Why is the Feast of the Circumcision no more?

[AlexV]

“Scholarly underpinning?”

That’s amusing.

But, back to the thread…the liturgy of January 1 has long been a composite one in the Roman Rite. The day was long, long observed as the Christmas Octave, as the Holy Name, as the Circumcision, as a Marian feast of the greatest antiquity, etc., etc., etc.

The current liturgical mess with Christmas…and it is a mess…is the permission granted to move Epiphany around so that in some locales it can come as early as January 2. A further mess, however well-meaning, was John Paul’s decision to have the Baptism celebrated on Monday in years when Epiphany falls on the 7th or 8th. The old rubric was the Baptism was omitted. Hence the lessons for those days in the new Breviary expect such an omission; this year, in the USA, the same lesson will be repeated Saturday and again Monday because of the poorly-integrated rubrical change.

As for the possible confusion with the separate October Maternity feast, that was instituted explicitly in 1931 to commemorate the anniversary of Ephesus. The draft calendar of 1967 recommended that it be retained “at least in the Breviary”, though it was, of course, cut in the 1969 calendar (whose main contribution to liturgical science was the art of cutting and cutting yet more).

 

[AJV]

“Scholarly underpinning?”

That’s amusing.

But, back to the thread…the liturgy of January 1 has long been a composite one in the Roman Rite. The day was long, long observed as the Christmas Octave, as the Holy Name, as the Circumcision, as a Marian feast of the greatest antiquity, etc., etc., etc.

The current liturgical mess with Christmas…and it is a mess…is the permission granted to move Epiphany around so that in some locales it can come as early as January 2. A further mess, however well-meaning, was John Paul’s decision to have the Baptism celebrated on Monday in years when Epiphany falls on the 7th or 8th. The old rubric was the Baptism was omitted. Hence the lessons for those days in the new Breviary expect such an omission; this year, in the USA, the same lesson will be repeated Saturday and again Monday because of the poorly-integrated rubrical change.

While jbucks words may have been exaggerated, I believe he was referring to the fact that there was a perfectly good reason for the change: namely that most of the texts speak about that.

What is the etc., etc. referring to? Which other feast was observed in Rome on that date? And when was the Holy Name of Jesus observed on January 1 in the Roman liturgy? I confess my ignorance to not knowing that- the only ones I know doing that of late are some Protestants. Before St. Pius X it was second Sunday after Epiphany and after him either Sunday between 1-6(exclusive) or January 2.

Also, which lesson is it in the USA that will be repeated?

 

[AlexV]

January 6 in the LOTH, in countries where the Epiphany is transferred, 2nd reading = from Baptism.

Monday, January 8 = Baptism, reading repeated.

The Conferral of the Holy Name occurred on the 8th Day, with the Circumcision. Hence there was no “separate” Holy Name feast observed universally until the 17th century, because January 1 commemorated the Name as well as the Circumcision (hence the Jesuits, for instance, always observed their patronal feast on January 1, until the separate Name feast was instituted).

The separate feast was dropped in 1969 because it allegedly duplicated January 1; ironically, John Paul restored it in 2002 (to January 3), since I guess the rationale of 1969 was judged immaterial in 2002.

 

[AJV]

Thanks

January 6 in the LOTH, in countries where the Epiphany is transferred, 2nd reading = from Baptism.

Monday, January 8 = Baptism, reading repeated.

I looked at my US volume: why would you not take the reading for the Saturday between Jan 2-Epiphany?

 

[AlexV]

Check under Friday…there is no proper reading; it is borrowed from the Baptism.

It’s because when the rubrics were written, the rule was the Baptism was cut in years when Epiphany was moved to January 7 or 8.

After John Paul changed the rubric to allow the Baptism to fall on the Monday (8 or 9), the problem of repeating the reading Friday and Monday was not addressed.

Of course the new Baptism observance is problematic anyway. Epiphany already is the feast of the Baptism (I guess suddenly the Novus Ordo’s obsession with doublets didn’t matter). The 1962 Missal calls it the COMMEMORATION of the Baptism, not the Feast, because the FEAST of the Baptism is January 6, Epiphany.

But, of course, once you move Epiphany off the ancient day of the 6th, lots of things get screwed up.

 

[fcbv]

Why was the feast of the Circumcision changed to the Feast of Mary, Mother of God? Why not just pick a new date? It seems strange to me that you would just replace one feast with another, that commemorates something quite different. And if the circumcision is no longer a feast, how is it that an event that was a major feast day for so long in the Church no longer even merits commemoration?

Well, the feast of Mary Mother of God had already existed before the liturgical reform of 1969. It was in October 11. I also don’t understand why it was transferred precisely to the New Year’s Day. The feast of the Circuncision (a.k.a. Holy Name of Jesus) it’s in January 3, more than a week after Christmas! It’s a total mystery…
Please note: I don’t have anything against that solemnity! I simply don’t understand why the New Year’s Day has a so strong emphasis in Mary. February 2 (Feast of the Presentation of the Lord) and March 25 (Solemnity of the Annunciation of the Lord) were formally feasts which emphasis was at Mary (Purification of Mary and Annunciation of Mary, respectively) and now the attention is concentrated in Jesus! Really, the New Year’s Day became a very Marian day… and it is a holiday even in the non-Catholic and non-Christian countries!

 

[rciadan]

I don’t presume to speak for PuzzleAnnie or anyone else, but if I made a stab in the dark, I would say that there is a certain weariness on the part of some at the constant carping on the part of others at the “post-conciliar” Church and every decision that she has made.

So many grow weary of the constant demand that we accept as coming form God everthing a bishop says. Many grow weary and bitter at being constantly attacked because they think something that was not broken should not have been “fixed”, BTW- to me it is one church. Pre and Post are one and the same. I have read Vatican II and I have no problem with it. I am not a “Traditionalist”. I would love to see charity on both sides of this rift! The “reforms” resulting from Vatican II have not been 100% necessary or wise, as even the Holy Father has pointed out, or are you weary of his “carping”.

 

[palmas85]

No. It was rather that the Circumcision displaced the feast of the Blessed Virgin Mary. There were indeed two Masses celebrated in some places but these were: * In Octabas Domini* and prohibendum ab idolis (because of the paganism marking the New Year) [cf GV]

In the Gregorian Sacramentary (Cambrai) dating from either the end of the 8th or the beginning of the 9th century (the copy dates, the original was sent earlier), in the copy of the manuscript sent by the Pope Hadrian to the Emperor Charlemagne to bring his liturgical practices in line with those of Rome, the Mass given is In Octabas Domini ad Sanctam Maria et martyres (which corresponds perfectly since the station church for the day was the Pantheon) . The prayers given in that Sacramentary are those found in the Traditional missal (and the “NO” missal) for the day word for word except in the case of the postcommunion which has a slight variation.

The third part had been kept at least since the 6th century and pertained to the Circumcision of our Lord. The old Gospel reading, Luke 2: 21 was the account of said circumcision which was the first blood shed for us by Christ. It was always the primary feast of the day and the reason for the day being called Feast of the Circumcision.