The [Papal Inauguration Mass](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_inauguration) is the first major mass of a new Pope. Elements of a Papal Inauguration Mass may come from the Byzantine Rite of the Catholic Church as stated below: > Papal inauguration is a liturgical service of the Catholic Church within Mass celebrated in the Roman Rite but **with elements of Byzantine Rite** for the ecclesiastical investiture of a pope. Since the inauguration of Pope John Paul I, it has not included the 820-year-old (1143–1963) papal coronation ceremony. I found this interesting as I thought the bulk of ceremonies pertaining to the Pope were fully Latin Rite in nature. So I was curious... What specific elements of the Papal Inauguration Mass derives from the Byzantine Rite of the Catholic Church?

Background = I recently went to a Lebanese festival at a Maronite church and was curious about the difference between that Eastern Catholic Rite and the Melkite rite. When asking about Maronites, I got this main answer: "Melkites primarily worship with the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom while Maronites use the Liturgy of St. James" While I have grown up going to Melkite masses and am therefore familiar with the St. John Chrysostom liturgy, I am not sure what a St. James liturgy is. I also tried asking my Catholic in-laws and they didn't know either. So I come here to ask the question Question = What is a "St. James" liturgy mass and how does it differ from a "St. John Chrysostom" liturgy?

As a Roman Rite Catholic, January 1 is a Holy Day of Obligation. It is not so in the Ukrainian Catholic Church. If I attend Divine Liturgy at the Ukrainian Catholic Church on January 1, will that fulfill my obligation as a Roman Rite Catholic?

Today's (12th of September) [list of feasts and saints](https://catholicsaints.info/12-september/) mentions "Gold Ring Mass", but I can not find any information on it. Google perceives this as physical quantity and not as a liturgy and the Bard suggests that this is a special kind of mass that celebrates love and whose celebration requires the priest to wear a gold ring and the readings are from Song of Songs. But such information can be hallucinations of Bard, although I have nothing more about this mass. Is there any information about such mass? Maybe the older or later Missal contains some information?

This question is about proper use of terminology within the Roman Catholic church today. As a non-Catholic I am sometimes bewildered when the 6 terms "liturgy", "rite", "order", "form", "mass", and "missal" are modified by - species-differentiating adjectives such as "Roman", "Tridentine", "Latin", etc. - function-differentiating adjectives such as "Requiem", "Solemn", "High"/"Low", etc. It would be nice to have a short answer that **serves as a glossary** (with examples) to clarify: 1. The *primary meaning* of each noun. Example: - "missal" seems to refers to the book containing the words (plus music notation?) for a mass, to be differentiated from "sacramentary", "breviary", and "lectionary" (the distinction between the 4 is clear enough to me) - "mass" refers to the *performance* of a specific liturgy / rite 2. The *precise aspect* that the combination of adjective and noun refers too. Maybe defining the terms using the Latin roots of each of the 6 words will help. BUT an answer would be *really unhelpful* if it says "liturgy" and "rite" is interchangeable; rather it should identify the circumstances where using one term over the other is NOT interchangeable. ### Example usages that an answer might want to clarify: 1. **What of the distinction between "liturgy" and "rite"?** *Wikipedia* article on [Roman Rite](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Rite) starts with a sentence: > The Roman Rite (Latin: *Ritus Romanus*) is the primary liturgical rite of the Latin Church, the largest of the sui iuris particular churches that comprise the Catholic Church. and the *Wikipedia* article on [Pre-Tridentine Mass](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Tridentine_Mass) starts with: > **Pre-Tridentine Mass** refers to the variants of the liturgical rite of Mass in Rome before 1570, when, with his bull *Quo primum*, Pope Pius V made the Roman Missal, as revised by him, obligatory throughout the Latin Church, except for those places and congregations whose distinct rites could demonstrate an antiquity of two hundred years or more. In both articles the terms "liturgy" and "rite" are conflated together. 1. If "rite" is the prescription, why do we hear "High Mass" a lot but not "High liturgy" or "High rite" even though the prescription for celebrating the mass is different? 1. What's the connotation of "order" in "*Novus Ordo Missae* (New Order of the Mass). Why not say "New *liturgical* rite of mass"? 1. What's the connotation of "form" as in "Extraordinary Form" that seems to be used synonymously with "Traditional Latin Mass" or "Traditional Rite" (see the first sentence of [this article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tridentine_Mass)) ?

