Could the Papacy switch rites?

[KyivAndrew]

I read one time that since the Pope is the Supreme Pontiff, he has the authority to celebrate the Eucharist in whatever liturgy he chooses when in private, but in public he must celebrate the Roman rite.

No, not true. In 1988, to mark the Millennium of Christianity in Ukraine, the Venerable Pope John Paul II concelebrated the Ukrainian Catholic Divine Liturgy with the Ukrainian Catholic Cardinal and Bishops at St. Peter’s in the Vatican with the Basilica completely full of the faithful, both Roman and Ukrainian Catholic.

Again, during a Papal visit to Ukraine, (after the Iron Curtain had fallen obviously), Pope JP2 celebrated the Byzantine Ukrainian Catholic liturgy twice as well in public divine liturgies in front of thousands of faithful in the open air in Lviv and Kyiv respectively.

 

[malphono]

In 1988, to mark the Millennium of Christianity in Ukraine, the Venerable Pope John Paul II concelebrated the Ukrainian Catholic Divine Liturgy with the Ukrainian Catholic Cardinal and Bishops …

Again, during a Papal visit to Ukraine, (after the Iron Curtain had fallen obviously), Pope JP2 celebrated the Byzantine Ukrainian Catholic liturgy twice as well in public divine liturgies in front of thousands of faithful in the open air in Lviv and Kyiv respectively.

Yes, I’d forgotten about that. As I recall, he could read Cyrillic and also spoke Ukrainian.

FWIW, PP Pius XI was a bookish scholar and I believe he was fluent in Greek.

 

[ag_vn]

Didn’t Pope John XXIII celebrate Byzantine Liturgy (Melkite) when ordained Archbishop Gabriel Acacius Coussa?

 

[KyivAndrew]

As I recall, he could read Cyrillic and also spoke Ukrainian.

Yes, I heard His Holiness speak Ukrainian personally. I think it was his mother’s side (Lemko/Ukrainian.).

 

[TP2]

Sure, why not? So far a Pope has chosen to “celebrate” both Rites not choose one over the Other. He, the Pope, is the Patriarch of the West and The “Holy” Father of Both.

 

[Hesychios]

Very true. I am not aware of the specifics. All I do know is that Paul VI did on occasion use the Ambrosian Rite. Where and when, I don’t recal. I would have to do some research.

He certainly did when he was Archbishop of Milan.

But the Vatican doe not officially rank the Ambrosian and Mozarabic liturgies as full rites in the same sense that the eastern rites are. They are essentially classified as versions of the Latin rite, more like uses. The people and clergy who attend these Masses are all members of the Latin rite, no acknowledgment is made for them today as members of a unique rite or church (as might have been the case many centuries ago). They are considered Latins and nothing else.

 

[Vico]

He certainly did when he was Archbishop of Milan.

But the Vatican doe not officially rank the Ambrosian and Mozarabic liturgies as full rites in the same sense that the eastern rites are. They are essentially classified as versions of the Latin rite, more like uses. The people and clergy who attend these Masses are all members of the Latin rite, no acknowledgment is made for them today as members of a unique rite or church (as might have been the case many centuries ago). They are considered Latins and nothing else.

Each Catholic Church sui iuris can have one or more liturgies.

The Latin tradition Latin Church sui iuris has several liturgical rites currently used:

Roman Rite Extraordinary form (1962 Missal)
Roman Rite Ordinary form (1970 Missal)
Carthusian Rite (Carthusian 1981 Missal)
Bracarensis Rite
Ambrosian Rite
Anglican Use

The 14 Byzantine tradition Eastern Catholic Churches sui iuris have various versions (language and rubrics) of the Liturgy of Saint James, Liturgy of Saint Basil, Liturgy of Saint John Chrysotsom, and the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts.

The 1 Armenian tradition Armerian Catholic Church has the Liturgy of Saint Gregory (from Liturgy of Saint Basil).

The 2 Alexandrian tradition Eastern Catholic Churchs sui iuris (Coptic and Ethiopian/Eritrean) have the liturgies of Saint Basil (Coptic), Saint Cyril (Saint Mark), and Saint Gregory of Naziansus.

