What, from Vatican II, spoke towards the changing of the Church Calendar? I’m referring to all sorts of changes, such as:
- the simplification (not that it was a bad thing) of the “levels” (classes?) of days
- the re-arranging of solemnities, feasts, and memorials
- the introduction of “Ordinal Time” instead of weeks after Pentecost and weeks after Christmas
- the removal of the Septuagisma
I’m just curious why this happened, and what purpose it served.
When the calendar was released in 1969, it was accompanied by a commentary detailing why such and such change had been made. For the best insight therefore, that volume is the most helpful if you can get it.
Calendarium Romanum ex Decreto Sacrosancti OEcumenici Concilii Vaticani II (1969)
A somewhat-helpful aid in English: The Roman Calendar. Text and Commentary (1976)
It would be too detailed to go into the individual reasons for each change, and I’m speaking also from memory since I don’t have the book in front of me.
The removal of Septuagesima: Septuagesima arose as a preparation for Lent which itself was a preparation for Easter. The ‘preparation of a preparation’ idea was discarded by the calendar revisers. It was also felt that Septuagesima removed much of the “novelty” of Lent by introducing the penitential aspects (no Alleluia, no Gloria, purple vestments, etc.) early.
As regards Sundays, several ideas came into play:
- Ridding them of the title “post Pentecost/Epiphany” removed them form being under the dependence of these feasts. It was therefore thought to emphasize Sunday as Sunday- prime feast of Christians.
- It was said that this was a vestige of a custom in naming Sundays after feasts at a time when Sundays were not fully developed. Thus, in former times they were named after important saints feasts. This to the revisers was decadence.
- The juggling of the Propers that took place due to the variation in the date of Easter. As your Traditional Missal will tell you, a part of the Propers of the Sundays after Epiphany are transferred after to the end of the liturgical year when Septuagesima occurs early. The “Ordinary Time” sequence simplifies this
The revision of the Proper of Saints was along the following lines
- The removal, as far as possible, of saints with a dubious historical basis. Thus many of the early Roman martyrs were relegated to a single celebration of the martyrs of Rome. A few exceptions were made – For example, for St. Cecelia, Ss. Perpetua and Felicity
- The elimination or optionalisation of local feasts – such feasts which had crept into the calendar due to the influence of a particular order and were felt best left to that order or congregation’s Proper. For example, Our Lady of Mercy or the Stigmata of St. Francis.
- The elimination of ‘idea’ feasts. Such feasts were thought to be particularly mediaeval. The 1961 document on Particular calendars already began the process by directing certain feasts to be removed from the appendix such as the Eucharistic Heart, those in honour of the Passion or various titles of our Lady. The 1969 continued this idea though prudence was exercised. The holy name of Jesus and Mary disappeared, but the Sacred Heart was judged too popular. The revisers were on surer grounds when dealing with the Immaculate Heart since it’s universal observance was comparatively late dating only to 1942 (the earlier feast of the Pure Heart being expunged from many calendars at the time of St. Pius X). No question of course, of Corpus Christi. The Precious Blood went and the revisers tried to pull something by retitling Corpus Christi as “The Body and Blood of the Lord” though that was a pathetic substitute. IMHO, the focus of the two feasts is different. But anyways.
- A more universal selection of saints. Avoiding too many saints from one country or religious order. This accounted for the purging of several saints who were Roman/Italian and also saints from the religious orders which had exerted a greater influence on the calendar (Franciscans, Dominicans)
Particularly with regard to moving the dates
- Many of the Eastern saints were moved to the days they were observed in the East.
- The clearing out of feasts from Lent.
- The observance of saints on their natale, or day of death. Earlier this had not often been possible because of the existing saints on the calendar. When this was not possible, as for example, with St. Gregory, due to the concern of feasts in Lent, another day was chosen like the transference of their relics, or a church built in their honour
.
Some still grumbled that there were too many saints in the general calendar when it came out. According to this view, the Proper of Seasons should have preeminence and the General calendar should be sparse augmented by particular calendars but not so as to crowd out the ferial days.
As for Solemnities, Feasts and Memorials, they were more suitable names for the I, II, III Class system of 1961. They kindof capture the underlying idea better - celebrate a feast with solemnity, make a memorial of a saint, etc. The ‘Optional Memorial’ idea was introduced because of the preeminence of the Proper of Seasons, that many wanted to see.
Of course, since 1969, there has been a small drift away from this view. The holy names of Jesus and Mary were added back. So were (for ecumenical reasons) some saints like St. Catherine.
Do you know the story about that one? The Pope at the time (don’t remember which one) had a vision where Satan said “I can destroy your Church” to God, and the Pope instituted that prayer. Then it was finally dropped with V2. I mean, it’s kinda scary.