Western Rite Catholics

[Aramis]

The Russian Exarchates are vacant, and have been for most of a century. All the Russian Church parishes are under Roman bishops as Ordinary.

The Georgian Church Sui Iuris was down to no priests and a few hundred faithful; last I heard they had two seminarians who had been ordained deacons, and a priest-ordinary borrowed from a neighboring country and of a different Byzantine Rite Church Sui Iuris.

 

[Vico]

…
The Church still calls itself the Ethiopian Catholic Church.
…

There are also five Eastern Church communities which have no proper Ordinary:

• Ordinariate of Argentina, which is subject immediately to the Holy See; +Jorge Mario Card. Bergoglio Abp. of Buenos Aires is its ordinary
• Ordinariate of Austria, which is subject immediately to the Holy See; +Christoph Card. Schönborn Abp. of Wien is its ordinary
• Ordinaire des catholiques de rite oriental résidant en France, which is subject immediately to the Holy See; +André Armand Card. Vingt-Trois Abp. of Paris is its ordinary
• Ordinariato para os Fiéis de Ritos Orientais no Brasil, which is subject immediately to the Holy See; +Walmor Oliveira de Azevedo Abp. of Belo Horizonte is its ordinary
• Ordynariat dla wiernych obrządku wschodniego (Poland), which is subject immediately to the Holy See; +Kazimierz Card. Nycz Abp of Warsaw is its ordinary

Excellent comments.

That makes sense that the church would not change it’s name due to a political change, and also it is only one Metropolitan Archeparchy of Addis Ababa. But to avoid confusion it is good to know one will encounter the title: Eritrean Catholic Church.

It is a fine point, yet if there is not an Exarch or Apostolic Exarch (limited oversight) for an area, then it is sede vacante (no proper ordinary), and such could be for an entire church. The faithful could be put under care of a hierarch of a different Church sui iuris. They may have an apostolic administrator (they have limited powers otherwise similar to a proper ordinary):
gcatholic.com/dioceses/vacant-sees.htm

Some examples:

1. Hungarian Catholic Apostolic Exarchate of Miskolc
   Ordinary: vacant, Bishop Peter Fülöp Kocsis, Apostolic Administrator
2. Albanian Catholic Church
   Ordinary: vacant, Bishop Hil Kabashi, O.F.M., Apostolic Administrator
3. Russian Catholic Church
   Ordinary: vacant, Bishop Joseph Werth, S.J., Latin Apostolic Administrator of Siberia
4. Belarusian Greek Catholic Church
   Ordinary: vacant, Fr. Alexander Nadson, Apostolic Visitator

 

[Aramis]

Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Metropolitan Church of Pittsburgh, Sui Iuris, is also presently sede vacante while we await Rome’s decision on our next metropolitan.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Thank you to Matthew Holford, and also to Aramis and Vico for all the information!

I’m especially glad to have that list, now, Matthew. Thanks for the assistance! I shouldn’t be surprised that mine wasn’t exactly right when my sources were all Internet sources, and therefore unverified and extremely fallible.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I hate to ask, but is there a definitive list of how many rites there are in the Catholic Church? I suspect that this may be a little more subjective than how many sui iuris churches there are, but I wanted to ask just in case.

Obviously the flaws of the easy, simple, 6-rite list have already been pointed out earlier in this thread (case in point: the Latin Church has more than one rite, not just the Roman).

 

[malphono]

I hate to ask, but is there a definitive list of how many rites there are in the Catholic Church? I suspect that this may be a little more subjective than how many sui iuris churches there are, but I wanted to ask just in case.

Obviously the flaws of the easy, simple, 6-rite list have already been pointed out earlier in this thread (case in point: the Latin Church has more than one rite, not just the Roman).

Take the 22-Church list (where each represents a recognized Rite) and add the Western Rites which come under the heading of the Latin Church (the 23rd):

Ambrosian (including a post-conciliar version along with the traditional)
Mozarabic (revised or restored in the 1990s)
Bragan
Lyonais
Dominican
Carmelite
Carthusian (revised in the 1980s)
Cistercian

The above all survived Trent and are in still use (at least as equivalent forms of the EF).