The 3 Antiochian tradition Eastern Catholic Churches sui iuris have the liturgy of Saint James.

The 2 Chaldean tradition Eastern Catholic Churches sui iuris have the Liturgy of Mar Addai & Mar Mari, Liturgy of Mar Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Litugy of Mar Nestorius.

 

[malphono]

But the Vatican doe not officially rank the Ambrosian and Mozarabic liturgies as full rites in the same sense that the eastern rites are.

That’s pretty much what I said earlier in this thread:

Remember, too, that it is a Rite of the Latin Church and not a Church sui juris on its own.

They are essentially classified as versions of the Latin rite, more like uses. The people and clergy who attend these Masses are all members of the Latin rite, no acknowledgment is made for them today as members of a unique rite or church (as might have been the case many centuries ago). They are considered Latins and nothing else.

That’s one of those “yes, but …” things.

For example, a priest of the of the Ambrosian Rite offers Mass in the Ambrosian Rite unless he is serving in a non-Ambrosian church. And even then, he carries with him the personal faculties to offer Mass in the Ambrosian Rite if he so chooses. (The same applies to the other surviving territorial Rites of the Latin Church as well.) By contrast, a priest of the Roman Rite may not offer Mass in the Ambrosian (or any other non-Roman) Rite, irrespective of his location.

The proper Rites of the various Orders are somewhat similar, although things have becomes a bit “grey” in the post-conciliar era for all but the Carthusians. The reason for the “greyness” is that, while the traditional usages were never suppressed and still exist “on the books,” the various General Chapters voted (in the late 1960s) to adopt the Novus Ordo as their primary vehicle. But even so, if, e.g., a Dominican were to offer the EF today, he would do so according to the Dominican Rite and not according to the Roman.

Each Catholic Church sui iuris can have one or more liturgies.

The Latin tradition Latin Church sui iuris has several liturgical rites currently used:

Roman Rite Extraordinary form (1962 Missal)
Roman Rite Ordinary form (1970 Missal)
Carthusian Rite (Carthusian 1981 Missal)
Bracarensis Rite
Ambrosian Rite
Anglican Use

Along with the Ambrosian and Bragan, there are two other surviving territorial Rites: the Mozarabic and the Lyonais. (The last was moribund with the advent of the Novus Ordo, but has seen some signs of life in the wake of Summorum Pontificum.)

Along with the Carthusian Rite, there are several other Rites proper to religious orders that survive: the Dominican Rite, the Cistercian Rite, and the Carmelite Rite, albeit that the last one is in a coma. (The Norbertine Rite also survived Trent, but in Trent’s wake, the General Chapter voted to abandon (not suppress) it in favor of the Roman Rite. In theory, at least, it would be possible for another General Chapter of the Order to re-embrace it.)

The Anglican Use is not properly considered a “Rite” at this point. Perhaps that will change when the provisions of Anglicanorum Coetibus are fully implemented.

 

[Aramis]

One other caveat to the western rites of import: it’s only the primary celebrant who determines which rite is used.

For example, if an Ambrosian priest says the Ambrosian Mass, and his concelebrant (acting as deacon) is a Roman priest, no problem, but if he could also opt to say the Roman. If the Roman priest were to be primary celebrant, they would have to use the Roman mass.

Dominicans have several “special cases”… the Dominican Mass had officially been suppressed in the US prior to 1908, so many US Dominicans had no experience with it. So some older Dominicans continued to use the 1962 (or even earlier) Roman Missals due to memorization and visual impairment. The Order also sought, and was granted, permission to use the Dominican propers with the OF missal, and in parishes, often use the Roman propers instead. So you can find Dominicans celebrating any number of different missals without special faculties being needed. Plus, at east the Western Province is making strong efforts to restore the rite.

Other orders might also have various similar accommodations.

Oh, and a huge chunk of the Ethiopian Church’s priests have biritual faculties for the Roman Rite… and so also the Syro-Malabar. It is extremely common; many are trained in both rites in seminary.

