Roman Church the only one with two masses/rites?

Is the Roman Church the only one out of the 22 churches in communion with Rome that has two masses/rites? (novus ordo & tridentine)

In the Byzantine Rite there is the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil. The Divine Liturgy of St. Basil is normally celebrated ten times during the year: on January 1, the feast of St. Basil; on the five Sundays of Lent; on the eve of Christmas and Theophany; on the former feasts when they occur on Sunday or Monday; on Holy Thursday; and on Holy Saturday.

I think we consider that there is but one Roman Rite, with that Rite celebrated according to various Missals. Thus we talk of the “Tridentine Rite” and the “Mass of Pope Paul VI” and the “Franciscan Rite” and the “Ambrosian Rite” and the “Anglican Use Rite” and so forth. All are legitimate celebrations of the Roman Rite, of the Latin Church.

Remember, too, that the “Missal of Paul VI” (sometimes called the “Ordinary Form of Mass”) uses a number of different canons–four principal Eucharistic Prayers and a number of others for various needs and occasions–and I believe the “Anglican Use” form also has options, so there exists a great variety of texts used in the celebration of the Roman Rite.

Because the Roman Church has grown so huge compared to the other sui juris Churches in the Catholic Church or even compared to the Orthodox Church, there has been more organic development in Liturgy. Also because the Roman Missal has been brought to many other lands and many other cultures, thus many other influences.

From Summorum Pontificum: “It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.”

In any case, the Latin Rite (which is what I think you mean by the Roman Church) has more uses than just the two, because there is also the Anglican use, and I think there is at least one more but I may be wrong.

–Jen

There are many Uses of the one Roman Rite around and throughout history, to be sure. There were the Iroquois/Algonkian rites that the Jesuits developed for their Indian missions. Then the Sarum, Hereford, Bangor and York Rites in England. The Rite of Durham was interesting and they celebrated St Cuthbert of Lindisfarne on every Thursday of each week. They also kept a standing Crucifix within a statue of our Lady that was taken in procession etc.

There was even an adaptation of the Latin Rite for the former Hussites of the “Utraquist” tradition not to mention the various urban usages of the Latin Rite.

The Russian Orthodox Church has two “rites” which is their regular, Byzantine Rite and then the Old Rite which characteristically uses two fingers to make the Sign of the Cross and numerous other variances of what is basically the same Byzantine Rite. The Russian Church also allowed Assyrians who formally joined it to keep the Assyrian Rite (like the Chaldeans).

The Antiochian Orthodox Church has the Byzantine Rite, the Rite of St Gregory (Latin Rite) and the Rite of St Tikhon (Anglican Use). They also have an adapted Byzantine Rite for those who joined that Patriarchate through the “Evangelical Orthodox Church” which were former Evangelical Protestants.

Alex

There is no such thing as a “Franciscan Rite.” There never was. Neither, BTW, is the Anglican Use properly considered a “Rite” (at least not at this point in time). Of all those mentioned, only the Ambrosian Rite is properly considered a separate Rite.

No, the Anglican Use is just another variation of the Roman Rite as they are Roman Catholics. As more Anglicans come home, the Anglican Use may well become the third widest usage of the Roman Rite. They’re only variations on the form of the same Roman Mass.

No, the Anglican Use is just another variation of the Roman Rite as they are Roman Catholics. As more Anglicans come home, the Anglican Use may well become the third widest usage of the Roman Rite. They’re only variations on the form of the same Roman Mass.

No, the Anglican Use is a usage of the Roman Church. It is not a “Rite” per-se.

Alex,
Do not the Russian Orthodox also have a small group of the Western Rite?

But isn’t it considered a third usage of the Roman Rite? Since the Anglican Mass did evolve from the Roman Mass.

Neither is the 1970 Mass. The differences are only:

  • substitution of Psalm 42 with the entrance process
  • eliminating the duplications
  • expanding the Scriptural readings
  • reintroducing the offertory process
  • changing the controversial Offertory prayers
  • allowing variations in the Canon
  • simplifying the conclusion

If you forget the variations 80% of the sentences is the same as in the TLM, so is the whole structure. As John PAul II said, it the 1970 Mass is celebrated facing the tabernacle and Latin, very few people will tell the difference from the TLM.

Most of the points what the traditionalist are bringing up against the Mass of 1970 is not essential to that Mass (table, receiving communion standing and into hand, altar-girls, Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers) and except to the table were introduced during and after the eighties.

That seems to be correct per the 2007 S.P. In effect there were no new rites created and that satisfies the canon prohibiting the creation of new “rites,” if that’s what Trent intended to do. The 2007 S.P. was a very brilliant document, in my opinion.

