Day of Obligation and the Orthodox Divine Liturgy

[Joshua G.]

Can a Catholic go to an Orthodox (not in communion with Rome) Liturgy on SUnday and have it count as their Day of Obligation? In this question, it is understood that the Catholic would not have alterior motives of leaving the care of the Pope but rather something much more innocent such as a gesture of good will to an Orthodox friend, or because they are staying the night at an Orthodox friend's house out of town or something benign like that.

I may have followup questions based on the answer, but please know that I have no hidden "gotcha" motive.

The real reason I want to know is because a good friend of mine recently moved to my town and doesn't have a car. He is Catholic and I imagine that getting to Church for him is quite a hassle because he has to use the bus system that isn't that great on the weekends or convenient. I know this is a hassle he gladly undertakes for God. However, we pass right by his apt on the way to Church on Sundays and I would love to offer to pick him up to go to Church with us every once and a while as a friendly gesture so he could have a break from the bus. It would be every week, but, say, every several weeks (or whatever he wanted). Honestly, my goal isn't to get him to convert at all, it's completely innocent. However, I don't want offer it if it would mean that I would be asking him to miss a Day of Obligation. In such a case, he might then go on Saturday evening (without saying anything ) which would defeat the purpose which is simply to lighten his load a bit

Thanks a lot guys!

Josh

 

[Gwendolyn]

No, not unless you are in an area where there are zero Catholic churches around and Orthodox churches are the only ones.

 

[Anhelyna]

As Gwendolyn says.

He is required to attend Mass in a Catholic Church, on either Sunday or the Saturday Vigil [ anticipatory ] Mass .

If this is really not possible he needs to speak with his priest about it.

I know to us in the East this seems harsh - but that's the way it is

Thought Josh - is there an EC Church that would be easier to attend ?

 

[Joshua G.]

Thanks guys. It doesn't seem harsh, per se, but it does SEEM (at the surface) a little inconsistent given the fact we are basically spoken of as part of the Church. I don't think we deserve this or don't deserve this so please understand that I am not saying that such a rule is mean or unpastoral-ly. It just doesn't fit what thought I understood about how the RCC views the Orthodox Church. But I respect it.

So, is this because they wouldn't be able to partake in the Eucharist? If that is the reason, a few questions follow from that:

1) Is it only because of our strict rules that they are not able to partake or does the RCC also forbid it regardless (although I know we are allowed to partake in your Church as far as your clergy are concerned)?
2) Is it seen as a sin for a Catholic to not partake in the Eucharist every week? And if it is because they were not prepared (because of the presence of a mortal sin or not having properly examined oneself ahead of time or having eaten less than an hour before the Eucharist) then the sin actually of not preparing oneself?
3) Is there a deeper or more obvious reason I am unintentionally ignoring?

I get it when I look at the Orthodox POV which is quite agnostic on absence of the Church. "We know where the CHurch is, it's not for us to say where She isn't" kind of deal so in order to say you have gone to CHurch properly, the only sure way is to have gone to an Orthodox Liturgy. But since the RCC believes our Liturgy is just as full of grace (right?), that's where I am a little perplexed, but not offended in the least.

I am sure I will understand where my premise is wrong or lacking in a few posts. And in the end, it's not for me to accept or not accept. It is what it is and you and your shepherds need to care for your flock in a way that is best for you.

Thanks guys!

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

The deeper issue is that we are not in full communion with each other. We believe that wherever there is true apostolic succession (the exercise of the sacrament of Holy Orders with proper intention, matter and form), there will be valid sacraments.

The validity of a sacrament (whether it is real or not) does not determine whether or not it is licit (proper). We all have the ability to baptize, but that does not make any baptism the proper or right thing to do.

In the case of the DL, your friend would be attending a real "Mass" but it would not be with his brethern in full communion with him. While getting to the sacraments may be inconvenient for him, it is not impossible or a great burden.

One of the issues here at play is indifferentism which says that "it does not really matter." In this case, it would be that the divisions that exists are not important or relevant because the sacraments are valid.

 

[Joshua G.]

Thanks a lot SA. I do get your question.