 

[Vico]

But the Vatican doe not officially rank the Ambrosian and Mozarabic liturgies as full rites in the same sense that the eastern rites are.

It looks like I deleted the Mozarabic from my post somehow, glad you caught it. I read that the Dominicans, Cistercians, and Carmelites use just the Novus Ordo since Vatican II.

The Anglican Use from USCCB & approved by the Holy See 1987: walsingham-church.org/mass.htm Notice that they use the Athanasian Creed (the Quicumque).

This idea is interesting and new to me: “if, e.g., a Dominican were to offer the EF today, he would do so according to the Dominican Rite and not according to the Roman.”

If broken down finely, the Latin Church liturgical sources of the Mass are (all originally of Jerusalem/Antioch):

1. Ancient Roman, influenced by the Carthaginan
2. Gallican from Ancient Roman (1) and Cappacocian (Antioch)
3. Roman from Ancient Roman (1) and Gallican (2)
4. Ambrosian from Ancient Ambrosian (of Carthage Africa - near Sicily) and Roman (3)
5. Mozarabic and Braga from Gallican (2)
6. Carthusian from Roman.
7. Anglican Use from Roman.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Along with the Carthusian Rite, there are several other Rites proper to religious orders that survive: the Dominican Rite, the Cistercian Rite, and the Carmelite Rite, albeit that the last one is in a coma. (The Norbertine Rite also survived Trent, but in Trent’s wake, the General Chapter voted to abandon (not suppress) it in favor of the Roman Rite. In theory, at least, it would be possible for another General Chapter of the Order to re-embrace it.)

While historically there is a Carmelite Rite it can not be celebrated today. In the 1970’s the Prior General of the Order of Carmel surrendered the rite to Rome and therefore we are unable to celebrate it today without some sort of intervention from Rome to restore the rite to us.

 

[malphono]

While historically there is a Carmelite Rite it can not be celebrated today. In the 1970’s the Prior General of the Order of Carmel surrendered the rite to Rome and therefore we are unable to celebrate it today without some sort of intervention from Rome to restore the rite to us.

That’s why I said it’s in a coma. The point is that it was not suppressed. It was, rather, (and most unfortunately – I remember how beautiful it was) abandoned. Somewhat the same situation as the Norbertines.

 

[TP2]

He certainly did when he was Archbishop of Milan.

But the Vatican doe not officially rank the Ambrosian and Mozarabic liturgies as full rites in the same sense that the eastern rites are. They are essentially classified as versions of the Latin rite, more like uses. The people and clergy who attend these Masses are all members of the Latin rite, no acknowledgment is made for them today as members of a unique rite or church (as might have been the case many centuries ago). They are considered Latins and nothing else.

“Latins and nothing else”? Your have such nice verbiage… I gotta say. I did wnat to say thanks for the above info. You soured that a little with your “Latins and nothing else” as if being a Latin RITE is mere “nothin” to you… Thanks… your kindness “OVERFLOWETH”…

 

[Hesychios]

“Latins and nothing else”? Your have such nice verbiage… I gotta say. I did wnat to say thanks for the above info. You soured that a little with your “Latins and nothing else” as if being a Latin RITE is mere “nothin” to you… Thanks… your kindness “OVERFLOWETH”…

You are mystifying.

You see insults where none is intended, and make insults with reckless abandon.

As you as a priest should know, real Sui Iuris churches have members who are canonically ascribed to them. This can actually be inherited from one’s parent’s or petitioned for by the individual.

Your church does not allow it’s members who attend the Mozarabic rite parishes, the priests who serve it nor the bishops over them to consider themselves as members of a separate church. According to your church they are Latins and nothing else.

The same holds for the Ambrosian rite in Italy. Those two churches were absorbed into the Latin Catholic church many centuries ago and followers are considered Latin Catholics by Sui Iuris church and rite … and nothing else.

 

[Hesychios]

That’s why I said it’s in a coma. The point is that it was not suppressed. It was, rather, (and most unfortunately – I remember how beautiful it was) abandoned. Somewhat the same situation as the Norbertines.

I would call that a type of suppression.

