Friday, January 01, 2010

Happy Year of Our Lord 2010


Today is a double feast, this morning we celebrated the Mother of God, this evening the Feast of the Circumcision of the Lord, I don't know why it was dropped from the new calendar, surely not anti-Semiticism? I can't think of a celebration that highlights Jesus' Jewishness and immersion in the Old Covenant than this feast of his becoming a Jew and being named as Saviour.

15 comments:

Mark M said...

Father, the changes were happening even before 1970. In the '62 books, the name 'Circumcision' begins to fall out of favour. Many simply refer to it as the Octave Day.

There is an interesting, topical, article on the topic here (Athanasius' blog).

Independent said...

I see that Dr Thompson of Holy Smoke has decided to take action against the anti-semitic commentators who flock to his blog.

They do not realise just how Jewish is Christianity. Perhaps they should read not only Vatican II on Judaism but also Pope Benedict's book on Our Lord.

Sirian said...

The amount of liturgical barbarianism under Bugnini (aided by Pius XII) is astonishing

Norah said...

The amount of liturgical barbarianism under Bugnini (aided by Pius XII) is astonishing.

Sirian, would you care to elaborate?

Bryan said...

According to Ludolph the Carthusian in Vita Xp - this was the day Our Lord was given his name.

Secondly this was the first of six occasions where Our Lord shed his blood for us and is therefore "nostrae redemptionis initium."

Happy New Year!

In caritate Xp.,

Bryan

gemoftheocean said...

Probably because Bugnini got uncomfortable re: the word "circumcision." A 1940s missal I have has this to say about the feast:

"The Mass and office for today's feast show a mixed character. At first it was merely a question of th Octave of Our Lord; [so it sounds like from this commentator, that it was celebrated in the church, first as simply the octave day]; the, in connection with the Basilica of Our Lady, where the station was held, a special commemoration of the virginal motherhood of Mary Most Holy was inserted, the Circumcision and Presentation in the Tempole being afterwards added, although this last was afterwards expunged from the office of Jan 1, so that it should be celebrated on Feb. 2. The postcommunion implores through the prayers of Mary our purification from sin and our attainment of celestial bliss.

FWIW, the propers were the same from the 20s through the 52 missal, and I expect that interim period immediately after the coucil, but before the NO.

Mark M said...

Sirian: do enumerate. (Not because I don't know, but I would like to work out which were committed prior to the Council under Pius XII, and which were not.)

Moretben said...

Norah

The Novus Ordo Missae was a twenty-year project, the groundplan for which was already fully laid out by the early to mid-50's under the active patronage of Pius XII's Vatican. By then, the Liturgical Movement had divided into "restorationists" (respectful of the objective Tradition) and "renovationists" (in favour of radical, root and branch reform). Pius XII backed the latter, as personified by Annibale Bugnini, his "Liturgy Czar" appointed to supervise and direct the project.

Today, it has been established beyond reasonable doubt that the series of intermediate reforms introduced throughout the 1950's were according to a "timetable" with the Missal of 1970 in view.

The level of denial in Trad circles over Pius XII's central role in the liturgical debacle is extraordinary. Pacelli, not Montini (left holding the parcel when the music stopped) was the real Godfather of the NOM.

Fr Ray Blake said...

SB,
This isn't a thread about celibacy.

Michael Petek said...

Actually, Father, Jesus is a Jew by birth as the Child of a Jewish mother. Circumcision was incumbent on Jews by way of divine precept, but was at best declarative, not constitutive.

Pastor in Valle said...

Moretben— What you write, I have heard and read asserted before, but never have I seen a shred of evidence for it. Bugnini's views may be one thing, but (Triduum and Psalter notwithstanding) how can you honestly square what happened under Paul VI with Pius XII's Mystici Corporis?

Mark M said...

Moretben:

you could always resurrect your blog and post your entire thesis there. :-P

(I'm only have facetious. I wouldn't mind folks like you, Sirian, Rubricarius, et. al., to cogently, coherently, yet calmly, extol your point of view.)

Moretben said...

Father in Valle

Mystici Corporis? No idea. Usually one is challenged over Mediator Dei (1949), to which the obvious answer is the "timebomb" false principle asserted in Para 49, which trumps everything else. These are the facts: every salient feature of the NOM was mapped out at the Congresses held between 1951 and 1954 (Maria Laach, Sainte Odile, Lugano, Mont-Cesar) under the active patronage of the Holy See (Rubricarius, IIRC, can direct you to group photographs of attendees and of interesting liturgical events, such as Card Ottaviani celebrating versus populo). All the principle documentation is in the public domain.

I think it's up to you to tell us why the facts must be disregarded in the interests of maintaining the theory.

Moretben said...

Mark M

Thank you for your kind remarks. I don't quite know what to with place of which you speak. Walling it up seems capricious, but re-entering it for its original purpose is impossible. It's a story with a middle, an end and a beginning. I think I'll leave it as it stands, and the treadmill of real, live blogging to those who negotiate it with greatest panache, such our present host.

gemoftheocean said...

Oh, and on the friend's baked tomato, I might put a tablespoon or two of V-8 juice in for good measure, just to keep the thing moist and not dried out.