.  You fulfill your Sunday non-obligation (Grin), in *your* Church--you know, THE Church.  Grin  See how simple it all is  Roll Eyes?

But if a Catholic attends Orthodox liturgy he attends valid and legitimate eucharistic service. I don't understand why it doesn't qualify as "going to Church".

Well....oh boy....since, at least for a Roman Catholic, it's not a Mass or a Catholic Rite...it wouldn't count.  For an Eastern Catholic, Choy has (perhaps) just thrown a monkey wrench into the works by what he said above.  *Maybe*, if he is correct in his understanding of the CCEO, and his reference is accurate, maybe he is right.  You've now reached the limits of my knowledge about this. Grin  That didn't take long, did it Grin Grin?
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
James2
Mr.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: skeptic
Posts: 747



« Reply #60 on: February 26, 2013, 03:32:09 PM »

An unfortunate side effect of making church attendance an "obligation" is the migration of certain RC holy days to Sundays in many countries.  It's happened with Epiphany and Ascension.  And certain other holy days of obligation lose the obligation if they fall on a Saturday or Monday.  This tends to compartmentalize religion to Sunday mornings (and Saturday evenings, of course!).
Logged
TheMathematician
Banished and Disgraced
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Serbian
Posts: 1,465


Formerly known as Montalo


« Reply #61 on: February 26, 2013, 03:37:08 PM »

What don't you get about "going to Church"?  Putting it in the simplest possible terms, according to us, we're the Church.  According to you, you're the Church.  We fulfill our obligation in our Church--you know, THE Church.  You fulfill your Sunday non-obligation (Grin), in *your* Church--you know, THE Church.  Grin  See how simple it all is  Roll Eyes?

But if a Catholic attends Orthodox liturgy he attends valid and legitimate eucharistic service. I don't understand why it doesn't qualify as "going to Church".

Well....oh boy....since, at least for a Roman Catholic, it's not a Mass or a Catholic Rite...it wouldn't count.  For an Eastern Catholic, Choy has (perhaps) just thrown a monkey wrench into the works by what he said above.  *Maybe*, if he is correct in his understanding of the CCEO, and his reference is accurate, maybe he is right.  You've now reached the limits of my knowledge about this. Grin  That didn't take long, did it Grin Grin?

here are the canons

Quote
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.
http://www.jgray.org/codes/cceo90eng.html

(a link link i found, for comparision purposes if wished http://www.intratext.com/IXT/LAT0758/)
Logged

SCREW BON JOVI!
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,128


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #62 on: February 26, 2013, 03:38:03 PM »

An unfortunate side effect of making church attendance an "obligation" is the migration of certain RC holy days to Sundays in many countries.  It's happened with Epiphany and Ascension.  And certain other holy days of obligation lose the obligation if they fall on a Saturday or Monday.  This tends to compartmentalize religion to Sunday mornings (and Saturday evenings, of course!).

I'm not sure that you're correct about that.  You could be.  But, since the "obligation" has been around, as posted above, for hundred of years, I'd think that the migration you speak of, and it is unfortunate, may be caused by something else.  I don't *know* and I cannot *prove* it, so maybe I'm just talking out my posterior inferior orifice--again  Wink.
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,128


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #63 on: February 26, 2013, 03:45:53 PM »

What don't you get about "going to Church"?  Putting it in the simplest possible terms, according to us, we're the Church.  According to you, you're the Church.  We fulfill our obligation in our Church--you know, THE Church.  You fulfill your Sunday non-obligation (Grin), in *your* Church--you know, THE Church.  Grin  See how simple it all is  Roll Eyes?

But if a Catholic attends Orthodox liturgy he attends valid and legitimate eucharistic service. I don't understand why it doesn't qualify as "going to Church".

Well....oh boy....since, at least for a Roman Catholic, it's not a Mass or a Catholic Rite...it wouldn't count.  For an Eastern Catholic, Choy has (perhaps) just thrown a monkey wrench into the works by what he said above.  *Maybe*, if he is correct in his understanding of the CCEO, and his reference is accurate, maybe he is right.  You've now reached the limits of my knowledge about this. Grin  That didn't take long, did it Grin Grin?

here are the canons

Quote
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.
http://www.jgray.org/codes/cceo90eng.html

(a link link i found, for comparision purposes if wished http://www.intratext.com/IXT/LAT0758/)

Thanks!

