Does anyone else out there think it might not be a bad idea for trads to adopt the current liturgical calendar (although not the new lectionary)? It just seems that we’re already isolated from the majority of Roman rite Catholics by virtue of attending the traditional liturgy. Not to mention that many traditional Catholics don’t have access to the EF for daily Mass and thus attend both forms of the Mass. Also, the feast days of recently canonized saints (including 2 who had a great devotion to the traditional Mass – St. Josemaria Escriva and St. Pio) can’t be separated. It’s as if we’re liturgically frozen in 1962, and, once one is frozen, one runs the risk of becoming irrelevant. I’m just wondering if it would make things easier and make traditional Catholics seem less like stepchildren if we didn’t have to keep track of two calendars.
I have only ever attended EF Masses in regular diocesean parishes so I was not aware that in separate traditional chapels they use the old calendar. I like the idea of continuing to celebrate traditional days that have become less common (ie Corpus Christi), while adhereing to the new Saints day calendar so that wonderful people like St Josemaria and St Pio can be included.
Because our TLM is so far away and having limited financial resources, I keep both calendars up on my wall. When we go to the local NO Mass its simple enough to know which Mass we are celebrating. Same applies to when we make the long drive for the TLM.
I, for one, do not want to try and combine the two. Just let it stand as is.
No, I prefer the traditional calendar.
It has nothing to do with “separate traditional chapels.” Any venue that uses the EF follows its kalendar, including parish churches. I attended such a diocesan parish celebrating the EF for many years. Much of the time the EF and OF kalendars are the same, but much of the time they are not, and since the EF rite cannot be refitted into the new kalendar, the old one is used.
There are in my city alone about a half-dozen different Eastern Catholic Churches on different calendars from each other.
We see no reason to all have the same calendar.
Why should it happen with the two forms of the Roman Rite?
I actually have thought about that point. The 2 situations are similar but not identical. The Eastern Churches have their own bishops, canon law, spirituality, etc. The EF and OF are really 2 forms of the same rite. It seems to me that there’s very little on the ground level being done to make traditional Catholics feel as if they’re anything more than stepchildren in the Roman rite (ironic when you consider it was almost the only rite that one could assist at for 1500 years). I get the impression when I talk to OF Catholics, including some devout, holy ones, that the EF of the Mass is irrelevant to them. They might want to have their NO Masses look more like the EF, maybe even restore some of its prayers to the OF, but they really couldn’t care less about it – even though it’s part of their liturgical heritage as Roman Catholics. I prefer the old calendar but sometimes wonder it it helps to reinforce the ghetto mentality traditional Catholicism to often exists in (actually, I bet that there’s a similar problem in Eastern Catholicism). Not to mention that the most precious treasure that the Church has can never experience any sort of organic liturgical development, even something as simple as new saints being added to the calendar.