Should the traditional calendar be modified?

[Andreas_Hofer]

No liturgical calendar needs to accomodate every Johannine canonization. That would be ludicrous…

Agreed. At the same time, though, the traditional model of development still sees the truly great saints incorporated slowly over time. Otherwise we’d have a calendar comprised entirely of Roman martyrs from the first three centuries.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

do they appear in the Eastern calendars?

Those who are Eastern saints are on the appropriate Eastern Church calendar.

Byz, can I ask a question? Are Eastern saints canonized through the same process as Western Latin saints? If so, are their feasts only recognized in the calendar that the particular saint celebrated? IOW, are Eastern calendars static like the 1962 Roman Calendar?

We are part of the Catholic Church, our saints a canonized just like those of the Latin Church. Pope John Paul II traveled to Ukrain to canonize some Ukrainian saints.

So as new saints that have something to do with an Eastern Church come about they are added to that Church’s calendar.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Agreed. At the same time, though, the traditional model of development still sees the truly great saints incorporated slowly over time. Otherwise we’d have a calendar comprised entirely of Roman martyrs from the first three centuries.

Just seems odd to me that a Doctor of the Church would be left off the calendar of the Church of whom that Doctor is a member.

 

[AlexV]

Absolutely no doctor of the church is missing from the Tridentine calendar. Not a one.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Just seems odd to me that a Doctor of the Church would be left off the calendar of the Church of whom that Doctor is a member.

Absolutely no doctor of the church is missing from the Tridentine calendar. Not a one.

St. Therese, who is commemorated in the new calendar on Oct. 1 is commemorated in the 1962 calendar on Oct. 3. So Alex is right, she’s on the calendar already, and at a III Class feast, being a doctor isn’t going to get her any more precedence anyway. I think it would be perfectly acceptable to commemorate her as Doctor, Virgin instead of just Virgin. I would think such an update is presumed without the need to issue a new calendar.

 

[AlexV]

Indeed, Andreas.

I’d go further and say that only someone with a real grudge or issue re: the Tridentine Mass would try to argue that the 1962 calendar doesn’t have a Latin doctor just because Rome hasn’t issued a new Missal with the title “doctor” added to her name. In the old (saner) days, those sorts of alterations were presumed once the title change was promulgated.

Female doctors in the Novus Ordo don’t use the Common of Doctors, they use the Common of Virgins.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

St. Therese, who is commemorated in the new calendar on Oct. 1 is commemorated in the 1962 calendar on Oct. 3. So Alex is right, she’s on the calendar already, and at a III Class feast, being a doctor isn’t going to get her any more precedence anyway. I think it would be perfectly acceptable to commemorate her as Doctor, Virgin instead of just Virgin. I would think such an update is presumed without the need to issue a new calendar.

I was not aware that she is on the calendar but if she is not commemorated as Doctor then, techinically, a Doctor is missing. But that is besides the point.

Thank you Andreas for pointing this out.

 

[AlexV]

No, it’s not “besides the point”. You’re not going to get a snipe in at the 1962 Missal/calendar without being challenged.

There has NEVER been a history of redoing Missals/Breviaries just because a new title gets affixed to a saint. The only time that happens is when TEXTS are affected.

The female doctors in the Novus Ordo do not use texts from the Common of Doctors. Why should the Tridentine be any different? Theresa, Teresa, and Catherine are all there in the 1962 Missal.

The 1962 Missal doesn’t deny they’re doctors. And guess what. If you read the Collect in the 2002 Missal, it doesn’t call Theresa a doctor. Oh well.

In fact, if you want to start being a pedant about doctors, the 1962 Missal requires ALL doctors to be venerated. The 2002 makes many of them optional…western as well as eastern.

 

[reggieM]

The assumption is that there will never been any new Doctors of the Church named, thus the 1962 calendar will always have all of the Doctors.

St. Therese was named a Doctor only recently. Certainly, other saints could be named as well in the future.

Therefore, only a person who is blinded by liturgical extremism could claim that the 1962 calendar will never need to be changed in order to include all future Doctors of the Church.

 

[reggieM]

The only time that happens is when TEXTS are affected.

That is a problem, as I see it.

There is a fairly common belief among traditionalists that the 1962 calendar should never change. But if it was admitted to change due to the addition of new saints – it would require new TEXTS written by the evil modernists and freemasons in Rome (as it may be believed they are).

