rite vs a use?


#1

I would like to know if the Sarum, Mozarabic, Ambrosian etc are rites in the proper sense or Uses? if they are uses why do so many people refer to them as rites???


#2

[quote="Gloriana, post:1, topic:305704"]
I would like to know if the Sarum, Mozarabic, Ambrosian etc are rites in the proper sense or Uses? if they are uses why do so many people refer to them as rites???

[/quote]

They (Ambrosian, Mozarabic, Bragan, and Lyonais) are considered to be actual Rites within the Latin Church. So, too, the Dominican, Carmelite, Carthusian, and Cistercian Orders also have proper Rites. (The Praemonstatentians (Norbertines) also have a proper Rite that survived Trent but was abandoned shortly thereafter by vote of the General Chapter. Nevertheless, it was never formally suppressed.)

Although it is technically suppressed and can be used only with special permission, Sarum is also considered a Rite. There are a number of others that also fell into disuse prior to Trent and were likewise suppressed. The Anglican Use, OTOH, is not a Rite.


#3

As I posted in the other thread you posted this question on:

A use is an alternate form of a rite. Strictly speaking the Mozarabic and Ambrosian liturgies are rites while the Sarum liturgy is just a use of the Roman Rite (which makes sense of why the Anglican liturgy, which largely developed from the Sarum Use, is also considered a use of the Roman Liturgy at least in the form in which it is used in the Catholic Church).

Of course, people are often imprecise with their language and have been for centuries, so you will find both new and old documents using the term "Sarum Rite," for example.


#4

[quote="malphono, post:2, topic:305704"]
They (Ambrosian, Mozarabic, Bragan, and Lyonais) are considered to be actual Rites within the Latin Church. So, too, the Dominican, Carmelite, Carthusian, and Cistercian Orders also have proper Rites. (The Praemonstatentians (Norbertines) also have a proper Rite that survived Trent but was abandoned shortly thereafter by vote of the General Chapter. Nevertheless, it was never formally suppressed.)

Although it is technically suppressed and can be used only with special permission, Sarum is also considered a Rite. There are a number of others that also fell into disuse prior to Trent and were likewise suppressed. The Anglican Use, OTOH, is not a Rite.

[/quote]

A Norbertine describes on this other board how they maintained their own rite until just these last few decades. The difference from the Latin Rite was so slight that those unfamiliar would not immediately detect it. (second page of the thread)


#5

[quote="SonCatcher, post:4, topic:305704"]
A Norbertine describes on this other board how they maintained their own rite until just these last few decades. The difference from the Latin Rite was so slight that those unfamiliar would not immediately detect it. (second page of the thread)

[/quote]

Of course I cannot and will not argue with an O.Praem as to the history and practice of his own Order. But see here and note (emphasis added)

The ancient [Premonstratensian liturgical] tradition rapidly lost ground after the death of Abbot Despruets (ob. 1596). His successor, Francis de Longpré (1596-1613), seemed at first inclined to follow the 'old paths', and in March 1603 he confided to John Lepaige, a religious of Prémontré, the task of re-editing the missal and office books according to the most reliable manuscripts of the Order. Two years later (1605), however, the general chapter expressed the desire to effect a harmony between the old customary and the new Roman books. ...
A section of the Order wished to adopt the Roman rite in toto, while there were those who demanded a return to traditional usages. In the general chapter of 1618 the German abbots, especially those of Swabia, attempted to force the introduction of the liturgical books of the Pian reform. The majority of the chapter was averse to anything so drastic, although it was agreed to 'reform' the books on the same principles as those which had guided the Roman reformers.

In short, the Ancient O.Praem Rite was abandoned, and what survived was, apparently, a very watered-down "usage" peculiar to the O.Praem.


#6

Western "rites" can be seen as very much being Uses with some Autonomy.

The Mozarabic, Bragan, Ambrosian, and Dominican all have heads of rite who can adjust the propers and calendar without direct orders from Rome; except for the Dominicans, the liturgical text is also controlled by the head of rite. (Dominicans are forbidden to change the canon of the mass, being allowed only to alter the calendar and propers.)

The term "Rite" is also "overloaded" with alternate meanings, while "Use" is specifically a variant of an extant rite.

