Jump to content

Talk:Latin liturgical rites

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit]

As far as I know, the Dominican Rite is alive an well -- why is it listed as "defunct"?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.143.230.126 (talk • contribs)

I suppose the reason is that the Dominican Order has abandoned it. Individual priests sometimes celebrate Mass in that form, with or without proper authorization; but it is no longer the Dominican Order's rite. There have also in modern times been celebrations according to the Sarum Rite or Use; but that does not mean that the Sarum Rite is alive and well. Lima 05:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged Franciscan Rite

[edit]

I appeal to the persistent anonymous editor to justify his belief in the existence of a distinct Franciscan Rite by more than referring to the Catholic Encyclopedia, which instead states explicitly that the Franciscans "have always followed the Roman Rite for the celebration of Mass." And I appeal to the same editor, if he fails to justify this belief, to stop reinserting here a mention of that alleged distinct rite.

Does any reliable source say that the Franciscans ever adopted a liturgical rite other than the Roman Rite?

Franciscans wore sandals at Mass, but they celebrated the Roman Rite, not some alleged distinct Franciscan Rite. St Ignatius of Loyola originally wanted the Order he founded to have no singing at Mass, but the Rite used by the Jesuits was the Roman Rite, not some alleged distinct Jesuit Rite.

This site] shows how the texts of the rites of Lyon, Braga, the Dominicans, the Carthusians, the Carmelites, Milan (Ambrosian Rite) and the Mozarabic Rite differed from that of the Roman Rite. What difference was there between the text of the Roman Rite and that of the alleged Franciscan Rite? Lima 08:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Catholic Encyclopedia is not a reliable source??? It clearly does state that "the Franciscans have never had a peculiar rite properly so called, but, conformably to the mind of St. Francis of Assisi, have always followed the Roman Rite for the celebration of Mass." This is stated under the heading of "Franciscan Rite," which indicates that there enough differences between the Franciscans and those of the "normal" Latin Rite to warrant the inclusion of the text. The article then proceeds to list their variances in both attire and footware, and then mentions the different masses celebrated by the Franciscans that are not in the Roman Missal (additional feasts for Franciscan saints & blessed and feasts with a connection to the orders). Whether this rightfully consitutes a separate rite, what would be termed a Use, or simply a series of minor modifications is beyond the scope of editors to decide. An impartial wikipedia article must go with what sources are available. The continuum between what constitutes a separate rite versus a usage and their frequent mis-labeling (Sarum Use has often called a Rite for example) is a scholarly debate, not a talk forum topic. Since the person continually deleting this article has not distinguished him or herself as an authority on liturgical science, or with liturgical development & history, I am unwilling to accept his opinion on this matter and vote to go with a source instead. The site showing the text of various Western Rites does not have, or claim to have, all the western liturgical rites represented (Celtic Rite), so it does not prove that the Franciscan Rite does not exist by its mere exclusion.

"The Friars Minor Capuchin use the Roman Rite, except that in the Confiteor the name of their founder, St. Francis is added after the names of the Apostles, and in the suffrages they make commemorations of St. Francis and all saints of their order." This is also under a separate heading called the Friars Minor Capuchin Rite, & again I leave it to a sourced article over the opinion of an editor as to whether this is a rite, a use, or just some minor difference too small to mention. Why is it called a rite in the article then?

For the record, the article on the Servite Rite also begins with the statement that the order "cannot be said to possess a separate or exclusive rite similar to the Dominicans and others, but follows the Roman Ritual, as provided in its constitutions, with very slight variations." For some reason, the editor who keeps removing the Franciscan & Friars Minor Capuchin Rites has not deleted this entry. Maybe the changes are enough to constitute a separate rite in his or her eyes? This article would be better served to go with reliable sources on the matter than being subject to opinions.

If someone could provide a reliable source indicating that there was an "alleged distinct Jesuit Rite," only then I would favor including it. Again, I am not alleging that any rite did or did not exist, I am simply including what is provided in a valid source, regardless of an editors opinion of the infomation as being contradictory.

69.34.63.191 08:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)The Persistant Editor[reply]

I am indeed grateful to Anonymous 69 for his response to my appeal and for pointing out the error concerning the Servite Order. Lima 19:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glagolitic Use

[edit]

Glagolitic liturgy is based on Roman rite, but I guess there are some other specific (Eastern?) features besides language. Some from Byzantine, some frome Aquileian or Gallican rites. So, can we talk about Glagolitic Use of Roman rite? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.86.230.114 (talk • contribs)

As long as it is only a matter of "guessing", we cannot. Any sourced evidence? Lima (talk) 14:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Glagolitic parishes feast of St.Stephen was celebrated in December,27 and there was so called "mid-Pentecost", both things are common for Byzantine and Aquileian Rites, but not for Roman.Priests, who served Glagolitic liturgy, so called "Glagoljaši", usually were long-bearded, as Byzantine ones, whereas Latin priests usually are shaven or had short beards.But all this was in early times, and I'm not shure, but in XIX-XX centuries situation seemed to differ. However after Vatican II both Latin and Glagolitic parishes begun to serve Masses in Croatian language, so Glagolitic Mass is extinct.--212.86.230.114 (talk) 08:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Greutungen[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Latin liturgical rites. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Latin liturgical rites. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Latin liturgical rites. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:27, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Algonquian and Iroquoian uses

[edit]

This section says "they are rarely used". Are they used at all? The link does not work. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 12:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Latin_liturgical_rites&oldid=1211943549"