Thus, the purity of the 1962 Missal would be compromised by NEW TEXTS written by modern Catholics.

 

[KMXV]

It depends on who’s doing the modifying.

 

[Unfinished]

It depends on who’s doing the modifying.

Indeed.

reggie,

Not all traditional Catholics believe the Vatican is filled with evil modernists. I don’t know many Catholics who would have a problem with someone like Cardinal Hoyos.

 

[reggieM]

Unfinished - I’m usually talking about the most extreme people. I don’t really understand the term “traditionalist” since it’s not very well defined. I would think that a traditional Catholic is a Catholic – that means, he or she is a person who has Faith and Hope in God’s providence in His Church.

I would be glad if most Catholics would approve of Cardinal Hoyos or Bishop Rifan, for example, working on some minor changes to the traditional Mass.

But I was talking about some of the people on this forum who say things like “the Novus Ordo is an abomination” or that the Pope has “an entirely different religion” than the SSPX does.

But that is not everybody – that is true and I appreciate the correction.

 

[Unfinished]

I would be glad if most Catholics would approve of Cardinal Hoyos or Bishop Rifan, for example, working on some minor changes to the traditional Mass.

He is awesome as well. Ecce sacerdos magnus indeed.

 

[AlexV]

No, some people just go out of their way to find ways ti nitpick the 1962 Missal.

Ever hear of the Commons? Even if Rome mandated a new saint in the calendar (unlikely, since it’s already quite crowded), there are multiple Masses for each category in the Commons. New texts are not, strictly speaking, necessary in order to observe the saints.

And, as I noted more than once, making someone a doctor usually does not impact the liturgy…Tridentine OR Novus Ordo. Theresa’s title changed not a thing in the Novus Ordo liturgy for her feast.

 

[reggieM]

Some people do, indeed, nitpick the 1962 Missal. Some actually believe that it should not change, should not accept new saints in the calendar and should not be modified in the way that all of the Catholic bishops (including Abp. Lefevbre) voted for in Ecumenical Council.

Somehow, those Catholics think that changes to the Missal, approved by the Council, should be nitpicked and opposed.

 

[AJV]

No, it’s not “besides the point”. You’re not going to get a snipe in at the 1962 Missal/calendar without being challenged.

There has NEVER been a history of redoing Missals/Breviaries just because a new title gets affixed to a saint. The only time that happens is when TEXTS are affected.

The female doctors in the Novus Ordo do not use texts from the Common of Doctors. Why should the Tridentine be any different? Theresa, Teresa, and Catherine are all there in the 1962 Missal.

The 1962 Missal doesn’t deny they’re doctors. And guess what. If you read the Collect in the 2002 Missal, it doesn’t call Theresa a doctor. Oh well.

In fact, if you want to start being a pedant about doctors, the 1962 Missal requires ALL doctors to be venerated. The 2002 makes many of them optional…western as well as eastern.

And they can’t use texts from the Common of Doctors anyway in either the TLM or NO because of the references to priests.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

And they can’t use texts from the Common of Doctors anyway in either the TLM or NO because of the references to priests.

Not to keep this discussion off topic but I must correct this.

Both the LOTH and the Order of the Mass calls for the use of either the Common of Virgins or of Doctors of the Church for Teresa of Avila (October 15) and Theresa of the Child Jesus (October 1).

 

[AJV]

Not to keep this discussion off topic but I must correct this.

Both the LOTH and the Order of the Mass calls for the use of either the Common of Virgins or of Doctors of the Church for Teresa of Avila (October 15) and Theresa of the Child Jesus (October 1).

Thanks ByzCath.:tiphat: My bad. I should think twice (and check twice) before running that past a Carmelite. My books only showed Virgins for April 29 and October 1 (and for October 1 where it it upgraded to a feast here, still only Virgins and that one is a printed in 2002, but its quite possible that they’ve not updated it) but you were right for the 15th.

 

[AlexV]

The typical edition of the LOTH (Latin) does not mention the Common of Doctors for ANY of these saints.

Not that it matters…they have proper texts, including, in the case of Catherine and Teresa of Jesus, even hymns (not that you’d know that in the American LOTH, since they don’t believe in translating the original Latin LOTH hymns).

The issue is irrelevant, in any case. All doctors are in BOTH calendars. The Tridentine actually mandates ALL of them; the Novus Ordo leaves many as options.