What is the Roman Rite?

[Antonius_Lupus]

The above question has been haunting me lately and I wanted some thoughts. Basically what I mean is: Given the dual usage of the EF and OF as a single Roman Rite, what does it then mean to be a “Roman Catholic?” Can a person be of the Roman Rite while being almost exclusively (in practice) attached to either the EF or the OF? Furthermore, are we now required to be able to worship God well in both forms of the Roman Rite?

I am, for example, very proud of the Roman Rite and my heritage as a Roman (Latin) Catholic. Nevertheless, I am deeply attached to the OF and see it as both a restorative and progressive expression of the Roman Missal (“restorative” in the sense of bringing back practices of the Patristic Roman Rite & “progressive” in the sense of continuing many medieval practices and being more accesible to the modern world).

Since Summorum Pontificum, it dawned on me that to be fully obedient to my Patriarch, then I must understand & accept the EF and not be exclusivist regarding my attachment to the OF. This causes a difficult tension as it causes the feeling of following two rites at the same time. Furthermore, there is the fact that the Roman Rite is also being expressed in an Anglican-Use form. Must we be familiar with that as well??

I hope this was understandable.

 

[MartyrForJesus]

I had some difficulty understanding your question. You can go to either form of the Roman Rite exclusively. You don’t have to attend both. Summorum Pontificum simply ended the suppression of the Traditional Latin Mass by many anti-TLM Bishops, allowing wider use of the form.

It would be beneficial to be familiar with the older Liturgy because it can increase your understanding of the Mass and the traditions of the Church.

God Bless.

 

[JGMendes4049]

The above question has been haunting me lately and I wanted some thoughts. Basically what I mean is: Given the dual usage of the EF and OF as a single Roman Rite, what does it then mean to be a “Roman Catholic?” Can a person be of the Roman Rite while being almost exclusively (in practice) attached to either the EF or the OF? Furthermore, are we now required to be able to worship God well in both forms of the Roman Rite?

I am, for example, very proud of the Roman Rite and my heritage as a Roman (Latin) Catholic. Nevertheless, I am deeply attached to the OF and see it as both a restorative and progressive expression of the Roman Missal (“restorative” in the sense of bringing back practices of the Patristic Roman Rite & “progressive” in the sense of continuing many medieval practices and being more accesible to the modern world).

Since Summorum Pontificum, it dawned on me that to be fully obedient to my Patriarch, then I must understand & accept the EF and not be exclusivist regarding my attachment to the OF. This causes a difficult tension as it causes the feeling of following two rites at the same time. Furthermore, there is the fact that the Roman Rite is also being expressed in an Anglican-Use form. Must we be familiar with that as well??

I hope this was understandable.

I don’t think you quite understand the structure of the Roman Rite. Here is a brief explanation for you:

The Catholic Church is composed of a number of autonomous, self–governing Churches. One of them is the Latin Church, of which most Catholics are a member.

The Latin Church has a number of liturgical rites that are celebrated. They include the Roman, Ambrosian, Mozarabic Rites, and a couple other minor rites. The most common is the Roman Rite.

There are several “uses” of the Roman Rite. The most common is the “regular” use, for lack of a better term. Then you have the Anglican Use, which is used by ex–Anglicans. The “regular” use is has two forms that are licit: the Ordinary Form and the Extraordinary Form. So, even though it can be celebrated in the vernacular, the Ordinary Form is still part of the Roman Rite of the Latin Catholic Church.

You’re not required per se to be familiar with all the Latin liturgical traditions, though it is good to be, as well as the Eastern liturgical traditions.

Does that make sense?

 

[YoungTradCath]

The above question has been haunting me lately and I wanted some thoughts. Basically what I mean is: Given the dual usage of the EF and OF as a single Roman Rite, what does it then mean to be a “Roman Catholic?” Can a person be of the Roman Rite while being almost exclusively (in practice) attached to either the EF or the OF? Furthermore, are we now required to be able to worship God well in both forms of the Roman Rite?

I am, for example, very proud of the Roman Rite and my heritage as a Roman (Latin) Catholic. Nevertheless, I am deeply attached to the OF and see it as both a restorative and progressive expression of the Roman Missal (“restorative” in the sense of bringing back practices of the Patristic Roman Rite & “progressive” in the sense of continuing many medieval practices and being more accesible to the modern world).

Since Summorum Pontificum, it dawned on me that to be fully obedient to my Patriarch, then I must understand & accept the EF and not be exclusivist regarding my attachment to the OF. This causes a difficult tension as it causes the feeling of following two rites at the same time. Furthermore, there is the fact that the Roman Rite is also being expressed in an Anglican-Use form. Must we be familiar with that as well??

