We need work on the calendar

The liturgical calendar needs help.  I hope this is something the Holy See has considered.

Recently we found out that the PCED determined that the old calendar can be used intact despite what is determined by conferences of bishops, viz the tranfer of days of obligation and feasts.

I found something interesting about yesterday, and I am wondering if anyone else noticed.

Yesterday, 13 November, in the FSSP Ordo, we saw that for the USA it was the commemoration of St. Francis Xavier Cabrini.

However, in my 1962 Missale Romanum she is in the aliquibus locis section for 3 January.

But in another hand missal she was on 13 December (I think).

In the Novus Ordo she is observed on 22 December.

There was so much tinkeritis… so very much tinkering.

Cui bono?

I’m just askin’

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in I'm just askin'.... Bookmark the permalink.

84 Responses to We need work on the calendar

  1. Robert says:

    In the NO missalette she was listed yesterday, (Dec 13) and Father celebrated her yesterday in our NO Mass.

  2. Chris says:

    Go back to the pre-Bugnini ’55 calendar and all will be well.

  3. Flambeaux says:

    I agree with the profusion of confusing Kalendars. IMHO, this is the most pressing need for the next successful steps of the liturgical reform.

  4. Ken says:

    Perhaps there are some errors? My understanding is that, after Pius XII canonized her, the third class feastday for her was fixed at 13 November, the date of her beatification, not to get lost in Advent, where 22 December (the day of her death) is a second class feria.

    The novus ordo put her feast on 22 December, Advent be damned.

    I’ve never heard of 13 December or 3 January associated with her.

  5. TNCath says:

    We need ONE calendar for both forms of the Mass, incorporating new feasts and old feasts and stop this nonsense about on which day of the week a holy day falls. Case in point: the All Saints and All Souls Day insanity. Pick days and stick to them. On Sunday, November 2, the Holy Father was wishing everyone a happy All Souls Day, the Oratorians were transferring the relics of Cardinal Newman in England as All Saints Day. Ridiculous.

  6. Father Z: In the Novus Ordo she is observed on 22 December.

    Actually, according to the USCCB’s posted calendar (Novus Ordo, of course), November 13 is the memorial of Saint Frances Xavier Cabrini, virgin.

    So this is at least one instance where 1962 and 1970 usage in the USA require no further tinkering to harmonize them.

  7. Henry: Look what I found in my 2005 Martyrologium Romanum Here is the last entry for 22 December:


  8. Chris says:

    Right or wrong, we should all keep something in mind as we use words such as “harmonize” and “tinker” in regards to the calendars: if the traditional calendar is changed, the efforts to bring the SSPX and other traditional groups into full communion will be rendered worthless.

    The calendar has always been a major line in the sand.

    In fact, I think many of the folks who have been patiently waiting it out in “indult” Masses for decades may up and leave those parishes for independent chapels if either the NO calendar or a hybrid were to be imposed upon their Masses. And they’d have good right to do so.

    This is one of the areas where restoration and not reform is required.

  9. Ken says:

    Actually, it appears the feast day was a double of the second class on 22 December on pre-1962 calendars (!) after the 1946 canonization.

    So, I am as confused as Fr. Z right now on this one, although still don’t see 3 January or 13 December.

  10. sharon stockard says:

    St Frances X Cabrini (1917),V.,F. (NEW)

    St Didacus (15 C.),B.,M.(Trad)

    St Stanislaus Kosta (1568), Jesuit novice (Hist)

    THursday November 13th

  11. Rob F. says:

    Fr. Z: Thanks for the scan of the Martyrologium. I definitely need to buy that very interesting (and expensive) book some day!

    It’s interesting that the American bishops picked a day different from the one in the Martyrology to keep her memorial. I wonder why that is. Not that there is anything wrong with that, I guess. Devotees of Mother Cabrini can keep her memorial twice, or would be able to if votive offices were allowed on the 22nd of December.

  12. dcs says:

    December 13 is the feast day of St. Lucy in both the old Calendar and the New.

  13. dcs says:

    Maybe her memorial is observed in Chicago on Dec. 22?

  14. Geoffrey says:

    “The novus ordo put her feast on 22 December, Advent be damned.”

    I pray the Liturgy of the Hours and she showed up yesterday (13 November) as an optional memorial in the USA, way in the Appendix.

    I do think the calendars need to be merged in some way, so that both forms of the Roman Rite can use the same calendar. It would make things a lot easier.

    I’ve noticed with the old Martyrology that each saint will have a mention on their day of death, and if necessary mention is also made of when their feast day is kept liturgically, if different. Sometimes that saint will get another mention under that date as well. Does this happen in the new martyrology?

    I recall there is something weird with the Optional Memorial of Blessed Junipero Serra as well.

  15. Father Z: Look what I found in my 2005 Martyrologium Romanum Here is the last entry for 22 December:

    This brings back unwanted memories of a former pastor who, in reply to a similar quote, replied “We don’t follow Rome over here.” At the time, this (unfortunately) seemed true enough. Occasionally (if more rarely) still does.

  16. nw says:

    Chris, I disagree. Continuing the legitimate reform of the EF calendar would not cause a mass exodus from indult communities. The 1962 calendar could use some further reform, particularly by way of a little more simplification. The reforms in the 1950s were too little, too late. Obviously the wanton destruction of the traditional calendar was uncalled for and I find its result impoverished compared to the EF, but we got to move forward…

  17. Westfield says:

    I know this question is totally irrelevant, and I apologize, but if anyone can help…please.

    I need to go to confession, badly. There are confessions scheduled tomorrow in my local church, but I know the priests who are hearing them and I really, really, really cannot bear the thought of them knowing my sins. Is it licit for me to put on a fake voice or accent while listing my sins to the priest in the confessional, so as for him to be unaware of my identity? [WOW. Out of place comment. Just go to confession. Whisper. Also, the priest doesn't really care or try to figure out who you are. Believe me.]

  18. Possibly a bit more surprising — since the SSPX tends to be a bit more rigid on such matters — my Angelus Press 2008 calendar for November 13 says

    In USA: St. Francis Xavier Cabrini Virgin–W (III)
    St. Didacus Confessor–W (III)

  19. Chris says:

    NW: “The reforms in the 1950s were too little, too late.”

