www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Sunday obligation

For that I blame our pastors, not our liturgy. Of course, most of our teens have never heard our liturgy properly celebrated.

Fr. Deacon,

Your post does not seem at all confrontational to me, and I hope mine does not either, for it is not meant to be. But let me try to explain a little more about what I mean, and I can only speak for myself.

One must go to the liturgy with as much of a sincere and open heart as one can, of course, because it's a two-way street. We don't go there just to receive, as we all know. We go also to praise and worship the Lord, and offer Him our love and gratitude for all He is and for His great mercy. That being said, there have been a number of times, including recently, when a Roman Mass was the only option available for me on a given Sunday. Given that reality, each time I went, I prayed to be able to just enter into the worship and not judge the liturgy or the people. I sincerely remind myself that they may love the Lord more than I do, be a better servant of His than I am, and that the Eucharist I will receive is truly His precious Body and Blood no matter what the liturgical form is. I try to put in my all, and really enter into the worship in the same way and to the same degree that I would at a Divine Liturgy, but the music is difficult for me, and the liturgy itself, for the most part, feels impoverished, given what I am used to. At the end of the liturgy, precisely what I feel is that I have not had the opportunity to worship Him to the extent I yearn for. And that's exactly what you have defined as one of the purposes of the liturgy: the opportunity to worship God. In that way, then, I would say that the Roman Mass is not "spiritually fulfilling" for me - that's what I mean by this term. (I want to be clear that I'm not speaking here of the Eucharist, for that is always complete spiritual nourishment, regardless of the form of the liturgy). And so, given the choice between a Roman Mass and an Orthodox liturgy, I would go to the Orthodox liturgy, and make a sincere spiritual communion at the time Communion is being given. (In my humble experience, I have seen that such a communion, made when one is unable to receive physically, can also be grace-filled.)

I think I understand what you were writing about in your post, and I would not put my choice to go to an Orthodox liturgy in the same category. You may not agree with me (and I'm okay with that!) but I hope, at least, that I have succeeded in explaining why someone might make this choice out of a genuine concern for their spiritual welfare. (Others may have different reasons, of course, or explain it very differently).

By the way, "consistency" is not one of my reasons for this choice. I would be open to a different form while on vacation. I might try, for example, going to an Armenian Catholic, or a Coptic Catholic, liturgy, or some other form that I have not yet experienced. Consistency is not the issue for me. I also am not someone who criticizes Romans for not "coming and seeing" what we Eastern Catholics are about. If they are interested, that's fine for them to come, but I see no reason why they should feel obligated to do so.

I look forward to reading what others will write here, but I'm heading out for the weekend and won't be around for a few days.

[quote=Jaya]Eastwardlean?,

For me as an Eastern Catholic, if I am faced with a choice between a Roman Catholic Mass and an Orthodox liturgy, there would be no hesitation - I would unequivocally choose the Orthodox liturgy.

In my experience, there are differences of opinion/practice on this among Eastern Catholics. I know many who would go to an RC Mass over an Orthodox liturgy on the basis of who we are and aren't in communion with, and/or because they believe that they are required to choose an RC Mass over an Orthodox liturgy.

David,

The idea of "Sunday obligation" is a very foreign and strange one to me personally, when we are speaking of something that comes out of love and gratitude. As far as official Eastern Catholic teaching, though, my understanding is that it does use this term, although as far as I know, it's a latinization. The "Liturgical Instruction for the Eastern Catholic Churches," (not sure if I got the title exactly right), which I believe is an official statement coming out of a Vatican office, states that [color:#3366FF][b]an Eastern Catholic's "Sunday obligation" may be met by attending Great Vespers on Saturday evening, if one is unable to attend Sunday liturgy.[/b][/color] (If I got any of this wrong, others more knowledgeable can correct it)
[/quote]

So, is the Great Vespers mentioned and highlighted above mean Great Vespers in a church that is in communion with Rome only, or would it also include Great Vespers in an Orthodox parish?

And what, precisely, is meant by "the divine praises" mentioned in the CCEO?

J Michael:

Glory be to Jesus Christ!!

Welcome to the forum. In some of the sui juris Eastern Catholic Churches, the Divine Liturgy is called "Divine Praises."

I have to agree with you about the terminology, though I am Latin and hear this "obligation" stuff all the time. If one is in a"love affair" with the Lord, the idea of being away on Sunday or a feast that the Church celebrates is about as alien as anything can be. Where else would one be? It's like saying one must spend so much time with one's spouse.

Bob
Moderator

No, the Divine Praises is an Eastern name for the Liturgy of the Hours.

During my diaconate training at the seminary I asked what the "Divine Praises" are that we are required to pray daily and I understood the answer to be broader....that it can be Vespers, Matins, the Hours or perhaps even other services.

Fsther Deacon:

"Liturgy of the Hours" is a Latin term that includes much more than our daytime Hours (first, third, sixth, ninth); it also includes Vespers, Matins and Compline.

The context in which the term is used in the Liturgical Instruction implies all canonical non-Eucharistic liturgical services. By saying that attendance at the Divine Praises on Saturday evening can be counted as fulfilling the "obligation" to attend the Divine Liturgy on Sunday, in order to encourage greater celebration of the Divine Praises, indicates its meaning.

What would you do if you were Protestant and that was your choice, Roman or Orthodox?

Well, then in another direction, on a Holy Day of Obligation in the Roman Church, like, the Immaculate Conception, for example, where the Byzantine Church only has a Simple Holy Day of St. Anna, I think it was, would attending the St. Anna feast be enough to fulfill the Immaculate Conception obligation by being at the Byzantine Liturgy instead? That might be a good question to answer.

Or vice versa: the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul (the patronal feast of Rome) is a solemn feast day in the Eastern Churches, but is just a simple holy day for the Latin Church in the U.S.

Of course, we're really celebrating the end of the Apostle's Fast by cranking up the barbecue grill.

Technically, the Conception of St. Anne is 9 December, while the Immaculate Conception is 8 December. The Melkites make this distinction, while the Ruthenians do not.

8Iron. The answer is yes. The obligation is to attend a eucharistic liturgy within a certain time period. One can fulfill the All Saints day obligation by attending a liturgy for the deceased on Nov 1 in the Byzantine Rite in a Catholic Church.

Or one can wait until Saturday of the Departed, which occurs during Lent. Scrupulousness is the bane of true piety.

I just want to drop in and say, to count the "Divine Praises" as a "Sunday Obligation" in lieu of the Divine Liturgy confuses what the Divine Liturgy is in contrast to all the other Liturgical services. Don't get me wrong, I go to Vespers (I don't normally) if I can't come on Sunday, but I'm not pretending that it is an equivalence. I know I'm not getting the 100% of what the Divine Liturgy is, but at least I get something rather than nothing.

For people who are not catechized enough to tell the difference, this will just confuse them when you speak as if there is an equivalency. There isn't.