Seems that a key phrase in there might be "...according to the prescriptions or legitimate customs of their own Church sui iuris...".  And I wonder if "divine praises" are the same in all the sui iuris churches?  According to one site I found, in the Melkite Church they consist of "Vespers, Little Compline, Matins and one of the Little Hours as they are contained in the horologhion (The Book of Hours)." http://byzantineramblings.blogspot.com/2007/01/divine-praises-what-it-is-and-how-to.html
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #64 on: February 26, 2013, 04:00:00 PM »

Many people act as if the "Sunday obligation" is yet another "unnecessary rule" by the RCC, but the idea predates the [Roman] Catholic Church. Forsaking the Sunday Eucharist without a justifiable reason breaks the third commandment, which both Catholics and Orthodox recognize.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2013, 04:00:22 PM by Wyatt » Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #65 on: February 26, 2013, 04:26:35 PM »

So, our obligation is to love the Lord, and we fulfill it, in part anyway, by going to Church.

Does this make any sense?  Or am I missing the mark again and/or over-simplifying?

It does make sense and I have no problem with an idea of sunday obligation. However "going to Church" is the part is the part I don't understand since we are indeed a church and we do have sacraments according to RCC. However I could understand the logic if RCC said that our churches and sacraments are illegitimate. Does it?
Afaik, the Catholic Church does not consider Orthodox "churches and sacraments" to be illegitimate.  But that's a whole other can of worms, especially as the OP was concerning the Catholic Sunday obligation.

Right.  Although there is something interesting I dug up about this.  In the CIC (Code of Canon Law) which applies to Roman Catholics (or Latin Catholics, whatever floats your boat), it is explicitly clear that the Sunday obligation is fulfilled by going to a "Mass (ie. Eucharistic Liturgy) or any Catholic Rite".  In the CCEO which covers Eastern Catholics, there is no such wording.  The CCEO says the obligation is fulfilled by attending any one of the Divine Praises on the eve or day itself of the Day of Obligation.  That is, Vespers and Matins are enough to fulfill one's obligation, not necessarily a Eucharistic Liturgy such as the Divine Liturgy.  And the biggest omission in the CCEO is that there is no "of a Catholic Rite" clause.  Which opens the possibility that Eastern Catholics can fulfill their Sunday Obligation in an Orthodox Church, but not one who is canonically ascribed to the Roman/Latin Catholic Church.

Interesting--I've never come across that.  Do you have a link to that?  I'd be willing to bet that any EC priest would say that the obligation is fulfilled by attendance at either a Mass or a Divine Liturgy, and that Vespers and Matins do not count towards the obligation.  But...I could be wrong  Grin.

http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG1199/_POH.HTM
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.



As opposed to:


Can.  1248 §1. A person who assists at a Mass celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the feast day itself or in the evening of the preceding day satisfies the obligation of participating in the Mass.


And this is the provision about going to an Orthodox Divine Liturgy if there is no Catholic parish within reasonable distance:

§2. If participation in the eucharistic celebration becomes impossible because of the absence of a sacred minister or for another grave cause, it is strongly recommended that the faithful take part in a liturgy of the word if such a liturgy is celebrated in a parish church or other sacred place according to the prescripts of the diocesan bishop or that they devote themselves to prayer for a suitable time alone, as a family, or, as the occasion permits, in groups of families.


So nowhere does it say you are obliged to do it, but it is strongly recommended.
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #66 on: February 26, 2013, 04:27:30 PM »

Many people act as if the "Sunday obligation" is yet another "unnecessary rule" by the RCC, but the idea predates the [Roman] Catholic Church. Forsaking the Sunday Eucharist without a justifiable reason breaks the third commandment, which both Catholics and Orthodox recognize.

Sunday Obligation isn't wrong, except with how it is worded in the Catholic Church.  Why do people need to be threattened with "mortal sin"?
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,128


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #67 on: February 26, 2013, 05:00:06 PM »

Many people act as if the "Sunday obligation" is yet another "unnecessary rule" by the RCC, but the idea predates the [Roman] Catholic Church. Forsaking the Sunday Eucharist without a justifiable reason breaks the third commandment, which both Catholics and Orthodox recognize.

Sunday Obligation isn't wrong, except with how it is worded in the Catholic Church.  Why do people need to be threattened with "mortal sin"?

Maybe you just need to see past the terminology and what seems to me to be an image that you may have constructed of a big bad Church wielding a club over the faithful threatening them with eternal damnation, and look more deeply into the whole concept of sin and the Ten Commandments and Christ's Commandments, sin and reconciliation as discussed by the Catholic Church.  In Roman Catholic parlance all sin is, as you know quite well, either mortal or venial, and mortal sin (and lists of those are easy enough to find), if unrepented of has dire consequences.  But...since you've already left the Catholic Church...it's just academic for you, anyway.  Luckily, in the Eastern Catholic Church, while sin is still sometimes referred to as "mortal" or "venial", we have a much more, well, Eastern (as in Eastern Orthodox) view of it all.

