Monday, August 26, 2013

Proposed Sanctorale for October

Continuing our monthly proposals for what a revised, present-day Tridentine Kalendar would look like, here is the month of October numbered by each day. Days which differ (aside from the introduction of gradations within the Double rank) from the 1570 Kalendar are bolded. October, like September, has a strong ferial cycle, but this is also the first month since March to lack an octave of any sort. Many of the days listed as feriae in this month especially had become very crowded with some devotional feasts and double feasts for saints canonized  in the post-Tridentine era. Commentary follows below.

1. St. Remigius, Bishop & Confessor; Simple, White
2. Holy Guardian Angels; Double, White
3. St. Therese of Lisieux, Virgin; Simple, White
4. St. Francis of Assisi, Confessor; Double Major, White
5. Ss. Placid & Companions, Martyrs; Simple, Red
6. Feria
7. St. Mark, Pope & Confessor; Simple, White
8. Feria
9. Ss. Dionysius (Bishop), Rusticus & Eleutherius, Martyrs; Semidouble, Red
10. Feria
11. Feria
12. Feria
13. Feria
14. St. Callistus, Pope & Martyr; Semidouble, Red
15. St. Theresa of Avila, Virgin; Simple, White
16. Feria
17. Feria
18. St. Luke, Evangelist & Martyr; Double II Class, Red
19. Feria
20. Feria
21. St. Hilarion, Confessor; Simple, White. Commemoration of Ss. Ursula & Companions, Virgins & Martyrs
22. Feria
23. Feria
24. St. Raphael, Archangel; Double, White
25. Ss. Chrysanthius & Daria, Martyrs; Simple, Red
26. St. Evaristus, Pope & Martyr; Simple, Red
27. Vigil of Ss. Simon & Jude; Simple, Violet (if a Sunday, anticipated on 26 October)
28. Ss. Simon & Jude, Apostles & Martyrs; Double II Class, Red
29. Feria
30. Feria
31. Vigil of All Saints; Simple, Violet (if a Sunday, anticipated on 30 October)
Last Sunday of October: Our Lord Jesus Christ, King; Double I Class, White

Feasts added since 1570 which merit universal observance:
2 October - Holy Guardian Angels (universal cult)
The two Theresas on 3 and 15 October have a universal cult but we temper the observances with the rank of Simple.
24 October - St. Raphael (along with Michael and Gabriel, the three archangels specifically mentioned in Scripture merit observance)
Christ the King - in this age of liberal, secular republics and the demise of the Social Kingship of Christ as a doctrine taught clearly and widely throughout the Church, this feast is of the utmost importance. The CTO takes Pius XI's newly instituted feast from 1925 and keeps it in perpetuity.

Feasts on the 1954/1962 Kalendars which the CTO removes from universal observance with reasons given in parantheses:
6 October - St. Bruno, Confessor (medieval cult)
7 October - Most Holy Rosary of the B.V.M. (devotional - and yes, we are huge fans of the the Victory of Lepanto and pray the Rosary, but a liturgical feast for this should be limited to particular congregations at best)
8 October - St. Bridget of Sweden, Widow (local cult)
9 October - St. John Leonard, Confessor (local cult)
10 October - St. Francis Borgia, Confessor (we are thankful that his family produced at least one good man, but this should be a Jesuit feast only)
11 October - Maternity of the B.V.M. (devotional - in no way a bow to the Novus Ordo, but the theme of Our Lady's maternity is already well contained in the Traditional Office of the Circumcision/Octave Day of Christmas. The Marian seasonal oration for Christmas to the Purification is the prayer of her Maternity par excellence.)
13. St. Edward, King & Confessor (local cult)
16. St. Hedwig, Widow (local cult)
17. St. Margaret Mary Alacoque (particular cult; we adopt the feast of the Sacred Heart, but need not grant universal observance to one of the main founders of this devotion)
19. St. Peter of Alacantara (local cult)
20. St. John Cantius (local cult)
23. St. Anthony Mary Claret (particular cult)
25. St. Isidore the Farmer (In 1962ville his feast is observed this day in the USA; we think it should be moved back to 15 May as a Simple feast local to the USA or to 22 March as a de facto commemoration during Lent - the CTO is undecided as to the date, but thinks late October makes little sense to invoke a patron of farmers except for our Austral brethren)

Statistic:
CTO - Six feasts of Double or higher rank vs. 16 in 1910 and 17 in 1954/1962.