On 14 July 1570, Pope St. Pius V promulgated *Quo Primum* , abrogating rites less than 200 years old: >This new rite alone [the Tridentine Liturgy] is to be used unless approval of the practice of saying Mass differently was given at the very time of the institution and confirmation of the church by Apostolic See at least 200 years ago, or unless there has prevailed a custom of a similar kind which has been continuously followed for a period of not less than 200 years, in which most cases We in no wise rescind their above-mentioned prerogative or custom. Which rites were less than 200 years old in 1570?
Was he referring to Protestant or other liturgies lacking "confirmation of the church by Apostolic See"?

I've done a lot of googling but can't turn up any information about what Arian liturgy was like. Apparently the "Mozarabic rite" in Spain is connected somehow to traditional Arian liturgy. I'm curious what their theology of liturgy was, and whether it resembled a mass/divine liturgy. Was it focused on the eucharist? I'm aware that Arianism covers a wide geographical area and a wide period of history. I'm interested in information from any time and any area.

Background = In catholicism, there are 24 [autonomous particular churches sui iuris](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_particular_churches_and_liturgical_rites) , one Western and 23 Eastern. All of these churches are in communion with the Pope, and thus are considered, for all intents and purposes, Catholic. When I was reading [Orientalum Ecclesiarum](http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_orientalium-ecclesiarum_en.html) , I was curious if there was no limit (other than 24) on the number of rites a Catholic could profess to be a part of. The only statement I could find that **implies** "only one" was found in the 6th paragraph: > Finally, each and every Catholic, as also the baptized of every non-Catholic church or denomination who enters into the fullness of the Catholic communion, must retain his own rite wherever he is, must cherish it and observe it to the best of his ability... However, nowhere is this papal decree could I find anything explicitly banning professing more than one rite. Hence this lead me to the question... Question = Could a Catholic believer profess as many rites as he or she pleases? Note: This is different from https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/57504/can-any-catholic-rite-call-themself-roman-catholic because I am not asking about the validity of any one rite being equivalent to Roman Catholic, but rather the ability to profess differeing rites within Catholicism.

All the Eastern rites of the church are in communion with the Pope, else they would be a variant of Orthodox Christianity. However, say there was an Eastern Rite man marrying a Western Rite woman. If they were to have a ceremony in the Eastern Rite, then a Western Rite priest could not preside, and the woman would have to change Rites. This is a fact I know from my Priest who asked a Canon lawyer familiar with the Melkite and Western Canon's. Is the reverse true? That is, if the couple wants to marry in the Western Rite, will the Eastern Rite man have to formally change rites to the Western rite?

I'm wondering how the liturgy of the hours looks different in different quarters of the church. When Byzantine Christians pray the Divine Office, how is it different to when Latin Christians pray the Divine Office? How about Copts? etc. What do they have in common and what is different between them? If this question is too broad, please scope it to a comparison of only the Latin and Byzantine rites.

