Friday, October 23, 2015

THIS SUNDAY IS CHRIST THE KING SUNDAY, WELL AT LEAST AT OUR 12:10 PM EXTRAORDINARY FORM HIGH MASS THAT IS!

In the Extraordinary Form Calendar, the last Sunday of October is Christ the King Sunday. In many Protestant denominations it is Reformation Sunday. I wonder if there is any correlation?

Now that we have moved our Extraordinary Form High Mass from the first Sunday of the month at 2 pm to the last Sunday of the month at our normally scheduled 12:10 PM Mass, this will be the first time since the revised Ordinary Form Calendar took effect in 1970 that Christ the King Sunday has been celebrated at St. Joseph Church on the last Sunday of October. Historic, no?

In my humble opinion, though, despite any correlation with Christ the King Sunday on the last Sunday of October and Reformation Sunday, I prefer Christ the King to be the Sunday prior to the First Sunday of Advent in the Ordinary Form. What a great way to conclude a liturgical year and then start all over the following First Sunday of Advent.

At any rate, this is the Mass for our 12:10 PM Mass for Christ the King, this Sunday, October 25th which is also Reformation Sunday.

22 comments:

Jan said...

Personally, I prefer the Feast of Christ the King as it is under the old calendar because it crowns the month of October, month of the Holy Rosary, and comes immediately before the great feast days of All Saints and All Souls' Day. Under the new Calendar it tends to get lost, being overshadowed by Christmas and it isn't celebrated as it is in the Traditional Mass, with processions, and celebration.

As regards Reformation Sunday that means nothing to us as we're Catholics not Protestants,

Jan

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Eh? Jan, if not for the reformation there would not have been a counter-reformation or the Council of Trent that codified the "Trendentine" Missal, suppressed other missals not more than 200 years old and so on.

Also, keep in mind that Martin Luther an Augustinian monk was in the same category as other great reformers of that period of time, such as St. Catherine of Siena, St. Teresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross and St. Francis of Assisi. Luther obviously veered way off track with what he wanted as pride overtook him and maybe mental illness. But he was of the reformed tradition in the Catholic Church which produced many great saints.

Marc said...

Thank you, Arius, for giving us Nicea.
Thank you, Nestorius, for giving us Chalcedon.

It's a shame you caused so many souls to depart from the Truth, but it's cool since you have us a good reason to get everyone together and have a talk.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Congratulations Marc! You have finally understood the Catholic ethos captured so beautifully in the Exsultet! "Oh happy fault, or necessary sin of Adam which gained for us so great a Savior!"

I think there is a tradition of viewing Adam and Eve as saints! You are correct in your analysis of of Arius and Nestorius, similar creature to Adam. O happy Arius or necessary Nestorius who gained for us so great Councils!

I LOVE IT!

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

In addition to this, I am shocked that anyone who hates any changes to the Missal of Trent would love Christ the King Sunday, a 20th Century imposition on this Missal by Pope Pius XI I think, when the rise of dictatorships in Europe alarmed him so, that he promulgated this feast. I don't know if he also was making a point that the rise of nationalism in Europe correlated to the nationalism of the 1500's that led to the rise of Protestantism and thus he chose Reformation Sunday to show the correlation?

Jan said...

Father, you surely jest when you equate Martin Luther wit St Catherine of Sienna, St Teresa of Avila and St John of the Cross! To remind you of some of Martin Luther's beliefs:

"Luther taught that salvation and subsequently eternal life is not earned by good deeds but is received only as a free gift of God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ as redeemer from sin. His theology challenged the authority and office of the Pope by teaching that the Bible is the only source of divinely revealed knowledge from God and opposed sacerdotalism by considering all baptized Christians to be a holy priesthood."

Would you like to see him in the litany of the saints perhaps? As it is, we now have a lot of would be priests and priestesses in the sanctuary as envisaged by Luther so I guess some Catholics have reason to be grateful for him.

