Why not unify the calendar for both forms of the Roman rite?

[twf]

A specific purpose that is immutable despite having a history of a few decades? There is nothing watered down about the second coming, the consumation of all things, and Christ’s supremacy over all the cosmos. It’s just a different emphasis. I’m not saying that you don’t have a valid argument, but sometimes when it comes to the defence of very recent novelties like this it feels like traditionalists are saying anything and everything was better circa 1950, whether an ancient tradition or a fresh novelty.

 

[OldCAFMember]

A specific purpose that is immutable despite having a history of a few decades? There is nothing watered down about the second coming, the consumation of all things, and Christ’s supremacy over all the cosmos. It’s just a different emphasis. I’m not saying that you don’t have a valid argument, but sometimes when it comes to the defence of very recent novelties like this it feels like traditionalists are saying anything and everything was better circa 1950, whether an ancient tradition or a fresh novelty.

There’s nothing wrong with the eschatalogical theme, but that should be another feast, if it was felt that one was needed. As happened with so many of the old rites, the replacement itself wasn’t objectionable, per se, it’s the meat that was dropped and not replaced with anything comparable. The focus of the feast was quietly shifted, and nearly everything in Pius XI’s letter was reduced or altogether dropped, particularly things that would be objectionable to Protestants and secularists.

 

[OraLabora]

The feast of Christ the King is not my favourite. It has its origins in a secular power struggle, to begin with. As a Gregorian chant fan, all the chants are neo-Gregorian compositions that are not as nice as “the real thing”.