Or...you could just get over it and move on.  Wink  (And I do not mean that nastily or with snark!)
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,128


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #68 on: February 26, 2013, 05:12:35 PM »

So, our obligation is to love the Lord, and we fulfill it, in part anyway, by going to Church.

Does this make any sense?  Or am I missing the mark again and/or over-simplifying?

It does make sense and I have no problem with an idea of sunday obligation. However "going to Church" is the part is the part I don't understand since we are indeed a church and we do have sacraments according to RCC. However I could understand the logic if RCC said that our churches and sacraments are illegitimate. Does it?
Afaik, the Catholic Church does not consider Orthodox "churches and sacraments" to be illegitimate.  But that's a whole other can of worms, especially as the OP was concerning the Catholic Sunday obligation.

Right.  Although there is something interesting I dug up about this.  In the CIC (Code of Canon Law) which applies to Roman Catholics (or Latin Catholics, whatever floats your boat), it is explicitly clear that the Sunday obligation is fulfilled by going to a "Mass (ie. Eucharistic Liturgy) or any Catholic Rite".  In the CCEO which covers Eastern Catholics, there is no such wording.  The CCEO says the obligation is fulfilled by attending any one of the Divine Praises on the eve or day itself of the Day of Obligation.  That is, Vespers and Matins are enough to fulfill one's obligation, not necessarily a Eucharistic Liturgy such as the Divine Liturgy.  And the biggest omission in the CCEO is that there is no "of a Catholic Rite" clause.  Which opens the possibility that Eastern Catholics can fulfill their Sunday Obligation in an Orthodox Church, but not one who is canonically ascribed to the Roman/Latin Catholic Church.

Interesting--I've never come across that.  Do you have a link to that?  I'd be willing to bet that any EC priest would say that the obligation is fulfilled by attendance at either a Mass or a Divine Liturgy, and that Vespers and Matins do not count towards the obligation.  But...I could be wrong  Grin.

http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG1199/_POH.HTM
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.



As opposed to:


Can.  1248 §1. A person who assists at a Mass celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the feast day itself or in the evening of the preceding day satisfies the obligation of participating in the Mass.


And this is the provision about going to an Orthodox Divine Liturgy if there is no Catholic parish within reasonable distance:

§2. If participation in the eucharistic celebration becomes impossible because of the absence of a sacred minister or for another grave cause, it is strongly recommended that the faithful take part in a liturgy of the word if such a liturgy is celebrated in a parish church or other sacred place according to the prescripts of the diocesan bishop or that they devote themselves to prayer for a suitable time alone, as a family, or, as the occasion permits, in groups of families.


So nowhere does it say you are obliged to do it, but it is strongly recommended.

Just want to point out that the Canon 881 you cite is from the CCEO, while the Canon 1248 you reference below it is from the (Roman Catholic) Code of Canon Law-- http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P4N.HTM .  But I can't see that it says anything about the Orthodox Church.  Note that it says, "...parish church or other sacred place according to the prescripts of the diocesan bishop..."  I'll go out on a limb here and suggest that "parish church" refers to a Catholic church, and the diocesan bishop is a Catholic bishop who is doing the prescripting (is that a word?) about it.  So it seems to me that it's referring to people/entities within the Catholic communion.  I'd be more than happy to be proven wrong about that, though.  Wink
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #69 on: February 26, 2013, 05:52:03 PM »

Just want to point out that the Canon 881 you cite is from the CCEO, while the Canon 1248 you reference below it is from the (Roman Catholic) Code of Canon Law-- http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P4N.HTM .  But I can't see that it says anything about the Orthodox Church.  Note that it says, "...parish church or other sacred place according to the prescripts of the diocesan bishop..."  I'll go out on a limb here and suggest that "parish church" refers to a Catholic church, and the diocesan bishop is a Catholic bishop who is doing the prescripting (is that a word?) about it.  So it seems to me that it's referring to people/entities within the Catholic communion.  I'd be more than happy to be proven wrong about that, though.  Wink

Ah, but you forget that it was intentionally left open-ended because there are intercommunion agreements with non-Catholic Churches in certain areas around the world.  Like the Chaldean-Assyrian intercommunion in the Middle East, you can search the Vatican website for the document on that.

So if you are EC and your bishops says you can go to an Orthodox parish for your "Sunday Obligation", then you can.  Of course receiving the Sacraments would be another question.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #70 on: February 26, 2013, 06:07:08 PM »

Many people act as if the "Sunday obligation" is yet another "unnecessary rule" by the RCC, but the idea predates the [Roman] Catholic Church. Forsaking the Sunday Eucharist without a justifiable reason breaks the third commandment, which both Catholics and Orthodox recognize.

