Is there a such thing as a sunday obligation in Orthodoxy?

[HandmaidenOfGod]

Consult your priest for matters, and may the Lord have mercy on us all.

 

[Matrona]

No Sunday obligation? Tell that to my Priest.

What I object to is the term "Sunday obligation", not one's responsibility to attend the divine services. Yes, I'm aware that some priests use this term. I think that is a bad way to put it because it invites confusion about what the Orthodox Church teaches with respect to one's responsibility to attend the divine services, especially among those who are more familiar with the Roman Catholic "Sunday obligation".

Now, I'm off to locate Rod Serling...

 

[Akathist]

​

MOD HAT ON​

Dear fellow TAW's,

Remember that debating is allowed in congregational areas between fellow Eastern Orthodox faith symbol members. However the rules must be followed by everyone. This thread has had some replies split out for rule violations. If you did not receive a PM, your post was not removed.
Please remember as Christian's we need to love each other with our words and actions, being at peace with one another as much as possible. Let us remember this part of one of our prayers:

"Blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the son's of God"

​

Please also be mindful of the forum rules (link included), which you agreed to abide by when you became a member of CF.

Rule No. 1 - No "Flaming"
1.1 You may discuss another individual's beliefs or religious organization but you will not harass, insult, belittle, threaten, defame or flame the individual (member or non-member) as this is considered personal (ad hominem) attacks in posts, PMs and any other communication within the site

1.5 You will not directly state or otherwise imply that another member is not a Christian if he or she falls under Rule 6.5 and 6.6 and he or she does not have a hidden faith icon without providing substantiation from scripture or doctrine or historic church writtings.

Rule No. 2 - No "Trolling"
2.1 You will not do anything on the site that disrupts the peace and harmony of this forum

2.5 You will not start a thread or post a reply directed at another member. Replies must be directed at another member’s post, not the individual. Individual communication should be done via PM. This includes, but is not limited to:
a. Accusing another member in public of breaking a rule (including calling him or her the spirit of Vatican II). Please report any rule breaches to the staff.
b. Posting in public that you have reported another member.
c. Responding to a post (by telling the poster he or she is breaking a rule) or quoting text which is in violation of the rules before or after you have reported it.

Please do not make any replies in this to this post - if you have any questions please PM me directly.

Let us now return to a our mission of learning and teaching others about our beautiful faith, giving ourselves as an example to others outside the faith.

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[marciadietrich]

I was just discussing this with my priest last Sunday and he gave me a definitive "no." He said that it says something about your spiritual state if you are just deciding not to go to church, but he firmly disagreed with the Roman concept of the sunday obligation (where if you miss it one time you go to hell).

Well, it is more like maybe, long-shot maybe IMO, IF it totally fulfilled the requirementsfor mortal sin (grave matter, full knowledge, consent of will) you miss one Sunday then possibly - who-knows but God, maybe you could go to hell... but I don't believe it is even slightly likely if someone overslept one Sunday they would go to hell just for that.

More like if they had a full hard-hearted repudiation of faith and would have been the first of many missed Sundays. And on the flip side, even if the first isn't "mortal" we have to look at attitude that we don't let ourselves start a slide into missing again and again and eventually walking away from practicing your faith which would be dangerous to your salvation.

My priest says we always have to look at these things in the context they happen, and not making it to mass (or in your case DL) because there is a snow storm isn't exactly turning your back on God. I have missed several times since I converted due to the middle boy just being out of control that morning. I do the best I can to go later. If I don't make it I mention it next confession but I wouldn't even take myself out of receiving communion over it given those circumstances.

We should be there on Sunday, if we're not we might need to take an honest look at why we didn't go and have an accountability to God as we do for all our decisions in life. Keep in touch with your priest, even if you don't think it is important ... the nip it in the bud Barney Fife philosophy.

 

[Akathist]

Thank you for explaining this to us Marcia. Good to have you here in TAW.