12 comments:

  1. The ferial psalter has indeed returned. I guess my only hesitation might be the elimination of the Rosary feast. I always thought of it as more of a commemoration of a major event in Latin Church history (sort of like the Sunday of Orthodoxy in the East) rather than a devotional feast (like the Immaculate Heart, Our Lady of Carmel etc).

    Still, if a monastery took on this program I think I'd be professing sooner rather than later.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Rad Trad, your point about a major event vs. devotion is well taken, so I will think about the Rosary feast a bit more. When my wife and I lived in relative liturgical wasteland (read: Low Mass mentality "High Mass" in Baltimore - another post entirely) and had frequented the Byzantine Rite (either Ukrainian or Ruthenian), the latter's church's name was "Patronage of Mary". The namesake is a feast under the same name (in October if I recall) which hitherto unbeknownst commemorates one of the battles which spared the fall of Constantinople before its eventual fall in 1453.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Please remember that this is intended to be a constructive contribution to the problem, that you have so capably raised, about how one /we /the Church recover(s) the use of the old Psalter and adapt Trent to the present.


    Let’s do the positive part first…

    Some comments on the next month’s sanctoral.

    It makes sense to remove S Edward the confessor. I fear there was just a move to shove in a sainted monarch from each major country of medieval europe for political reasons. K. Edward suited the Normans, who could point to his enthusiasm for them, and he suited the Saxons, probably out of nostalgia. I find S Thomas (Becket) the Martyr and bishop more appealing if English representatives are sought, and would sooner put into universal observance the SS MM cardinal bishop John Fisher and Lord Chancellor Thomas More than the last Atheling king. All three resisted bad rulers. Edward 'the confessor' (an honorific, not a classification) resisted little, just benefitting from having few external threats to deal with.

    Of course, I also agree with The Trad when he laments the loss of the Feast of the Rosary/ OLVictories. Thanks for reconsidering. I would keep the Maternity too, and just accept it is devotional. Perhaps just reduce it in rank some more. That might be a useful principle to extend to other matters.

    I have reviewed what I said about the feast of Christ the King when you announced July’s sanctorale.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I said: “Although I would miss the feast of the Precious Blood… The only other contribution I have in this general area is a mention of my personal dislike of the ‘Feast of Christ the King’, duplicating as it does, the themes of the Ascension among others…it was wrong of the modern rite to attempt to introduce a ‘culmination’ to the liturgical year when it is clear from the old masses for November that it is meant to be a continuum that begins to look again towards the Incarnation…. I like to say the office of X the K in October just to make it clear that its place is definitely not in November.
    My solution was to make it a votive office only, like the Little Office, possibly somehow of obligation on a Sunday, with its Mass that may be added at a second mass on the October date [collegiate churches only] and if necessary, commemorated like a feast that cannot be celebrated. But where would that leave the Precious Blood, which I happen to like?”

    Hmm. Strong words. Sorry. I can see you like the feast. Please bear in mind my main objection was to the November date at the ‘end’ of the liturgical year. That is the most objectionable feature.
    I think I have to argue that not just my solution, but also the terms of your endorsement show it is purely devotional, or perhaps rather an opportunity for instruction.
    In July, when you cut the Precious Blood from the kalendar and left the Octave Day of S John celebrated, that is logical, but not if you want to keep X the K. I will stipulate that the Precious Blood is also entirely devotional. I can see an argument against both but not for one only. [I think if the Blood were back in, it has to go back on the Sunday where it was originally placed to leave the Octave of S John unencumbered sometimes. Defining a feast of the Lord as being the Octave Day of a lesser feast was very awkward. I would personally also like the Feast of the Redeemer on the III Sunday of July, but perhaps one has to be in Venice.] Well, at least we can agree about the October date.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think the point of lollypop feasts on Sundays was meant to be a teaching instrument, and so prescribed what the Church thought the pastoral clergy ought to be preaching about, and learning about from the office. - I might prefer to describe all these days as teaching days. There were too many and they interfered with too many Sundays (Wall to wall Our Lady across October, etc.), so we all agree their removal was something S Pius X got right.
    You might argue just one isn’t too bad, and you might well be right.
    And if I want to keep the Feast of OL Rosary/Victories and the Maternity where would I put them? On the calendar dates of SPX or the Sundays? – to ponder.
    But where does that leave our principles of liturgical arrangement? It has been said papal whim is not good enough.

    OR – An alternative strategy :

    is this the way to keep X the K.?

    Do we accept the lollypops of our own day have a function that has not yet been rendered obsolete, but is perhaps time-limited?