I hope this was understandable.

To be a Roman Catholic means to be a Catholic of the Universal Church who worships God primarily following one or both of the Forms of the Roman Rite, of which there are now (and technically have been since 1969) two. A person can be certainly “of” the Roman Rite while being almost exclusively attached to either the EF or the OF. We are not required, per se, to be able to worship God well in both Forms of the Roman Rite, but we are certainly required to acknowledge that both Forms are completely valid and licit, regardless of the circumstances surrounding each.

I, personally, see all the archaeologist-historian-liturgist hype a kind of gimmicky attempt to add credibility to people’s “ideas” for the “new liturgy.” So we disagree in that regard. However, that’s fine.

You needn’t understand both Forms, but you very well should accept both Forms. That is reasonable and in no way infringes upon your preferences. Again, you needn’t be familiar with the new Anglican Use liturgy, but you must accept its validity. In fact, I think you will find that the Anglican use liturgy is more akin to the EF than the OF.

I think you over think this stuff. Why do you feel so threatened?

 

[GaryTaylor]

To be a Roman Catholic means to be a Catholic of the Universal Church who worships God primarily following one or both of the Forms of the Roman Rite, of which there are now (and technically have been since 1969) two. A person can be certainly “of” the Roman Rite while being almost exclusively attached to either the EF or the OF. We are not required, per se, to be able to worship God well in both Forms of the Roman Rite, but we are certainly required to acknowledge that both Forms are completely valid and licit, regardless of the circumstances surrounding each.

I, personally, see all the archaeologist-historian-liturgist hype a kind of gimmicky attempt to add credibility to people’s “ideas” for the “new liturgy.” So we disagree in that regard. However, that’s fine.

You needn’t understand both Forms, but you very well should accept both Forms. That is reasonable and in no way infringes upon your preferences. Again, you needn’t be familiar with the new Anglican Use liturgy, but you must accept its validity. In fact, I think you will find that the Anglican use liturgy is more akin to the EF than the OF.

I think you over think this stuff. Why do you feel so threatened?

Right The Ordinary form is just an extension of Monastic Life and has been around a very long time. Where do you suppose Martin Luther came upon this idea? Granted its been updated in correct translation in partucalar this past November.

Its explained in greater detail in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and its shorter Compendium, the liturgy is something that “the whole Christ”, Head and Body, celebrates, Christ, the one High Priest, together with his Body, the Church in heaven and on earth. Involved in the heavenly liturgy are the angels and the saints of the Old Covenant and the New, in particular Mary, the Mother of God, the Apostles, the Martyrs and “a great multitude, which no man could number, out of every nation and of all tribes and peoples and tongues” (Revelation 7:9). The Church on earth, “a royal priesthood” (1 Peter 2:9), celebrates the liturgy in union with these: the baptized offering themselves as a spiritual sacrifice, the ordained ministers celebrating at the service of all the members of the Church in accordance with the order received, and bishops and priests acting in the person of Christ.

There is no difference in the EF or OF and there is no exceeding better liturgy on earth in any other Christian Church. The difference is in degree not kind. What there are is different aspects added to the liturgy in the Apostolic Churchs which one may like or not. Through hymns, song selection, instrument selection etc. The actual liturgy is recognized in all the Apostolic Churchs. If you flew to Egypt today and witnessed the Coptic Church liturgy you would see the similiarity.

That said the same Priest and nor do the participants. They in truth are one of the same. As they were in the backrooms at the time of the Apostles or the Catacombs while Christians were hunted and persecuted. No Greogorian Chants were heard. The Eucharist was given in the hand.

Honestly now, growing up in V-I and the latin mass, do you honestly believe I would attend a OF had I believed it was placing my soul in jeopardy? The answer is withoit doubt “NO”. Have faith the Holy Spirit is alive an well in participation on the OF.

The Ordaination of the Priests in Apostolic Succesion remains and ensures the validity of the consecration thus the liturgy.

You covered by Gods Hand and in His Mystical Body of the Christ the Catholic Church.

Just my Two Cents:shrug:

 

[Skeptic92]

To be a Roman Catholic means to be a Catholic of the Universal Church who worships God primarily following one or both of the Forms of the Roman Rite, of which there are now (and technically have been since 1969) two. A person can be certainly “of” the Roman Rite while being almost exclusively attached to either the EF or the OF. We are not required, per se, to be able to worship God well in both Forms of the Roman Rite, but we are certainly required to acknowledge that both Forms are completely valid and licit, regardless of the circumstances surrounding each.