 

[Michael G]

Thorny,
Nice mod hat! I am still waiting for my iconographer hat!
Michael

 

[Llauralin]

I don't really understand why there's a disagreement here. There are all kinds of terms that mean different things to Orthodox people than to others - that doesn't mean you guys never use them. Also, since mortal vrs. venial sin isn't really an Orthodox idea, I don't really see why anyone would mistake saying that one had an "obligation" to attend Liturgy for "it's a mortal sin if you oversleep." It doesn't really make sense in context, so people would probably not jump to so illogical a conclusion (I know I wouldn't).

Therefore, if intentionally missing Liturgy is considered a sin, how is it that we do not have an obligation to be there?

*Is confused*

 

[MariaRegina]

I don't really understand why there's a disagreement here. There are all kinds of terms that mean different things to Orthodox people than to others - that doesn't mean you guys never use them. Also, since mortal vrs. venial sin isn't really an Orthodox idea, I don't really see why anyone would mistake saying that one had an "obligation" to attend Liturgy for "it's a mortal sin if you oversleep." It doesn't really make sense in context, so people would probably not jump to so illogical a conclusion (I know I wouldn't).

Therefore, if intentionally missing Liturgy is considered a sin, how is it that we do not have an obligation to be there?

*Is confused*

Precisely.

I am a linguist and good linguists are not prescriptionists. We do not prescribe language usage knowing full well that language is constantly changing. The Word of God is Eternal and unchanging, but our communications and words are continually changing their meanings and even their form of pronunciation.

And in this counry we speak English. The Orthodox Church here in America has adopted a lot of words from the non-Orthodox Christians English speakers and then had to redefine them to "fit" otherwise we would all be speaking Greek or Church Slavonic.

One thing I learned in studying the History of English is that if it weren't for the Christians living in England who were first Orthodox and then romanized, then our English wouldn't have so much Latin in it. Anyway, that is part of the problem. Latin is not as precise as the Greek. So when we end up arguing here, it is because of the limitations of the English language when we speak using theological terminology.

So, there is nothing wrong with saying "Sunday Obligation." That phrase is perfectly good English. And there is nothing wrong with saying "Fast" .... we just know that we fast differently from the Catholics because they have departed from the Ancient Fast since 1870,as I recall from reading a book published in that era.

We just have to define our terms. So when another Orthodox Christian uses "Sunday Obligation," the polite thing to do is to follow Grice's rules of politeness and to take it in the context in which it is presented.

Grice, the philosopher, tells us to always assume that people are telling the truth (Wow, I wonder if he was a Christian philosopher). This assumption is very Christ like, isn't it, because it tells us not to judge, but to presume that the other person is telling the truth.

I think if we did that, then we would have fewer spats here in CF.

Lovingly in Christ,
Elizabeth
The Linguist

 

[Akathist]

Sin is whatever seperates us from God.

When we deliberately miss Divine Liturgy (and we are well and are able to go) we are saying that God is not important. If we really have this attitude, then we have seperated ourselves from God by our attitude. This is a sin.

If we feed into that attitude, it could remove us farther from the love of God. And this could effect our salvation.

Missing once in a while might not be a sin at all it would depend upon circumstances. Typically, Priest ask about this in confession.

However, keep in mind also that the Church is like a hospital. I might not go for my annual doctor's appointment as I should, and when I do go the doctor might get after me for missing, but I will still be given medical care.

It is the same with the Church. If we miss too much, we are able to go back, go to confession and get back on track.

The fear that many have is that if one misses too much, the world might distract them and they might lose thier faith.

However, keep in mind that there are very devoted Eastern Orthodox Christians who for reasons outside of their control who can not attend services regularly. This is not a sin, because it is not an attitude that God is not important.

The sin is not so much in frequency of attendance as it is in attitude.

I hope that helps your confusion.

 

[Llauralin]

Sin is whatever seperates us from God.

When we deliberately miss Divine Liturgy (and we are well and are able to go) we are saying that God is not important. If we really have this attitude, then we have seperated ourselves from God by our attitude. This is a sin.

If we feed into that attitude, it could remove us farther from the love of God. And this could effect our salvation.

Missing once in a while might not be a sin at all it would depend upon circumstances. Typically, Priest ask about this in confession.

