Old church calendar, new church calendar

[jeanannemarie]

Can anyone help me understand the new as opposed to the old Church calendar? What happened to the Feast of Christ the King on Oct. 31 that we don’t have now? I was disappointed last night at Mass to learn that the Holy Day of Obligation for the Feast of All Saints is waived because it falls on a Monday. I don’t understand what Monday has to do with it. All I can say is, when I see what the old calendar is doing, I always feel left behind and I don’t have the option to attend any other than NO Masses. I don’t like feeling that I am missing important things. Are we now doing the bare minimum in the new calendar? Any enlightenment would be appreciated. I am really feeling bummed about this.

 

[paperwight66]

Surely the Feast of Christ the King is the last Sunday before Advent?

 

[Timothysis]

I don’t understand what Monday has to do with it. .

Perhaps you should discover the answer to your question before you criticize things.

If a feast day falls on Saturday or Monday, then the obligation is dispensed. You are still free to attend Mass if you wish, so I don’t see why it should be a problem.

Also, the calender has been revised many times over the years. The Church follows the current calender, not one from years ago, so if you wish to be up to date with things then follow the current calender.

 

[uxordepp]

Certainly, the Feast of Christ The King is still here!

Some of the observations of the Church calendar are now given to bishops.

In Canada, for instance, we have only two days of Obligation, Christmas and the Solemnity of Mary (New Year’s Day).

Talk about bummed…

 

[Bob_Aliano]

Can anyone help me understand the new as opposed to the old Church calendar? What happened to the Feast of Christ the King on Oct. 31 that we don’t have now? I was disappointed last night at Mass to learn that the Holy Day of Obligation for the Feast of All Saints is waived because it falls on a Monday. I don’t understand what Monday has to do with it. All I can say is, when I see what the old calendar is doing, I always feel left behind and I don’t have the option to attend any other than NO Masses. I don’t like feeling that I am missing important things. Are we now doing the bare minimum in the new calendar? Any enlightenment would be appreciated. I am really feeling bummed about this.

If you attend the TLM the Feast of Christ the King is today, the last Sunday in October as is traditional. For those of us observing the old calendar tomorrow is a Holy Day of Obligation, All Saints Day, not every Catholic is afraid of going to Mass two days in a row!

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

If you attend the TLM the Feast of Christ the King is today, the last Sunday in October as is traditional. For those of us observing the old calendar tomorrow is a Holy Day of Obligation, All Saints Day, not every Catholic is afraid of going to Mass two days in a row!

Why the insult? Why the assumption that – like the Pharisee in last week’s gospel – other people don’t live up to your standards of holiness?

I think that removing the obligation to attend Mass on holy days that fall on Saturdays or Mondays is more for the benefit of the priests than the faithful. Scheduling additional Masses on Saturdays – when Saturday evening is already the Mass of Sunday – is difficult. If the holy day falls on a Monday there’s no possibility of a Mass the evening before and doing multiple Masses on both Sunday and Monday is a burden.

The Church sets minimum standards such as requiring us to receive communion at least once a year. There’s nothing that says you are limited to doing only the minimum

For the OP, the feast of Christ the King falls on the last Sunday of Ordinary Time. This year that will be November 21.

 

[MarkThompson]

If you attend the TLM the Feast of Christ the King is today, the last Sunday in October as is traditional. For those of us observing the old calendar tomorrow is a Holy Day of Obligation, All Saints Day, not every Catholic is afraid of going to Mass two days in a row!

Let’s be careful how we define “tradition,” though. The feast of Christ the King was created in 1925. It’s not exactly what you would call venerable. A guy like St. Pius X never heard of it.

Also, no matter what calendar you choose to observe, tomorrow is not a Holy Day of Obligation (I’m speaking for those in the United States). Holy Days of Obligation are not described in the calendar of the 1962 Missale; they are specified in the Code of Canon Law and in indults granted for particular episcopal conferences. Even if you could choose to “observe” the Code of Canon Law in force in 1962 (which you cannot), that would still be the case, as the canon stated, “Dies festi sub praecepto in universa Ecclesia sunt tantum: [names of the feasts],” but provided, as does the modern Code, that days could be abolished or transferred with the approval of the Holy See: “Sicubi aliquod festum ex enumeratis legitime sit abolitum vel translatum, nihil inconsulta Sede Apostolica innovetur.”

 

[Bob_Aliano]

Let’s be careful how we define “tradition,” though. The feast of Christ the King was created in 1925. It’s not exactly what you would call venerable. A guy like St. Pius X never heard of it.