    That attitude will be part of the cause for folks leaving those parishes. Most of the people I know who have been attending the Traditional Latin Mass at approved sites for years do not believe those changes should have ever taken place — let alone not been enough. And I’ve spoken with enough FSSP and ICKSP priests to have told me that their fidelity to their orders would be in question if they were forced to use a different calendar.

    Personally, I can understand the usefulness in some of the changes of the 1950s, especially in Holy Week. As I understand it, Holy Saturday Masses were basically empty because of the time of day they were occuring.

    But many feel that the calendar changes were the first step toward the destruction of the Mass — led by the same man who eventually did attempt to destroy the Mass. So going back toward that would, IMHO, lead to an exodus from our traditional parishes and create even greater seperation.

  20. Kristen J says:

    Perhaps because I’m just dense (or perhaps because I am too young to remember the calendar before VII), I don’t understand the purported traditionalist opposition to revising the calendar or, even better, merging the present calendars into a harmonious whole.

    It seems to me that any Church calendar will ALWAYS need revisions as new saints are canonized and their feasts need to be observed. Furthermore, I don’t see the connection between faithful observance of the rubrics at Mass in either form (good and necessary) and the perceived need for a return to the old calendar (problematical because of new saints). I do agree, however, that we need to stop moving holy days for convenience!

    As with many things, I think that adherents to “tradition” sometimes do not understand that their personal (and valid) preferences are not sacred! It is our Faith and the Mass itself that are sacred. Threatening schism over Rome’s changes to the calendar or chastising those of us ladies who choose not to wear veils to EF Masses (for example) reveal that some are confusing their preferences with what Mother Church and Our Lord require. This is one reason why my family only attends the EF Mass occasionally and most frequently attends a reverent — and equally valid — NO Mass.

  21. Sylvia says:

    I totally agree with Fr. Z. I really hope something will be done. I’m not stupid, but I can get totally confused when it comes to these feast days and I know I’m not the only one!

    Also, I got a bit ruffled Sunday (at the E.F.) when it was the Dedication of St. John Lateran. Ifelt it should be a Sunday after Pentecost thing, because the Dedication was a second-class feast. I guess I’m still conditioned by the NO after all this time. You know the rules could stand to change when you can understand HOW they work but still find them a bit weird!

  22. If there was only some way to reinvent this wheel…

    Some days, I wonder if the Church has REALLY been around 2000 years– certainly we could have the calendar figured out by now, right?

    Good grief.

  23. George Festa says:

    There seem to be so many variations and a major overhaul is in order. With this being said, I understand that the Vatican wheels historically turn slowly (H.H. B XVI is an exception, we’ve been making great progress of late). My family and I attend a TLM community and they have included new saints and feasts in their calendar. We certainly need to include new saints in the calendar but with “two forms of the same rite” I do not know how this would be handled (I am a layman).
    As I see it here are the following to consider:
    1. the “1962″ calendar
    2. The Nouvus Ordo calendar
    3. The priest’s “Ordo” — which can differ from place to place (and religious order)
    4. The local ordanary’s authority to move holy-days and feasts
    (e.g “My” TLM community celebrated All Souls on Monday Nov. 3rd, while another community celebrated a Requiem Mass on The Lord’s Day — both “legal” but very confusing).

    In Christ,
    Geo. Festa

  24. I truly doubt that a priest would doubt the fidelity to his orders if they altered the calendar,(to be sure I contacted a n official of one of these groups and he says the statement is nonsense.Nor would people leave in droves.To reform the traditional calendar is the right of Rome but the present reform was a disaster (as then Cardinal Ratzinger stated).But no changes?The church has always been reforming the calendar through out history including Trent and Pius X.To some persons the liturgy should be frozen for all ages and allow no more development (at least that person would agree to).To blame Arch.Bugnini for every change we dont personally agree to is to insult Pope Pius XII.Pius was his own secretary of state,and he actually ran the Congregation of Rites (the cardinal who headed it was the Pro-prefect).Everything that came oue in the 50s he approved.He was a micromanager as as wll as a liurgist.

  25. George Festa says:

    Addendum:

    No. 5 The Liturgy of the Hours may come into play also as it is to lead people to the central liturgical event which is the Holy Mass.

    GF

  26. Mila says:

    IMHO, perhaps we should return to the 1962 Calendar and add the saints that have been canonized and whose commemorations are liturgically observed. That should not be too hard to do.

    As far as ‘the observance of St. Francis Cabrini, I’m getting more and more confused. My “Daily Roman Missal”, published by Scepter in 1996, lists November 13 as [In the dioceses of the United States] November 13, Frances Xavier Cabrini, virgin Memorial. The English edition of Magnificat has her listed as a memorial on November 13 also. The Spanish edtion of Magnificat, however, lists St. Leander for the date as an optional memorial, with the notation “In America the memorial of St. Leander is not observed. Rather, either the memorial of St. Frances Xavier Cabrini or the antiphons and prayers for the 32nd week in ordinary time will be used.” Most confusing.

  27. Chris says:

    Fr. Mcafee — you are right in terms of minor changes.

    My statement, if you go back and read it, was that they would react that way if the new calednar in its present form was forced on them or a hybrid of the two calendars. And I stand by that claim because it is what I was told.

    But small changes, no, I don’t believe small changes would cause a revolt.

  28. Tim Ferguson says:

    If I were Pope (besides the fundament of the earth shuddering at the very prospect), I would entrust the calendar issue to a religious community – either a monastic community, or s group like the Canons of St. John Cantius – which regularly uses both forms. I would have them continue using both forms for a number of years, to feel acutely the tensions and difficulties of two different calendars. After, say, ten years, I would have them begin to develop a unified calendar that would eliminate as many of the discrepancies as possible. Once their proposal was complete, I would gradually extend it – first to other religious orders, then region by region, taking note of the difficulties as they arise. Only after 25 years or so (probably during the reign of my long-suffering successor, who would have soooo many of my messes to clean up), would it be ready for universal application.

    It seems that part of the problem we’ve faced liturgically in recent years is the need to have things fixed NOW! The gradual, brick-by-brick approach can be frustrating, but I would maintain that it’s healthier for the Church as a whole. It reintroduces a healthy respect for and interest in preserving tradition, rather than flitting from trend to trend. Change, in the Church – unless it’s eliminating an egregious abuse – should be slow and deliberate.