Is it possible for an Eastern Rite Catholic to change over to the Roman Rite and become ordained as Latin Rite priest? Is it possible for a layperson of an Eastern Catholic Rite (say the Melkite Rite) to change rites and become a seminarian studying to be a priest in the Roman Rite, I would like to know the process that is involved in changing rites so one can enter the seminary as a Latin Rite seminarian. Perhaps one would have to be bi-ritual? Any resources into this matter would be greatly appreciated. According to the comment from agapewolf on [Roman Catholic children and the Melkite Rite](https://forums.catholic.com/t/roman-catholic-children-and-the-melkite-rite/331461/9) , there is a cursory mention of "paperwork" in reference to the chaldean rite. However, according to [Babies can receive the Eucharist in the Orthodox Church, why do Catholic children have to wait?](http://www.catholicbridge.com/orthodox/why_cant_babies_receive_eucharist.php) : the differences between Eastern Rite Churches in commiunion with Rome are merely pastoral and neither doctirnal nor dogmatic. So I feel there is not much friction in this respect. But according to this EWTN article: [Orthodox priest to Catholic priest, vice versa](http://www.ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage.asp?number=305264&Pg=&Pgnu=&recnu=) , it seems to be up to the bishop (based on the 4th answer). Nothing I have found seems to give a clear answer on this. Any proper explanation is well appreciated. And feel free to point me toward more credible resources, as I am no expert on this matter. Any references as to what protocols are in place by Rome would be greatly appreciated.

Issue = Lent is treated slightly differently across the Catholic Rites. In the Melkite Rite, the Great Lent begins [on the Vespers of Clean Monday](http://www.mliles.com/melkite/greatlentcleanmondayvespers.shtml) , which is the Monday after Ash Wednesday ([Feb 19th this year](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Monday)) , and ends on [the Friday after the 5th Sunday of Lent](http://www.mliles.com/melkite/greatlentsundaysfifth.shtml) . This is precisely 40 days, counts Sundays and has stricter a [stricter abstinence obligation](https://www.stjohnmelkite.com/fasting/) than the Latin Rite form of Lent. Namely, that abstinence be practiced on all days of Lent except for Palm Sunday and the Feast of the Annunciation. In the Roman Catholic Rite, [lent](http://antiochian.org/node/25432) begins on Ash Wednesday and ends on Holy Thursday. This includes Sundays [only as far as our conscience dictates](http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/liturgical-year/lent/questions-and-answers-about-lent.cfm) . Question = If someone is baptized, given first communion, and confirmed as a Melkite Catholic, but has otherwise grown up in the Western Rite, does Melkite doctrine state that there can be a choice in which Lent a believer chooses to follow?

I have seen some oriential catholic rites call themself as roman catholic. In my knowledge roman catholic church is the latin rite of the church. Can any rite of the catholic church call themself as Roman Catholic?

This wikipedia page gives a list of all the liturgical Rites and Uses that have been employed throughout history in the Roman Catholic Church. It lists many rites, such as the Ambrosian, Braga and Mozarabic Rites, and it also has a couple of *Uses*, such as the Anglican Use, Zaire Use, Use of York and Cologne Use. I'm wondering what it is that determines whether a liturgy will be considered a "Rite" or a "Use"? They both just seem like unique liturgies to me so I'm not sure what the distinction is between them.

Every Pope that I've heard of has been from the Latin rite/the *Roman* Catholic Church. Is it possible for the Pope to be a bishop from an Eastern Catholic church instead? For example I reckon it'd be really cool to have a Pope from the Syro-Malabar Church or the Ethiopian or Eritrean Churches, or the Byzantine Melkite Church. I'm wondering if this has happened at any time historically and if not, why not? Is there anything preventing an Eastern Catholic bishop from being elected Pope? If an Eastern bishop were to be elected Pope, could they celebrate their native liturgical rite regularly in Vatican City? Or would they be forced into using the Roman Rite most of the time? My understanding is that this is possible because the Pope is considered *omniritual*: he can celebrate whatever liturgy he wants and is not tied down to the Latin Rite. As a historical footnote, I'll point out that before the great schism there was a period of church history where the Popes were all imported from Byzantine Greece, Byzantine Syria, and Byzantine Sicily. However this was before the great schism and so is not as remarkable as it seems at first glance because Eastern and Western Christianity were united at the time. See here: Byzantine Papacy