Also, no matter what calendar you choose to observe, tomorrow is not a Holy Day of Obligation (I’m speaking for those in the United States). Holy Days of Obligation are not described in the calendar of the 1962 Missale; they are specified in the Code of Canon Law and in indults granted for particular episcopal conferences. Even if you could choose to “observe” the Code of Canon Law in force in 1962 (which you cannot), that would still be the case, as the canon stated, “Dies festi sub praecepto in universa Ecclesia sunt tantum: [names of the feasts],” but provided, as does the modern Code, that days could be abolished or transferred with the approval of the Holy See: “Sicubi aliquod festum ex enumeratis legitime sit abolitum vel translatum, nihil inconsulta Sede Apostolica innovetur.”

Well this sounds pretty traditional to me (from WIKI):
"The origin of the festival of All Saints celebrated in the West dates to May 13, 609 or 610, when Pope Boniface IV consecrated the Pantheon at Rome to the Blessed Virgin and all the martyrs; the feast of the dedicatio Sanctae Mariae ad Martyres has been celebrated at Rome ever since.

A November festival of all the saints was already widely celebrated on November 1 in the days of Charlemagne. It was made a day of obligation throughout the Frankish empire in 835, by a decree of Louis the Pious, issued “at the instance of Pope Gregory IV and with the assent of all the bishops”, which confirmed its celebration on November 1."

You might check this out as well: uvcarmel.org/2008/11/17/vatican-allows-traditionalists-to-keep-holy-days/

At any rate, our pastor announced it as a Holy Day of Obligation so contrary to your esteemed advice, I’ll observe the Holy Day.

SuscipeMeDomine - No insult intended but abrogating Hoy Days because they fall on Saturday or Monday indicates to me that US Catholics are understood to be spiritually lazy.

 

[MarkThompson]

Well this sounds pretty traditional to me (from WIKI):
"The origin of the festival of All Saints celebrated in the West dates to May 13, 609 or 610, when Pope Boniface IV consecrated the Pantheon at Rome to the Blessed Virgin and all the martyrs; the feast of the dedicatio Sanctae Mariae ad Martyres has been celebrated at Rome ever since.

Huh? Yes, All Saints is very old; I was talking about Christ the King, of which you had said, “the last Sunday in October as is traditional.” It’s not much of a tradition, though. More like a Jazz Age innovation.

At any rate, our pastor announced it as a Holy Day of Obligation so contrary to your esteemed advice, I’ll observe the Holy Day.

I’m afraid he’s mistaken (or that you misheard). Individual pastors do not have the authority to create or abolish days of obligation. At any rate, I’ll be observing it too – just not out of any sense of obligation.

 

[Joannm]

Huh? Yes, All Saints is very old; I was talking about Christ the King, of which you had said, “the last Sunday in October as is traditional.” It’s not much of a tradition, though. More like a Jazz Age innovation.

I’m afraid he’s mistaken (or that you misheard). Individual pastors do not have the authority to create or abolish days of obligation. At any rate, I’ll be observing it too – just not out of any sense of obligation.

I will too, because I want to (and I go to mass everyday anyway). Abolishing the obligation is also to help people from sinning. In the past, Holy Days were celebrated with days off from work making it easy to attend Mass. Now it is not so easy. Schools are open (even our Catholic school) and people have to work. Also it is difficult on the priests to schedule two full days of Masses twice in a row. I know what happens when Christmas falls on a Saturday (as it will this year) or Monday. Our priests are wiped out. Also, Tuesday is All Souls and we have added an extra mass in addition to the two we already have on a weekday.

And even though the obligation is not there anyone who wants to can come to Mass, so what is the big deal.

 

[ProVobis]

Christ the King is celebrated in the EF today. We had a beautiful sermon on the topic too.

As for Monday or Saturday dispensation, I honestly don’t know except it may confuse those who attend Saturday or Sunday late afternoon/evening Masses. That would be my guess. And many parishes don’t offer an extra Mass on those days either.

 

[Bbigam]

At any rate, our pastor announced it as a Holy Day of Obligation so contrary to your esteemed advice, I’ll observe the Holy Day.

I doubt that anyone is advising you to not go to Mass tomorrow for All Saints. Certainly you can go to Mass every day (except Good Friday) if you choose to and have the availability!

I try to go to Mass every day, but especially focus on Sundays (of course), Solemnities (obligation or not is irrelevant to me), Ash Wednesday, Paschal Triduum, All Souls, and Feasts of the Lord.