Rite can be ....
[list]*]one of the 6 canonical Rites,
*]historically used for each of the 23 Sui Iuris Eastern Churches
*]major recensions within the East and west (eg: Eritrean Rite, Dominican Rite, Celtic Rite),
*]one of the formerly autonomous western churches (Ambrosian, Bragan, Mozarabic, Sarum Rites) as a body with a distinct liturgy
*]the text for sacramental celebrations other than the Divine Worship Service and the Hours (eg: Rite of Baptism, Rite of Marriage, Rite of Christian Burial)
*]A named portion of a service (eg: Introductory rite, communion rite)
[/list]

Generally, a Use has only cultural adaptations. Tho' the Dominican Use (the Roman mass text said using the Dominican calendar and propers) is a clear exception.


#7

[quote="malphono, post:5, topic:305704"]
Of course I cannot and will not argue with an O.Praem as to the history and practice of his own Order. But see here and note (emphasis added)

In short, the Ancient O.Praem Rite was abandoned, and what survived was, apparently, a very watered-down "usage" peculiar to the O.Praem.

[/quote]

It was their right to reform their rite as they saw fit, wasn't it? If they regarded the Latin Rite as worthy of imitation that doesn't make it any less their own.


#8

[quote="SonCatcher, post:7, topic:305704"]
It was their right to reform their rite as they saw fit, wasn't it? If they regarded the Latin Rite as worthy of imitation that doesn't make it any less their own.

[/quote]

Was the abandonment done with thought or was it simply, (as the O.Praem blogger intimated), done through inertia? My money is on the latter. Anyway, apparently, based on your link, some O.Praem seem to regret what was done. The long and short of it is, though, that since a General Chapter abandoned the ancient Rite, another could restore it. Not that I expect it to happen, but it's theoretically possible.


#9

[quote="SonCatcher, post:7, topic:305704"]
It was their right to reform their rite as they saw fit, wasn't it? If they regarded the Latin Rite as worthy of imitation that doesn't make it any less their own.

[/quote]

Depends on how their separate rite was granted.

Dominicans, for example, may only add to the propers (the changable parts of the mass), but may not touch the ordo missae at all.. not even to relax nor tighten the rubrics. It requires papal approval and the Superior General's approval to make changes to it... and that hasn't happened since the 1200's... essentially, since its inception.


#10

[quote="malphono, post:8, topic:305704"]
Was the abandonment done with thought or was it simply, (as the O.Praem blogger intimated), done through inertia? My money is on the latter. Anyway, apparently, based on your link, some O.Praem seem to regret what was done. The long and short of it is, though, that since a General Chapter abandoned the ancient Rite, another could restore it. Not that I expect it to happen, but it's theoretically possible.

[/quote]

Since you have decided to argue the history of the Praemonstatentian order (despite your statement to the contrary), you should take it up with him. The board there is open to new members.

If you prefer, you can go to the main site and look up his email.

[quote="Aramis, post:9, topic:305704"]
Depends on how their separate rite was granted.

Dominicans, for example, may only add to the propers (the changable parts of the mass), but may not touch the ordo missae at all.. not even to relax nor tighten the rubrics. It requires papal approval and the Superior General's approval to make changes to it... and that hasn't happened since the 1200's... essentially, since its inception.

[/quote]

You should do likewise.


#11

I'm Roman Catholic and it would be possible for me to become a Maronite Catholic.

Would it be possible for me to become a member of an Ambrosian Church in Milan or could I only worship there and not become a member--just like I could not become a member of an Anglican Use parish--even though I could worship there?

I guess what I'm asking is is the Ambrosian Rite just different liturgically than the Roman Catholic Church or is it a Church all of its own?. ( I don't know exactly what sui juris means...please help me--I've heard that there are 23 sui juris churches---is that true?)

Maybe the answer to this question would help... If a Catholic is baptized as an infant in an Ambrosian Rite Church in Milan and always stays a member of that church--is that Catholic Roman Catholic or Ambrosian Catholic? Does that Catholic belong to the Roman Church or to the Ambrosian Church? Or is he Western Rite and Ambrosian Rite or Western Rite and Ambrosian Church?

I know all the above churches are Catholic--I just don't know what a member since baptism at birth at an Ambrosian Church in Milan is? What church is he and what rite is he?


#12

[quote="Gloriana, post:1, topic:305704"]
I would like to know if the Sarum, Mozarabic, Ambrosian etc are rites in the proper sense or Uses? if they are uses why do so many people refer to them as rites???