Sunday Obligation isn't wrong, except with how it is worded in the Catholic Church.  Why do people need to be threattened with "mortal sin"?
Why does the Chriatian faith in general threaten us with hell? It's because there are consequences to sin.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #71 on: February 26, 2013, 06:35:39 PM »

Many people act as if the "Sunday obligation" is yet another "unnecessary rule" by the RCC, but the idea predates the [Roman] Catholic Church. Forsaking the Sunday Eucharist without a justifiable reason breaks the third commandment, which both Catholics and Orthodox recognize.

Sunday Obligation isn't wrong, except with how it is worded in the Catholic Church.  Why do people need to be threattened with "mortal sin"?
Why does the Chriatian faith in general threaten us with hell? It's because there are consequences to sin.

You know what started my path to Orthodoxy?  When somebody explained to me why I should love God without the "or else you'll go to hell" bit.  Not that hell was ever denied nor not that the fact that it is indeed a consequence.  Our faith shouldn't be about scaring us into submission.  Christianity isn't about going to hell, its about going to heaven.  So why should I constantly be threattened with hell?  If someone is not attending Sunday Liturgy regularly, then there must be an underlying issue.  Shouldn't that be addressed instead of an impersonal, "I don't care what your issues are but you are going to hell."?
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #72 on: February 26, 2013, 06:57:32 PM »

Look, here's my point.  If someone turly loves God, do we have to obligate them?  No.  If someone is still in the process of growing their love for God then we need to help them in that process.  If a nominal Catholic or Orthodox doesn't always go to church, would threattening them with hell help?  Yes, I understand that is probably the result.  It also might not, who knows.  But people who don't understand why they need to go to church regularly on Sundays won't be convinced they need to do so just because you threatten them with hell.
Logged
username!
Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,064



« Reply #73 on: February 26, 2013, 06:57:52 PM »

Many people act as if the "Sunday obligation" is yet another "unnecessary rule" by the RCC, but the idea predates the [Roman] Catholic Church. Forsaking the Sunday Eucharist without a justifiable reason breaks the third commandment, which both Catholics and Orthodox recognize.

Sunday Obligation isn't wrong, except with how it is worded in the Catholic Church.  Why do people need to be threattened with "mortal sin"?

Remember in pagan Rome it was mandatory...an obligation to venerate certain pagan gods.  The pagan religion was so ingrained into Roman society.  Think of our civic rituals.  Their civic rituals were ingrained in paganism.  This is one of the reasons early Christians were easy to spot.  They wouldn't pray or participate in pagan rituals that were the civic rituals.  They wouldn't fulfill the obligatory veneration of the gods.  They wouldn't participate in say the rituals that were done before say a race (think of a group of people refusing to participate in the USA or Canadian national anthem before a hockey game).
There is a lot of pre-Christian notions ingrained into Christian worship.  Religions borrow from the ones they replace.  I just hope our Orthodoxy doesn't incorporate the secularism in today's society.  There is a notion to separate home life and church life.  This is a hallmark of protestanism and increasingly Catholicism and even more so becoming a part of Orthodoxy.  
Things that are deemed "ethnic" are actually ways of integrating the worship of the church into the home life.  What's ethnic about north america? The compartmentalization of religion and home life/life outside church.
I think it is hard to grasp that some of our rules are 2000 years old OR older and are hard to interpret into today's secular world.  Such is the notion of "obligations on sunday."  Again there are major differences in the Western spirituality versus Eastern.
The same result of the obligation on sunday the Catholics teach is the same result that you excommunicate yourself from the Orthodox communion if you miss three Sundays in a row.  You have to go to confession to receive commuion; translate into western terms... you are excommunicated and the priest has to re-receive you into the church through confession.  
So both sides have rules.  It's just how you present them.  And in today's individualistic society of "me me me, don't tell me what to do" this notion of a mortal sin to miss mass on Sunday just doesn't sit well with that attitude.  Re-adjust it; look come to mass every sunday, if you miss please come to confession.

Also a major difference is that in many of our Orthodox parishes the priest knows everyone.  It is hard to approach the chalice when you know you can't and especially since the priest knows where you sit or has told you not to take communion for a period of time.
Whereas in the Catholic churches communion is seen as a right, a personal experience.  Not so much in the Greek Catholic parishes.  
In the Orthodox church the chalice is what unites us.  Believe in the Deposit of Faith and share communion, or Jesus.  We are brothers and sisters because we share in the holy gifts.  We are taught that if we have a problem with someone in our communion then we don't take communion because it effects the community.
It's hard to rationalize or understand if you have never lived it.

But I know from experience the Roman Catholics teach communion very solidly but they don't ask questions they leave the individual to decide if he wants to commune.  Sure I think they do ban some from communion but it is for specific rule violations.  It is a more individual experience.  And we have seen examples in recent times of priests who have turned down people at the communion rail (so to speak).  It didn't fair well for the priest.

