Went to my first Byzantine Mass last night

Lol yes! Very different experience!

Hooray! :slight_smile:
I am quite pleased to hear this. :slight_smile:

Those liturgical spoons are awesome! :slight_smile:
I hope to see those in a Divine Liturgy here in Manila. :slight_smile:

But also note that in the Byzantine tradition the notion of “obligation” being “fulfilled” is totally foreign.

Totally. Of course, canons prescribe excommunication for those who miss three Sundays, and for those who come but do not stay and commune. But of course there is no obligation. Totally foreign. :rolleyes:

Not at all the same, considering that missing just one Sunday is a mortal sin for the Latins.

A different expression of the same 3rd commandment obligation to keep holy the sabbath.

Same phronema.

Are you serious or joking?

There seems to be a lot of back-and-forth sniping here about the “obligation” (some RC’s claim the EC’s and EO’s don’t properly observe it, and some EC’s and EO’s claim the RC’s are too scrupulous about it). So it’s “joking” with a very sharp, serrated sword point.

Bottom line for ALL of us is we should do our best to be at either Mass or Divine Liturgy every Sunday and Holy Day. It’s true that in the Eastern Tradition the “obligation” isn’t emphasized as strongly, primarily because attending the services (not just Liturgy) is more strongly encouraged as “divine medicine”, but OTOH I think you’ll see that same “medicinal” teaching in the Western monastic tradition as well.

So … just go! And if you really, truly can’t, then go to confession as soon as possible. And if you’re not sure - ask your priest, who really should be the one we go to with these questions first, anyway. :thumbsup:

He’s being both literal and sarcastic.

The concept of the obligation of attending is present in the EO. It’s worded differently.
The wording of the sunday obligation isn’t present, but is implicit in the excommunication for repeated absence.

Much obliged. :wink:

I don’t believe those excommunications have been used for centuries, have they? :shrug:

It is a touchy matter to talk about some the variability is adherence to ancient canons.

In my own experience, I have heard Orthodox priests comment on the consequences of missing the liturgy. Moreover, I have heard Orthodox priests tell congregants not to approach th chalice unless they have been to confession within the last month.

For Russians where I live it’s every week, or before reception of Eucharist at another time. It’s not unusual to see long lines of people receiving confession/penance during Divine Liturgy at the ROCOR Cathedral. The priests hearing the confessions only stop long enough to enter the Holy Place for communion with the clergy.

Excommunication is moot when most don’t receive communion but once or twice a year anyway. Excommunication is lifted with fasting and confession before reception, which is the usual Slavic practice. The notion of being in danger of hellfire (mortal sin) for missing a Sunday service is totally foreign in Orthodoxy (or in this case what is deemed “Byzantine” spirituality). Even further the question of whether or not one would “fulfill” their “Sunday Obligation” by going to Vespers or Matins or whatever is completely outside the realm of the Orthodox paradigm.

You just go to church because you love God and because you want to be there. If you go through a dry spell and stop going to church for some weeks or months, then of course you would go to confession and properly prepare before presuming to receive.

Where not saying the same thing using different words. We are ontologically different.

:rolleyes:

Excommunication has traditionally been seen as serious. The canons that I mentioned are from early times, before there was such a thing as “Slavic practice”, and likely before communion became in frequent. While one of the canons has fallen into disuse, the other can be found posted by contemporary priests in parishes where communion is frequent - departing from older Slavic practices which are no longer current.

The notion of being in danger of hellfire (mortal sin) for missing a Sunday service is totally foreign in Orthodoxy (or in this case what is deemed “Byzantine” spirituality). Even further the question of whether or not one would “fulfill” their “Sunday Obligation” by going to Vespers or Matins or whatever is completely outside the realm of the Orthodox paradigm.

You just go to church because you love God and because you want to be there. If you go through a dry spell and stop going to church for some weeks or months, then of course you would go to confession and properly prepare before presuming to receive.

I realize that some modern orthodox, especially in America, have little of no sense of sin unto death; some have even adopted the old, but non-traditional idea of universal salvation. I suspect that most Orthodox hold more traditional views and take the danger of eternal damnation more seriously.

Of course, “you just go to church because you love God and because you want to be there”. This is the mark that we strive to meet; in fact we are obliged to strive to meet this mark. Missing services without a good reason is a grave sin, a grave missing of the mark. What does it reflect? What is the nature of a hypothetical soul that takes communion casually or presumptuously sloughs off a “dry spell”. Traditional orthodoxy features a strong sense of compunction and humility, not indifference to sin and presumption of mercy.

.
Where not saying the same thing using different words. We are ontologically different.

I agree with the first sentence; the latter only if one stretches the meaning of “ontology” beyond the breaking point. I am not convinced, however, that the difference between what you and I say is properly seen as a difference between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. The fact is that Orthodoxy excommunicates people who casually miss services, and it requires them to confess this grave sin before returning to communion. So do Catholics. One can quibble over how many times you need to miss before the penalty of excommunication is invoked, but that is really a fine distinction.

Oh please. Most “modern Orthodox” are converts who bother to do things like read translations of forgotten canons. “Most Orthodox” go to church for Easter and maybe Christmas, or if they need some object or place blessed, a child baptized, a funeral done, lighting a candle for a loved one or against an enemy, etc.

By the way, way to slip in the casual suggestion that most Orthodox are universalists. Newsflash: so are most Catholics on the street, if not also mostly following the spirit of the age.

Yes, the faithful may be more alike, in some ways, than many recognize.

This discussion needs more spoons! :slight_smile:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.