Plus, of course, the Roma Rite itself.

That should just about cover it.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

I hate to ask, but is there a definitive list of how many rites there are in the Catholic Church? I suspect that this may be a little more subjective than how many sui iuris churches there are, but I wanted to ask just in case.

Obviously the flaws of the easy, simple, 6-rite list have already been pointed out earlier in this thread (case in point: the Latin Church has more than one rite, not just the Roman).

Please do not accept this as “gospel” but I think the Rites are:

Current Rites

Roman Rite - 3 Uses

• Extraordinary Form
• Ordinary Form
• Anglican Use

Other Rites based on a diocese

• Ambrosian - based on Archdiocese of Milan in Italy
• Bragan - based on Archdiocese of Braga in Spain
• Mozarabic - based on Archdiocese of Toledo in Spain (some call it the Visigothic Rite)

Rites associated with religious orders

• Carmelite Rite
• Carthusian Rite
• Dominican Rite

I do not think these three are widely used

Defunct Rites

• Aquileian Rite
• Bangor Rite
• Celtic Rite
• Durham Rite
• Gallican Rite
• Sarum Rite
• York Rite

There may be others and some may be more strictly Uses than Rites

Defunct Rites used by religious orders

• Benedictine Rite
• Cistercian Rite
• Franciscan Rite
• Friars Minor Capuchin Rite
• Premonstratensian Rite
• Servite Rite

 

[malphono]

Bragan - based on Archdiocese of Braga in Spain

Braga is in Portugal.

Rites associated with religious orders

• Carmelite Rite
• Carthusian Rite
• Dominican Rite

I do not think these three are widely used

Whether one considers any of them to be “widely used” or not is relative.

Carthusian is used in every Charterhouse.

And BTW, there is also the Cistercian.

Defunct Rites used by religious orders

Benedictine Rite

no

Cistercian Rite

not defunct

Franciscan Rite

no

Friars Minor Capuchin Rite

no

Premonstratensian Rite

special case

 

[Matthew_Holford]

I hate to ask, but is there a definitive list of how many rites there are in the Catholic Church? I suspect that this may be a little more subjective than how many sui iuris churches there are, but I wanted to ask just in case.

Obviously the flaws of the easy, simple, 6-rite list have already been pointed out earlier in this thread (case in point: the Latin Church has more than one rite, not just the Roman).

I’ve just realised you probably want the Eastern Catholic Rites. These are:

Alexandrian Rite used by the Coptic and Ethiopian Catholic Churches
Armenian Rite used by the Armenian Church
Byzantine Rite used by the Belarussian, Bulgarian, Croatian, Greek, Hungarian, Italo-Albanian, Melkite, Romanian, Russian, Ruthenian, Slovakian and Ukrainian Churches
Chaldean Rite used by the Chaldean and Syro-Malabar Churches
Maronite Rite used by the Maronite Church
Syriac Rite used by the Syriac and Syro-Malankara Church

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Braga is in Portugal.

Whether one considers any of them to be “widely used” or not is relative.

Carthusian is used in every Charterhouse.

And BTW, there is also the Cistercian.

no
not defunct
no
no
special case

1. Typo - I fully agree Braga is in Portugal
2. Can you please cite sources of information I for one would like to learn more

 

[Vico]

Cardinal Roger Etchegaray, 1998:

“Lastly, the universality will be seen from the celebrations in all the liturgical rites. The Calendar of the Holy Year of 2000” could not ignore this remarkable ecclesiastical reality, which bears witness to the catholicity of the Church. Thus there will be celebrations in these rites: *East Syrian, Syro-Antiochene *(2), Alexandrian-Ethiopian, Copt, Armenian, Byzantine, Ambrosian and Mozarabic."

vatican.va/news_services/or/or_eng/static/caleng.html

CARDINAL FRANCIS ARINZE, 2006:

"Four parent rites can be identified as the Antiochene, Alexandrine, Roman and Gallican. They gave rise to nine major rites in the Catholic Church today: in the Latin Church the Roman Rite is predominant, and then among the Eastern Churches we find the Byzantine, Armenian, Chaldean, Coptic, Ethiopian, Malabar, Maronite and Syrian Rites.