So we are talking apples and apples here... one is a granny smith and the other is a red apple.  Both are apples just different flavours.  Let's not get caught up in all in the language.
Let's face it; Orthodox and Catholics speak sometimes an entirely different language on faith.
Logged

username!
Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,064



« Reply #74 on: February 26, 2013, 06:59:19 PM »

Look, here's my point.  If someone turly loves God, do we have to obligate them?  No.  If someone is still in the process of growing their love for God then we need to help them in that process.  If a nominal Catholic or Orthodox doesn't always go to church, would threattening them with hell help?  Yes, I understand that is probably the result.  It also might not, who knows.  But people who don't understand why they need to go to church regularly on Sundays won't be convinced they need to do so just because you threatten them with hell.

Is it not humility to be told to come to church and obey?  The church is a spiritual hospital and many have been healed by attending even if they don't want to but are instructed to.
Logged

choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #75 on: February 26, 2013, 08:54:39 PM »

Look, here's my point.  If someone turly loves God, do we have to obligate them?  No.  If someone is still in the process of growing their love for God then we need to help them in that process.  If a nominal Catholic or Orthodox doesn't always go to church, would threattening them with hell help?  Yes, I understand that is probably the result.  It also might not, who knows.  But people who don't understand why they need to go to church regularly on Sundays won't be convinced they need to do so just because you threatten them with hell.

Is it not humility to be told to come to church and obey?  The church is a spiritual hospital and many have been healed by attending even if they don't want to but are instructed to.


I think this is a source of a lot of problems of all the Churches today.  When we ask people to just do something without understanding what they are doing.  So many people are under catechized.  Like most people I'm one of those who for a long time has just gone through the motions.  I go to church because that is how I was brought up and I know my mom will be disappointed if I didn't.  I don't know how that will save me.  We don't need to turn people into theologians but there must be at least a basic understanding and appreciation of the faith.  Which today is sorely lacking.  And that is not addressed by laws that not only lacks the explanation, but comes of as threattening.

I've had a lengthy argument with an RC priest over at CAF I think a year or two ago about the Eucharistic fast.  To him he doesn't care about anything beyond the law.  The law says medicine does not break the fast, so it doesn't matter what you take as long as it can be counted medicine.  My argument was for the spirit of the law.  I asked him if it was okay for me to take Viagra (which is a prescription drug) just before I come up for Communion.  I hope I don't have to explain what the problem here is.  I can understand if someone needs to take their heart medication on the dot everyday, and it happens that appointed time is 10 minutes before Communion time.  But if it is medication that can be put off for later, why not put it off for later?

Like I said, I'm not against having laws, but the laws need to make sense and need to help accomplish the objective.  Just becaue we want people coming to Liturgy every Sunday because it is a spiritual necessity, it doesn't mean we can say it however we want just as long as they come on Sunday.
Logged
Anastasia1
My warrior name is Beyoncé Pad Thai
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Occasionally traveling, Armenian.
Posts: 1,187



« Reply #76 on: February 26, 2013, 10:13:50 PM »

Many people act as if the "Sunday obligation" is yet another "unnecessary rule" by the RCC, but the idea predates the [Roman] Catholic Church. Forsaking the Sunday Eucharist without a justifiable reason breaks the third commandment, which both Catholics and Orthodox recognize.
I thought that was the fourth, but at any rate...

The command is to remember and to keep holy. That commandment does not say anything about going to church.  This is based on extrapolation from other things.  From an Orthodox Jewish perspective, since this commandment was in the OT, Jews are required to pray, and that prayer can be done with family or with a minyan, or alone though this is not as good as together, and some prayers can only be said together in a community.  As I see it, and feel free to correct me, this obligation comes from one of a couple things:

It is healthy to attend church, and thus not doing it must condemn one to hell (which is extreme).

Not attending is neglecting the opportunity for grace through sacraments that is available to us, and thus can be seen as rejecting salvation or something (which does not hold for those who are excommunicated).

Rejecting fellowship (Do not neglect the fellowship of the saints is sometimes applied at least in a Protestant context to mean we Christians should have fellowship and this is not necessarily limited to a church service or setting or necessarily participated in by those at a service).

Taking the do this as often as possible to an odd end with regard to the Lord's Supper and communion.

Or most likely: It is law that was created to give guidance on how Christians should live that is sometimes taught as the law with a negative connotation of fear and punishment rather than as the instruction to seek the good of one's soul and develop a love response to Christ for which I imagine this was originally to be an impetus for.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2013, 10:39:15 PM by Anastasia1 » Logged

Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation. (2 Cor 2:6)
Anastasia1
My warrior name is Beyoncé Pad Thai
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Occasionally traveling, Armenian.
Posts: 1,187



« Reply #77 on: February 26, 2013, 10:40:11 PM »

Look, here's my point.  If someone turly loves God, do we have to obligate them?  No.  If someone is still in the process of growing their love for God then we need to help them in that process.  If a nominal Catholic or Orthodox doesn't always go to church, would threattening them with hell help?  Yes, I understand that is probably the result.  It also might not, who knows.  But people who don't understand why they need to go to church regularly on Sundays won't be convinced they need to do so just because you threatten them with hell.

