Cardinal Castrillon clarifies Holyday question
I have just received this quotation from the address of Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos to the Latin Mass Society:
I am aware that the response of the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei” with regard to the observance of Holy Days of obligation has caused a certain amount of disturbance in some circles. It should be noted that the dates of these Holy Days remain the same in both the Missal of 1962 and the Missal of 1970. When the Holy See has given the Episcopal Conference of a given country permission to move certain Holy Days to the following Sunday, this should be observed by all Catholics in that country. Nothing prevents the celebration of the Feast of the Ascension, for example, on the prior Thursday, but it should be clear that this is not a Mass of obligation and that the Mass of the Ascension should also be celebrated on the following Sunday. This is a sacrifice which I ask you to make with joy as a sign of your unity with the Catholic Church in your country.That's fine. I certainly made sure to tell the people that our Ascension Thursday Mass was not of obligation. We did indeed celebrate the Ascension on the following Sunday in our three Masses in the Ordinary Form. The Cardinal's mention of "sacrifice" seems to indicate that he is saying that the one Mass celebrated in the extraordinary form should also be the Mass of the Ascension. That's certainly a sacrifice we can make. The integrity of the Liturgy, rather than a desire to avoid sacrifice, prompts me to suggest that the re-introduction of the Octaves for the relevant feasts would be an opportune solution.
11 comments:
Won't a Mass get lost in the process though? What happens to the Sunday following the Ascension? It will be Pentecost, won't it?
It would also be a great blessing if our bishops were to announce that the experiment of transferring the obligation to the following Sunday has not been a resounding success, and then transfer them back to their proper days.
"Nothing prevents the celebration of the Feast of the Ascension, for example, on the prior Thursday, but it should be clear that this is not a Mass of obligation."
It would appear, to me at least, that this is possible in all of the Roman Rite, both forms. How interesting...
So, where the Feast is transferred to the nearest Sunday, "nothing prevents the celebration of the Feast of the Ascension, for example, on the prior Thursday". This is simply an "extra" celebration, and is not of obligation.
Well, that sounds plain enough.
But in countries where some dioceses transfer the obligation and some dioceses don't, confusion will continue to reign !
It still (presumably) doesn't prevent individual bishops, in their own dioceses, from rescinding, if they see fit, the controversial decision of the Bishops' Conference of England & Wales in 2007 to move the day of obligation to the Sunday. Not that I am advocating further confusion, of course.
Those of us who follow the old calendar would certainly wish to retain the Octaves.
I wonder what Ecclesia Dei has up its sleeve for a revised calendar ? A conflation of the two, perhaps ? I begin to see the implications of Fr. Z's vision of a possible "tertium quid".
The simplest (and best) thing would be to conform the novus ordo calendar to the old calendar, with some new feast days, if they like.
Interesting times ahead !
It seems to me that the way to avoid this is to celebrate Ascension on a fixed day like the Orthodox do. I could be wrong.
Why are traditionalists always asked to display signs of unity?
Why can't the Bishops and Novus Ordo die-hards display a sign of unity with scripture and not move Ascension Thursday to a Sunday?!!!
Well, nothing needs to change! Just have a priest say a low mass at a side altar on the Sunday for the asencion and let the principal mass be for the Sunday.
Don't worry, when some of these younger priests grow up- it will reverse, if Benedict doesn't do it himself!
Sorry, we must reject the Cardinal's call because the move is contrary to both universal and local custom, and to Sacred Tradition. Such Modernist-inspired changes are legally and morally invalid. We should also reject the labels 'Ordinary' and 'Extraordinary', because the 'Ordinary' form is not the Roman rite but an anti-Tradition, Modernist-inspired aberration of the 1960s. We shouldn't be emotionally blackmailed by calls for unity, when such moves actually disrupt unity.
This whole absurd practice of moving Ascension Thursday to Sunday is really a matter of disfiguring an ancient custom for the sake of the Latin notion of "Holy Days of Obligation" with the canonical penalties. I guarantee you that if the Latins would simply drop the idea of a canonical penalty (under pain of mortal sin) for non-attendance, there would be no transfer of the Feast.
Some may say "Well then no one would go!" to which I would reply, "Then the issue is much graver than we thought!!!"
Serving now for over a decade in a tradition with "Great Feasts" and not "Holy Days of Obligation" has taught me that the people who are truly in love with God come and celebrate the Feasts, and not just the Divine Liturgy, but Vespers, Matins and, when done, the Synaxis Feast Days.
But the notion of transferring Ascension Thursday to a Sunday is just pure nonsense.
In ICXC,
Gordo
Another bad decision - moving feast days. They just blow by the laity as though it was just any old Sunday.
The Bishops need to put them back where they belong.
"The Bishops need to put them back where they belong."
Or perhaps - the pope needs to put the bishops back where they belong?
Just a thought.
Post a Comment