Pope Benedict’s motu proprio Summorum Pontificum determined that the Missals of 1962 and 1970 are two forms of the same Roman Rite. The 1962 Missal is what is called the* Extraordinary Form* and the 1970 Missal, the Ordinary Form (here the usage of the word “extraordinary” does not refer to anything except that it is a rite other than that in ordinary usage in the Latin Church).

As far as I’m aware, this two forms in one rite business is unique among Christian liturgies.

Don’t forget–the Mozarabic rite is another rite of the Roman Church :slight_smile:

The Roman church has 10 different liturgies currently approved, with 7 in current use:
Roman OF
Roman EF
Dominican
Bragan
Ambrosian
Mozarabic
Anglican Use

The Ethiopian Church has at least two liturgies in use:
The Ethiopian (the Ethiopian Orthodox has one liturgy with 14 different anaphorae in the English liturgy book)
The Roman OF (done by biritual priests of the Ethiopian Catholic Church for the members of the Roman Church in Ethiopia).

Byzantines have at least two forms (St. Basil and St John), plus certain Byzantine Rite Churches Sui Iuris also still use the DL of St. James on his feast.

The Chaldeans have several anaphorae that they use in their Mass, as do the Maronites. I can’t remember which one uses Qurbana and which uses Qorbono for the mass…

The Syrian Catholics use at least the DL of St James. Their Jacobite parent church has over 60 different anaphorae…

The Copts have at least two forms as well; Copticchurch.net lists St Basil, St Cyril, and St. Greggory as three forms.

I don’t know if the Syro-Malabar and Syro-Malankara have multiple anaphorae.

Yes, but the one is the liturgy of the Ethiopian Church while the other is that of the Roman Church.

There is a huge difference between multiple Anaphorae and multiple liturgies. To be as brief as possible, “Anaphora” is synonymous with the “Eucharistic Prayer” in Western terms.

.No, the Anglican Use is just another variation of the Roman Rite as they are Roman Catholics. As more Anglicans come home, the Anglican Use may well become the third widest usage of the Roman Rite. They’re only variations on the form of the same Roman Mass.

No, the Anglican Use is a usage of the Roman Church. It is not a “Rite” per-se.

Neither is the 1970 Mass.
[/quote]

Yes. I know, and said as much earlier in the chain (blue highlight) :slight_smile:

Not “facing the tabernacle” but ad orientem, (big difference there), but yes, those of us who know the differences in the texts would be the ones who could tell.

If we reduce things to “essentials” for validity, we have, In Western terms: matter, form, intent, validly ordained priest. The matter of liceity is far more complicated.

In any case, there are those who would say the things mentioned are “essential” in terms of the “atmosphere” (for lack of a better word off-hand). Mass, in whichever approved Rite of the Church, is supposed to be a time of prayer, and many people find it difficult, at best, to concentrate on prayer when the things mentioned are present.

Also, (except for the “table” business), the “time line” is a little off. It may be that such things became “officially recognized” during the 1980s, but make no mistake: all were present in the 1970s.

True, but it is a routine part of the praxis and training of the Ethiopian Catholic Church’s seminaries. A significant percentage of the Ethiopian priests are trained in it in addition to the Ethiopian as a simple matter of course.

There is a huge difference between multiple Anaphorae and multiple liturgies. To be as brief as possible, “Anaphora” is synonymous with the “Eucharistic Prayer” in Western terms.

No there really isn’t a huge difference.

The difference between the byzantine St Basil and St John is, fundamentally, the theotokion and the anaphora. Such that the pewbooks include both; all the faithful’s responses are the same, except that theotokion.

And lets’ not even get into details of the 13+ Roman OF EP’s.

Actually, the amount that differs in the various roman ones is about the same as the difference between St. Basil and St. John. The difference between two distinct liturgical forms and two distinct anaphorae is a niggle. The Difference between OF EP I and OF EP II is really comparable to the difference between St Basil’s and St John’s.

The difference between the Ethiopian Anaphora of Our Lord vs the Anaphora of the Apostles is quite profound… the flow is different, the responses are different… If the Byz St Basil vs St John counts, the Ethiopian anaphorae certainly do. And the 13 approved Roman OF EP’s should count, too.

Yes, the Anaphorae differ one from another within a particular Tradition, but despite that the structure of the liturgy (the “Ordo Missae” to use a Latin term), again within a particular Tradition, is really quite consistent. That is, however, not so when one looks from one particular Tradition to another, and hence one cannot really say that the “rites” within a particular Tradition. That seems to me to a bit of a stretch. Just MHO.

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.