Question about the 1962 liturgical calendar

[Dannel11]

Is the liturgical calendar in the 1962 missal still in effect? I know some traditional Catholics who celebrate different feast days than the rest of the diocese and they claim they follow the 1962 liturgical calendar. Is that allowed?

 

[OaTmEaL]

“It is therefore permitted to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal, which was promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the Church’s Liturgy.”

Pope Benedict XVI, “Summorum Pontificum”, July 7, 2007.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/motu_proprio/documents/hf_ben-xvi_motu-proprio_20070707_summorum-pontificum_en.html

 

[Dannel11]

I understand that the Mass was never abrogated and is permitted. I am asking about the liturgical calendar.

For example, when diocesan calendar celebrates a solemnity and the 1962 calendar has it on a different day, is it permitted to deviate from the general and diocesan calendars to follow the 1962 calendar?

 

[OaTmEaL]

The FSSP parish I attend observes all solemnities on the dates assigned in the 1962 calendar.

 

[Beryllos]

The FSSP parish I attend observes all solemnities on the dates assigned in the 1962 calendar.

Do they do that for Sundays as well?

 

[FrDavid96]

I understand that the Mass was never abrogated and is permitted. I am asking about the liturgical calendar.

For example, when diocesan calendar celebrates a solemnity and the 1962 calendar has it on a different day, is it permitted to deviate from the general and diocesan calendars to follow the 1962 calendar?

Yes.

The reason is that use of the Missal is approved. The calendar is part of the Missal. Since the whole is approved, every part of the whole is approved.

There is a principle in Church discipline “whatever applies to the whole applies to every part of the whole.”

There are specific exceptions to that, but they apply because HH Benedict explicitly made those exceptions.

 

[Dannel11]

Yes.

The reason is that use of the Missal is approved. The calendar is part of the Missal. Since the whole is approved, every part of the whole is approved.

Thank you for your answer.

I wonder whether it was wise to allow it. It seems to encourage separation in the diocese as now we have two groups, those who follow the new Missal and those who follow the 1962 Missal. Both groups kind of do their own thing. They celebrate different things on different days. I think it just contributes further to the divide between those who attend the OF and those who attend the EF. I know in my diocese, those who attend TLM seem to have a very low opinion of those who attend the OF.

Shouldn’t it be possible to celebrate TLM using the current calendar or is there some reason why the two are incompatible?

 

[phil19034]

Thank you for your answer.

I wonder whether it was wise to allow it. It seems to encourage separation in the diocese as now we have two groups, those who follow the new Missal and those who follow the 1962 Missal. Both groups kind of do their own thing. They celebrate different things on different days. I think it just contributes further to the divide between those who attend the OF and those who attend the EF. I know in my diocese, those who attend TLM seem to have a very low opinion of those who attend the OF.

Shouldn’t it be possible to celebrate TLM using the current calendar or is there some reason why the two are incompatible?

It should not encourage separation. The Catholic Church has several different Rites and Uses. We can simply think of it as being no different than celebrating the Ambrosian Rite vs. the Roman Rite, or the Byzantine Rite, etc.

The Catholic Church has always had diversity and diversity should be celebrated.

I doubt the Extraordinary Form will ever adopt the exact liturgical calendar as the Ordinary Form since the Extraordinary Form has Septuagesima. However, I did read that the Bishops want to update some of the saints for the Extraordinary Form.

 

[FrDavid96]

Thank you for your answer.

I wonder whether it was wise to allow it. It seems to encourage separation in the diocese as now we have two groups, those who follow the new Missal and those who follow the 1962 Missal. Both groups kind of do their own thing. They celebrate different things on different days. I think it just contributes further to the divide between those who attend the OF and those who attend the EF. I know in my diocese, those who attend TLM seem to have a very low opinion of those who attend the OF.

I’m of the opposite opinion. I think that the re-emergence of the OF has contributed to a greater appreciation of the continuity of the Church; debunking the untruth that we have 2 Catholic Churches, pre- and post- Council.

I don’t deny that there have been some problems, but I think overall Summorum Pontificum has been of great benefit to the Church.

Shouldn’t it be possible to celebrate TLM using the current calendar or is there some reason why the two are incompatible?

I also think that it should be (but that’s not my decision to make, surely).
The Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei (who has jurisdiction over this sort of thing) is working on that issue. They did say that new saints (canonized after 1962) can be inserted into the EF Missal, and they are working on inserting the new Prefaces. So, at least in some sense, the calendar is something on which they’re working.

