Traditional feast of Christ the King
A different calendar.
Those who follow the traditional liturgical calendar of the Church, that is, those who attend the Traditional Latin Mass, celebrated the feast of Christ the King today. In the revised liturgical calendar the feast is celebrated on the last Sunday of Ordinary Time, or the Sunday before Advent.
For me, this raises many questions. For one, where is the unity in observance? Other questions arise - such as, does this mean traditional ember days, along with fast and abstinence disciplines, are to be observed? And is it mandatory that they be observed? And by whom? There seems to be much more to the traditional form of Mass, which follows the traditional calendar, than meets the eye. As it stands, the traditional calendar makes no provision for the the newly proclaimed saints, and retains the memorials of the older saints on their traditional feast days. And some traditionalists resent the fact newer saints have supplanted the traditional memorials in the new calendar.
I’m not well versed in liturgical matters, but it seems to me the Traditional rite is a separate rite from the Novus Ordo and not simply the extraordinary form of the ordinary form. Will this result in a reform of the reform, or will it create a “High Church” and a ”Low Church” situation as in Anglicanism?
It seems to me many die-hard traditionalists - those in union with the Holy See - reject many of the reforms of Vatican II as it is. For instance, many traditionalists wouldn’t think of having their children baptized in the new rite of Baptism, choosing instead the traditional rite, because of the exorcism prayers. Although the Rosary isn’t part of the liturgy, not a few traditionalists reject John Paul II’s addition of the Luminous mysteries to the Rosary. And don’t even ask them what they think of the cause for the beatification of JPII.
The blogs are not really reflecting any great effort at unity on the matter of the TLM either. Not a few critique and dissect every statement from any bishop who speaks about the implementation of the Summorum Pontificum. Any priest, religious or lay person who happens to indicate he/she is not a big of the TLM is summarily castigated, often without charity. When a writer does attempt to be objective, the comment box usually fills up with vitriolic attacks.
I find it unsettling.
October 29th, 2007 at 12:33 am
Hello Terry. I know what you mean, and have to admit that some traditionalists can be nasty and/or stand-offish when it comes to the Novus Ordo regime. Undoubtedly that applies to me at times. But I do try to be conciliatory whenever possible. I do not view Catholics who attend the new Mass as any less Catholic than I am. Some, in fact, are obviously much better Catholics. It is impossible to deny this.
But the fact remains that the so-called “reforms of Vatican-II” are a disaster, and the good Catholics who adhere to these reforms are good not because of the reforms, but in spite of the reforms. I don’t see any way around this, and from time to time, it needs to be said.
October 29th, 2007 at 3:16 am
Terry, I can’t address everything you speak of, but I do not think it is fair to blame traditionalists for criticizing the positions of disobedient bishops.
Many of the bishops’ letters (which Fr. Zuhlsdorf publishes in full on his website — they speak for themselves), if not outright disobedient, remind me of the way that segregationists tried to keep black people from voting even after they clearly had the right to do so. (E.g., sure, we’ll let you vote after you sign your name legibly in felt-tip pen on this waxed paper!)
I agree that traditionalists can be cranky at times, but some of the people opposed to the traditional Mass are worse.
IMO, the traditionalists have for the most part responded in a constructive manner.
(I hope it goes without saying that some bishops, including my own, have been great about Summorum Pontificum.)
October 29th, 2007 at 6:23 am
I remember one year I missed celebrating the feast of the Epiphany, since I went to an indult Mass on the Sunday on which it is celebrated in the USA, but instead they were celebrating the feast of the Holy Name of Jesus, according to the old calendar. At the church I attended during the week, there was no Mass of the Epiphany on Jan 6, since they had all celebrated the Epiphany on the previous Sunday. I found this to be quite distressing at the time….
October 29th, 2007 at 8:27 am
It was also “Reformation Sunday” yesterday. Pius XI used the feast of Christ the King as a reminder of their disobedience. It was also the day Constantine won the battle of the Milvian Bridge. There were reasons it was yesterday.
October 30th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
It seems that this is all based on one very flawed premise, the idea that everyone in the Church must be doing exactly the same thing at the same time. There has always been legitimate diversity of practice. Look at the Byzantine Rite, with a much different calendar than those of the old or new Roman Rite. They’re still Catholic.
This mindset of “let’s all get into lockstep or someone is wrong” is also one of the great weaknesses of the Novus Ordo Missae, the idea that if we’re not all talking together at once, if there is any room for people to make their own individual private prayers, something is wrong. It’s not. Let’s just adore God.