However, keep in mind also that the Church is like a hospital. I might not go for my annual doctor's appointment as I should, and when I do go the doctor might get after me for missing, but I will still be given medical care.

It is the same with the Church. If we miss too much, we are able to go back, go to confession and get back on track.

The fear that many have is that if one misses too much, the world might distract them and they might lose thier faith.

However, keep in mind that there are very devoted Eastern Orthodox Christians who for reasons outside of their control who can not attend services regularly. This is not a sin, because it is not an attitude that God is not important.

The sin is not so much in frequency of attendance as it is in attitude.

I hope that helps your confusion.

That's an interesting point you bring up about attitude and action. Except for talking/confessing to the priest, it sounds very like the philosophy of my Protestant church. It's not really about whether you're going to church or not, but the priority you're placing on God vrs. your own whims.

While I understand about circumstances wherein it would be very difficult for a person to attend Liturgy, or would involve neglecting duties to their family, etc., I wonder about using the "it's really your attitude that counts" argument in normal circumstances." I always wound up very confused - "so I'm expected to come whenever possible, but that's not really important, unless it is a symptom of something deeper, in which case it can be very important, but I"m not likely to notice the difference unless I really care about these things, in which case I'll come because I want to anyway?"

^Not debating (I hope)

 

[Matrona]

I don't really understand why there's a disagreement here. There are all kinds of terms that mean different things to Orthodox people than to others - that doesn't mean you guys never use them.

I know they do. That doesn't mean it's right.

Also, since mortal vrs. venial sin isn't really an Orthodox idea, I don't really see why anyone would mistake saying that one had an "obligation" to attend Liturgy for "it's a mortal sin if you oversleep." It doesn't really make sense in context, so people would probably not jump to so illogical a conclusion (I know I wouldn't).

There are, unfortunately, some Orthodox who under the mistaken impression that all that separates the Orthodox Faith from Roman Catholicism is "semantics". Delineating the differences with different terminology helps people over that hump.

Therefore, if intentionally missing Liturgy is considered a sin, how is it that we do not have an obligation to be there?

To those more familiar with Roman Catholicism, the phrase "Sunday Obligation" implies something different from what Orthodox actually believe about our responsibility to attend the divine services. Some TAW member used the phrase with someone who is a Roman Catholic without explaining that the Orthodox believe something different from Roman Catholics about this responsibility. So I corrected her so that the individual, and anyone else, wouldn't be mislead.

 

[Grand_Duchess-Elizaveta]

Thorny, I'm glad you bring up attitude. Some people forget that in many areas here in the United States, it is VERY hard to find an Orthodox Church within reasonable driving distance. Some of you live near cities with more diverse ethnic populations, so it's not hard to find one. I have a 45 min. drive to my parish, which is not too bad considering there are some here who have to drive a couple hours to get to the nearest church. Being that I have been out of work for a long time, this has meant missing quite a bit of church since I couldn't afford gas. Other people here are in very similar situations, so making sermons about how sinful people are for missing church really irks me.

It also disturbs me quite a bit when people bring up legalistic rules that they have either brought with them from their heterodox past, or simply invented because they think something sounds right or good, and then impose them on others and justify it by saying a priest told them it was a good idea. From now on, if someone wants to use their priest's opinion on matters to justify a teaching no one else in Orthodoxy has ever heard of, they should have to site the priest's name and contact information so that we can verify that someone is telling the truth, and find out where that priest got his information.

While every Orthodox priest will tell you that attending DL is very important to someone's spiritual health, I'd say 99% of them will tell you that Orthodoxy has never issued a formal "Sunday Obligation" rule, and that each person's reason for missing services would be taken into consideration by their spiritual father. No need to invent rules so we can condemn people and make ourselves feel more righteous if we are fortunate enough to make it to church every Sunday.

 

[Matrona]

Thorny, I'm glad you bring up attitude. Some people forget that in many areas here in the United States, it is VERY hard to find an Orthodox Church within reasonable driving distance. Some of you live near cities with more diverse ethnic populations, so it's not hard to find one. I have a 45 min. drive to my parish, which is not too bad considering there are some here who have to drive a couple hours to get to the nearest church. Being that I have been out of work for a long time, this has meant missing quite a bit of church since I couldn't afford gas. Other people here are in very similar situations, so making sermons about how sinful people are for missing church really irks me.