As a follow up question that is a bit apart from the original post, you had mentioned

While getting to the sacraments may be inconvenient for him, it is not impossible or a great burden.

So, would you say that the heart of the matter is actually that he is denying himself the Sacraments? And from the question leads me to wonder is it a sin to not recieve the Sacraments (save some unavoidable circumstance) on any given Holy Day of Obligation? This question is related to the OP but really I am curious about it even with the HDO. I could see the logic behind a ruling in the RCC, but I do not know and am just curious.

Thanks!

Josh

 

[Dark_Lite]

Thanks guys. It doesn't seem harsh, per se, but it does SEEM (at the surface) a little inconsistent given the fact we are basically spoken of as part of the Church. I don't think we deserve this or don't deserve this so please understand that I am not saying that such a rule is mean or unpastoral-ly. It just doesn't fit what thought I understood about how the RCC views the Orthodox Church. But I respect it.

The Catholic Church views the Orthodox Church to have real apostolic succession and valid sacraments, but still imperfectly united because they are in schism. The unity is nowhere near as imperfect as the union of the Protestant denominations, but it is still not full union.

So, is this because they wouldn't be able to partake in the Eucharist? If that is the reason, a few questions follow from that:

1) Is it only because of our strict rules that they are not able to partake or does the RCC also forbid it regardless (although I know we are allowed to partake in your Church as far as your clergy are concerned)?

The Catholic Church allows Orthodox Christians to receive communion in Catholic churches. Of course, it doesn't go the other way. And like others have said, the main reason is that as far as Catholicism is concerned, Orthodox celebrations of the sacraments are illicit. They are still valid, but the celebrants are not in full communion with the Church.

The proper celebration of the Mass/Divine liturgy requires it to be valid as well as licit. In any normal situation, communion is a statement of agreement with the doctrines/beliefs of the celebrants. Hence, communing together. Full communing requires full unity, and there is not full unity between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

There are always certain abnormal situations, but those are handled on a case-by-case basis.

2) Is it seen as a sin for a Catholic to not partake in the Eucharist every week? And if it is because they were not prepared (because of the presence of a mortal sin or not having properly examined oneself ahead of time or having eaten less than an hour before the Eucharist) then the sin actually of not preparing oneself?

Catholics don't have to receive the Eucharist once a week. It comes down to the conscience and state of grace the individual is in.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Thanks guys. It doesn't seem harsh, per se, but it does SEEM (at the surface) a little inconsistent given the fact we are basically spoken of as part of the Church. I don't think we deserve this or don't deserve this so please understand that I am not saying that such a rule is mean or unpastoral-ly. It just doesn't fit what thought I understood about how the RCC views the Orthodox Church. But I respect it.

So, is this because they wouldn't be able to partake in the Eucharist? If that is the reason, a few questions follow from that:

1) Is it only because of our strict rules that they are not able to partake or does the RCC also forbid it regardless (although I know we are allowed to partake in your Church as far as your clergy are concerned)?

The Catholic Eucharist is open to Orthodox but the Orthodox Bishop must give permission...and the CC requires the EO to discuss it with their Bishops for their own sakes.

2) Is it seen as a sin for a Catholic to not partake in the Eucharist every week? And if it is because they were not prepared (because of the presence of a mortal sin or not having properly examined oneself ahead of time or having eaten less than an hour before the Eucharist) then the sin actually of not preparing oneself?
3) Is there a deeper or more obvious reason I am unintentionally ignoring?

Again, the Catholic could receive if the EO Bishop were to allow them to.


The CC gives utmost respect to the Bishops of the EO. And subjugate the laity to conform to their wishes.

I get it when I look at the Orthodox POV which is quite agnostic on absence of the Church. "We know where the CHurch is, it's not for us to say where She isn't" kind of deal so in order to say you have gone to CHurch properly, the only sure way is to have gone to an Orthodox Liturgy. But since the RCC believes our Liturgy is just as full of grace (right?), that's where I am a little perplexed, but not offended in the least.

I am sure I will understand where my premise is wrong or lacking in a few posts. And in the end, it's not for me to accept or not accept. It is what it is and you and your shepherds need to care for your flock in a way that is best for you.