  29. Joshua says:

    I made a diligent study of the Calendar, the rubrics behind it and particular Feasts for the Diocese of Los Angeles. Several complicating factors

    1. Some Masses from the Missae pro aliquibus locis (PAL) are different days than when that Saint is in the Martyrology, by necessity due to conflicts.

    2. Likewise, the exact date for such a PAL feast varies from diocese to diocese depending on local customs. In Los Angeles Didacus is a secondary Patron so he gets a 2nd class feast. Likewise, St. Vibiana which is normally in December as a 3rd class, is a 1st class in September for Los Angeles.

    3. A lot depends on where the Missale was published. Father, if you can get a hold of it there is a supplement for “Diocesis Foederationis Semptrinonalis”. There was one in the back of our Missale which even, on occassion, had different texts for PAL Masses in America than the general PAL. Plus it had Our Lady of Guadeloupe and other peculiar feasts

    The work of a more uniform calendar, while desirable, is very complicated. There are reasons for the differences that much be accounted for. The biggest drawback in practice for now is that there are no Ordos for the Estraordinary form for each diocese. The FSSP does have a section, but only for dioceses they staff.

    The easiest way to check is the Baronius Missal, where the FSSP did put the effort in for a complete supplement for the US. I checked this against old ordos for Los Angeles, it was accurate. There were something like 18 peculiar feasts, plus ones for the dedication of the new cathedral and the election of + Mahony.

  30. What’s wrong with complexity? Or differentiations between diocesan ordines? Let alone religious orders? *sigh*

  31. Joshua says:

    Tinkler, Nothing per se. Some difficulty is that it is hard to actually know what Mass to say. I am betting the majority of times the PAL Masses are not said, or said at the wrong date or with the wrong solemnity.

    From my reading of the rubrics it seemed obvious the Our Lady of Guadeloupe was first class, and we celebrated it that way (The principal patron of a region or nation). But the FSSP had it as 3rd class. I defer to them, but how could I have known? How do they know? When was St. Patrick´s supposed to be celebrated in Los Angeles, where in the old rite it was a first class feast, considering the different manners of transferring St. Joseph´s Feast and Rome\’s harmonising by making the EF conform to the OF? St. Patrick´s would have been transferred to where St. Joseph was. All very confusing.

  32. TNCath says:

    Chris: “Right or wrong, we should all keep something in mind as we use words such as “harmonize” and “tinker” in regards to the calendars: if the traditional calendar is changed, the efforts to bring the SSPX and other traditional groups into full communion will be rendered worthless.”

    I think we have a case of the tail wagging the dog here. Once again, the issue with the SSPX and other “traditional groups” is not about which Mass is said, calendars, music vestments, or the documents of Vatican II (although they are all external aggravating factors, perhaps). The issue is ultimately about authority and obedience.

    As for the calendar, I’m not suggesting throwing out the traditional calendar. Personally, I think it’s a shame that so many saints and other feasts were dropped with the adoption of the new calendar. What I am suggesting is updating the traditional calendar with saints that have been canonized since the adoption of the new calendar and form it in such a way that it can be used for both forms of the Mass. Who can object to that and why? Additionally, retain the great feasts and holidays and don’t worry about what day of the week they fall upon (i.e. if the holyday falls on a Saturday or Monday, the obligation to attend Mass is abrogated).

  33. Her feast should be December 22, but that’s always occupied by Late Advent.

    The first free day she could possibly be celebrated is January 3, hence the listing there.

    When the US Bishops submitted the proper calendar (approved June 22, 1962), they selected November 13, thus November 13 is the day in the US.

  34. Thomas says:

    If I understand correctly, in either calendar, the feast day does not necessarily correspond to the commemoration in the Martyrology, which is the actual “natalitia.” This does not change the calendar issues, but it is not at all unusual that 22 Dec is the martyrology comm. but the memorial is on 13 Nov.

  35. Kristen: Perhaps what you are “too young to remember” is that the EF calendar and missal are tightly integrated in a way that a purely OF viewpoint can scarcely comprehend.

    Frequently, not only the EF proper prayers (collect, secret, postcommunion) but also the Epistle and Gospel as well as the Gradual psalm and the introit, offertory, and communion antiphon verses are all correlated specifically to the theme of the day’s feast.

    By contrast, in the OF with its 2-year (daily) and 3-year (Sunday) cycles, each day’s readings are ordinarily simply whatever comes next in whatever segment of scriptures is currently being traversed from day to day. Consequently, a feast day’s readings and antiphons seldom have any connection to the feast itself. So from the OF perspective, it’s difficult to comprehend that a loss of calendar entails a loss of missal and of the spirituality that they combine to embody. (Not to speak of the parallel integration of the divine office as well.)

    Perhaps this is at least part of what Fr. McAfee meant in saying the present calendar reform is a “disaster”. Considering the terrible loss of scriptural spiritual depth and richness in going from the EF to the OF calendar, it certainly looks that way to me. In the great leap forward, the losses of the calendar and the missal were both devastating.

    Incidentally, I am equally familiar with both calendars — attending daily OF Mass and following the EF calendar and missal in private daily as well as Sunday devotions — and don’t think anyone lacking this dual experience really has any basis for commenting on the relative merits of the calendars (or missals).

    That said, I agree that a unification of the calendars is needed, with the amalgamated calendar somehow preserving the richness of the EF calendar. I don’t sense so much traditional resistance to updating the EF calendar organically by adding new saints as has been done throughout history. At the moment, we’re frozen in 1962 due only to the liturgical tragedy of the recent decades, but with Summorum Pontificum organic development can and surely will resume.

    My personal hope would be that eventually the calendars and missals of the two forms could both converge at a point on the spectrum about 90% of the way from OF to EF.

  36. Chris says:

    TN: “Ithink we have a case of the tail wagging the dog here. Once again, the issue with the SSPX and other “traditional groups” is not about which Mass is said, calendars, music vestments, or the documents of Vatican II (although they are all external aggravating factors, perhaps). The issue is ultimately about authority and obedience.”

    So you’re suggesting the SSPX and others don’t really have any real problems with the new calendar, Mass, reaching out to false religions, collegiality, etc. They just don’t want to behave?

    Sorry father, I think the rabbit hole may start to form quickly. Maybe this should be another thread.

  37. Henry,

    It is difficult, if not impossible, to follow the traditional calendar on a daily basis if one can only attend the OF on a daily basis. Especially if you pray the old breviary. I don’t know how you do it as I find difficult considering I try to say the old breviary and use such spiritual readings as Dom Gueranger’s series.