Is it not humility to be told to come to church and obey?  The church is a spiritual hospital and many have been healed by attending even if they don't want to but are instructed to.
I think it is more humble to not need to be told that one must attend church but to come out a recognition of our status.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2013, 10:42:07 PM by Anastasia1 » Logged

Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation. (2 Cor 2:6)
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,128


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #78 on: February 27, 2013, 10:48:33 AM »

Just want to point out that the Canon 881 you cite is from the CCEO, while the Canon 1248 you reference below it is from the (Roman Catholic) Code of Canon Law-- http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P4N.HTM .  But I can't see that it says anything about the Orthodox Church.  Note that it says, "...parish church or other sacred place according to the prescripts of the diocesan bishop..."  I'll go out on a limb here and suggest that "parish church" refers to a Catholic church, and the diocesan bishop is a Catholic bishop who is doing the prescripting (is that a word?) about it.  So it seems to me that it's referring to people/entities within the Catholic communion.  I'd be more than happy to be proven wrong about that, though.  Wink

Ah, but you forget that it was intentionally left open-ended because there are intercommunion agreements with non-Catholic Churches in certain areas around the world.  Like the Chaldean-Assyrian intercommunion in the Middle East, you can search the Vatican website for the document on that.

So if you are EC and your bishops says you can go to an Orthodox parish for your "Sunday Obligation", then you can.  Of course receiving the Sacraments would be another question.

I'll try to check that out with the Bishop  Wink

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,128


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #79 on: February 27, 2013, 10:56:58 AM »

Many people act as if the "Sunday obligation" is yet another "unnecessary rule" by the RCC, but the idea predates the [Roman] Catholic Church. Forsaking the Sunday Eucharist without a justifiable reason breaks the third commandment, which both Catholics and Orthodox recognize.

Sunday Obligation isn't wrong, except with how it is worded in the Catholic Church.  Why do people need to be threattened with "mortal sin"?

Remember in pagan Rome it was mandatory...an obligation to venerate certain pagan gods.  The pagan religion was so ingrained into Roman society.  Think of our civic rituals.  Their civic rituals were ingrained in paganism.  This is one of the reasons early Christians were easy to spot.  They wouldn't pray or participate in pagan rituals that were the civic rituals.  They wouldn't fulfill the obligatory veneration of the gods.  They wouldn't participate in say the rituals that were done before say a race (think of a group of people refusing to participate in the USA or Canadian national anthem before a hockey game).
There is a lot of pre-Christian notions ingrained into Christian worship.  Religions borrow from the ones they replace.  I just hope our Orthodoxy doesn't incorporate the secularism in today's society.  There is a notion to separate home life and church life.  This is a hallmark of protestanism and increasingly Catholicism and even more so becoming a part of Orthodoxy.  
Things that are deemed "ethnic" are actually ways of integrating the worship of the church into the home life.  What's ethnic about north america? The compartmentalization of religion and home life/life outside church.
I think it is hard to grasp that some of our rules are 2000 years old OR older and are hard to interpret into today's secular world.  Such is the notion of "obligations on sunday."  Again there are major differences in the Western spirituality versus Eastern.
The same result of the obligation on sunday the Catholics teach is the same result that you excommunicate yourself from the Orthodox communion if you miss three Sundays in a row.  You have to go to confession to receive commuion; translate into western terms... you are excommunicated and the priest has to re-receive you into the church through confession.  
So both sides have rules.  It's just how you present them.  And in today's individualistic society of "me me me, don't tell me what to do" this notion of a mortal sin to miss mass on Sunday just doesn't sit well with that attitude.  Re-adjust it; look come to mass every sunday, if you miss please come to confession.

Also a major difference is that in many of our Orthodox parishes the priest knows everyone.  It is hard to approach the chalice when you know you can't and especially since the priest knows where you sit or has told you not to take communion for a period of time.
Whereas in the Catholic churches communion is seen as a right, a personal experience.  Not so much in the Greek Catholic parishes.  
In the Orthodox church the chalice is what unites us.  Believe in the Deposit of Faith and share communion, or Jesus.  We are brothers and sisters because we share in the holy gifts.  We are taught that if we have a problem with someone in our communion then we don't take communion because it effects the community.
It's hard to rationalize or understand if you have never lived it.