I, personally, see all the archaeologist-historian-liturgist hype a kind of gimmicky attempt to add credibility to people’s “ideas” for the “new liturgy.” So we disagree in that regard. However, that’s fine.

You needn’t understand both Forms, but you very well should accept both Forms. That is reasonable and in no way infringes upon your preferences. Again, you needn’t be familiar with the new Anglican Use liturgy, but you must accept its validity. In fact, I think you will find that the Anglican use liturgy is more akin to the EF than the OF.

I think you over think this stuff. Why do you feel so threatened?

Roman Catholic doesn’t equal the term Catholic, Roman Catholic means a Catholic of Rome, or of the West, we’re the Latin Rite (of which the Roman Rite Mass is a part of) the Western Church. The Roman Rite simply means the Mass as it is celebrated in Rome (which comes in either the Ordinary Form, or the Extraordinary Form), while Catholic includes all the Eastern Rite Catholics who do not celebrate the Mass as it is celebrated in Rome, they all celebrated a form of the Divine Liturgy.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

The above question has been haunting me lately and I wanted some thoughts. Basically what I mean is: Given the dual usage of the EF and OF as a single Roman Rite, what does it then mean to be a “Roman Catholic?” Can a person be of the Roman Rite while being almost exclusively (in practice) attached to either the EF or the OF? Furthermore, are we now required to be able to worship God well in both forms of the Roman Rite?

I am, for example, very proud of the Roman Rite and my heritage as a Roman (Latin) Catholic. Nevertheless, I am deeply attached to the OF and see it as both a restorative and progressive expression of the Roman Missal (“restorative” in the sense of bringing back practices of the Patristic Roman Rite & “progressive” in the sense of continuing many medieval practices and being more accesible to the modern world).

Since Summorum Pontificum, it dawned on me that to be fully obedient to my Patriarch, then I must understand & accept the EF and not be exclusivist regarding my attachment to the OF. This causes a difficult tension as it causes the feeling of following two rites at the same time. Furthermore, there is the fact that the Roman Rite is also being expressed in an Anglican-Use form. Must we be familiar with that as well??

I hope this was understandable.

You belong to a church rather than to a rite. You worship according to a rite. If you are, what many people call themselves, Roman Catholic then you belong to the Latin Catholic Church. This is one of twenty odd Catholic churches in union with the Bishop of Rome.

A very long time ago many dioceses had a slightly different form of the liturgy. These different forms are called rites. The diocese of Rome had one. It is called the Roman Rite. Over time it came to dominate and was used widely throughout the Latin Catholic Church. The Council of Trent decreed that the Roman Rite was to be used throughout the Latin Catholic Church except where a rite had a pedigree of at least two hundred years. Today most Latin Catholics will experience their worship in the form of the Roman Rite. This rite has a number of different forms that we might call uses such as the Ordinary Form (OF), the Extraordinary Form (EF) and the Anglican Use.

You are required to accept that the OF and EF are both equally valid forms of the Roman Rite. You are perfectly entitled to be ‘attached’ to the OF rather than the EF.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Roman Catholic doesn’t equal the term Catholic, Roman Catholic means a Catholic of Rome, or of the West, we’re the Latin Rite (of which the Roman Rite Mass is a part of) the Western Church. The Roman Rite simply means the Mass as it is celebrated in Rome (which comes in either the Ordinary Form, or the Extraordinary Form), while Catholic includes all the Eastern Rite Catholics who do not celebrate the Mass as it is celebrated in Rome, they all celebrated a form of the Divine Liturgy.

No, the terms are not synonymous, and I didn’t say they were. I made the distinction. I said:

To be a Roman Catholic means to be a Catholic of the Universal Church who worships God primarily following one or both of the Forms of the Roman Rite…

To be a Roman Catholic means to be a Catholic of the Universal Church who…

Those two qualifiers make the distinction.

 

[jimrob]

We’re Catholics. The largest chunk of us are in the Latin Rite which is now also called the Roman Rite (presumably because we use other languages than Latin).

Roman Catholic is what Anglicans call us because they think that they are catholic and because what remains of their bells and smells division call themselves Anglo-Catholic. It’s interesting that if you look in the Book of Common Prayer, you’ll find the Creed spuriously ascribed to St Athanasius which starts with the words: “For any man to be saved, he must be a member of the Catholick (sic) Church.” No wonder they’re stampeding in our direction.

 

[Skeptic92]

No, the terms are not synonymous, and I didn’t say they were. I made the distinction. I said:

To be a Roman Catholic means to be a Catholic of the Universal Church who…

Those two qualifiers make the distinction.

