F
Farmville
Guest
Amen, Fratre.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
M
MarkThompson
Guest
When Pius XI invented the Feast of Christ the King in 1925 with the encyclical Quas Primas, he assigned it to the last Sunday in October. When the calendar was revised in 1969, the feast was reassigned to the last Sunday in Ordinary Time, serving as a sort of capstone to the entire liturgical year. That means that it falls on November 20 this year.Christ the King is this Sunday, the 30th in the EF. Is it the same in the OF?
Incidentally, Pope Pius’ explanation for the October date was this:
The last Sunday of October seemed the most convenient of all for this purpose, because it is at the end of the liturgical year, and thus the feast of the Kingship of Christ sets the crowning glory upon the mysteries of the life of Christ already commemorated during the year, and, before celebrating the triumph of all the Saints, we proclaim and extol the glory of him who triumphs in all the Saints and in all the Elect.
Granted, since October isn’t actually the end of the liturgical year, I’d have to guess that he meant it is “towards the end” of the year. I would assume that fulfilling that purpose was the major motive behind moving it. The connection to All Saints’ Day is lost, but I confess I don’t really think there ever was much connection at all. CTK was intended to refute nationalism and to assert the dominion of spiritual authorities over temporal governments – Pope Pius was still “prisoner in the Vatican” at this point, remember. In Quas Primas he put forth his reasons:
What We said at the beginning of Our Pontificate concerning the decline of public authority, and the lack of respect for the same, is equally true at the present day. “With God and Jesus Christ,” we said, “excluded from political life, with authority derived not from God but from man, the very basis of that authority has been taken away, because the chief reason of the distinction between ruler and subject has been eliminated. The result is that human society is tottering to its fall, because it has no longer a secure and solid foundation.”
When once men recognize, both in private and in public life, that Christ is King, society will at last receive the great blessings of real liberty, well-ordered discipline, peace and harmony.
This is mostly about government and the politics of the time – which is fine, and it’s not as though the politics of our time are that much different. But, as I say, I can’t really discern how this connects up to All Saints in such a fashion that they ought to be scheduled within a week of each other. The actual end of the liturgical year seems like a much better time: to symbolize that all things, and the entire mystery of Salvation we have been observing throughout the seasons of the calendar, are epitomized and brought to completion, after the end of the ages, in the eternal reign of Christ as King in Heaven.
T
TrueLight
Guest
Nope, I don’t remember what I never knew, he he.Pope Pius was still “prisoner in the Vatican” at this point, remember.
Can you recommend a good book that summarizes the Popes, their major accomplishments, struggles, etc?
M
MarkThompson
Guest
Haha, that would be one long book. But this Wikipedia article will give you a decent, short rundown of the “Prisoner in the Vatican” issue. Basically, the unification of Italy in 1870 involved taking the Papal States and a number of other possessions away from the Vatican. The Popes from Pius IX to Pius XI had no power to stop or reverse this, but they also did not want to appear to go along with it by recognizing the authority of the new Italian nation. So, they remained locked in the Vatican, refusing to set foot outside their now-tiny dominion, and maintaining the Church’s claim to all the seized lands. The Leonine prayers (prayers after Low Mass) were part of the Church’s effort to promote our interests against Italy and the House of Savoy.Nope, I don’t remember what I never knew, he he.
Can you recommend a good book that summarizes the Popes, their major accomplishments, struggles, etc?
This dispute – the “Roman Question” – was ultimately resolved when Pius XI and Mussolini concluded the Lateran Treaty, in which we renounced our claims to the Papal States and Italy paid us compensation and affirmed the perpetual sovereignty of the Vatican.
W
Warrenton
Guest
Oxford Dictionary of the Popes.Nope, I don’t remember what I never knew, he he.
Can you recommend a good book that summarizes the Popes, their major accomplishments, struggles, etc?
Not written from a Catholic perspective, but it is sympathetic. I find the book more helpful for this fact, actually.
T
TimothyH
Guest
Abrupt doesn’t necessarily mean non-organic.
There is little more organically and authentically Catholic than the authority of the Holy Father. If the Holy Father says, “Change it now. Do it today.” and it is done, how is that not organically and authentically Catholic?
If by “Organic” we mean slow changes which occur on their own, without the benefit of oversight of the Church, I would think that these would be the kinds of things which Traditional Catholics would be very wary of. This seems to be the very thing that many complain of here on CAF.
Abrupt changes may be less graceful, more jarring, and more disruptive, but if changes are done at the direction of the Holy Father, I don’t think we can call them somehow less Catholic or inorganic, as if it was polluted by outside sources.
Semantics maybe, but the Holy Father is the Vicar of Christ on Earth.
-Tim-
There is little more organically and authentically Catholic than the authority of the Holy Father. If the Holy Father says, “Change it now. Do it today.” and it is done, how is that not organically and authentically Catholic?
If by “Organic” we mean slow changes which occur on their own, without the benefit of oversight of the Church, I would think that these would be the kinds of things which Traditional Catholics would be very wary of. This seems to be the very thing that many complain of here on CAF.