On a local level, the possibility of Votive Masses provides some limited latitude for more compatibility.

Unfortunately, it’s not a simple matter of the Church saying “pray the EF, but use the OF calendar.” Sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn’t. The OF has no Epiphany Season, for example.

So, to answer your question: yes, there is a reason why the two are incompatible. But that doesn’t mean that they are irreconcilable. Hopefully, the Church might someday find a way to make it possible.

 

[Chatter163]

Shouldn’t it be possible to celebrate TLM using the current calendar or is there some reason why the two are incompatible?

They are frequently incompatible. The EF calendar has Sundays numbered after Epiphany and Pentecost, the latter of which has an octave. It has the season of Septuagesima; it has different readings and propers for many of the Sundays. It is a long list. When the original indult was given in 1984, the calendar, being part of the missal, as Fr. David pointed out, was part of the permission. That was reiterated numerous times before Benedict’s decree, so there is nothing new about it. There really is no other way.

 

[Ad_Orientem]

The Church has long had diversity of rites (Latin, Byzantine, Chaldean, etc), and while this is not exactly the same as diversity of uses and forms, it shows that there is a kind of liturgical diversity which is not contrary, in principle, to unity. Personally, though, I agree that having two calendars, or for that matter two forms, for the same rite is not ideal. Actually, there are *three *calendars for the Roman rite–don’t forget Anglican Use.

This is not unheard of historically. Before 1570, Roman rite parishes were not all required to conform exactly to the rite as celebrated in Rome, but had their own local variations. Even St. Pius V, who made the Roman rite more uniform in 1570, allowed for a certain degree of diversity (local customs more than 200 years old were allowed to continue). And even today, monasteries, seminaries, schools, and nations have their own special variations in the Roman Calendar.

 

[Lormar]

I’m of the opposite opinion. I think that the re-emergence of the OF has contributed to a greater appreciation of the continuity of the Church; debunking the untruth that we have 2 Catholic Churches, pre- and post- Council.

I don’t deny that there have been some problems, but I think overall Summorum Pontificum has been of great benefit to the Church.

I also think that it should be (but that’s not my decision to make, surely).
The Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei (who has jurisdiction over this sort of thing) is working on that issue. They did say that new saints (canonized after 1962) can be inserted into the EF Missal, and they are working on inserting the new Prefaces. So, at least in some sense, the calendar is something on which they’re working.

On a local level, the possibility of Votive Masses provides some limited latitude for more compatibility.

Unfortunately, it’s not a simple matter of the Church saying “pray the EF, but use the OF calendar.” Sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn’t. The OF has no Epiphany Season, for example.

So, to answer your question: yes, there is a reason why the two are incompatible. But that doesn’t mean that they are irreconcilable. Hopefully, the Church might someday find a way to make it possible.

 

[ProVobis]

And even today, monasteries, seminaries, schools, and nations have their own special variations in the Roman Calendar.

Yes. In my 62 handmissal I have the following feast days celebrated in the U.S.

Dec 12 - Our Lady of Guadalupe
Sep 9 - St Peter Claver
Sep 26 - SS John De Brebeuf, Isacc Jogues and Companions (Canada as well)
Oct 5 - St Isidore the Farmer
Nov 15 - St Frances Xavier Cabrini

 

[corsair]

The EF has to follow the 1962 calender. One of the big reasons is that it couldn’t be celebrated without rewriting all or most of the Propers of the Mass.

Coversely, trying to celebrate modern Saints days poses the same problem to the EF. There are no propers written for them. True there are a couple of options, but they create more confusion than help.

Allowing the EF and OF to stand side by side is perfectly sensible. We allow the Byzantine Rite and numerous others without demanding they conform to the OF. They are ALL part of our heritage.

 

[OraLabora]

The EF has to follow the 1962 calender. One of the big reasons is that it couldn’t be celebrated without rewriting all or most of the Propers of the Mass.

The Graduale Romanum for the OF already exists and follows the modern calendar. Some rearrangements were needed to accommodate year B (the Gospel of Mark). The entire propers exist already for the 1970 Mass. For the big seasons (Advent, etc.) the propers of the OF are the propers of the EF. The monks of Solesmes have already done it all for us

Coversely, trying to celebrate modern Saints days poses the same problem to the EF. There are no propers written for them. True there are a couple of options, but they create more confusion than help.

There is always, and has always been, the option to use the Commons, as saints have been added to the calendar since well before Vatican II.

There would really be no big issue (from a Gregorian chant perspective) in adapting the EF to the modern calendar. Everything needed exists in the Graduale Romanum of 1974.