 

[Bob_Aliano]

Our parish priest isn’t arbitrarily deciding Nov. 1 is a Holy Day of Obligation, it is listed as such in the FSSP Liturgical Calendar for 2010. The authorization for ignoring the Monday Holy Day dispensation comes with the authorization to celebrate Mass in accordance with the 1962 Missal. Facts are facts so enough about that, nothing to debate.

Most OF churches around here are not offering an evening Mass on Monday or Tuesday due to the dispensation so it will be difficult for many who want to observe All Saints or All Souls Day to do so.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

Christ the King is celebrated in the EF today. We had a beautiful sermon on the topic too.

As for Monday or Saturday dispensation, I honestly don’t know except it may confuse those who attend Saturday or Sunday late afternoon/evening Masses. That would be my guess. And many parishes don’t offer an extra Mass on those days either.

Monday is usually our priest day off…but not this Monday. We will be having 2 Masses. And three for All Souls Day:thumbsup: I too am confused about the Holy Day of obligation for a Monday. But it doesn’t really matter…I’ll be at Mass those two days…well and my normal Wed night Mass.

Wow Bob…that’s 4 days in a row…

 

[MarkThompson]

Our parish priest isn’t arbitrarily deciding Nov. 1 is a Holy Day of Obligation, it is listed as such in the FSSP Liturgical Calendar for 2010. The authorization for ignoring the Monday Holy Day dispensation comes with the authorization to celebrate Mass in accordance with the 1962 Missal. Facts are facts so enough about that, nothing to debate.

Yes, facts definitely are facts. So since you have such vast expertise in the 1962 Missal, could you please tell everyone which part of it makes All Saints Day a Holy Day of Obligation? (Typical edition, if you don’t mind, not the editorial front matter from some hand missal.) It must be blindingly easy to find if there’s in fact “nothing to debate.”

 

[ConstantineTG]

The authorization for ignoring the Monday Holy Day dispensation comes with the authorization to celebrate Mass in accordance with the 1962 Missal.

The authorization for “ignoring” the Day of Obligation falls on the Bishop’s conference. The FSSP falls under the Bishop of their diocese. I guess they may still celebrate as if a special Holiday, but they cannot compel people to come as if they have an obligation to. They don’t.

 

[ProVobis]

Our parish priest isn’t arbitrarily deciding Nov. 1 is a Holy Day of Obligation, it is listed as such in the FSSP Liturgical Calendar for 2010. The authorization for ignoring the Monday Holy Day dispensation comes with the authorization to celebrate Mass in accordance with the 1962 Missal. Facts are facts so enough about that, nothing to debate.

Most OF churches around here are not offering an evening Mass on Monday or Tuesday due to the dispensation so it will be difficult for many who want to observe All Saints or All Souls Day to do so.

In 1962 it was a Holyday of Obligation. No ands, ifs, or buts.

 

[jeanannemarie]

Thanks, everyone. Yes, I do see the Feast of Christ the King on November 21, now, on my calendar. It will be on a Sunday. At least that will happen. I was just DISAPPOINTED about not having anything special for the All Saints and All Souls. It will be in the morning when I can’t go. Guess I’ll just wander through the cemetery with my rosary later in the day…I remember in the past with a different priest, we had Mass at night for these occasions. And as far as the Feast of Christ the King, what I read in the St. Andrew Daily Missal printed in 1999 had such wonderful things to say about why Pope Pius XI introduced it. Seems as though it may be even more pertinent today than it was way back in 1925 (or as recently, if you like) than it was when he started it; it was meant to remind people that God reigns supreme.

 

[jeanannemarie]

But…before we leave this topic, why do we have two calendars? How did it get set up like this?

 

[vladimir998]

Why the insult? Why the assumption that – like the Pharisee in last week’s gospel – other people don’t live up to your standards of holiness?.

I didn’t post the post you’re referring to, but I see the same problem that poster did. Over the last few decades our bishops have gone out of their way to “make it easy” on us and have (I hope unintentionally) eroded traditional Catholic practices as a result. The simple fact is that Ascension Thursday should always be on Ascension Thursday. All Saints’ Day should be a Holy Day no matter what day of the week it falls on. Moving the Feast Day of Christ the King to late November was a mistake. After all November is really for the Dead. It makes more sense to have a major feast day for Christ BEFORE the month of the dead than during it.

More and more people are waking up to the fact that these choices were poor ones. We have received no discernable benefits from monkeying with the traditional calendar. All it has created is confusion - as shown in the opening post - and it has seriously eroded traditional practices. I find it sadly amusing that the bishops constantly urge us to live our lives according to the liturgical calendar…and then monkey with it themselves. They apparently don’t see how they contradict themselves.