Each “Rite” is an historic blending of liturgy, theology, spirituality and Canon Law. The fundamental characteristics of each undoubtedly go back to the earliest centuries, the essentials to the apostolic age if not to Our Lord himself.

The Roman Rite, which is the subject of our reflection, is in modern times, as we have said, the predominant liturgical expression of the ecclesial culture we call the Latin Rite. You will know that in and around the Archdiocese of Milan a “sister Rite” is in use that takes its name from St Ambrose, the great Bishop of Milan: the “Ambrosian Rite”. In certain locations and on special occasions the liturgy is celebrated in Spain according to the ancient Hispanic or Mozarabic Rite. These two venerable exceptions do not concern us here."

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20061111_gateway-conference_en.html

 

[Aramis]

Take the 22-Church list (where each represents a recognized Rite) and add the Western Rites which come under the heading of the Latin Church (the 23rd):

Ambrosian (including a post-conciliar version along with the traditional)
Mozarabic (revised or restored in the 1990s)
Bragan
Lyonais
Dominican
Carmelite
Carthusian (revised in the 1980s)
Cistercian

The above all survived Trent and are in still use (at least as equivalent forms of the EF).

Plus, of course, the Roma Rite itself.

That should just about cover it.

You missed Anglican Use (which is a different rite in the same way that the dominican is) and Dalmatian (which was always Identified as a separate rite from the Roman, despite being the Roman missal in Slavonic, due to the difference in text and rubric prior to V II).

Thing is, the Western Rites are all as close to each other; it’s clear they are all of one or two patrimonial groups, and those fairly close to each other. The Mozarabic, for example, appears to be a syncretic Gallo-Roman hybrid. The extinct Celtic Rite may have been a third patrimony, or a hybrid Gallo-Alexandrian.

The Dominican is, in essence, the Mass of Rome as used in about 1200; Rome continued to tinker with the liturgy, while the Dominicans only added more propers, so as to cope with new feasts and saints. At least until the syncretic Dominican Use of the Pauline Missal was approved in the mid 1970’s… Dominican Calendar and Propers, OF missal, with a couple small rubrical changes. (Like the Processional Crucifix always facing the celebrant.)

But, prior to about 1250, most Archdioceses and many dioceses had their own separate missals, all very close to each other.

It’s a very muddy area; It’s best to say there’s one Roman Rite, and 10+ approved missals/uses within that, ignoring the internal classifications and whether of Gallican or Roman missal origins…

 

[malphono]

You missed Anglican Use (which is a different rite in the same way that the dominican is) and Dalmatian (which was always Identified as a separate rite from the Roman, despite being the Roman missal in Slavonic, due to the difference in text and rubric prior to V II).

I didn’t exactly “miss” the Anglican Use: it is currently classified as a “usage” of the Roman Rite rather than as a distinct “Rite” per-se.

The status of the Glagolitic seems to be a bit unclear. It is (was?), for all practical purposes, merely a translation of the Roman into OCS, so whether it actually qualifies as a “Rite” in and of itself is seems to be somewhat questionable.

It’s a very muddy area; It’s best to say there’s one Roman Rite, and 10+ approved missals/uses within that, ignoring the internal classifications and whether of Gallican or Roman missal origins…

I don’t quite agree. Nonetheless, I’m not going to pursue this except to say that it’s really no “muddier” than the classification as “Rites” of the various recensions of the Byzantine.

 

[Aramis]

I don’t quite agree. Nonetheless, I’m not going to pursue this except to say that it’s really no “muddier” than the classification as “Rites” of the various recensions of the Byzantine.

