Did Vatican II really move the feast days? Did Vatican II really institute the 3-year cycle?

changing the calendar all around to a three year cycle

This was not mandated by Vatican II's Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. Its only explicit mention of the Calendar is an appendix which spoke of the possibility of setting a fixed date for Easter.

The three-year cycle was the Consilium's interpretation of:

"The treasures of the bible are to be opened up more lavishly, so that richer fare may be provided for the faithful at the table of God's word. In this way a more representative portion of the holy scriptures will be read to the people in the course of a prescribed number of years." (SC 51)

So while the Council acknowledged the possibility of MORE than one year, it did not mandate it. I think a "better" solution -- one which would avoid making the extremely ancient existing cycle of readings obsolete! -- would be to supply readings for the ferial days that didn't already have proper readings. That is, develop readings for those weekdays which would simply "recycle" the previous Sunday's readings. Or expand the length of the readings in the traditional cycle.

moving all the feast days

Also something not explicitly mandated by Vatican II.

"The liturgical year is to be revised so that the traditional customs and discipline of the sacred seasons shall be preserved or restored to suit the conditions of modern times; their specific character is to be retained, so that they duly nourish the piety of the faithful who celebrate the mysteries of Christian redemption, and above all the paschal mystery. If certain adaptations are considered necessary on account of local conditions, they are to be made in accordance with the provisions of Art. 39 and 40." (SC 107)

I do not see how this led to the removal of pre-Lent, the changing of "Time after Pentecost" to "Ordinal (not Ordinary!) Time", nor the moving of RECENT feast days (like Christ the King). The traditional customs and discipline of Lent, for example, seem to have been gutted. (There's also the question of: "what do they mean by traditional?" Surely they wouldn't be calling for an antiquarian mentality!) Rogation days are basically unheard of nowadays.

"Lest the feasts of the saints should take precedence over the feasts which commemorate the very mysteries of salvation, many of them should be left to be celebrated by a particular Church or nation or family of religious; only those should be extended to the universal Church which commemorate saints who are truly of universal importance." (SC 111)

What the Council said is NOT that they should be moved around, but that they should not all be universal, and should not take precedence over other feasts. I dare say this assumed the Church would retain the tradition of having opening Collects ("opening prayers", in present English-speak) at a Mass: thus, a Mass could make explicit mention of a Saint on his day while still celebrating a more grand feast (unless I'm mistaken).

I grew up Protestant and am now a catechumen in the Orthodox Church, but I have a profound respect for the Roman church (more than most Orthodox I know) and love for Gregorian chant, the Latin language, and good Catholic liturgy. So that's where the question is coming from, I guess.

I recommend also registering at the Catholic Answers Forum (http://www.catholic.com/) to pursue this line of inquiry (in addition to discussing it here).

There's also a lot that Sacrosanctum Concilium called for that has been utterly ignored or expressly contradicted (whether by the Consilium or by typical parish practice). Latin, chant, parish vespers, etc. There's a lot missing.

I agree the three-year cycle is a mess, with the scripture parts having little relation to each other. As a Byzantine, however, when someone mentions new calendar vs. old calendar, I am generally thinking Gregorian vs. Julian. That is a hotly debated issue in the east.

Some Eastern Catholics observe the Julian calendar, but it's a minority practice. Within the Ukrainian Catholic Church, it can vary on a parish by parish basis. For example, here's a parish observing feasts on their old calendar dates (click back to April for Easter).

My Byzantine church follows the Gregorian calendar so that Christmas and Easter fall at the same time as in the west. But the daily and Sunday commemorations can be very different. For example: tomorrow May 3 is the fourth Sunday of Easter in the west, and the Sunday of the paralytic man and the passing of Theodosius of the Caves for us. Occasionally a feast will fall on the same day, but it tends to be a feast that was unaltered in the post-Vatican II calendar revisions.

Well, there's the sense of disruption to consider, and whose calendar gets to call the shots.

That said, this seems to me an easier problem to solve in ecumenical discussions than others.

I've never known anything but the three-year lectionary in the Roman Rite, and I can tell you, it makes absolutely zero impression, and the whole three-year shebang never coheres into a perceptible whole. I was still nearly illiterate, Biblically speaking. It took a year with some fair-minded Lutherans to make the Bible gel for me.

Seems to me a better route ca. 1965 would've been to strengthen Bible reading generally among Catholics. There were (and are) lots of good ways to do this. Shoe-horning everything into Sunday Mass isn't one of them.

I agree with St Denis. The EF has much more of scripture in it, particularly with the propers. The OF ideally should, but often does not.

I think I must be losing my mind. I keep forgetting what year it is, A B or C.

I just don't think this is normal to have to jungle three years of Psalms. Can we please just have one set of Sunday material for the year?

