Old church calendar, new church calendar

[vladimir998]

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

There are two calendars because the old calendar was done away with in the 1960s. Traditional parishes use the calendar system that was in operation in 1962. All other Catholics in the Roman Church use a more recent calendar. Certain feast days essentially disappeared from the universal calendar (e.g. St. Christopher’s feast day). One or more were moved (e.g. Christ the King). Others were replaced (e.g. Jan. 1st became the “Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God” rather than the traditional “Circumcision of Our Lord”).

Many of these changes are somewhat…ironic? I say that because the stated goal of the bishops at Vatican II was to have more people actively participate in the liturgical life of the Church to bring them closer to Christ. When you look at it, however, it seems the changes routinely mean fewer visits to your parish, fewer feast days, greater separation from the saints (e.g. veneration of St. Christopher certainly ain’t what it used to be), and in some cases a completely inexplicable re-ordering of things. Why not honor Christ’s circumcision on Jan. 1st? Wouldn’t that help get someone into the liturgical celebration of Christ’s life? I would say that suddenly creating a new feast day and placing it right in the middle of the Christmas season (Dec. 25th - Jan. 5th) - on Jan. 1st no less - only means more focus on the secular calendar and LESS on the liturgical calendar. We’re celebrating Jesus’ birth, and then all of a sudden we have a brand new Marian feast day placed on the calendar. I have nothing against the Marian feast day in itself, but it does seem rather odd to insert it there.

The new calendar has to be judged a failure in terms of affecting culture - at least so far. Forty years after the new calendar was issued and people are still terribly confused. Some people are also upset at what has been taken away from them because of the lost traditional practices. And no one can tell me that saying “30th Sunday in ORDINARY TIME” makes more sense than “22nd Sunday after Pentecost”. Or why is it thought that “4th Sunday of Easter” makes more sense than “3rd Sunday AFTER Easter”? And how on earth can “5th Sunday in Ordinary Time” make more sense than “Sexagesima Sunday” (which tells you exactly how far off you are from Passion Sunday and therefore Easter!)?

 

[ProVobis]

The new calendar has to be judged a failure in terms of affecting culture - at least so far. Forty years after the new calendar was issued and people are still terribly confused. Some people are also upset at what has been taken away from them because of the lost traditional practices. And no one can tell me that saying “30th Sunday in ORDINARY TIME” makes more sense than “22nd Sunday after Pentecost”. Or why is it thought that “4th Sunday of Easter” makes more sense than “3rd Sunday AFTER Easter”? And how on earth can “5th Sunday in Ordinary Time” make more sense than “Sexagesima Sunday” (which tells you exactly how far off you are from Passion Sunday and therefore Easter!)?

Good points.

I think part of the reason for the changes was the confusion caused by using the traditional Sundays after Epiphany to fill in the Sundays after Pentecost because Easter is a fluctuating holy day. But one thing affects another and so forth and many other changes needed to be made to remove this confusion. And, as you at least implied, this only created more confusion.

 

[Bob_Aliano]

Well I’ve been reprimanded for “insulting” someone over this. Perhaps the opinion of a respected clergy might help:

wdtprs.com/blog/2010/11/quaeritur-all-saints-not-of-obligation-in-2010/

 

[NHInsider]

There are two calendars because the old calendar was done away with in the 1960s. Traditional parishes use the calendar system that was in operation in 1962. All other Catholics in the Roman Church use a more recent calendar. Certain feast days essentially disappeared from the universal calendar (e.g. St. Christopher’s feast day). One or more were moved (e.g. Christ the King). Others were replaced (e.g. Jan. 1st became the “Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God” rather than the traditional “Circumcision of Our Lord”).

The revision of the calendar had to do with the fact that there are more saints than there are days in a year (Thanks be to God) and there was a desire for local churches to be able to celebrate saints of local significance. (In addition to the intention to maintain the focus of the liturgical calendar on the Life Of Christ over the course of the 12 months.) So many of the saints who had been on the calendar forever were “demoted” to “optional” to make room for others. Local churches can still celebrate those memorials if they choose to.

The days of obligation have always been the purview of the bishops conferences - the only universal obligatory feast days are Christmas and Easter, IIRC. Most countries celebrate the feast of their own patron Saint (Jan 1 is a Holy Day in the US, not across the globe).

I would say that suddenly creating a new feast day and placing it right in the middle of the Christmas season (Dec. 25th - Jan. 5th) - on Jan. 1st no less - only means more focus on the secular calendar and LESS on the liturgical calendar. We’re celebrating Jesus’ birth, and then all of a sudden we have a brand new Marian feast day placed on the calendar. I have nothing against the Marian feast day in itself, but it does seem rather odd to insert it there.

Well, Mary is the Patron Saint of the US, hence the obligations for both Jan. 1 and Dec. 8. I don’t know what the original discussion was about adding the Solemnity to Jan 1 but I would point out that while Jesus’ bris is not mentioned in Scripture (we can presume that it took place on the 8th day, because Joseph and Mary conformed to the requirements of the Old Covenant), we have Scripture for Mary’s rite of purification.