    You make a case FOR the themes of the feast.
    My point is the principle against such themed feasts. Maybe we have left the age when the Precious Blood was an essential reminder or thanksgiving feast (-or have we?) but that X the K still has, say, another century to go in teaching us something.
    So do I say, it ought to stay for the moment? Say, for half a century before it is reviewed again. That could be a principle to lay down; the only trouble is it would rely on the curia to implement it!

    I still say it duplicates themes amply taught by the Ascension, but then the Blood probably duplicates much of the Passion. But isn’t that what Corpus Christi itself does? It deliberately duplicates the festal elements of Maundy Thursday at a time they can be celebrated. (One might easily classify Corpus Christi as a day of teaching, but it is one only sixteenth century protestants thought of removing. Unless one also counts its combination and renaming by Bugnini).

    But if lollypops are not wrong per se, perhaps they can decline with half-lives like nuclear material; they can start dominant, then move to prominent, then start to move towards the exits. And get reduced in rank on the way, as I would reduce the Maternity. Cf, the Presentation of OL - this is not quite the same argument, -but it is a great feast in the East and rather less so here.

    As to the other matter you raise, I too thought your designation of green for Sunday within Octaves was deliberate reappraisal. It could work.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Pseudo, if I am reading you correctly, your point boils down to whether or not there is an operating principle to keep or discard "themed" feasts for the CTO.

    I don't think that themed feasts need to be treated under one universal principle. Corpus Christi is a good example. The theme (actually, doctrine) cannot be rightfully celebrated in full in the context of Maundy Thursday; hence the feast (with a high ranking Octave) as you mentioned. I guess the question should be whether or not the feast conveys a dogma (e.g. Assumption) or a doctrine (e.g. Transubstantiation) should be the governing principle. I can see this differing from something which is purely devotional, though it may have a didactic value (e.g. Precious Blood).

    While I am no student of Bugnini and do not give any tip of the hat to the modern Kalendar, the doctrine concerning the Precious Blood is well contained in the feast of Corpus Christi which in turn flows from Maundy Thursday. As I stated in the post, the feast of the Maternity of the B.V.M. is redundant to the doctrine contained within the texts of the feast of the Circumcision and the Marian formularies throughout the 40 days after Christmas; hence, it doesn't celebrate an event (e.g. Presentation) or focus on a doctrine not already conveyed or overshadowed by a penitential dominance, and for these reasons, I don't think it merits being kept.

    Where does this leave Christ the King? I believe that the social doctrine of the Church and His social Kingship are doctrines which need to be conveyed more clearly. The Ascension does convey some of this, but more to the point of His Divinity and our final end to follow after Him, and not so specifically to His social reign over the temporal order. Does this purpose expire at some point as you ask? Perhaps the initial impetus may expire, but the doctrine doesn't, and hence, the feast should be kept in perpetuity. Lower rank over time? Maybe, but not in any of other lifetimes.

    Not mentioned, but inevitably a question to arise, is the feast of the Sacred Heart. The CTO retains it because the Sacred Heart is to Good Friday what Corpus Christi is to Maundy Thursday. At the risk of offending some pious ears, I like to make a distinction between the Office and liturgical celebration of the Sacred Heart and the often saccharine devotionalism surrounding it.




    ReplyDelete
  7. As for the feast of the Rosary/OL of Victories, I think a good case can be made to retain them as they commemorate events just as the two feasts of the Holy Cross do. Likewise, in the original proposed Sanctorale for September, we left out the feast of the Holy Name of Mary, but on second look, this should be retained also.

    That said, one of the good Pian reforms was the removal of feasts from fixed Sundays. The CTO follows this logic and places all such feasts to a fixed day on the civil Kalendar, with the understanding that their celebration on Sundays only comes about once every 6-7 years by "accident" and not intention. 7 October and 12 September it is for the aforementioned feasts.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Finally, the CTO proposes something workable for the Universal Kalendar with the full understanding that some popular feasts, even devotional ones, are conceded to local usage? I may personally pray certain devotional Offices (e.g. Our Lady of Mount Carmel) while at the same time proposing that they not be kept universally.

    We'll try to make mention of more local feasts as options on our daily Ordo entries.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Short version

    My basic point must be that you have established perhaps a hierarchy of principles, but not one principle about what should be in and what out.

    On the Feast of Christ the King, I AM happy to accept, because others have decided it, its existence. But this means papal authority. We run into all sorts of problems in trying to take things from different eras.

    On the date : I am not convinced that the last Sunday of October, the one before All SS. is the best. It is arguable that it was vulnerable to the (wholly wrong) move to the Last Sunday of the year because it sat ill on the October date.
    In many ways, the one within the Octave would make more sense to reinforce the social kingship theme

    [I think you said:] ‘The celebrations of dogmas and doctrines outrank simple devotion.’ - But they’re still not qualitatively different (I would argue), but different varieties of didactic feast.