Thanks guys!

 

[WarriorAngel]

Intercommunion

Question: I was told that Catholics and Orthodox can receive communion in each other’s churches. Is this true?
Answer: Yes and No. The Code of Canon Law (reflecting Roman documents on ecumenism) allows Catholic priests to "administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick to members of the oriental churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church, if they ask on their own for the sacraments and are properly disposed" (Canon 844). Thus an Orthodox Christian may on occasion receive communion in the Catholic Church.​

The Code also states: "It is lawful for the [Catholic] faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister, to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose churches these sacraments are valid" (Ibid.). Since the Catholic Church recognizes the validity of the Orthodox Eucharist, a Catholic may, in case of necessity, receive Communion in an Orthodox church.
But (with a capital B), the Orthodox churches generally do not allow Catholics (or members of any other denomination) to receive communion in their churches. So for a Catholic to ignore such a prohibition would be to show disrespect for Orthodox regulations. By the same token, Orthodox are generally not allowed by their own leadership to receive communion in a Catholic (or any other) Church.
On the matter of Catholic-Orthodox intercommunion, the U.S. Catholic bishops summed up the matter nicely in their November 1996 Guidelines for the Reception of Communion at a Catholic Mass: "Members of the Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polish National Catholic Church are urged to respect the discipline of their own Churches. According to Roman Catholic discipline, the Code of Canon Law does not object to the reception of communion by Christians of these Churches."
The Eucharist: Q and A

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Thanks a lot SA. I do get your question.

As a follow up question that is a bit apart from the original post, you had mentioned
So, would you say that the heart of the matter is actually that he is denying himself the Sacraments? And from the question leads me to wonder is it a sin to not recieve the Sacraments (save some unavoidable circumstance) on any given Holy Day of Obligation? This question is related to the OP but really I am curious about it even with the HDO. I could see the logic behind a ruling in the RCC, but I do not know and am just curious.

Thanks!

Josh

On denial of the sacraments, there are several ways of taking this:
- He would not be denying himself the sacrament if he was receiving them at the Orthodox liturgy. However, since it does not seem to be an issue of necessity (and it would be in violation of what they ask Catholics)
-He would be denying himself the sacrament if he went to an Orthodox liturgy and did not receive (which would be proper to do from the Catholic and Orthodox perspective). He would also not be assembling together with the faithful (those in full communion).

I think the issue is more of not gathering with the Church, rather than being an issue of receiving Eucharist.

It is not a sin to not receive communion at Mass. Catholic are required only to receive the sacrament once a year. There may be a issue of pastoral concern if someone was choosing not to receive.

 

[WarriorAngel]

On denial of the sacraments, there are several ways of taking this:
- He would not be denying himself the sacrament if he was receiving them at the Orthodox liturgy. However, since it does not seem to be an issue of necessity (and it would be in violation of what they ask Catholics)
-He would be denying himself the sacrament if he went to an Orthodox liturgy and did not receive (which would be proper to do from the Catholic and Orthodox perspective). He would also not be assembling together with the faithful (those in full communion).

I think the issue is more of not gathering with the Church, rather than being an issue of receiving Eucharist.

It is not a sin to not receive communion at Mass. Catholic are required only to receive the sacrament once a year. There may be a issue of pastoral concern if someone was choosing not to receive.

I am sure if an Orthodox was converting to Catholic, they may need to talk to the priest and see if they could receive until whatever is necessary to be part of the Church.

Since they would be under new Bishops of the West.

 

[Joshua G.]

Thanks guys!

 

[JesusIsTheWay33]

It is not a sin to not receive communion at Mass. Catholic are required only to receive the sacrament once a year. There may be a issue of pastoral concern if someone was choosing not to receive.

A Catholic must, however, be in a state of grace to receive, of course.

And it was the discipline of the Western Church up until about the beginning of the 20th Century (?) that the Faithful received communion rarely, and it wasn't even part of the Mass and had to be incorporated in from a separate rite, IIRC (which, for the liturgy nerds here [ ], is where the Third Confiteor in the pre-1960s Missal comes from).