The Byzantine recensions are NOT classified as rites any more. At least not in the CIC nor the other Recent (past 10 years) Roman documents I’ve seen.

 

[malphono]

The Byzantine recensions are NOT classified as rites any more. At least not in the CIC nor the other Recent (past 10 years) Roman documents I’ve seen.

What may be said in legalese or born of “political correctness” notwithstanding, in practical terms they still are, and we both know it. It’s nothing but a matter of semantics.

In any case, the variations in the Western Rites are both (a) different and (b) greater than are the variations in the Byzantine, whether the latter are called “Rites” or “recensions” or whatever.

 

[patrick457]

In actual fact, the Milanese Rite is different from the Roman Rite and has a number of similarities with the Byzantine Rite (as did the old Celtic tradition which was heavily influenced by Coptic spirituality and to this day, Ireland venerates “seven Coptic monks” buried in Ireland.

The only real reason that these Western rites are lumped together as “sub-rites” of Rome is the fact that they no longer have status as Particular Churches, but have been jurisdictionally subsumed under Rome’s wing.

Alex

If it was, then it seems that it became so heavily Romanized at some point (case in point: the older Ordo Missae). The origin of the Ambrosian (aka Milanese) Rite is, like pretty much many rites, is rather unclear: one theory proposes that it was by origin part of the Gallican family of rites that was later (greatly) Romanized; another proposes that the Ambrosian is actually a more ancient form of the Roman Rite.

 

[patrick457]

But, prior to about 1250, most Archdioceses and many dioceses had their own separate missals, all very close to each other.

Correct. Basically, much of the text is pretty much the same wherever you go; the difference between the medieval Uses of the Roman Rite mostly lies in the rubrics, an additional prayer or two here and there, propers, and saints in the calendar.

 

[Aramis]

Correct. Basically, much of the text is pretty much the same wherever you go; the difference between the medieval Uses of the Roman Rite mostly lies in the rubrics, an additional prayer or two here and there, propers, and saints in the calendar.

Celtic reordered the introit quite a bit…

 

[Alexander_Roman]

If it was, then it seems that it became so heavily Romanized at some point (case in point: the older Ordo Missae). The origin of the Ambrosian (aka Milanese) Rite is, like pretty much many rites, is rather unclear: one theory proposes that it was by origin part of the Gallican family of rites that was later (greatly) Romanized; another proposes that the Ambrosian is actually a more ancient form of the Roman Rite.

So, from this perspective, there is the possibility that the Roman Rite, coming from Milan, was itself “Latinized” at Rome!

That truly would be a fascinating subject for liturgical study!

Alex

 

[patrick457]

So, from this perspective, there is the possibility that the Roman Rite, coming from Milan, was itself “Latinized” at Rome!

That truly would be a fascinating subject for liturgical study!

Alex

You have to remember that the Roman Rite as it is today - or at least as it was forty or so years ago - is actually an amalgam between the native liturgical rite of Rome (well known for its simplicity and sobriety compared to other liturgies) and the Gallican family of rites. Towards the end of the 8th century, Charlemagne ordered the liturgy of Rome to be used throughout his domains, in order to consolidate ecclesiastical power and strengthen their political ties to the power of the Roman church. However, some elements of the preceding Gallican rites were fused with it north of the Alps, and the resulting Gallo-Roman rite was then introduced into Rome under the influence of the emperors who succeeded Charlemagne, thereby supplanting the pure, native form of the Rite. Gallican influence is responsible for the introduction into the Roman rite of dramatic and symbolic ceremonies - say as the blessing of candles, ashes, palms, and much of the Holy Week ritual.

The same seems to have happened with Roman chant. One theory posits that the chant tradition of Rome was also brought by the Franks to their domain, where it was subsequently modified, influenced by local styles and Gallican chant, and categorized into the system of eight modes. The end result is what we know as Gregorian Chant. In the meantime, the local chant remaining in Rome gradually evolved into the form in which it was eventually notated (and became known as Old Roman Chant), just at the time that the Gregorian was supplanting it there.