The change to the Missal was an added feastday, nothing more. I would be quite happy to see feast days added to the old calendar, as would have naturally occurred had the celebration of the Traditional Mass not been suppressed as it was.

Jan

Marc said...

People who lament the changes to the Missal aren't lamenting the addition of new feasts.

I am no so sure about this whole Happy Fault thing -- it seems like sketchy theology to me, even though the Exultet is very beautiful. But that is an interesting way to look at the Councils. To me it seems like it is good to rejoice in God's way of bringing good from bad, but is it good to celebrate the bad that let to the good... I'm not sure about that.

At any rate, it seems like the Feast was aimed at quelling nationalism, as you suggested. That is a laudable goal, especially in our times!

Ryan Smith said...

Fr., I don't think adding a feast to the Tridentine calendar is the same as completely fabricating an entirely new Mass, but I see where you're coming from.

I also share your optimism, though mine might be more called cautious optimism, about what Pope Francis is doing. I often wished under Benedict that these prelates would just finally come out of hiding rather than being allowed to fester for so long. When Francis came along and this started to happen I was actually very happy, we are finally seeing things for how they truly are, which is not pretty, but we finally know definitively who the wolves are, the analogy you used of the boil being lanced is a good one in my point of view. I want to like/trust Pope Francis, but like a friend who has betrayed you that you never fully trust again, I am pretty cautious about him, I pray for him daily and respect him bc he is our pope, but I honestly don't trust him all that much.

It's truly sad that this situation is happening, but in my opinion it really needed to happen.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

But Jan, but Jan, I said Martin Luther went too far and that possibly he had a mental illness. If he had just focused on the untoward selling of indulgences and other sales of sacraments, he could have been a saint today--he was a part of the Catholic reform movement, though, which in fact produced a number of saints.

Gene said...

The happy fault nonsense is sketchy theology. It places us in the position of saying, "hey, wasn't it a great thing that Jesus, the son of God had to suffer rejection, shame, pain and death on the Cross all because of our selfish and willful disobedience." Besides, it leans heavily toward a theology that compels God to become Incarnate and gives to the creature the power to determine God's will. There are so many theological problems with it that I wish we could just never hear it again, even thought it sound cute and catchy. There was nothing "happy" about the Fall and the suffering of Christ. We rejoice at His resurrection and at our own redemption, but not over its cause.

Gene said...

Luther had to go further because indulgences were a symptom of a much larger problem...like the built in Pelagian implications of the Catholic doctrine of Imago Dei, the over-weening love affair of the Church with Reason, the watered (blooded) down view of the Atonement, and the whole nature/grace conundrum which continues today. The Church may be right in theological/dogmatic first principles, but the issues are still there in practice and in ecumenical dialogue.

Luther was no more mentally ill than Pope Leo...both were angry, outspoken men with little restraint and both were mule-headed. A worse combination of personalities to deal with the issues of the day could not be imagined.

Ryan Smith said...

I'd also like to add Fr., that since Pope Francis will be traveling to Africa next month, where the sentiment of the family is obviously not of the liberal European/American variety, he will, in my opinion be getting the cold shoulder if anything comes out of this synod that goes against 2,000 years of Catholicism. That's just my humble opinion

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Gene you are still Protestant in your ethos. The Catholic Church in fact see suffering as good because of Christ's passion and when our suffering is untied to His! This is very Catholic but it isn't Protestant.

Michael Kavanaugh said...

"O happy fault, O necessary sin of Adam...!" is one of my favorite lines in all the Church's liturgies.

I don't think it is sketchy theology if understood properly. Although the current translation puts the salvation cart before the sinful horse - "O wonder of your humble care for us! O love, O charity beyond all telling, to ransom a slave you gave away your Son! O truly necessary sin of Adam, destroyed completely by the Death of Christ! O happy fault that earned so great, so glorious a Redeemer!" - this order does help us understand that the fact of salvation is what makes the sin of Adam/Eve a "happy" thing.

Jan said...