Sorry, digression.

But yes, since one of the concerns with Orthodoxy tends (as far as I know) to be that Orthodoxy on the whole does not accept our sacraments as valid, including, in some places, Catholic baptism (and, consequently, Catholic confession), it would for you be like protestants receiving Communion is for us, I suppose.

 

[Joshua G.]

And it was the discipline of the Western Church up until about the beginning of the 20th Century (?) that the Faithful received communion rarely, and it wasn't even part of the Mass and had to be incorporated in from a separate rite, IIRC (which, for the liturgy nerds here [ ], is where the Third Confiteor in the pre-1960s Missal comes from).

This is, unfortunately, something we Orthodox still suffer from in many cutlures. Some believe it is almost presumptuous to go regularly (every couple weeks) because of a false pious notion (that also was in the West as Evagrius implied). I used to be Lutheran and a generation before me, there was the same feeling. The notion was that you had to be Holy enough to approach which was (and still is) confused with the idea that you need to prepare yourself to approach. Very different things but one can see how such a false connection can be made.

In the US, while this notion is still well and alive, it tends to live among the nominal who only come once or a few times a year anyway. But most (even many of the 1st generation immigrants I know) go about every 4-6 weeks if not every single week so fortunately this sad piety is being taken on effectively here. Now the important thing is that people go regularly while still holding that sense of our unworthiness and awe and made worthy to approach by God's love. That can be tricky. You don't want people going up just cause it's "what ya do". You also don't want them not going up because they are "not good enough".

Josh

 

[WarriorAngel]

This is, unfortunately, something we Orthodox still suffer from in many cutlures. Some believe it is almost presumptuous to go regularly (every couple weeks) because of a false pious notion (that also was in the West as Evagrius implied). I used to be Lutheran and a generation before me, there was the same feeling. The notion was that you had to be Holy enough to approach which was (and still is) confused with the idea that you need to prepare yourself to approach. Very different things but one can see how such a false connection can be made.

In the US, while this notion is still well and alive, it tends to live among the nominal who only come once or a few times a year anyway. But most (even many of the 1st generation immigrants I know) go about every 4-6 weeks if not every single week so fortunately this sad piety is being taken on effectively here. Now the important thing is that people go regularly while still holding that sense of our unworthiness and awe and made worthy to approach by God's love. That can be tricky. You don't want people going up just cause it's "what ya do". You also don't want them not going up because they are "not good enough".

Josh

My dad went to Mass every week, worked 2 jobs, stayed at home when he wasnt working and handed over his money to my mom who needed it for whatever it was we needed.
He must have never felt right because he would actually skip Communion MUCH more than he received.
I seldom saw him receive.

But he was deeply spiritual because i sensed that he prayed for me in the times i needed it most.
SO he was over doing it when he missed Communion.

I try to go every 4 weeks to confession. And in need of it now, i suspect since all these confession threads are popping up to my attention and i just thot today i should go.

 

[JesusIsTheWay33]

This is, unfortunately, something we Orthodox still suffer from in many cutlures. Some believe it is almost presumptuous to go regularly (every couple weeks) because of a false pious notion (that also was in the West as Evagrius implied). I used to be Lutheran and a generation before me, there was the same feeling. The notion was that you had to be Holy enough to approach which was (and still is) confused with the idea that you need to prepare yourself to approach. Very different things but one can see how such a false connection can be made.

In the US, while this notion is still well and alive, it tends to live among the nominal who only come once or a few times a year anyway. But most (even many of the 1st generation immigrants I know) go about every 4-6 weeks if not every single week so fortunately this sad piety is being taken on effectively here. Now the important thing is that people go regularly while still holding that sense of our unworthiness and awe and made worthy to approach by God's love. That can be tricky. You don't want people going up just cause it's "what ya do". You also don't want them not going up because they are "not good enough".

Josh

That's interesting, thank you. I didn't know that. Perhaps here in the UK things were a bit different because being able to go to Mass regularly was a recent liberty, but certainly my grandfather used to go I think every day.

I do know that in Ireland the men used to stand outside the church, and I think come in for the homily, and then go outside again!