  38. Flambeaux says:

    Greg and Henry,

    I find myself in the same situation. My solution has been to read through the Mass texts of the day along with the Breviary and Dom Gueranger’s series. It’s not ideal, but it’s the best I can do for now.

    I agree that the disconnect between the calendars is most acutely felt by those of us who elect to straddle the divide.

  39. Greg,

    You’re right, and I have no secret. As Father Z might say Bishop Trautman would say, it’s just tooo haaaard for most folks. And too often, I begin to think it’s too hard for me too. However, there being no traditional parish in sight, I have no choice if I’m both to participate daily in public liturgy (morning prayer and Mass) and to maintain contact privately with the historic spirituality of the Church that is missing in the new calendar and missal. And too often, I just don’t have enough time to do it all right.

    For instance, I’ve never been able to pray the full divine office–7 hours during the day and matins with 3 nocturns during the night–except on a bare handful of major solemnities. Recently, I’ve been experimenting with a time-saving compromise that no purist of either stripe would countenance–privately praying lauds and vespers (in Latin) using the 4-week OF psalter (3 instead of 5 psalms/canticles) but with EF antiphons, brief reading, responses, and collect.

  40. Marty says:

    We need another Trent…

  41. Xpihs says:

    While having all of the feast days on the same day might help, there is the issue of the classification of the days that will be more difficult. The two calendars can’t be simply combined.

    Regarding Ecumenism, perhaps we should also consider who is using what calendar. Some traditional anglicans use a calendar from before 1962.

    Also to consider is returning both the Extraordinary form and the Ordinary form to a liturgical day that begins with First Vespers as it was before the 1962 changes.

  42. Michael J says:

    TNCath,

    I can and do object to changing the traditional calendar (including the “innocuous” addition of new Saints) for the simple reason that those advocating the changes have provided no justification. I see no compelling benefit, and nobody is willing or able to explain why the changes are good, so this becomes an exercise of making changes for change’s sake.

  43. Michael J: Wouldn’t you agree with adding saints to the traditional calendar in the careful and prudent way they were added in pre-Vatican II days? For instance, I believe almost all traditionalists would agree with the addition of St. Padre Pio.

  44. LCB says:

    “Cui bono?”

    Brutal.

  45. LCB says:

    The issue is really simple.

    Totally change the Novus Ordo calendar to fit the 62 or 55 calendar. If you attend NO, odds are you don’t attend daily mass, so feast days mean nothing to you. In addition, the last time you had to attend a Holy Day of Obligation on the DAY was 35 years ago. Not that you can name the Holy Days of Obligation anyways. We’re one bad vote away from celebrating Christmas on the closest Sunday.

    Besides, having the calendar fiddled with on a yearly basis is par for the course for the Novus Ordo. It wouldn’t seem any different.

  46. Maureen says:

    “If you attend NO, odds are you don’t attend daily mass, so feast days mean nothing to you. In addition, the last time you had to attend a Holy Day of Obligation on the DAY was 35 years ago. Not that you can name the Holy Days of Obligation anyways.”

    What alternate universe do you live in, my friend? It’s only been the last couple of years when Holy Days of Obligation really started to hit the Sunday fan. And there’s scarcely a Catholic alive who doesn’t care about feastdays; otherwise, there wouldn’t be so many queries about dates and sites to answer those queries.

    It’s bad liturgists that don’t like feastdays, apparently. As witness the attempts in recent years to drive people away from getting their throats blessed on St. Blaise’s Day, by altering and shifting throat blessing days and by having lay ministers administer it exclusively. I mean, sheesh, you got a feast that even non-Catholics and non-Christians want to celebrate, you got warm bodies needing conversion showing up on a weekday that’s not Christmas or Easter or a Holy Day of Obligation, and you don’t want to make that feast shine!? What the heck are pastors thinking!!!

  47. Kristen J says:

    Some of hese posts illustrate perfectly my earlier point about certain traditionalists who place their preferences (again, legitimate)on a par with the sacred teachings of the Church and the Mass. It’s not “more Catholic” and it’s certainly not charitable to disdain those who attend the VALID NO Mass and the NO Mass itself!

    “If you attend NO, odds are you don’t attend daily mass, so feast days mean nothing to you.”

    This statement is utter and offensive nonsense! Not that I or anyone else owe an explanation to you for not observing an optional practice, daily Mass: I have gladly attended daily Mass regularly for many years of my life (though not now, as I cannot get my three babies/toddlers out the door on time every day for it!) and, I regularly pray the Divine Office keyed to the feasts; I love the saints and honor them. Furthermore, I know few NO attendees who would find your jaundiced description!

    “I am equally familiar with both calendars—attending daily OF Mass and following the EF calendar and missal in private daily as well as Sunday devotions—and don’t think anyone lacking this dual experience really has any basis for commenting on the relative merits of the calendars (or missals).”

    I think I know the EF as well as you know the NO — that is, I have an operational familiarity with it, certainly enough to make the observations I have made. Why not preserve the best of both the NO and EF calendars?! I esteem what Mother Church has given us in the NO, but I don’t look down my nose at the EF as you seem to do the NO.

    “I can and do object to changing the traditional calendar (including the “innocuous” addition of new Saints) for the simple reason that those advocating the changes have provided no justification.”

    New saints are not innocuous, let alone harmful — they are a gift to the whole Church! They deserve to be honored for their holy lives just like “old” saints and we should emulate them, too — there’s the “justification”!

    Statements like the previous do nothing to draw me and the many others like me to the EF; on the contrary, they are very clear “Keep Out” signs to faithful NO Catholics. What a shameful thing to do to a beautiful Mass!

  48. TNCath says:

    Chris: “So you’re suggesting the SSPX and others don’t really have any real problems with the new calendar, Mass, reaching out to false religions, collegiality, etc. They just don’t want to behave?”

    No, the calendar, Mass, etc., are definitely issues. I find it ironic that they have issues with collegiality and yet will not submit to the will of the Holy Father. All of these are issues that are rooted in submission to legitimate authority and obedience, which the SSPX does not seem interested in doing.

    Michael J.: “I can and do object to changing the traditional calendar (including the “innocuous” addition of new Saints) for the simple reason that those advocating the changes have provided no justification. I see no compelling benefit, and nobody is willing or able to explain why the changes are good, so this becomes an exercise of making changes for change’s sake.”

