www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Was the 1967 Ecumenical Directory abrogated?

My question is regarding section in the 1967 ED that states Catholics may fulfill their Sunday obligation in other Churches with valid orders. (I don't have the document in front of me and apologize if any of this is not exact) I have read that this no longer applies since the 1983 Code of Canon Law was issued and a new Ecumenical Directory was issued in 1993 that doesn't have the passages from the 1967 edition. However, I believe the 1993 version is just silent on the issue of Sunday obligation without stating the passages from 1967 no longer apply. Is the old ED suppressed and abrogated simply because a new version came out? Did the Holy See ever actually state that the 1967 version is completely superceded by the 1983 Code and the 1993 ED?

A leading canonist whom I consulted on this, and who is expert in ecumenical matters, said to me that the 1993 Directory deliberatly omitted this provision from the 1967 edition, and that it was no longer valid for reasons having to do with Orthodox objections, chief among which was that such a provision was the thin end of the wedge (so to speak) which would shortly lead, improperly and unofficially, to intercommunion of those not in full communion with the Orthodox Church. So, out of sensitivity to the Orthodox on this point, Rome quietly dropped the provision as a matter of law, and as a result it is no longer officially permitted on Sundays to attend an Orthodox Church if there is an accessible a Catholic one.

The 1983 and 1990 codes both make it clear in their introductions that they supersede all previous legislation unless special provisions to the contrary were clearly made. As codes, they outrank the directory, which is more of a guidebook and an example of "particular law"--or so it seems to my nonspecialist mind. I will consult on this particular point and get back to you.

Adam, thank you for your reply. I also have a question about Canon 844 of the 1983 Code which states:

Can. 844 �2 - Whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it, and provided the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, Christ's faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister, may lawfully receive the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

What does morally impossible mean according to this canon?

Thanks

Jason,

The expression "morally impossible" means that one cannot attend Mass at a place where 1) the priest is known to render the Mass invalid because of actions or the use of invalid matter or, 2) where there is some impediement that means the priest may not licitly celebrate the Mass (usually this happens with suspended or laicized priests).

There are some speculations on other conditions that might meet this, but they are just that, speculations.

Fr. Deacon Edward

Thank you, Father Deacon.

I'm not enough of a canonist to comment on the ins and outs of the law. But I would take it for granted that one may satisfy the Sunday (or Holy Day) obligation in an Orthodox Church, and that if that's the only Church reasonably available, one should in fact go there.

Christmas joy to everyone!

Incognitus

Incognitus,

Since this pertains primarily to the Latin Church, here's how they view it. If no Latin Church is available, there is no obligation. Thus, attendance at an Orthodox Church would be optional. Of course, partaking of the mysteries there would be something that a Latin Rite Catholic should avoid.

The reason I phrased it that way is that, in the Middle East, Melkites will attend Antiochian liturgies and Antiochians will attend Melkite liturgies, depending on what's available. This has been going on for hundreds of years and is not likely to stop.

Fr. Deacon Edward