I’m sorry I misread what you put, mea culpa

 

[YoungTradCath]

I’m sorry I misread what you put, mea culpa

'Tis okay.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

The Roman Rite, we should be aware of and know, isn’t the Latin Rite. It is one of a number of rites found in the Latin Catholic Church. There are others, e.g. Ambrosian, Carthusian, Mozarabic.

The Roman Catholic Church isn’t the Universal Church alone but part of the Universal Church. The Universal Church is a communion of 21 Catholic churches. Than Latin (preferable to Roman) Catholic Church is one of them.

 

[Laudate_Dominum]

The Roman Catholic Church isn’t the Universal Church alone but part of the Universal Church. The Universal Church is a communion of 21 Catholic churches. Than Latin (preferable to Roman) Catholic Church is one of them.

But the Church of Rome is the bedrock of the Church Universal. Greece, Russia, Germany, Ireland, Mexico, etc., can all fall. Everyone can fall. But as long as the Church of Rome stands the Church stands. However, if Rome were to fall (which is of course impossible), the entire Church would fall.

The Universal Church is not a communion of local and particular Churches. It’s thousands of Catholic Churches in communion with the local Church of Rome.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

But the Church of Rome is the bedrock of the Church Universal. Greece, Russia, Germany, Ireland, Mexico, etc., can all fall. Everyone can fall. But as long as the Church of Rome stands the Church stands. However, if Rome were to fall (which is of course impossible), the entire Church would fall.

The Church is strengthened and united by Rome. It could survive without Rome; but let’s not digress into a unnecessary argument.

The Universal Church is not a communion of local and particular Churches. It’s thousands of Catholic Churches in communion with the local Church of Rome.

I did not say it was a communion of local and particular churches. It is a communion of twenty-one sui iuris Catholic churches, lists of which are available.

 

[Laudate_Dominum]

The Church is strengthened and united by Rome. It could survive without Rome; but let’s not digress into a unnecessary argument.

It simply cannot. This isn’t an unnecessary argument. This is a fundamental aspect of the faith. Rome is absolutely necessary to the Church as ordained by God Himself. This is a dogma of the faith.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

It simply cannot. This isn’t an unnecessary argument. This is a fundamental aspect of the faith. Rome is absolutely necessary to the Church as ordained by God Himself. This is a dogma of the faith.

It is unnecessary in the context of what I was saying. In other words it would take this thread off at an unnecessary tangent. Such actions get threads closed. I do not suggest there is no room for discussing the importance of the See of Rome. However, if you want to do that, and observe forum etiquette, start the discussion in a new thread.

 

[thistle]

The above question has been haunting me lately and I wanted some thoughts. Basically what I mean is: Given the dual usage of the EF and OF as a single Roman Rite, what does it then mean to be a “Roman Catholic?” Can a person be of the Roman Rite while being almost exclusively (in practice) attached to either the EF or the OF? Furthermore, are we now required to be able to worship God well in both forms of the Roman Rite?

I am, for example, very proud of the Roman Rite and my heritage as a Roman (Latin) Catholic. Nevertheless, I am deeply attached to the OF and see it as both a restorative and progressive expression of the Roman Missal (“restorative” in the sense of bringing back practices of the Patristic Roman Rite & “progressive” in the sense of continuing many medieval practices and being more accesible to the modern world).

Since Summorum Pontificum, it dawned on me that to be fully obedient to my Patriarch, then I must understand & accept the EF and not be exclusivist regarding my attachment to the OF. This causes a difficult tension as it causes the feeling of following two rites at the same time. Furthermore, there is the fact that the Roman Rite is also being expressed in an Anglican-Use form. Must we be familiar with that as well??

I hope this was understandable.

ewtn.com/expert/answers/catholic_rites_and_churches.htm

 

[mexilad]

What does OF and EF stand for?

 

[YoungTradCath]

What does OF and EF stand for?

EF: Extraordinary Form. What was commonly celebrated before Vatican II. Was all but suppressed after Vatican II until 2007 when Pope Benedict greatly liberalized the rules. Now, basically, as long as some very simple requirements are met, this type of Mass can be celebrated by any priest.

OF: Ordinary Form. What is commonly celebrated since.

 

[dochawk]

Since Summorum Pontificum, it dawned on me that to be fully obedient to my Patriarch, then I must understand & accept the EF and not be exclusivist regarding my attachment to the OF.

Hey, look at the bright side–at least you’re in communion with your Patrarch

For EC (except Melkite and Greco-Italo-Albanian), we’re on opposite sides of the schisms from our patriarchs! (the Maronites have one, but that’s from separation from the, uhh, Antiochan Patriarch of Antioch)

hawk