    It’s not “changes for change’s sake.” New saints show that the Church is alive and well and doing what it’s supposed to be doing: getting people to heaven. What is wrong with new saints? Are you implying that there were no legitimate saints canonized after Vatican II?

  49. Mitchell says:

    Can we get rid of ordinary time??? Please? I would however like to go to the X Sundy after Pentacost.

    If the Calander is Changed it will have to be closer to the EF calendar for practical reasons. Mostly it would be mountians more of work to redo the whole EF calendar. The OF is simpler thus easier to change and adapt to this other calendar.

    Want the SSPX to be cool with the changes. Then get a some priests from FSSP, ICRSS and others on a committee together on a committee to make recomendations from the EF viewpoint, and behind the scenes let the SSPX make recomendations too on the condition they will push the new calendar.
    Don’t destroy the old calendar. Merely update it, and tweek it a little. It will all be good then.

  50. Piers-the-Ploughman says:

    Keep the old calendar, update it a little; it’s the Catholic way of doing things. I am another who sees little harm in having 2 calendars. Yes it can be divisive but only if people let it be so. Is it really so bad if we have 2 chances to observe the feast of Christ the King?

  51. Margaret says:

    If you attend NO, odds are you don’t attend daily mass, so feast days mean nothing to you. In addition, the last time you had to attend a Holy Day of Obligation on the DAY was 35 years ago. Not that you can name the Holy Days of Obligation anyways.

    We have quite a nice attendance at the daily NO Mass, thank you very much. And I’ll wager most of us would strongly prefer HDOs not be transferred, but it’s not up to us.

  52. Karen Russell says:

    Sylvia (if you check back; your post was quite awhile ago)

    Re “Also, I got a bit ruffled Sunday (at the E.F.) when it was the Dedication of St. John Lateran. I felt it should be a Sunday after Pentecost thing, because the Dedication was a second-class feast.”

    My 1962 English breviary states:
    1 (In the rubrics for the Dedication of a Church): “The feast of the Dedication of a church is a feast of Our Lord.”

    2. (In Notes on the Tables of Occurrence and Concurrence) “A feast of our Lord of the 1st or 2nd class, occurring on a Sunday, takes the place of that Sunday with all rights and privileges: hence no commemoration is made of the Sunday.”

    Hope this helps.

  53. CB says:

    Okay, call me a progressive, but I actually like several aspects of the new calendar. 1) The Visitation comes before the birth of St. John. 2) The feast of the Immaculate Heart of Mary is the day after the Sacred Heart. 3) The Coronation of Mary comes after her Assumption. 4) The feasts of some of the greatest saints in the church (Thomas Aquinas, Benedict and Gregory the Great) are moved outside of Lent so that the faithful can celebrate their feasts better. (Don’t give me the garbage that OF Catholics don’t celebrate saint’s feast days.) The only other really big feast days during Lent are solemnities, which of course you can celebrate properly. 1 and 3 are chronologically appropriate, similar to Epiphany coming soon after Christmas.

  54. patrick f says:

    “Actually, according to the USCCB’s posted calendar (Novus Ordo, of course), November 13 is the memorial of Saint Frances Xavier Cabrini, virgin.”

    Yes and the USCCB allows bishops to move holy days to sundays, and not observe them if its a saturday, go figure.

    Go back to the calendar as it was I say… or exclusively use the new. But you need one calendar. That being said, I think the older calendar makes more sense.

    Part of what makes any calendar work though is pastors hyping it up. When there is a feast day, make a big deal about it. Us laity respond well to that, it makes us realize its special. When its simply mentioned as something that is a burden (which I have had priests who treat them as such), then the laity will think its a burden.

  55. lcb says:

    Perhaps I misworded my statement.

    Of the average NO Sunday massgoer, only a small fraction attend daily mass on any regular basis. Considering the low attendance at Sunday mass, NO daily mass attendees represent a small portion of the Catholic population. These are the individuals who are impacted by any NO calendar change. It is correct to say, “odds are you (the average massgoer) don’t attend daily mass” because the probability favors not attending daily mass.

    The average Sunday massgoer is simply unimpacted by calendar changes. Feast days within the Church are not a major part of the average spiritual life.

  56. Paul Bailes says:

    Typical of arguments contra-SSPX (not just in this business, but more broadly) is TNCath’s .. “All of these are issues that are rooted in submission to legitimate authority and obedience”.

    Quite so, but many of us don’t think it’s legitimate to have imposed a Beijing-style cultural revolution upon the Church. Changing the liturgy, changing the liturgical language, changing the calendar, declaring hitherto-venerated saints to be unpersons, is just so obviously the same sort of revolutionary behaviour we’ve seen imposed upon ordinary people at the hands of Mao, Lenin, the French Revolutionaries etc. etc. etc. that the only response is to resist – and proudly!

    I (and I am sure many others) interpret SP’s statement that the TLM was never abrogated as an admission that the Vatican had abused its power. And to pursue the analogy, “Gang of Four” attitudes are still at large in the Church, and their proponents occupy positions of power and honour. The emergency continues. Vive la resistance!

    Seriously,

    Paul

  57. JPG says:

    If the EF is to be enriched by the OF, then the two Kalenders must be on the same page so to speak. The prelenten Sundays need to be restored and the label of “ordinary time ” needs to be shelved. In many respects what was done to the Kalender represents what was done to the Liturgy itself. It was often arbitrary and seemingly by whim.Keeping in mind restoring the traditional Temporal cycle would allow some harmonization. It is silly to have green vestments for the OF and violet for the EF on the same day. I think the Episcopal Church, hardly a traditional model so to speak revised its lectionary but retained the Kalender.
    JPG

  58. Berthold says:

    I really believe that the basis for a renewed calendar should be something around 1940 and not 1962 – the only reason why the latter became the standard ‘traditional’ liturgy was because Archbishop Lefebvre decided to adopt it.

    In fact, the calendar of the 1962 Missal dropped feast days that had been celebrated for over 1,000 years and had a role in popular culture (e.g. Invention of the Cross, May 3 or St Peter’s Chair in Rome on Jan 18) because they seemed then as unnecessary duplications. The suppressions of most octaves and vigils also reduced the significance of major feasts. Naturally, these steps also caused a reduction of the readings used during the year, and I would guess that the 1962 Missal was the Missal with the smallest selection of biblical readings in the history of the Roman Rite, something that is cleary incongruous with the demands of Vatican II.