But I know from experience the Roman Catholics teach communion very solidly but they don't ask questions they leave the individual to decide if he wants to commune.  Sure I think they do ban some from communion but it is for specific rule violations.  It is a more individual experience.  And we have seen examples in recent times of priests who have turned down people at the communion rail (so to speak).  It didn't fair well for the priest.

So we are talking apples and apples here... one is a granny smith and the other is a red apple.  Both are apples just different flavours.  Let's not get caught up in all in the language.
Let's face it; Orthodox and Catholics speak sometimes an entirely different language on faith.

Nicely said!
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,128


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #80 on: February 27, 2013, 11:03:12 AM »

Look, here's my point.  If someone turly loves God, do we have to obligate them?  No.  If someone is still in the process of growing their love for God then we need to help them in that process.  If a nominal Catholic or Orthodox doesn't always go to church, would threattening them with hell help?  Yes, I understand that is probably the result.  It also might not, who knows.  But people who don't understand why they need to go to church regularly on Sundays won't be convinced they need to do so just because you threatten them with hell.

Is it not humility to be told to come to church and obey?  The church is a spiritual hospital and many have been healed by attending even if they don't want to but are instructed to.
I think it is more humble to not need to be told that one must attend church but to come out a recognition of our status.

Of course it is, but unfortunately not all of us are always so humble, myself included. Sad
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,427


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #81 on: February 27, 2013, 04:07:52 PM »

Many people act as if the "Sunday obligation" is yet another "unnecessary rule" by the RCC, but the idea predates the [Roman] Catholic Church. Forsaking the Sunday Eucharist without a justifiable reason breaks the third commandment, which both Catholics and Orthodox recognize.

Sunday Obligation isn't wrong, except with how it is worded in the Catholic Church.  Why do people need to be threattened with "mortal sin"?

Remember in pagan Rome it was mandatory...an obligation to venerate certain pagan gods.  The pagan religion was so ingrained into Roman society.  Think of our civic rituals.  Their civic rituals were ingrained in paganism.  This is one of the reasons early Christians were easy to spot.  They wouldn't pray or participate in pagan rituals that were the civic rituals.  They wouldn't fulfill the obligatory veneration of the gods.  They wouldn't participate in say the rituals that were done before say a race (think of a group of people refusing to participate in the USA or Canadian national anthem before a hockey game).
There is a lot of pre-Christian notions ingrained into Christian worship.  Religions borrow from the ones they replace.  I just hope our Orthodoxy doesn't incorporate the secularism in today's society.  There is a notion to separate home life and church life.  This is a hallmark of protestanism and increasingly Catholicism and even more so becoming a part of Orthodoxy.  
Things that are deemed "ethnic" are actually ways of integrating the worship of the church into the home life.  What's ethnic about north america? The compartmentalization of religion and home life/life outside church.
I think it is hard to grasp that some of our rules are 2000 years old OR older and are hard to interpret into today's secular world.  Such is the notion of "obligations on sunday."  Again there are major differences in the Western spirituality versus Eastern.
The same result of the obligation on sunday the Catholics teach is the same result that you excommunicate yourself from the Orthodox communion if you miss three Sundays in a row.  You have to go to confession to receive commuion; translate into western terms... you are excommunicated and the priest has to re-receive you into the church through confession.  
So both sides have rules.  It's just how you present them.  And in today's individualistic society of "me me me, don't tell me what to do" this notion of a mortal sin to miss mass on Sunday just doesn't sit well with that attitude.  Re-adjust it; look come to mass every sunday, if you miss please come to confession.

Also a major difference is that in many of our Orthodox parishes the priest knows everyone.  It is hard to approach the chalice when you know you can't and especially since the priest knows where you sit or has told you not to take communion for a period of time.
Whereas in the Catholic churches communion is seen as a right, a personal experience.  Not so much in the Greek Catholic parishes.  
In the Orthodox church the chalice is what unites us.  Believe in the Deposit of Faith and share communion, or Jesus.  We are brothers and sisters because we share in the holy gifts.  We are taught that if we have a problem with someone in our communion then we don't take communion because it effects the community.
It's hard to rationalize or understand if you have never lived it.

But I know from experience the Roman Catholics teach communion very solidly but they don't ask questions they leave the individual to decide if he wants to commune.  Sure I think they do ban some from communion but it is for specific rule violations.  It is a more individual experience.  And we have seen examples in recent times of priests who have turned down people at the communion rail (so to speak).  It didn't fair well for the priest.

So we are talking apples and apples here... one is a granny smith and the other is a red apple.  Both are apples just different flavours.  Let's not get caught up in all in the language.
Let's face it; Orthodox and Catholics speak sometimes an entirely different language on faith.