Abrupt changes may be less graceful, more jarring, and more disruptive, but if changes are done at the direction of the Holy Father, I don’t think we can call them somehow less Catholic or inorganic, as if it was polluted by outside sources.
Semantics maybe, but the Holy Father is the Vicar of Christ on Earth.
-Tim-
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
Organic doesn’t mean authentic. Benedict himself, as a Cardinal, said, “We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over the centuries,” continuing on with a bit that would probably violate forum rules, even though it was said by him.Abrupt doesn’t necessarily mean non-organic.
There is little more organically and authentically Catholic than the authority of the Holy Father. If the Holy Father says, “Change it now. Do it today.” and it is done, how is that not organically and authentically Catholic?
If by “Organic” we mean slow changes which occur on their own, without the benefit of oversight of the Church, I would think that these would be the kinds of things which Traditional Catholics would be very wary of. This seems to be the very thing that many complain of here on CAF.
Abrupt changes may be less graceful, more jarring, and more disruptive, but if changes are done at the direction of the Holy Father, I don’t think we can call them somehow less Catholic or inorganic, as if it was polluted by outside sources.
Semantics maybe, but the Holy Father is the Vicar of Christ on Earth.
-Tim-
C
codefro
Guest
Why was it abandoned?Organic doesn’t mean authentic. Benedict himself, as a Cardinal, said, “We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over the centuries,” continuing on with a bit that would probably violate forum rules, even though it was said by him.
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
Why? I don’t know why organic development was abandoned. I would like to think that it was done with good intentions, bringing out the chopping block, and no, I don’t mean that sarcastically, but the outcome has been far from what was desired by the Council.Why was it abandoned?
C
Contarini
Guest
Owen Chadwick’s A History of the Popes 1830-1914 talks about the 19th-century papacy. Chadwick is an Anglican, which will make some folks here wary of him, but he’s an excellent scholar and helped overcome some of my stereotypes about the 19th-century popes–in my opinion he gives them quite a sympathetic reading and explains the issues they faced very well.Nope, I don’t remember what I never knew, he he.
Can you recommend a good book that summarizes the Popes, their major accomplishments, struggles, etc?
Perhaps you could “balance” it with a more hagiographic treatment, if that’s what you desire.
C
Contarini
Guest
Well, I would say that it was abandoned at Trent, with the standardization of the liturgy.Why? I don’t know why organic development was abandoned. I would like to think that it was done with good intentions, bringing out the chopping block, and no, I don’t mean that sarcastically, but the outcome has been far from what was desired by the Council.
When you have centuries of enforced uniformity, it’s hard to get back to a healthier pattern.
The Reformation, in both its Protestant and Catholic forms, has a lot to answer for.
Edwin
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
Well, no, I disagree. A rite should be standardized. As in, one rite should be one rite. And no, by saying that, I am not arguing against the use of the Tridentine liturgy right now.Well, I would say that it was abandoned at Trent, with the standardization of the liturgy.
When you have centuries of enforced uniformity, it’s hard to get back to a healthier pattern.
The Reformation, in both its Protestant and Catholic forms, has a lot to answer for.
Edwin
And would it, therefore, be safe to infer from your post that you think the changes due to the “spirit” of the Second Vatican Council are part of getting back to a healthier pattern?
A
Aeolian
Guest
From what I have read, the OF Mass actually allows more opportunities to use incense than the EF Mass. www.SmellsBells.com
P
ProVobis
Guest
Wasn’t the liturgy (at least the canon) standardized in a codified language more or less before the Reformation?Well, I would say that it was abandoned at Trent, with the standardization of the liturgy.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Saints and Sinners, A History of the Popes by Eamon Duffy.Nope, I don’t remember what I never knew, he he.
Can you recommend a good book that summarizes the Popes, their major accomplishments, struggles, etc?
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
True, but the immature “let’s be modern!” attitude makes it so that there are much less instances of incense use now than there were before the liturgical changes. There are far too many options nowadays, and most often, clergy skip out on the vast majority of them. This is why we end up with Christmas masses without incense, with the most simple Penitential Act, with the most ambiguous Eucharistic Prayer whose wording oddly doesn’t quite line up with the celebration, with the Nicene Creed ridiculously transplanted by the Apostles’ Creed, with horrid lurex vestments with unsightly patterns, with no bells, with strings of lights haphazardly strewn about the crucifix (that is, if it’s not shoved in some tiny crack where no one can see it), and with simplistic, embarrassingly vacuous music with not even the tiniest element of beauty.From what I have read, the OF Mass actually allows more opportunities to use incense than the EF Mass. www.SmellsBells.com
P
ProVobis
Guest
Perhaps the “smoke of Satan” comment by Paul VI then has some merit?Abrupt changes may be less graceful, more jarring, and more disruptive, but if changes are done at the direction of the Holy Father, I don’t think we can call them somehow less Catholic or inorganic, as if it was polluted by outside sources.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.