Talk:Latin liturgical rites

Untitled

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)

Alleged Franciscan Rite

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)

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

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)

Glagolitic Use

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)

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

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060916182317/http://apostolicos.en.telepolis.com:80/9-BRAGA_%28Portugal%29.html to http://apostolicos.en.telepolis.com/9-BRAGA_(Portugal).html

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://apostolicos.en.telepolis.com/9-BRAGA_%28Portugal%29.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061205024644/http://www.chartreux.org/en/frame.html to http://www.chartreux.org/en/frame.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927163447/http://www.ewtn.org/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=408189&Pg=&Pgnu=&recnu= to http://www.ewtn.org/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=408189&Pg=&Pgnu=&recnu=
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150521124654/http://www.liturgica.com/html/litWLEarly.jsp?hostname=null to http://www.liturgica.com/html/litWLEarly.jsp?hostname=null
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927163447/http://www.ewtn.org/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=408189&Pg=&Pgnu=&recnu= to http://www.ewtn.org/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=408189&Pg=&Pgnu=&recnu=

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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081120185437/http://www.maternalheart.org/cabrol/cabrol_preface.htm to http://maternalheart.org/cabrol/cabrol_preface.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080226231610/http://www2.bc.edu/~morrilb/Egbulem.pdf to http://www2.bc.edu/~morrilb/Egbulem.pdf

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)

Algonquian and Iroquoian uses

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)

Western Protestant Liturgies

Hi, If we do include Eastern Protestant Churches within their respective rites pages, shouldn't we list Protestant and Restorationist rites in this page as non-Latin Western Liturgical Rites (alongside the Liberal Rite)? Because every church, even the most reformed ones have a Liturgy (hell, even Quakers or Mormons or Pentecostals!) and Western Protestant rites are different from Eastern ones and they are literally slightly or radically revised versions of Uses of the Roman Rite... I could start editing soon, but I won't unless other editors support this. I don't want to see my edits deleted. They take time and effort... Marcgsch (talk) 00:43, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

I would argue that this is a bit more complicated than any short talk page comment can engage with, but this article may work better at an article on the liturgical traditions of Catholics and independent/Old Catholics than as a landing place for the whole of the Western liturgical tradition. Protestant liturgy can comprehensively cover the Western Protestant tradition. We could, however, add a note on Protestant interaction and derivations from the Latin liturgies. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:07, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Precisely what I want to do is to is adding all reformed rites as a new section in the page. The problem is that there is already a Protestant Rites page, which is by the way very incomplete, and it also includes Eastern Protestant Rites. The Byzantine Rite page includes Byzantine-rite Protestantism in its churches list. I really find it better to join all the Liturgical traditions of Western Christianity, all derived from the original Latin Rites, to the page. Do reply, please, in case you have something to further contribute. This is a constructive debate. Marcgsch (talk) 01:13, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

No, not every Protestant rite—we could spend years trying to catalog each, and this article would explode in scope and size. We absolutely could make a three paragraph mention, probably using the standard texts like Klauser. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:24, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

I just meant a middle-sized paragraph definition by denomination, a small introduction. And they are around twelve Protestant and four or six top level Restorationist branches, we should try that, what do you think? Marcgsch (talk) 01:28, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Where are you getting those numbers from? Even just that number of traditions would require an incredible expansion of scope. This is probably a bad idea. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:34, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

here comes and approximative enumeration (I don't have all the information on my head right now)

Lutheran tradition, Reformed tradition, Anglican tradition, Methodist tradition, United and Uniting tradition, Baptist and Free Church Tradition, Anabaptist tradition, Plymouth Brethren tradition, Quaker tradition, Pentecostal tradition, Neo-Evangelical tradition

11 Protestant big branches, and I must be forgetting one or two at most.

Now, I should investigate on Restorationist branches. The most important ones are Jehovah's Witnesses and Latter Saints' Days.

Likewise the Liberal Rite from Liberal Independent Catholicism should be added.

I hope you see I know what I'm doing. I have some sources already.

By the way, Anglicans and Lutherans occasionally use Latin in their Divine Services... Marcgsch (talk) 01:47, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Stop reverting. See WP:ONUS: just because you think you are right does not mean you can treat this as a debate club, nor act like you own an article and can enforce your changes until forced to do otherwise. You are not citing any sources and are treating this as a battleground. Stop. Self-revert. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:39, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Liturgical language

Pbritti, if you have any concrete doubt about what I have written, tell me here BEFORE DESTROYING MY WORK. I'll be glad to show you my arguments Marcgsch (talk) 18:01, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

pbritti, veverve, instead of justifying yourself on Wikipedia policies, which you aren't using fairly (the second paragraph in the article is entirely unsourced and in the Roman Rite entry THERE IS JUST ONE REFERENCE, at the end of the Anglican Use subsection. The only source in the introducing paragraph was even added by me a long time ago). Again, if you have doubts, write them here, I will be happy to answer. If you have any indication this information might be false or irrelevant, I'm more than happy to counter your arguments here.

By the way, even if you are more than one that doesn't mean you are right, in fact, as I've mentioned above, there are entire sections which are not sourced and I didn't add them, they were in the base form of the article. Base yourself on academic arguments to counter mine, if you even can do that, not on site policies, which is just unfair. The law isn't always right, you know. And what you are doing is delete useful information, nothing more.

Check my sources, it's what I always do before deleting other information. Look at the references. Just read!

@Prbritti Marcgsch (talk) 18:26, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

The absences of sources in other places are not justifications for adding other unsourced material. When multiple experienced editors repeatedly contradict you and reference policies, it's likely that they are acting fairly. Your additions were largely unsourced or poorly sourced and failed to remain on topic for this article. Please remember to assume good faith. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:05, 1 March 2026 (UTC)