Yes. Proper terminology should be used at all times. There is a tendency, for whatever reason, to call every Optional Memorial, Obligatory Memorial, Feast, and Solemnity, the same thing: "feast." As in, "today is the Feast of Christ the King," when yes, it's clearly a Solemnity.

The other issue is that the classification of feasts and holy days has changed so many times during the history of the Church. They used to have 1st, 2nd, and 3rd class feast days, simples, semidoubles, and doubles, etc. That sort of thing would have intrigued me, but I know some for whom it would have been a major headache to keep track of.

shows contempt for popular displays of piety.

No contempt was intended. My understanding was that they had specific terms and we were to use them. I just think that using "feast" for everything can be quite confusing, as it doesn't really tell us anything specific about how the Mass will be.

"feast" is an equivocal word. It has a technical meaning in the table of precedence of liturgical days, but it also has a legitimate meaning as a common parlance usage aside from that technical meaning.

I must, with all due respect and in a friendly spirit, disagree with Matthew's logic in this matter. First, to imply that an 'innovation' or 'newness' is, in itself, an invalidating factor, is to tread on very slippery argumentational grounds - to propose a non sequitur as logic. An innovation may or may not be objectively good or bad for any number of proposed reasons, but it is not, sui generis, false, or valueless, or inauthentic. Second, the Church may name, alter, or change whatever it pleases in reference to liturgical celebrations and what they are called. There was a time when dubbing certain days 'doubles of the first class' and so on was an innovation. That did not invalidate such nomenclature. The Church, under the new kalendar, has chosen to name celebrations 'solemnity', 'feast', 'memorial', etc. Thusly, that is what precisely they are. The highest ranking celebrations (for the Novus Ordo) are just that, 'solemnities', not something else.

While I really do appreciate the sentiments of those who miss 'older stuff' (as I myself often do) I think that there is a certain beauty to the current (and changeable) signifers. As for that word 'solemnity' - I think it is quite potent in description and implication of a 'feast' (if you will) on which the church expects, intends, for full liturgical 'solemnities', those being incense, a fully chanted mass, the best of music, and a sanctuary full of pious acolytes (plus a congregation primed for offering the utmost splendour and song) to be offered to the Most High. 'Solemnity' is just all that. People usually respond favourably when I explain to them (what it should not really be necessary to explain) that solemnity, solemnitas, is joy, bright jubilation. It is splendour. It is gorgeous, It is festive, very festive. Forget that dour old connotation it has in ordinary speech... street language.

So, I would not 'correct' Matthew (or anyone else) who called a solemnity a feast. That would not be polite (unless we were close friends or felt really comfortable with one another). If he wishes to call a solemnity a feast while knowing full well that the Church has labelled it a solemnity, I shall respect that and his sentiments. But! Solemnitas still is more splendid by far that mere festivitas - at least the Church thinks so.

(I've remarked before that I have often observed a priest shuffle into the sanctuary and announce that 'today is the solemnity of....' and proceed, without the slightest ceremony, to celebrate mass as if it were just another mass. It is astonishing that such men are entrusted with the care of the Lord's house, and are given authority over its worship. They are not competent for it.)

No, "Merry Solemnity"....

(I prefer to send people Ash Wednesday greetings thusly: "Happy Lent! May your ashes be dark, and your Lent long.")

The laughing you hear, MJO, is not over "happy solemnity" or "merry solemnity." Rather, it's over today's Preface's "immensity of your majesty."

"Solemnity" vs. "Feast" --- they don't have to contradict each other, since at least at one level they refer to different aspects of the calendar.

"Feast" can mean "festival", in a broader, non liturgical sense. On the Feast of St. Andrew or St. Anthony or...... whomever...... there can be celebrations beyond (ie outside of) the Mass. A great banquet -- a pig roast --- a procession, pilgrimage, visit from local bishop, or something similar.

Solemnity, Semi-Double, etc, refer to order of liturgical precedence, thus All Saints' Day, falling on a Sunday and being a Holy Day of Obligation, took precedence over the Sunday after Pentecost. In January, the external solemnity of the Feast of St. Francis de Sales, because he is one of our patron saints, will displace Septuagesima. In places not under his patronage, Septuagesima will hold the place of precedence.

Pshaw.

Under the old calendar (which is now back in use!), there were feasts of various classes, and they were all called feasts, and our common English usage of the term is based on that.

It would be fussbudgetry to pretend that a perfectly sound definition of a word is wrong because the Church's bureaucracy issued some documents.

He said "Pshaw..and...fussbudgetry" in one post" heh heh.

I quaver at the thought.

Methinks we have reached the maxima limit of these sorts of comments.

Got it, D. I've come down from my annacrucis.

That's certainly a longa response.

Disclosure: I, for one, was trying to pinch our resident Anglophile, _ _ _.