    Somewhere below I make more comments about our old friend, discussed at length chez the Rad Trad, the subjection of liturgy to doctrine.’ I am not necessarily against that but I think we have to admit that is what is going on with all doctrinal feasts - even Corpus.



    Longer Version :

    I was hoping to be abbreviated to ‘poster’ but I suppose I shouldn’t complain

    I may not be making many friends here, but having begun the discussion I may as well argue the points to a conclusion.

    My basic point must be that you have established perhaps a hierarchy of principles, but not one principle about what should be in and what out. [See below.]

    On the Feast of Christ the King, I AM happy to accept, because others have decided it, its existence.

    I shall take my last pops at the feast’s content, then its placing.
    I personally think it was a rush job and ill-though through. [It was added in the wake of the great war and fall of the South German Catholic monarchies, and the other great, non-catholic ones. I have always suspected these political events were at least heavily involved in the motivation.]

    Having said its 1969 removal was wrong, I am not convinced that the last Sunday of October, the one before All SS. is the best date. It is arguable that it was vulnerable to the (wholly wrong) move to the Last Sunday of the year because it sat ill on the October date.
    In many ways, the one within the Octave would make more sense to reinforce the social kingship theme. Now, no functioning large church in the world uses even the Pian kalendar, so the 1962 rite has a special feast before the Octave of All SS. Which doesn’t exist.

    But in making this move, and retaining a moveable Sunday feast I just happen to think you have departed from the principles [see below] you laid down in relation to using fixed calendar dates for new feasts. It’s just that X the K cropped up after Pius X reassigned the others, so it doesn’t fit this pattern.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I shall try to do a quick run through of your major points.

    “no student of Bugnini” – Very wise.

    “and do not give any tip of the hat to the modern Kalendar” – it is arguably a useful study as it is the end point of the kalendrical changes of 1911, 1955 and 1962+

    “whether or not there is an operating principle to keep or discard "themed" feasts” – I hoped there was.

    “the doctrine concerning the Precious Blood is well contained in the feast of Corpus Christi – Accept that; some old English vestments for Corpus were parti-coloured, white AND red. It was always implied.

    “the feast of Corpus Christi which in turn flows from Maundy Thursday.” – That is a potential point. It is a duplicate.
    (You are in danger of persuading me the Feast of Corpus Christi should be abolished. It didn’t always exist. We all know when it began (but I have forgotten the date as I write). I have the Wickham Legg edition of three old versions of the Sarum Missal somewhere, in which it is not present. That seemed very odd when I first realised).

    “I don't think that themed feasts need to be treated under one universal principle.” – They don’t absolutely have to be, but it would help; if there isn’t, you fall back on personal preference. These extra Sunday and indeed all other feasts were established by the popes. They did not need to explain their principles for doing so. I fear the only one involved was ‘The Pope says so’.

    That is why I stated openly I happened to like the Precious Blood. I was admitting my partiality.
    The reason you give for retaining X the K seemed a personal take on contemporary constitutions and politics. Perhaps those of us who live in actual monarchies are less worried by republics. If your less than perfect chief magistrate is called a king, and you are underwhelmed by him or his first minister, one might be less impressed by the idea of seeing God in such terms. I now think I would seriously go for the Feast of ‘The Redeemer’ in preference.

    “a dogma (e.g. Assumption) or a doctrine
    …or…
    purely devotional” – This is a principle: good.
    I still disagree that this is an ultimate guiding principle.
    I think you have hit on a hierarchy: celebrations of dogmas and doctrines outrank simple devotion. But they’re still not qualitatively different (I would argue), but different varieties of didactic feast.


    [The point I did not get round to making in what was already quite a long piece, was the comparison of the treatment of the Precious Blood with that of the Holy Family in the 1969 format, which will not trouble us before December. [Should be January.]
    They are both occasions of devotion but one was shockingly allowed to dominate the Christmas Octave, while the other was shunted into a forced marriage with Corpus Christi resulting into its unprecedented renaming.]


    “a doctrine not already conveyed” – ‘the subjection of liturgy to doctrine’?

    “or overshadowed by a penitential dominance” – ‘Overshadowing’ is arguably an extendable concept. One might miss the maternity on New Year’s Day.

    “Does this purpose expire at some point as you ask? Perhaps the initial impetus may expire, but the doctrine doesn't,” – We agree. Absolutely. You hit on precisely the right question. The purpose, not the matter. But once we have truly internalized the doctrine, does the impetus go away?