    It is clear that the calendar ca 1940 needed a reform because since the Baroque it has been virtually overfilled with new feasts that had been classified as ‘duplex’, thus higher than an ordinary Sunday.

    I do not want to doubt the legitimacy of the 1962 reforms. However, much of the changes done in the 1950 (as those mentioned above) seem to have less to do with an organic development of the liturgy than with utilitarianism, so with motifs similar to the reform of 1969. So I would regard it as best to start with a calendar of the earlier 20th century, and to downgrade some fests, add new saints (and, maybe, an ad-lib set of Mass-readings for the individual feriae). I do not think that much more would be necessary.

  59. William Young says:

    The calendar is a problem.
    It would seem to me that there are two sides to it.
    First, the Sanctoral cycle of saints’ days.
    In a definitive calendar governing both uses, this should in principle follow the latest edition of the Roman Martyrology. Different communities would then choose, according to the rubrics, etc., the celebration closest to their need. Only the most generally “important” saints’ days (Assumption, Sts Peter & Paul, etc.) would necessarily be celebrated on the same day everywhere. It would be useful to have a Sanctoral lectionary with apt readings laid out for ease of use. This is already a possibility, but using the Commons and choosing each time can be a chore, and readers can find it very off-putting even with post-its and markers.
    The other side of the calendar problem is the question of the structure of the liturgical year. The consolidation of the Seasons of Advent, Lent, and especially the clear demarcation of Eastertide as the 50-day Sunday of the year, would seem on the whole to be very positive developments. The loss of the octave of Pentecost can I suppose, be repaired by having daily votive Masses of the Holy Spirit thaat week, but the lost period of Septuagesima, which secular diaries still mark, needs some attention. What must surely be restored in some way are the Ember Days.
    This will all need careful and prudent (pro-vident) attention, and Pope Benedict is clearly the right man at the right time to mastermind this.
    The Lectionary for “ordinary” Sundays and weekdays needs revision in line with the calendar. It seems that the recent Synod in Rome may have flagged this up. Nearly 40 years experience of the new Lectionary should enable its strengths to be recognised and taken further. But this should not prevent appropriate reform and pruning to make it “yield more abundant fruit”. At present, it really can be a very unwieldy resource.
    I think there are great things in store for us!

  60. B. says:

    Why bother with “harmonizing” the two calendars? The Novus Ordo is spiritually dead since its inception and won’t be around forever. At least where I live in 20 years from now, when the people who are now older than 75 have died, there will be nobody left who attends mass.

    The Church will survive the Novus Ordo, but the Novus Ordo won’t survive.

  61. vox borealis says:

    Complaints about “ordinary time” are somewhat bogus. The term does not mean, if I am correct in understanding, “ordinary” (as in, not special), but rather “ordinal”. It is the season in which Sundays are simply counted in order, as opposed to the Sundays that are part of a season. I see little difference between this and the “## Sunday after Pentecost,” which is a similar ordinal numbering system.

    Now, this being said, I do slightly prefer the older nomenclature, because:

    1] Most people seem not to understand the etymology of “Ordinary Time” (as evidenced by the numerous off-base complaints in this thread)

    2] The older nomenclature more clearly links the year to the liturgical season, by verbally tying the “ordinary weeks” to Pentecost.

    One more comment, the 1962 calendar is not without its own difficulties. For example, in years with more than 24 (IIRC) Sundays after Pentecost, readings from around the Epiphany are transferred to those Sundays. These readings always strike me as out of place, though their inclusion maintains the “same readings every year” mantra (albeit at the cost of having those readings at the same time).

  62. Kristen J: I think I know the EF as well as you know the NO —that is, I have an operational familiarity with it, certainly enough to make the observations I have made.

    For many years I have attended the NO Mass 6 days weekly. In my parish I prepare for Mass by saying and chanting NO morning prayer with the celebrant and those fellow parishioners who come a half hour early to do so. Prior to coming to church for Eucharistic adoration and morning prayer before Mass each morning, I have previously prepared by studying and praying the Novus Ordo Lauds in Latin. All of this according to the Novus Ordo calendar. And for years I maintained a web site incorporating Father Z’s WDTPRS commentary on the proper prayers of the Novus Ordo calendar.

    If your experience with the EF corresponds to this breadth and depth of experience with the NO, then I will look forward to continued edification by your comments comparing the two forms.

  63. Ted Krasnicki says:

    Perhaps another look should be taken at an idea that was finally rejected when the NO calendar was being prepared. That is that the old calendar possibly with a few small changes would be year A, while years B and C would use other readings in line with the themes of year A. The use of years B and C could even be optional. This idea was rejected because it was not radical enough in the minds of the “reformers”, but it seems like it could be a welcome compromise today.

  64. Not Getting Creaky Just Yet says:

    Sylvia: (way, way back up there)
    In the Novus Ordo Mass last Sunday was the Dedication of St. John Lateran. As part of my catechesis of first graders about the church year, we talked about why Father wore white on Sunday. (And Father gave a good sermon, too. God bless Father K.)(Soon we’ll talk a bit about the Feast of Christ the King, and Advent. We’ve already had our lesson about seasons and liturgical colors.)

    While I find all this stuff about the old-style Mass very interesting, I have not managed to dragoon the family into going 20 miles aside to attend the one in this area. (It is at the same early time as our regular Sunday Mass in our own parish. My spouse and remaining at-home child wish to stay where we are on most Sundays.)
    I have also decided that, as long as there is no union of calendars, it would be entirely unreasonable and unfair for me to expect my hard-working pastor, who has no assistant, to come up with two entirely different sermons about entirely different days and Scripture readings. The man has enough to do already. And he is neither an automatic Mass-dispensing ATM nor my personal servant. Rather, is is all of us who need to help our pastors. I do my little bit in the first grade CCD class to help along the children’s knowledge of our faith and traditions. And Father has figured out where my overall sympathies lie. But I will not make a pest of myself by bothering him to do this or that when it would make a ton and a half of extra work for him. Something about tithing mint and cumin and not raising a finger to lift another’s burdens comes to mind…

  65. Mitch says:

    vox borealis,

    I realize that Ordinary time does not mean ordinary, but comes from ordinal for the numbering. I just like the idea of having it be x Sunday after Pentacost. Because it shows that our Christian year is celebrated around these major feasts.