It also disturbs me quite a bit when people bring up legalistic rules that they have either brought with them from their heterodox past, or simply invented because they think something sounds right or good, and then impose them on others and justify it by saying a priest told them it was a good idea.

Great post, GDE!!!

From now on, if someone wants to use their priest's opinion on matters to justify a teaching no one else in Orthodoxy has ever heard of, they should have to site the priest's name and contact information so that we can verify that someone is telling the truth, and find out where that priest got his information.

I totally agree. In fact, I think it should be in the forum rules. No more "anonymous" sources, which are infallible, yet can't be named. If you can't put your priest's name on record for teaching this mysterious information to you, then you have to take personal responsibility for it: "in my opinion" or "I believe". Orthodox aren't gnostics, we don't dig this 'secret knowledge' spin.

While every Orthodox priest will tell you that attending DL is very important to someone's spiritual health, I'd say 99% of them will tell you that Orthodoxy has never issued a formal "Sunday Obligation" rule, and that each person's reason for missing services would be taken into consideration by their spiritual father. No need to invent rules so we can condemn people and make ourselves feel more righteous if we are fortunate enough to make it to church every Sunday.

Exactly. On the rare time where I don't have a ride to church, I can walk to the Greek Orthodox church, but it's not in the best neighborhood. Sometimes I've chickened out of going if I can't make it back before dark. If the service is early and starts before sunrise, I'll wait until there's some sunlight before walking, even if it means being really late.

Now, I bet a saint would hoof it down there even if there was a gang war, or a nuclear war, or even a nuclear gang war (that would be a really tough neighborhood! ), but I don't think I've committed a terrible sin for not wanting to go striding through a bad neighborhood by myself.

 

[Monica child of God 1]

It also disturbs me quite a bit when people bring up legalistic rules that they have either brought with them from their heterodox past, or simply invented because they think something sounds right or good, and then impose them on others and justify it by saying a priest told them it was a good idea. From now on, if someone wants to use their priest's opinion on matters to justify a teaching no one else in Orthodoxy has ever heard of, they should have to site the priest's name and contact information so that we can verify that someone is telling the truth, and find out where that priest got his information.

Wow, great post!

I also think it is important to realize that your priest's instruction is just that: your priest's instruction. It is binding on you and who ever else he prescribes it for. It may or may not pertain to the rest of the Orthodox Church. Don't be surprised or scandalized if someone says something different on the same issue.

M.

 

[Xpycoctomos]

Good post GDE. Thumbs up!

 

[drewmeister2]

To those more familiar with Roman Catholicism, the phrase "Sunday Obligation" implies something different from what Orthodox actually believe about our responsibility to attend the divine services. Some TAW member used the phrase with someone who is a Roman Catholic without explaining that the Orthodox believe something different from Roman Catholics about this responsibility. So I corrected her so that the individual, and anyone else, wouldn't be mislead.

What do you think the RCC teaches on this issue?

The RCC doesn't teach if you miss one Mass on Sunday, you go to Hell. It doesn't say it is even a mortal sin if you absolutely can't get to Mass for whatever reason. However, it also says that just because you can't get to Mass for whatever reason on a Sunday that you have the Sunday off. You still have to try to keep the Sabbath holy, in one way or another (praying the Rosary, etc).

 

[MariaRegina]

What do you think the RCC teaches on this issue?

The RCC doesn't teach if you miss one Mass on Sunday, you go to Hell. It doesn't say it is even a mortal sin if you absolutely can't get to Mass for whatever reason. However, it also says that just because you can't get to Mass for whatever reason on a Sunday that you have the Sunday off. You still have to try to keep the Sabbath holy, in one way or another (praying the Rosary, etc).

Dear Andrew:

You have the correct idea because you have been attending the Melkite Church .. and what you have said is very Orthodox. Even my priest when reading a Melkite theological book said that Melkite teachings were very Orthodox. Yes, we are to keep the Lord's day holy. This is an obligation that has it's roots in the Ten Commandments. And as I pointed out, even the Antiochian prayerbook mentions that it is a sin not to attend the Sunday Divine Liturgy (it doesn't mention the cause worthy of a blessing, which is understood).