    ReplyDelete
  11. “I believe that the social doctrine of the Church and His social Kingship are doctrines which need to be conveyed more clearly. The Ascension does convey some of this, but more to the point of His Divinity and our final end to follow after Him, and not so specifically to His social reign over the temporal order” - Then this is ‘the subjection of liturgy to doctrine’

    I would be prepared to stipulate there may be very good reasons for such a doctrinal feast. And for one or two more.*

    The difference between this and the Maternity is probably chiefly the twentieth century’s greater emphasis on Our Lord in place of the nineteenth century’s accent on our Lady.

    *Offhand, and mainly because I mentioned it above, The Redeemer would ensure teaching on our need for redemption was delivered.


    “the Sacred Heart is to Good Friday what Corpus Christi is to Maundy Thursday” - Yes. So I was taught, ahem, more years ago than I care to admit, by an anglican minister of moderate catholic tastes, and see above.

    “At the risk of offending some pious ears,” - Offend away.

    “I like to make a distinction between the Office and liturgical celebration of the Sacred Heart and the often saccharine devotionalism surrounding it” – Where would we be…?
    The hymn, ‘O Sacred Heart’ seems beloved of some, poor words, worse music, was inexplicably timetabled when I had suggested ‘All ye who seek a comfort sure’ –noble words, noble tune.

    “but not in any of other[‘our’?] lifetimes.” - Absolutely. I said give it another century.

    “the good Pian reforms was the removal of feasts from fixed Sundays” - Arguably so.
    But after considering the Precious Blood’s being permanently attached to the Octave Day of S John, and your description of what the Octave was like without that, I was coming round to the Sunday approach, but with fewer of them. Now I wonder.
    Perhaps I need to propose an even more unusual solution.
    The feast is only celebrated when the Pian date is a Sunday. That provides certainty, it is a sustainable definition, albeit a novel one. It also leaves the majority of Sundays unencumbered but allows such feasts to stand (some years) where they were intended. We have been used to the Rosary showing up on weekdays, but it seems wrong for the Precious Blood to do so.

    [own point] – this might be another solution to the conundrum of the newer /modern Feast of X the K. So, when the 30th or 31st. October is a Sunday. Two dates to make it likelier.

    it is a problem. One pope sets up a feast on a Sunday to influence the Church. Another removes it to a monthly date that has no significance except convenience.


    Another idea might have been something after All SS Octave – that would have put it in permanent competition for a Sunday appearance with the Dedication of he Lateran – the feast that is the Titular of any Church dedicated to ‘the Saviour’. That was ALWAYS a monthly calendar date and is truly ancient. It wouldn’t work in Britain where ‘Remembrance Sunday’ overshadows everything, but I find the Sunday AFTER the All SS Octave a persuasive idea. Rule : ‘Any Sunday that is not the dedication of the Archbasilica is Christ the King.’

    “local usage” - Agree. Much more of this.

    “may personally pray certain devotional Offices (e.g. Our Lady of Mount Carmel” - I happen to share your devotion to this office.





    ReplyDelete
  12. I was feeling guilty about pushing unnecessarily hard the question of the status of the reasons for including the feast of X the C. We don’t know each other, and it’s your blog and I have gone on about this one thing.

    After rereading your manifesto from regnum Amoris, however, I think I was right to push you on this matter because you said : “…let's have a discussion”.

    You mention the feast and your quite political reasons for retaining it even there. I say I accept it. But I think it ranks WITH the Precious Blood and AFTER the Redeemer as feasts of aspects of doctrines of Our Lord with didactic value.
    I have said I have always been most troubled by the dating.

    Your blog has helped me see that the move to the Last Sunday of the Year was probably enabled because the feast never seemed to fit quite right on the one before All SS. So
    I would like to find a more fitting date for this feast.

    If not the Sunday following the Octave of All SS, and so in competition with the Dedication of the Lateran, I could go for a summer procession of mysteries of Our Lord across July, (that month keeps things clear of the Assumption, etc., at least) as October used to have four Sundays of Our Lady; the Precious Blood on the I, Christ our King on the II, and Christ our Redeemer on the Third Sunday.
    This too is far from ideal, but it is, as you invited, a contribution to a discussion.

    I would only want to add that I admire what you are doing.
    I agree PROFOUNDLY with what you are attempting, and with 98% of your findings /decisions. Chucking out the clutter of uninspiring royalty and confessors with a role and cultus only within certain congregations.


    Sorry for being so argumentative on your blog. It’s a personal failing of mine.


    ReplyDelete