My only regret at the use of the 1962 Liturgical Calendar is that it cannot include those who have been Canonized and Beatified since 1962. Should changes to the traditional calendar be made to include them perhaps?
Yes. I am all for updating the calender, but most people would never buy it.
I regret that our calender will never again be updated. I just don’t see it happening, not in our lifetime anyway. Ah well. The '62 will get me by until I die, so I suppose it isn’t my problem anyway.
Contrary to popular rumor, the 1962 liturgy DOES allow for new saints to be celebrated liturgically.
The 1962 Missal rubrics allow for the festal Mass of a saint named on that day in the Martyrology on any day that is “free” (i.e., not a Feast of the I, II, or III Class).
Since the Martyrology isn’t ever “fixed” in a given year, and since traditionalists recognize new canonizations, one COULD celebrate the new saints, with texts from the Commons.
If the day is booked…just celebrate a Votive Mass on another free day. It can be done.
Huh, didnt think of that :o
Wow. I feel like I just got punked.
Unfinished loses two traditional points
The “traditional calendar” indeed needs to be updated and modified. However if it was we would not have so many priests and seminarians to assist at Solemn Mass for Corpus Christi- since they all celebrate it at their regular parishes and seminaries on the current Sunday it is celebrated here in the US. We would indeed have no way possible to have a Solemn High Mass on a Sunday, and so many in the procession - for Corpus Christi.
Yes, I dislike the entire idea of re-locating Holy Days of Obligation to the nearest Sunday for convenience.
kleary, you were the first person I thought of when the NLM blog posted that piece on Mater Ecclesiae!
The only problem as AlexV had mentioned earlier, in the thread about Padre Pio, is the lack of free days at times- which is more in some months than others. The rubrics allow a Mass of a saint in the martyrology only on a feria of the 4th Class Therefore no Votive from the martyrology is possible during Advent and Lent. During some months like August the number of free ferias is countable on the fingers of one hand- that too, assuming that the feria doesn’t land on a Sunday.
One thing though that I wouldn’t mind seeing is some of the older Roman saints moved into the Lenten months when they can only be commemorated, and the more notable ones like St. Thomas Aquinas moved out since they get overshadowed by Lent. But then I don’t know how that would square with the days of death and all. Not to mention popular custom like St. Patrick’s Day.
[quote=Ceasar]Yes, I dislike the entire idea of re-locating Holy Days of Obligation to the nearest Sunday for convenience
I think the traditional calendar had one of the best solutions with the “external solemnity” for the nearest Sunday while keeping the actual feast day . It’s mentioned by the rubrics with the two most common occurences: Corpus Christi and Most Holy Rosary of the BVM/OL of the Rosary (which was on a Sunday anyway until St. Pius X). That was, after all what Baltimore proposed for the USA initially with the Immaculate Conception when they didn’t want to make a weekday a HDoO.
It has already been modified, but some reject that.
Well, isn’t that a gratuitous and offensive statement?
What’s your implication? That the 1962 Calendarium was revised in 1969, and traditionalists don’t accept it?
Ecclesia Dei speaks of a rightful aspiration. You, on the contrary, speak of division and with snide retort.
The 1962 Calendarium is a living liturgical calendar for hundreds of thousands of Catholics.
I wouldn’t call it snide.
The Second Vatican Council, including Abp. Lefevbre voted in overwhelming majority to change the 1962 Missal. Clearly, all the bishops of the world recognized that the 1962 Missal needed to be changed.
To insist that it does not require any changes at all says something about all of the Catholic bishops, doesn’t it? Were they insane? Possessed by Satan? Not as smart at today’s 1962-only traditionalists?
Those arguments won’t survive. The 1962 Missal will eventually be changed – the Holy See has made that known. It will last for a while, as long as the current Novus Ordo is in place but it will eventually give way to a modified 1962.
I think it’s important that Rome has been moving the Novus Ordo closer to the Tridentine in small steps. The future is a merge of the two and a single calendar for the Roman Rite.
The 1962 calendar certainly does need to be modified. Other aspects of the 1962 Missal also need some slight changes. That’s what the Ecumenical Council voted to do.
The bishops could see that the 1962 Missal needed some changes. All they knew was the traditional Mass, but they could see where it needed change.
The Novus Ordo went too far and it seems that Rome is going to bring the two rites together as one again.
The calendar would clearly be updated to include new saints, IF the Tridentine liturgy every became an official Rite again and not just some indult.
Until then, it should be preserved as it is. There are plenty of great, traditional revisions that could be made to the Tridentine Mass and Breviary, lots of ancient stuff restored even which had been allowed to degenerate and become vestigial. But until such a time as it becomes a normative rite in a more regular way (and thus has bishops with the universally recognized power to make such changes), it should be preserved as it is (or perhaps go back to 1954) to prevent further division and decay.
I have heard people state before that the old and new rites will be reformed over time and eventually merge into one, and I am wondering if this speculation is based on a comment from the Pope or some other higher-up.
The Roman Rite has never had a “single calendar”.
Amazing that some people are so bothered by the thought of Roman Catholics with different calendars.
Even today, among users of the Novus Ordo, Epiphany might be January 6 in one country and January 8 in another…and that’s using the SAME MISSAL, SAME RUBRICS.
So why the angst over traditionalists using a different calendar?
Another clear example of differences in calendar would be the variations in commemorations of blesseds from diocese to diocese, or the changes in rankings of patronal feasts amongst the same.
Eastern rite Catholics are on a different calendar. no problems there.
I think the problem lies in the static nature of the Missal of 1962. There is little room for growth as is. It will take an act of Rome to update things. Right now things are not as pressing because the missal is not that old. However, as the years go by, it will become obvious that things can’t remain locked into the 1962 scheme.
I’m interested to see what happens. Many younger priests are more traditional in thought, so I hope things happen in my lifetime.
As stated above, this should get many living traditionalists by until they go to their reward. the fight, most likely, will lie with our future generations.
Hmmm, I think it is way off right now.
During the pontificate of John Paul II 128 new saints, or goups of saints (as in the 103 Korean Martyrs or a Saint and companions) were named. Also a new Doctor of the Church. Do these appear on the 1962 calendar?
do they appear in the Eastern calendars?
I understand the desires to update the Roman calendar of 1962 to include the loved saints that have risen to the glory of the altar since then.
Byz, can I ask a question? Are Eastern saints canonized through the same process as Western Latin saints? If so, are their feasts only recognized in the calendar that the particular saint celebrated? IOW, are Eastern calendars static like the 1962 Roman Calendar?
No liturgical calendar needs to accomodate every Johannine canonization. That would be ludicrous…