    It just clicks better in my mind, and I think that the EF calendar has many advanteges. The OF calendar isnt all wrong either. So lets take those good things of the OF calendar and put it in the EF Calendar. Update both Missals, Lectionaries (I know the EF doenst technically have one) and Breveries. Then release it all as the new way to go for both. Don’t destroy the EF just being the OF closer to the EF and make the EF calendar take a step or two towards the OF. (AND BRING BACK THE OCTIVE OF PENTACOST!!!)

  66. dominic1962 says:

    Henry Edwards:

    Zing! I would agree with you though, being one of those people that rides the proverbial fence between NO and TLM because of necessity. I think many folks who’ve never really put alot of time into praying and studying the TLM do not understand the tight connections between all aspects of the traditional liturgy and think that a change here and a change there just aren’t a big deal. There is no sense for the profound way that just a “little change” will affect the whole missal, breviary, etc. etc.

    Vox borealis,

    Read one of the official books in Latin for the NO and you see that what is refered to as “Ordinary time” does not exist! Its still refered to as ferial.

    As to the last Sundays after Pentacost, compared to everything else, is that really a big deal? Actually, they take from the Sundays after Epiphany that will not be celebrated and I don’t see how the readings are out of place considering they are fairly generally applicable to any season.

  67. Fr. Calvin Goodwin on “The Exaltation of the Commonplace” in the Spring 2004 issue of The Latin Mass:

    “… contrasting the traditional designation for the current season of the Church year, ‘Time After Pentecost’, with that of the post-conciliar equivalent, ‘Ordinary Time’. The former clearly attaches to a unique event in the history of salvation. The latter has no particular connotation at all unless it be the negative one of draining the season of any particular character whatever. But ‘Ordinary Time’ arguably suggests something more dangerous because erroneous. It suggests that, even after the pivotal event in all human history. it can be fitting to designate any season of faith as ordinary time.”

  68. The way I understand it:
    -In the USA, St. Frances Xavier Cabrini is celebrated on Nov 13 both in the Novus Ordo and TLM to remove her from the O antiphon days of Advent immediately before Christmas. [Perhaps it would not be a problem if she could be commemorated with a second collect as in the TLM!]
    -St. Frances de Chantel is moved from Dec 12 (because of our lady of Guadalupe)to Aug 18 in the NO but is placed on Aug 21 in the TLM.
    -St. Paul of the Cross is transferred from October 19 to 20th to make way for St. Isaac Jogues et al. in the NO. Meanwhile Oct 20 was St. John Cantius in the TLM and he’s now on Dec 23!
    This upcoming week is also very strange when the NO and TLM are compared.

    In my opinion we’d do well to go back to the old calendar.
    I do not think it will disturb the large majority Catholics – even the average daily Mass goers since they often do not know the saints (unless they do private study) since so many priests seem to prefer ferial days to optional memorials.

  69. Fr. BJ says:

    Henry: “Ordinary Time” is the woefully-bad English “translation” of “per annum”. Even then, one must question whether “Per Annum” appropriately captures the mystery. In light of the fine comments by Fr. Goodwin that you post, I would say that it does not. Let’s just go back to “Time after Pentecost”!

  70. Warren says:

    I’m glad we’re Catholics here. Otherwise, I’d say that we sound a lot like anglicans arguing for/against the Book of Common Prayer or the Book of Alternative Services.

    We have a confident hand (B16) on the tiller. I’m excited to read comments that confirm the wisdom of Summorum Pontificum.

    Now,… if we could only return the Liturgy to the pure language of the first few centuries,… Greek, that is, before the decent into that vulgar tongue (Latin). Though, I suppose such a change might upset the Aramaic folks. :-)

  71. Fr J says:

    It has to be said that the great virtue of the Catholic Liturgy was its “universality” but now we have faithful, religious and clergy offering and praying differently – Breviary v Liturgy of the Hours, OF v EF Masses… “Lex orandi, lex credendi”? Well – though overall it might be argued that we are still praying and offering the same intentions, we do so not corporately as a body and not universally around the world. The K/Calendar should reflect and dictate the intentions of the WHOLE Church. One can just about understand there being two different “styles” of worship (Ancient/Modern) but surely we should be celebrating the same Feasts and Holy Days and general intentions?!

    It would seem to make sense to use the 62 Kalendar as a starting point and reconfigure the rest thereafter, but as has already been said, we now have two very complex systems of working out the liturgical year and the intentions of each liturgical office… it’s a big job!

    The present situation is a mess…

  72. vox borealis says:

    Dominic,

    “As to the last Sundays after Pentacost, compared to everything else, is that really a big deal?”

    Having read my post, then surely you recognized that I do not think it is a big deal. Still, it is awkward, and does somewhat undermine the general contention, often asserted on these threads, that the EF calendar and readings are so tightly bound together. If the readings are “fairly general”, as you say, then they are not really tied to the season/day. But if they are in fact closely bound to the season, then displacing them to the season after Pentecost detaches the readings from their “natural” location. One can’t have it both ways.

    But, is it a big deal? Nope. Is”ordinary time” a big deal. In my opinion, not really.

  73. Ritualist says:

    St. Frances appears in the Proper calendar for the USA on November 13 in the NO. The same date is observed in the Traditional liturgy as the date is in the proper calendar of the USA by rescript of 22 July, 1962. Prior to the Proper calendar of 1962, St. Frances was observed on December 22 in the U.S.A.

  74. Ray says:

    There has always been some variation, including local variation. This doesn’t make it wrong or “confusing.”

    In the Old Rite, many significant celebrations could be celebrated also on the next Sunday. In other words, celebrated on the feast and again on the next Sunday.

    It is absurd to say you cannot celebrate Ascension Thursday on Thursday. Certainly you could celebrate it on Thursday and again on Sunday.

    Especially in the current context in the US, to say one cannot celebrate the Epiphany on January 6th is absurd. Effectively telling millions of Hispanic children that the Three Kings will not pay them a visit on January 6th in a given year is tantamount to liturgical evil.

    So, you celebrate a saint one day, he celebrates it another day, I celebrate both days! What is wrong with that?

    Stalin erased the feasts and holidays in order to tear out deeply rooted sensibilities in the minds and hearts of the people. To insist that one cannot celebrate on the traditional day, but only on the transfer or new day is a typical modernist tactic. I am all for duplicate, even triplicate celebrations!