Unfortunately, some Orthodox Christians feel that all Catholics must have these very narrow beliefs and want to put Catholics in a tiny box not really understanding that the Melkites do hold "Orthodox teachings" - and that many Melkites do want unity with the Orthodox. In fact, their last patriarch wanted to unite with the Antiochians (in the last century - 1990s) but the Pope forbade it under the terms drawn up by the Melkites.

Hope this helps, Andrew, and if you want to PM me this might be best due to the ambiguity and hostility of the previous comments.

I think that I previously mentioned that even Father Thomas Hopko said that much of the CCC is indeed very Orthodox. (Others can obtain a copy of his recent retreats if you don't believe me, but be kind and spare him the emails as he is very busy.)

Lovingly in Christ,
Elizabeth

p.s. No one in the Orthodox Church is infallible, not our priests, and not even our bishops; however, the Orthodox Church is infallible when over time, she believes that Holy Ecumenical Councils have withstood the test of time and are true and inspired of God. This is a difficult concept to hold, but it is much better than papal infallibility as defined in 1870. I mean, we haven't changed our dogmas since the time of Christ, so why should be change now. And even the gospels mentioned that the Christians gathered on the Lord's Day. Remember the passage where a man fell out of the window and died, but was revived miraculously?

p.p.s.To all readers: Please try to follow the conversational maxims of Grice:


Paul Grice's Conversational Maxims

1. RELEVANCE: Make sure that whatever you say is relevant to the conversation at hand.

2. QUALITY: Do not say what you believe to be false. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.

3. QUANTITY: Make your contribution sufficiently informative for the current purposes of the conversation. Do not make your contribution more informative than necessary.

4. CLARITY: Do not make your contribution obscure, ambiguous, or difficult to understand.

Jean Stilwell Peccei, Pragmatics. New York: Routledge. 2002. p. 27

Note: Giving out people's names, email addresses and phone numbers over the Internet is a violation of their privacy, is in violation of Grice's Maxim, and is therefore, not polite.

 

[MariaRegina]

It also disturbs me quite a bit when people bring up legalistic rules that they have either brought with them from their heterodox past, or simply invented because they think something sounds right or good, and then impose them on others and justify it by saying a priest told them it was a good idea. From now on, if someone wants to use their priest's opinion on matters to justify a teaching no one else in Orthodoxy has ever heard of, they should have to site the priest's name and contact information so that we can verify that someone is telling the truth, and find out where that priest got his information.

What the heck is this all about?

Invented - is someone being called a liar?

Heterodox - is someone being called a heretic?

While every Orthodox priest will tell you that attending DL is very important to someone's spiritual health, I'd say 99% of them will tell you that Orthodoxy has never issued a formal "Sunday Obligation" rule, and that each person's reason for missing services would be taken into consideration by their spiritual father. No need to invent rules so we can condemn people and make ourselves feel more righteous if we are fortunate enough to make it to church every Sunday.

This is really the spin zone. Please do not take my words out of context.

What I said and my priest said:

We are to attend the Divine Liturgy every Sunday UNLESS there is a cause worthy of a blessing.

Do you disagree with that, folks?



I would say it is better to fast from typing on these keys, and eat a steak, than to resort to generalized negative comments that do not promote harmony.

During this time of the Nativity Fast, we should be fasting from attacking others directly and indirectly, from pride, from always trying to put another down and from sin in our lives.

Draw near to God.

 

[MariaRegina]

Never mind. Not worth mentioning.

 

[MariaRegina]

Since this thread is continuing to go down hill

And since everyone more or less agrees that we should attend Divine Liturgy to give thanks (Eucharist) to God every Sunday, unless there is a cause worthy of a blessing,

then, I respectfully request that this thread be closed.

Note that this thread was opened by a mod, and not by Matrona.

So, Thornygrace, could you do us a favor and please close this thread.

And maybe even delete it altogether.