Question for Former Orthodox or Eastern-Rite Catholics

[Roland Deschain2]

Interesting that no one pretending to be so concerned bothered to ask me why I'm going or what I'll be doing there. No, it's much better to assume the worst and affect righteous indignation. I would have happily answered any questions, but I'm not going to be put on the defensive by people making assumptions. There are circumstances under which it is perfectly licit to attend an Orthodox liturgy. But I feel no obligation to justify myself to anyone who cannot be bothered to ask a civil question.

I dont see any assumptions being made. further, it is not my business to ask you why you are going. I only felt obligated to state some basic Catholic principles.

you appear to be the one making assumptions.

[Roland Deschain2]

I didn't see a mention of active participation, or an intention to receive communion. As such, I think any fears of communicatio in sacris cum acatholicis misguided, and any warnings unwarranted.

you find a warning against going to a schismatic liturgy to be misguided and unwarranted?

I'm quite surprised hearing that from you.

[Bonaventure]

She said she was invited to go, and mentions nothing about active participation. Nor he she made threads like "what if the Orthodox are right." Since I see no evidence to warrant a warning, I think doing so presumes to much. A Catholic can observe these rites if they choose to.

[Ancilla Domini]

.

[Landless Laborer]

Interesting that no one pretending to be so concerned bothered to ask me why I'm going or what I'll be doing there. No, it's much better to assume the worst and affect righteous indignation. I would have happily answered any questions, but I'm not going to be put on the defensive by people making assumptions. There are circumstances under which it is perfectly licit to attend an Orthodox liturgy. But I feel no obligation to justify myself to anyone who cannot be bothered to ask a civil question.

That's right people, for crying out loud, she's a big girl give her some credit. 

[Kaesekopf]

[tmw89]

Ancilla and Bonaventure,

I didn't see a mention of active participation, or an intention to receive communion. As such, I think any fears of communicatio in sacris cum acatholicis misguided, and any warnings unwarranted.

...I ask both of you to take a look at what canonists have to say about this:

It is illicit for Catholics in any way to assist actively or take part in sacred worship of non-Catholics (c. 1258/1). Passive or merely material presence, for sake of civil courtesy, duty or respect, for a grave reason which in case of doubt should have the approval of the Bishop may be tolerated at the funerals, weddings and other such celebration of non-Catholics, provided there is no danger of perversion or of scandal (c. 1258/2).

1. Active Participation.  A person would participate actively in the worship of non-Catholics if, besides being physically present in the place where such worship was being conducted, he placed some positive act of worship in common with the non-Catholic worshipers. Such co-operation would be formal if it were done with the intention of really taking part in the worship; it would be merely material if done without that intention but for some other reaosn, for example mere civility or friendship.  All active participation is forbidden by the first paragraph of this canon, whether it be formal or merely material.

2. Passive Presence.  The second paragraph speaks of "merely passive or material presence."  A person is passively present if he is present without joining in any positive act of worship; his presence is voluntary but he abstains from any positive action.  It is conceivable that even merely passive presence might be accompanied by an internal intention to approve, assent to, or encourage the non-Catholic worship; if that were true it would be formal cooperation in an evil act, and forbidden by the natural law. The canon supposes that this is not the case, and consequently that the passive presence is merely material.  Even then such presence is not simply permitted because, though not intrinsically wrong by reason of it's object (the thing done) it is likely to be wrong by reason of it's circumstances or consequences.  Hence three conditions are laid down for it's licitness: (1) That there be a grave reason based on considerations of civil courtesy, duty, or respect; (2) that in case of doubt the sufficiency of the reason be approved by the Bishop; (3) that there be no danger either of perversion or scandal.  The functions at which such presence is then permitted are given by way of example, "funerals, weddings and other similar celebrations."  Applications of this canon are very numerous and varied; their discussion pertains rather to moral theology.

[Petrie]

Interesting that no one pretending to be so concerned bothered to ask me why I'm going or what I'll be doing there. No, it's much better to assume the worst and affect righteous indignation. I would have happily answered any questions, but I'm not going to be put on the defensive by people making assumptions. There are circumstances under which it is perfectly licit to attend an Orthodox liturgy. But I feel no obligation to justify myself to anyone who cannot be bothered to ask a civil question.

I dont see any assumptions being made. further, it is not my business to ask you why you are going. I only felt obligated to state some basic Catholic principles.

you appear to be the one making assumptions.

Agreed. And as for righteous indignation?  Hmmm.

Those of us posted in here were concerned for you.  We have posted to warn you of Catholic teaching on this because it was clear that you did not know of it.  Heck, I could've been you just a year ago thinking getting invited was just so great and exciting.  I also never would have given it a thought that there was even a possibility that it was wrong to attend.  With the false ecumenism post VII most Catholics would think this was just awesome.  Rather than get upset with us, perhaps you should seriously consider what has been posted. 