Father, the difference between Martin Luther and the reformers you mention is that he was a rotten tree from which no good fruit can come. Judas meant well but I doubt we should be celebrating his deeds. Adam and Eve sinned but they weren't evil. There is a big difference. And I agree with Marc that God can bring good from bad but I doubt he would want us to connect the saints to a man who has led many to hell.

Jan

Gene said...

No, it is tacky theology. To say "necessary sin" has serious theological implications regarding free will, the freedom of the Holy Spirit, and the Doctrine of God. If Adam's sin was necessasary, then free will is gone. Also, it implies that sin was built into the Creation and that God was, therefore, compelled to the Incarnation. It is, at best, careless theology. I'd just leave it alone.

Fr, discussing the theological/doctrinal differences between Catholicism and Calvinism does not mean I am still protestant in my ethos (although I will admit to a touch of Jansenism). I think it is healthy dialogue about real issues that are still discussed. Viewing suffering as redemptive when united to the suffering of Christ, does not imply a happy fall. It seems to me that there Happy fall notion is an implicit denial of evil and the willfullness of our sin, aside from the real theological implications mentioned above.

Michael Kavanaugh said...

Gene - you are wrong, again. We know that Adam and Eve's sin was done according to their free will. The sin was "necessary," but not pre-determined or destined. They chose freely to reject God's commands.

"Necessary" used in this instance is not to be understood as meaning that sin was built into God's creation. We believe that God's creation was good - hence, we refer to these preternatural times as "Paradise." It is "necessary" only in the sense that it was the cause for or led to Redemption in Christ.

"Having a cough necessitated my going to the doctor who found, happily, that I was suffering from pneumonia which was treated successfully with antibiotics."

O happy cough that brought about an accurate diagnosis and cure!

Marc said...

Fr. Kavanaugh, you are wrong. In your analogy, the cough is a symptom and not the cause. In order for your analogy to make sense as an analogy, you would express glee at the happy pneumonia that brought about illness and, possibly, death.

Michael Kavanaugh said...

Marc, you are right. Pneumonia is the underlying disease. But the cough is the cause for the visit to the doctor, through whom the cure was effected.

O happy cough that brought about an accurate diagnosis and cure!

Gene said...

Censored again...I was referring to the pitiful efforts at theology made by Kavanaugh.

John Nolan said...

A good dictionary of quotations will give you many from the Vulgate, but only one from the Roman Missal itself.

'O necessarium Adae peccatum, quod Christi morte deletum est! O felix culpa, quae talem ac tantum meruit habere Redemptorem!'

The Exultet (Exsultet) could well have been written as early as the fifth century. It is rich in allusions (those to the bees hark back to Virgil) and the lines quoted above are an example of paradox. It is not intended as theological treatise to be picked over by future generations. It links us in a direct way to late antiquity; 1500 years ago one would have heard exactly the same words, sung to exactly the same chant, in exactly the same setting (a tenth century illumination from Cluny shows the deacon singing the Exultet from an ambo facing the paschal candle, and the gospel side).

I would point out to Fr Kavanaugh that it is the original, and not the translation, that puts things in the order he cites.

Translations are useful for understanding the text but this above all needs to be sung in Latin to its proper chant (if liturgy is to mean anything at all). And, of course, it was for a millennium and a half. But 'modern man' is presumably incapable of understanding this, and so in the past few years we have had vernacular paraphrases, pop-music style settings with everyone joining in, and a rum-ti-tum version (1998) which actually rewrote it and which (unbelievably) the bishops of the English-speaking countries were prepared to accept. Fortunately Rome intervened.

John Nolan said...

Oh, and by the way, 'Counter-Reformation' has long been considered as misleading. The Catholic reform movement at the beginning of the 16th century predated Luther's rebellion. Until Vatican II 'reform' meant suppressing abuses and restoring orthodoxy and right practice. Since Vatican II it means exactly the opposite.

One more reason for ignoring the pseudo-Council until in God's good time it will be denounced as such and its decrees declared null and void.