  75. (another) Peter says:

    I hear what Ray is saying, but I am bemused by the sudden enthusiasm for (re)celebration of major feasts on the following Sunday:

    Why: because it must needs result in the suppression of the Sunday, at least in part (commemoration of the Sunday may be an option).

  76. Ad Orientem says:

    Father Z,
    I am Orthodox, so trust me when I tell you the one thing you do NOT want to start tampering with is calendars. There is a running joke that if you want to start a riot at a pan-Orthodox meeting just stand on a chair and shout the word “calendar.”

    Under the mercy,
    John

  77. patrick f says:

    “it is absurd to say you cannot celebrate Ascension Thursday on Thursday. Certainly you could celebrate it on Thursday and again on Sunday.’

    You are right, it is. Hopefully though I wasnt miscontrued as saying that one cant celebrate on both days. But there are some days that functionally, you shouldnt move, otherwise the scripture that supports those days, makes absolutely no sense at all ( Wasnt the goal of Vatican II to make it all make sense? We argue “ineffable” , but have a confusing calendar..)

    Celebrate the feast on the day it was intended. Saints feast days are supposed to be celebrated when they met their reward. That is a BASIC catholic ideal. Like wise, Things like ascension, should be celebrated structurally on the day that scripture says they happened (40 days after easter). Finally, if we are to have holy days of obligation, then they should always be days of obligation. Not omitted because they are on a saturday (as all saints day was in a lot of areas). Other wise, it isnt truly an obligation, as it is subjective to a man made calendar.

    I give you a good example of Ascension thursday. Scripture tells us that christ stayed with the 12 40 days. Then pentecost happened (50 days, hence “pente”) . To celebrate it on a sunday, is silly in my honest opionion. It makes understanding times and dates impossible. How do you count pentecost then? It throws the whole timing off in my opinion.

    Its a holy day of obligation for a reason, its something outside of a sunday mass that we are required to go to. That’s what separates us from the protestants. We do it more then once a week. Now dont get me wrong, I am not knocking our brethren at all. Just pointing out, that its a very catholic thing.

  78. monkeycounter says:

    My daughter’s school in South London – founded by and named after St Francesca Cabrini – celebrates her feast day on November 13th. They should know!

  79. Rob F. says:

    Dr. Lee Fratantuono:

    Thank you for shedding a little light amidst all this heat. Your comment cleared up all my confusion regarding this issue.

  80. vox borealis “As to the last Sundays after Pentecost, compared to everything else, is that really a big deal?”

    Having read my post, then surely you recognized that I do not think it is a big deal. Still, it is awkward, and does somewhat undermine the general contention, often asserted on these threads, that the EF calendar and readings are so tightly bound together.

    The point is sometimes missed that the “tight binding” argument pertains not primarily to the readings and propers for ordinary-time / time-after-Epiphany / time-after-Pentecost itself — in the Proper of the Seasons of the EO and EF missals — but rather to those in the Proper of the Saints regarding mainly those saints whose feastdays fall within this tempus per annum.

    So it is the sanctoral cycle rather than the seasonal cycle that suffers most in the OF calendar. Because of readings that follow a sequential march through the scriptures, rather than ones that pertain to the saint of the day. This loss of liturgically suitable readings is detailed in an article by Peter Kwasniewske in the Fall 2007 Latin Mass entitled “The Loss of Liturgical Riches in the Sanctoral Cycle”. He starts with a comparison of the OF and EF propers that appear on the feast day of St. Therese of Lisieux to “make apparent the magnitude of the loss suffered by the faithful when the ancient liturgy and its organic liturgy were cast aside”:

    “Comparing the two sets of propers, I ask: Is this an example of liturgical progress, of a ‘successful’ reform? The Novus Ordo propers are vague and generic, ready for application to any female saint; the Tridentine propers are majestic, poetic, and exactly apropos to the Little Flower.”

    A number of other feastday examples follow, with the conclusion that:

    “The abandonment of the inner unity of Scripture and feastday is one of the greatest disasters of the new rite. It makes the propers, the readings, and the sacrifice seem like three different things, when they ought to clearly woven together, as in the old rite, making one seamless garment.”

  81. Michael J says:

    TNCath,

    You make a good point when you state that addition of new Saints shows that the Church is doing Her job although I am not sure how specifically adding their feast days to the calendar will emphasize this. That is entirely beside the point though. The point is that through mountains of posts regarding changing the calendar, yours is the first that even attempts to explain why it should be done.

    As to your inference about my opinion regarding “new” Saints, nothing could be further from the truth. On the other hand, one could infer from your eagerness to change the calendar that you believe thet the lives of the “old” Saints are no longer pertinent.

  82. TNCath says:

    Michael J: “As to your inference about my opinion regarding “new” Saints, nothing could be further from the truth. On the other hand, one could infer from your eagerness to change the calendar that you believe thet the lives of the “old” Saints are no longer pertinent.”

    No, not at all. Keep the old saints and add the new. I’m all for keeping the old calendar but updating it as needed to add the new saints.

  83. Peter says:

    Well here’s a peculiarity to England…

    Towards the end of the nineteenth century Cardinal Herbert Vaughan petitioned Pope Leo XIII to reaffirm the Blessed Virgin, under the title “Mary’s Dowry”, and St. Peter as the principal patrons of the England. In 1893 on the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul, at the Oratory Church in London, the bishops of England and Wales duly consecrated England to the Blessed Virgin and St. Peter. St. George was “demoted” to the rank of national protector. One hundred years later, the Bishops’ conference of England and Wales in 1993, recompiled the national liturgical calendar for England and Wales and ask the pontiff to make St. George as the national patron. Pope John Paul II finally gave his approval in 2000.

    So if I use the 1962 missal I have a different national patrons that if I used a NO missal!!!

  84. Matt says:

    fidelity to their orders would be in question if they were forced to use a different calendar.

    This is either completely false, or a sorry statement of those priests (which I highly doubt). If a priest doesn’t take his VOWS seriously he never should have made them.

    Do we go back to the liturgical calendar of 500? 1500? 1900?

    As to the cycle of the liturgical year I think it must remain as it is in the EM, and be adopted by the NO (eliminate ordinary time). As to the proper of the saints, and days of obligation the missals ought to be harmonized with preference given to the longest usage except where necessity dictates.

    God Bless.