[Petrie]

I didn't see a mention of active participation, or an intention to receive communion. As such, I think any fears of communicatio in sacris cum acatholicis misguided, and any warnings unwarranted.

you find a warning against going to a schismatic liturgy to be misguided and unwarranted?

I'm quite surprised hearing that from you.

Same here.  Given the level of excitement over attending, I think at least a warning was warranted.  Granted, tmw89 did a better job of providing specifics.   

[Landless Laborer]

Don't make me call up Nikolai ...

[Bonaventure]

Because I have received messages and posters have expressed surprise, I will clearly state and, if possible, clarify what I said on this thread.

I. Any active participation in a non-Catholic rite, whether heretical or schismatic, is a grave offense to almighty God, and a scandal. The Holy Office, Canon Law, the Fathers, et al. are quite clear on this, and it is a violation of divine law.

II. The Pio-Benedictine Code of 1917, which I regard as binding, allows, as Fr. Carl Pulvermacher says, passive attendance at non-Catholic services "due to one's position or for politeness, provided the danger of perversion or scandal is precluded" (The Angelus, July 1983). The canon states:

Sec. 1 It is not licit for the faithful by any manner to assist actively or to have a part in the sacred [rites] of non-Catholics.
Sec. 2 Passive or merely material presence for the sake of honor or civil service, for grave reason approved by the Bishop in case of doubt, at the funerals, weddings, and other solemnities of non-Catholics, provided danger of perversion and scandal is absent.

Now, I gave Ancilla Domini the benefit of the doubt in this thread. As far as I know, since I do not have access to the interior forum, she is a Catholic in good standing, professing the Faith, free from canonical impediments. She states that she received an invitation to attend this said liturgy, which falls in line with what the late Fr. Pulvermacher said, "politeness," or the "sake of honor" stated in Canon Law. I do not think attendance at this rite, even if given undo enthusiasm or gusto, enables me to jump into inquisitorial mode - why are you going, who invited you, what's going on, don't tell me you're going orthodox, you know you can't receive communion, etc. - given that she is (a) a Catholic and (b) has not given any signs where such fraternal correction is obviously necessary. If she attends because there's no better option, I would be troubled and not recommend doing so.

I seldom answer to anyone save those who have actual authority over me, whether in the temporal, familial, or spiritual domain, but I choose to do so now, lest I am accused of misleading others in my position as a moderator of this Internet forum.

[Christopher McAvoy]

Some people speak of the schism between Orthodox and Catholics as more of a " gradual estrangement" that serious schism.

One can wonder how it is possible for there to be as many marriages between Orthodox and Catholics as there are, if it is a very serious schism. Is this a widespread abuse?

[VeraeFidei]

Some people speak of the schism between Orthodox and Catholics as more of a " gradual estrangement" that serious schism.

One can wonder how it is possible for there to be as many marriages between Orthodox and Catholics as there are, if it is a very serious schism. Is this a widespread abuse?

One needn't wonder that. It is more likely explained by men putting human concerns, emotions, and passions above the Faith.

Also, there is no such thing as a non-serious or semi-serious schism. Schism is by definition "serious."

[Christopher McAvoy]

Sec. 1 It is not licit for the faithful by any manner to assist actively or to have a part in the sacred [rites] of non-Catholics.
Sec. 2 Passive or merely material presence for the sake of honor or civil service, for grave reason approved by the Bishop in case of doubt, at the funerals, weddings, and other solemnities of non-Catholics, provided danger of perversion and scandal is absent.

For a the spouses of a marriage in which one remains in Communion with Constantinople and another with Rome, not violating these canons is nearly impossible !!!  I've met and known people in this circumstance.  Over in Syria and Lebanon, where my mother spent part of her childhood, these canons have been violated for centuries... I find the level of ignorance of these canons quite odd. 

[Ancilla Domini]

Sec. 1 It is not licit for the faithful by any manner to assist actively or to have a part in the sacred [rites] of non-Catholics.
Sec. 2 Passive or merely material presence for the sake of honor or civil service, for grave reason approved by the Bishop in case of doubt, at the funerals, weddings, and other solemnities of non-Catholics, provided danger of perversion and scandal is absent.

For a the spouses of a marriage in which one remains in Communion with Constantinople and another with Rome, not violating these canons is nearly impossible !!!  I've met and known people in this circumstance.  Over in Syria and Lebanon, where my mother spent part of her childhood, these canons have been violated for centuries... I find the level of ignorance of these canons quite odd. 

The Eastern Catholic churches have their own canon law. There may be different rules in effect there.