As one who attends both the ordinary and extraordinary form of the mass this question has knocked around in my head for years. Why can’t we just create a universal calendar for the Church and create EF propers for feasts instituted post 1962? Having the same feast at 2 different times (or not at all) depending on the form of the liturgy just seems to me to further the divide and keeps those who celebrate the extraordinary form in a bubble.
Seems like a solution but I’m sure there would be hurdles to getting it done.
The concept of Ordinary Time would need to be either introduced for the EF or abolished in the OF. I don’t see proponents of either form accepting that.
It got to be a particular problem if I was doing the Divine Office at work. My app had the Latin prayers, but the new calendar.
And a bit of irony: Us Traddies are grateful for Summorum Pontificum, but the author’s feast day isn’t on the 1962 calendar.
At the very least there could be propers for those canonized post 1962 when not already covered by existing votive masses, an option for Divine Mercy etc
Is there a difference between “8th Sunday in Ordinary Time,” and “8th Sunday after Pentecost”?
Liturgically speaking, without regard to actual date? I don’t know enough about the EF to answer that question. Since the liturgical calendar covers every day and not just Sunday, however, the concern may still be relevant.
For example, June 25th was a Tuesday this year. In the OF, the calendar says this was Tuesday of the 12th Week in Ordinary Time (green vestments). In the EF, it’s the 3rd class feast of St. William, Abbot (white vestments). In a unified calendar, what would we do on that day?
There are some cases where I feel the EF calendar makes more sense / is richer… there are other cases where the reformed calendar makes sense. For example, I don’t get why some traditionalist insist the feast of Christ the King should be in October. It’s a feast of recent introduction (early 20th century) and it fits very well with the theme of the last Sunday of the liturgical year.
The theme of the feast greatly shifted when it moved to the last Sunday of the year. Originally it was put on the last Sunday of October to compete with Reformation Sunday. The thrust of the feast was Our Lord’s Kingship over all nations and churches, and a rejection of secular and nationalistic values that aver to the contrary. When the feast was moved to the end of the liturgical year, it was watered down a good deal and became a feast anchored in eschatological theology. It became the King will come again at the end of time, and lost most, if not all of its affirmation of the Kingship of Our Lord, and the obligation of all creatures to worship Him as such, regardless of who is in secular power. It is ecumenically friendlier now, having been picked up by the mainline Protestants.
So traddies see all of that and recognize that the feast isn’t what it used to be, and maintain a preference for the original purpose and placement of the feast.
I think in general that there is a variable number of weekw difference between ordinary time and after Pentecost due to Ordinary Time starting after Baptism of the Lord in January, then being interrupted by Lent and Easter Time, and then resuming.
OT = AP + Variable
For Example 2018: Pentecost, Trinity Sunday, Body of Christ, Sacred Heart of Jesus, 10th Ordinary.
For Example 2019: Pentecost, Trinity Sunday, Body of Christ, Sacred Heart of Jesus, 13th Ordinary.
I don’t really see why Ordinary Time can’t be renamed “Sundays after Pentecost”, etc. Too many people don’t really understand what Ordinary Time means. I am not sure people would care all that much.
A different name would need to be assigned to the Sundays in Ordinary Time between the end of the Christmas season and Ash Wednesday , but that’s probably a simple issue to address.
I was thinking more of the weekdays in Ordinary Time, as illustrated by my second post.
I never figured out why the calendar was changed in the first place. It was fine the way it was.
Right around that same general time, suffice it to say that a few things in the Church were changed. To say the least.
It’s compelling commentary… though I hardly think the eschatological approach to the feast is “watered down”. That in and of itself is a powerful and vital message. Either way, the feast was of VERY recent origin, so “tradition” can not be cited as a defence here.
It’s more than about Sunday though, it is the whole week.
Yes. 8th Sunday in OT cannot be the 8th after Pentecost. In fact it can be before Pentecost.
I agree! It’s my favorite feast day of the year. I love celebrating Christ’s kingship as Lord if history & celebrating the hope and anticipation of his 2nd coming! If my understanding of the feast is a “watered down version” I would love to learn more… but it seems theologically rich to me as it is honestly. And I think it fits great at the end of the liturgical year. The end of October is already crammed with feasts for the saints and souls in early Nov. I would think the feast would get kind of overlooked there. But I’m just an Novus Ordo gal so I guess I don’t really know.
I’ve been thinking this ever since I started attending the OF. But I think more could be done to create a new universal form. I’m not an expert on this, but I think you could create one that has parts of the OF and parts of the EF.
Yes, it was addressed many, many centuries ago. They were called Sundays after Epiphany.
It’s very watered down, indeed. The fact that liturgical Protestants have embraced the feast tells you that. As I explained above, and as the link in that post explains, the feast had a very specific purpose, and that was mitigated in a very politically correct way, that would be inoffensive to most.
…and if I had looked in my missal I would have been reminded of that. Thank you