[/quote]

**Catechism of the Catholic Church

***1203* The liturgical traditions or rites presently in use in the Church are the Latin (principally the Roman rite, but also the rites of certain local churches, such as the Ambrosian rite, or those of certain religious orders) and the Byzantine, Alexandrian or Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Maronite and Chaldean rites. In "faithful obedience to tradition, the sacred Council declares that Holy Mother Church holds all lawfully recognized rites to be of equal right and dignity, and that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way."69


#13

[quote="Jerry-Jet, post:11, topic:305704"]

I guess what I'm asking is is the Ambrosian Rite just different liturgically than the Roman Catholic Church or is it a Church all of its own?. ( I don't know exactly what sui juris means...please help me--I've heard that there are 23 sui juris churches---is that true?)

[/quote]

The Ambrosian Rite is not Sui Iuris - but it is a ritual church. The head bishop of the Rite has authority over the liturgical praxis of the rite, but has no separate canon law, and all its bishops are Roman Church Bishops as well as being the ordinaries of Ambrosian Rite communities. Further, the Ambrosian Rite requires an indult to be said anywhere outside its traditional lands.

The same is true of the Mozarabic and Bragan Rites. They have a distinct liturgy, but their bishops are selected by Rome, they are part of the Roman Church, and their use is limited to geographic parishes within traditional areas.

In point of fact, it's easier to encounter the Dominican Rite than the Ambrosian.


#14

[quote="Jerry-Jet, post:11, topic:305704"]
I'm Roman Catholic and it would be possible for me to become a Maronite Catholic.

Would it be possible for me to become a member of an Ambrosian Church in Milan or could I only worship there and not become a member--just like I could not become a member of an Anglican Use parish--even though I could worship there?

...]

Maybe the answer to this question would help... If a Catholic is baptized as an infant in an Ambrosian Rite Church in Milan and always stays a member of that church--is that Catholic Roman Catholic or Ambrosian Catholic? Does that Catholic belong to the Roman Church or to the Ambrosian Church? Or is he Western Rite and Ambrosian Rite or Western Rite and Ambrosian Church?

I know all the above churches are Catholic--I just don't know what a member since baptism at birth at an Ambrosian Church in Milan is? What church is he and what rite is he?

[/quote]

As Aramis pointed out, all of the Western liturgical rites today belong to a single Church, unlike the Eastern Churches. So a person baptized in, say, the Mozarabic rite is technically the same particular Church as one baptized in the Roman rite in that they are all 'Latins'. Besides, most, if not all, of the surviving Western liturgies are more or less 'Romanized' to a degree, although recent liturgical reforms have attempted to cut down on them.

I guess what I'm asking is is the Ambrosian Rite just different liturgically than the Roman Catholic Church or is it a Church all of its own?. ( I don't know exactly what sui juris means...please help me--I've heard that there are 23 sui juris churches---is that true?)

Sui iuris = 'of one's own right'; in other words, having the right and the capability to manage oneself (self-governing). It is used to denote the 23 autonomous particular Churches (1 Western, 22 Eastern) in communion with the Pope that altogether compose the Catholic Church.


#15

Last question–if I moved to Milan and wanted to become a member of an Ambrosian Rite church–could I?

I know that as a Roman Catholic I can not become a member of an Anglican Use Church.

I can worship and take the eucharist at an Anglican Use Church but i cannot become a member.


#16

[quote="Jerry-Jet, post:15, topic:305704"]
Last question--if I moved to Milan and wanted to become a member of an Ambrosian Rite church--could I?

I know that as a Roman Catholic I can not become a member of an Anglican Use Church.

I can worship and take the eucharist at an Anglican Use Church but i cannot become a member.

[/quote]

I'm not totally sure (please don't take my word on this) but I don't think that you really need to canonically 'switch rites' in this case. As mentioned, the Archdiocese of Milan or the Archdiocese of Toledo are not really sui iuris Churches as say, the Ruthenians or the Maronites are - aside from the liturgical practices, they are currently part of the Roman (Latin) Church.


#17

[quote="Jerry-Jet, post:15, topic:305704"]
Last question--if I moved to Milan and wanted to become a member of an Ambrosian Rite church--could I?

I know that as a Roman Catholic I can not become a member of an Anglican Use Church.

I can worship and take the eucharist at an Anglican Use Church but i cannot become a member.

[/quote]

You can be a member of a parish using the Ambrosian Rite. It is liturgical rite. Anglican Use means a personal Ordinariate such as of the Chair of St. Peter, Our Lady of Walshingham, or Our Lady of the Southern Cross. Anglican Use is also a liturgical rite used by them.


#18

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.