 

[Hesychios]

Each Catholic Church sui iuris can have one or more liturgies.

The Latin tradition Latin Church sui iuris has several liturgical rites currently used:

Roman Rite Extraordinary form (1962 Missal)
Roman Rite Ordinary form (1970 Missal)
Carthusian Rite (Carthusian 1981 Missal)
Bracarensis Rite
Ambrosian Rite
Anglican Use

The 14 Byzantine tradition Eastern Catholic Churches sui iuris have various versions (language and rubrics) of the Liturgy of Saint James, Liturgy of Saint Basil, Liturgy of Saint John Chrysotsom, and the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts.

The 1 Armenian tradition Armerian Catholic Church has the Liturgy of Saint Gregory (from Liturgy of Saint Basil).

The 2 Alexandrian tradition Eastern Catholic Churchs sui iuris (Coptic and Ethiopian/Eritrean) have the liturgies of Saint Basil (Coptic), Saint Cyril (Saint Mark), and Saint Gregory of Naziansus.

The 3 Antiochian tradition Eastern Catholic Churches sui iuris have the liturgy of Saint James.

The 2 Chaldean tradition Eastern Catholic Churches sui iuris have the Liturgy of Mar Addai & Mar Mari, Liturgy of Mar Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Litugy of Mar Nestorius.

I have one to add to this.

Just this past year or so I came upon the discovery that the Ethiopian Catholic church has two liturgical traditons. The Latin rite Catholics in Ethiopia appear to be part of the Ethiopian Catholic Sui Iuris church. It boggles the mind, but as far as I can tell that’s how it is.

On another point I do not consider the variants used by religious orders to be distinct rites, and they are not of the same order as the Mozarabic & Ambrosian rites because the religious order rites can arguably be traced back to a common Roman origin (I am interested in any information to the contrary).

The Mozarabic and Ambrosian are at least as old as the Roman rite, coming from the early missions and migrations of Christians to those areas, not from Rome particularly, but from various points in the east and ultimately back to Jerusalem and Galilee. The present similarities with the Roman notwithstanding, they have unique origins.

At least, that’s my take on it.

 

[dvdjs]

The discussion could be advanced with less misunderstanding if there were more care about distinguishing Churches (sui juris) and Rites.

There can be sub-groups with a Church that practice distinct Rites. There can be distinct Churches that have practice the same Rite. Church and Rite are not co-terminus.

 

[malphono]

I would call that a type of suppression.

I wouldn’t. It’s fairly easy to reclaim something that was abandoned. Not so for something that was suppressed.

 

[malphono]

On another point I do not consider the variants used by religious orders to be distinct rites, and they are not of the same order as the Mozarabic & Ambrosian rites because the religious order rites can arguably be traced back to a common Roman origin (I am interested in any information to the contrary).

The Mozarabic and Ambrosian are at least as old as the Roman rite, coming from the early missions and migrations of Christians to those areas, not from Rome particularly, but from various points in the east and ultimately back to Jerusalem and Galilee. The present similarities with the Roman notwithstanding, they have unique origins.

At least, that’s my take on it.

If one even looks at a comparative chart, one clearly and easily sees that the Rites proper to those several religious orders are as distinct from the Roman as are the Ambrosian and Mozarabic.

 

[Aramis]

I have one to add to this.

Just this past year or so I came upon the discovery that the Ethiopian Catholic church has two liturgical traditons. The Latin rite Catholics in Ethiopia appear to be part of the Ethiopian Catholic Sui Iuris church. It boggles the mind, but as far as I can tell that’s how it is.

The Latins remain latin-rite, and latin-church-sui-iuris, even tho’ they are served by clerics incardinated into dioceses of the Ethiopian Church Sui Iuris, and almost all of those are biritually trained Ethiopian-Rite clerics.

In the same manner, The Russian Greek Catholics remain RGC despite their hierarchs being heads of Roman-Rite dioceses.

Essentially, all Catholic hierarchs have the ability to be poly-ritual, if they are entrusted with the care of a sizable body of, or an established mission or parish of, Eastern Catholics.