+1 !!
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #82 on: February 27, 2013, 04:09:17 PM »

Many people act as if the "Sunday obligation" is yet another "unnecessary rule" by the RCC, but the idea predates the [Roman] Catholic Church. Forsaking the Sunday Eucharist without a justifiable reason breaks the third commandment, which both Catholics and Orthodox recognize.

Sunday Obligation isn't wrong, except with how it is worded in the Catholic Church.  Why do people need to be threattened with "mortal sin"?
Why does the Chriatian faith in general threaten us with hell? It's because there are consequences to sin.
Exactly. I've heard (though correct me if I'm wrong) that Christ actually warned about hell more than He talked about heaven in the New Testament.
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #83 on: February 27, 2013, 06:04:33 PM »

Joe, From the Catholic perspective, it is a sin for a Catholic to attend an Orthodox Divine Liturgy and participate in that Liturgy. It is the sin of schism, actually. So, it would not be spiritually beneficial for a Catholic to do so.

There could, however, be a situation in which one's bishop allowed for attendance at an Orthodox Liturgy. In that case, it would be neither sinful nor spiritually harmful. 

The mindset is the issue here: if one went to an Orthodox Liturgy to "see how it works" without participating, that would not be sinful. If one did so as defiance to the Catholic Church or the Pope, it is schismatic in intent and sinful. This is why many contend, actually, that attendance at SSPX chapels is sinful - the so-called schismatic intent.

Participation though has different interpretations.  For the Orthodox, joining in the "Amen" is participation.  For the Roman Catholic, participation means receiving the Sacraments, or being received as a Catechumen.  Participating in prayers including the "Amen", as far as I know, isn't considered participation.  I haven't heard any Catholic theologian say anything against saying "Amen" even when praying with Protestants.  The Orthodox are clear that we should not say "Amen" to prayers that have questionable theology (or when in doubt, just don't).
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #84 on: February 27, 2013, 06:05:54 PM »

Exactly. I've heard (though correct me if I'm wrong) that Christ actually warned about hell more than He talked about heaven in the New Testament.

Warning about hell and threattening it are two different things.  Telling someone that they should be careful and if not they could fall over the bridge is different from telling someone you'll throw them over the bridge.
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #85 on: February 27, 2013, 06:06:23 PM »

Speaking of which, why doesn't the Catholic Church have a Reader's Typika?  Is this a counter reformation thing where the hierarchy were afriad people would think they no longer need bishops or priests?

It does.  

Sorry, I'm talking about RCs.
Logged
JoeS2
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,125


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #86 on: February 27, 2013, 06:44:45 PM »



Of course it is, but unfortunately not all of us are always so humble, myself included. Sad

Im humble and I am proud of it........ laugh
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #87 on: February 27, 2013, 06:46:46 PM »



Of course it is, but unfortunately not all of us are always so humble, myself included. Sad

Im humble and I am proud of it........ laugh

Nu-uh!  I am humber than you are!

 Grin
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #88 on: February 27, 2013, 08:06:10 PM »

Many people act as if the "Sunday obligation" is yet another "unnecessary rule" by the RCC, but the idea predates the [Roman] Catholic Church. Forsaking the Sunday Eucharist without a justifiable reason breaks the third commandment, which both Catholics and Orthodox recognize.

Sunday Obligation isn't wrong, except with how it is worded in the Catholic Church.  Why do people need to be threattened with "mortal sin"?
Why does the Chriatian faith in general threaten us with hell? It's because there are consequences to sin.


You know what started my path to Orthodoxy?  When somebody explained to me why I should love God without the "or else you'll go to hell" bit.  Not that hell was ever denied nor not that the fact that it is indeed a consequence.  Our faith shouldn't be about scaring us into submission.  Christianity isn't about going to hell, its about going to heaven.  So why should I constantly be threattened with hell?  If someone is not attending Sunday Liturgy regularly, then there must be an underlying issue.  Shouldn't that be addressed instead of an impersonal, "I don't care what your issues are but you are going to hell."?
Um, in your religion you get the same thing. If you don't repent of your sins, you are going to hell. In fact, I think that's a common teaching of every Christian denomination. BTW, as a Catholic, I've always known that we should love God because he is God, and not just out of fear of hell. I'm surprised that this was not part of your catechesis.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #89 on: February 27, 2013, 08:06:52 PM »

Look, here's my point.  If someone turly loves God, do we have to obligate them?  No.  If someone is still in the process of growing their love for God then we need to help them in that process.  If a nominal Catholic or Orthodox doesn't always go to church, would threattening them with hell help?  Yes, I understand that is probably the result.  It also might not, who knows.  But people who don't understand why they need to go to church regularly on Sundays won't be convinced they need to do so just because you threatten them with hell.
If we love God, then we are obliged to serve him.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.228 seconds with 73 queries.