I think that one can agree with good results from the 3 year cycle and more readings on Sundays - I admit that I am more familiar with the Bible because of it than I would have been otherwise - while still arguing that the new lectionary was a mistake. Familiarity with as much of the Bible as possible is a good thing, but one has to wonder whether the liturgy is the best vehicle for achieving this, given the serious drawbacks involved.

Different readings for each Sunday mean that Sundays have no real character and are not remembered from year to year. For example, the epistle for Gaudete Sunday speaks of "Rejoicing in the Lord" only in Year C - this Sunday has lost its character. I know that the gospel of the second Sunday of Lent will tell of Jesus' temptation in the desert - but which account will it be this year? Stories from the gospels are not allowed to sink in since there will not be heard again (at least in the same form) on a Sunday for another 3 years.

I look forward to feasts with the same readings every year - for example, the Immaculate Conception. It gives me another chance to contemplate what is already familiar and delve even deeper. I can't do this if the readings are unpredictable from year to year.

Think of it this way - if familiarity with the gospels is a primary object of the readings at mass, why have the same gospel for the Midnight Mass of Christmas every year (to take an example)? I go to this mass every year and so have missed out on the other Christmas gospels! But think about it - this wonderful gospel from Luke with the infant in swaddling clothes and the manger and no room at the inn is one of the defining moments of the midnight mass, just as the Preface to St. John's gospel is for the Christmas mass during the day. These "defining moments" are almost completely lost for every other Sunday in the revised calendar. This along with the sheer number of readings each Sunday means that the liturgy of the word becomes a blur and entirely unmemorable. there's simply too much to absorb in a given Sunday and no revisiting that same Sunday for another three years.

Finally, does anyone commemorate a loved one's death only every other year? What if we had Thanksgiving Day dinner every three years? Annual celebrations and all that goes with them are natural - the three year cycle is arbitrary (why not two or four year cycle?) and cuts at the very notion of a commemoration.

Sam Schmitt

Well, few in Rome favor the one-year cycle, so this is all just grumbling. That said, Sam makes an excellent point: something is seriously wrong when we only hear the Gaudete lesson once every three years. I suppose a fine compromise could be to have the responsorial psalm and old testament lessons change on a cycle, but keep the Epistle, Gospel, and Gradual (if used) the same, due to their connection with the feast. At the VERY least, why couldn't they have preserved the character of the day, instead of completely changing the calendar every year? I often point out in liturgy planning that Advent has not one, but two characters: the first two Sundays focus on the Second Coming, the last two on the Incarnation. But watch out for the new calendar, where the character of these days is thrown off depending on the year!

As for Daniel's claim of "false ecumenism", I'd really like to see that assertion backed up. It's always been my understanding that Protestant churches adopted the RCL and other varying calendars BECAUSE of Rome, not vice versa. But I don't have the data to back that up.

Revisiting this link...

Tis a sad situation.

I am trying to incorporate more of the Propers from other sources that utilize the 'real' calendar. (otherwise called 'old'). Does anyone have a parallel listing or index of the old to the new so it is easy to find the proper Propers for the proper day?!

It would make sense to have the cycle if the preaching was based upon the cycle.

Of course, this opens the door to choosing music and preaching topics on elements of the readings and waht if you pick one element and the preacher another?

But of course, there is one central theme for each Mass which relates to all the readings, and we are not allowed to sing it in most parishes.

The Entrance Chant

Too obvious. The entrance chant IS the theme of the day...can't pay any attention to that.

There are plenty of things that I think the reformers did poorly. The three-year cycle isn't one of them, at least for green Sundays. I'm not sure I approve of having a first, usually Hebrew Bible, reading, but the epistles and gospels needed some sort of expansion, at the very least for green Sundays. Just as a point of fact, the Beatitudes are never proclaimed at all in the old ordo, either in Matthew's or Luke's version. I would consider the Sermon on the Mount/Plain a fairly central component of Christ's message, and much of it is ommitted. Perhaps on non-green Sundays, somewhat longer selections of the epistles and gospels could have been chosen, encorporating the traditional pericopes. Thus, the traditional propers would have maintained their relevance on greater feasts.

I don't know how crucial it is that the congregtion be aware of what year of the cycle it is.

ALTAR TRANSFORMATION

Mouse over (back and forth) and see the transformation of the Altar for an EF Mass.

mark...

all things are possible with God, but not sure about humanity. only time will tell, eh?

"I also have never understood the reasoning for the way in which the traditional calendar handled the Sundays following the 23rd Sunday after Pentecost."
As a a practical matter, I understand the pre-Advent/pre-Lent holding pattern. But you're right; liturgically it doesn't make much sense, esp. if the goal is to expose a lot of Scripture. Of course, there's then be Propers that would almost never be done.

PS: Regarding my third paragraph: the reason there are 4 consecutive Sundays dropped is that Trinity Sunday and, in the USA and some other places at least, Corpus Christi displace the OT Sunday propers that would otherwise obtain.