Ordinary Time — derived from
Ordinal meaning Ordering (1st-2nd-3rd)
as opposed to
Cardinal meaning Counting (1-2-3).

I've variously made some effort in my own parish to re-label the day in English as 5th Sunday of the Year etc. But I keep going back and forth on this because I wonder if this only introduces more confusion.

Oh, here's a simple solution. Restore the old calendar!

DougS,

I agree with you...except that I've sat through entire sermons explaining the "deep meaning" of the term "Ordinary Time."

tdunba, yesterday would have been Fifth Sunday after Epiphany. Two weeks from now would be Septuagesima Sunday instead of Seventh Sunday in Ordinary Time.

The only real improvement in the new, to my mind, is the moving of Christ the King.

Friends,

I really didn't really want to get into the whole "Old Calendar vs. New Calendar."

I know that some Liturgists are critical of the new calendar because it did away with Sundays "of a marked character" (i.e. "after Epiphany" or "after Pentecost") in favor of "Ordinary Time."

The reason I brought up the subject is that "Ordinary" can, perhaps, have a bad connotation.

Imagine referring to your friend: "Oh, he's ordinary." That doesn't sound so good ...

I don't think the word "ordinary" needs to be derisive. I've often referred to friends as "ordinary", to mean "not possessing any outstanding vices or eccentricities." But, in the realm of liturgy, I too find it unsatisfying.

However, I'm forced to agree with Jeff Tucker - if we go around changing how we refer to it, we risk alienating and confusing normal Catholics, who will see it as "change for the sake of change." I suspect the majority will see the new translations the same way, as many (otherwise moderately faithful Catholic) immediate relatives have referred to it as "change for the sake of change." And I think most of our musical reforms instituted on a parish level are objected to less out of a fear of Latin or chant or quality, but because it's seen as "change for the sake of change." "Ordinary time" is an unsatisfying descriptor... but it isn't a serious threat to the faith, so we may as well stick to it. Although, for my own use, I usually just type "Ordinary 5" or something. Seems... churchier.

I have a much bigger beef than the name, and that's the continuous nature of the Tempus per Annum. I don't care what the Church calls it, the time after Epiphany IS different in character than the time after Pentecost! Even if they named it "super extra-special definitely not ordinary time", the fact that it lasts 33 weeks still sets it up as a relief from the other seasons. This cheats the nature of the lessons in the time after Epiphany and the time after Pentecost.

Mark,

I don't disagree with anything you say.

However, I assure you that reason for my "musing" was based on a sermon I recently heard: the entire sermon was about the "deep meaning" of Ordinary Time.

It got me thinking: "who was the first one to call it ordinary time?"

I assure you, this is the only reason I brought up the issue.

Personally, I am against calling it "ordinary time" because of MT's #1 reason, which certainly IS how people view it (at least at face value) in all the places I have been.

The best definition I can give is that they are not "unimportant" Sundays/season/whatever, but rather that they celebrate the "ordinary miracles" (if one dare call them that) of Christ's life, rather than a specific liturgical season such as Easter or Christmas.

Nonetheless, who here volunteers to go tell his wife tonight that she is "ordinary and that's great!"

...

*crickets*

Jeff:
I thought of Ordinary as Ordinal- the numbered Sundays with continued (ordered) readings as opposed to feasts. The word does not concern me but that sermon you "sat through" does.

What was the content of the sermon?
Was the "deep meaning" of the word "ordinary" the authentic Good News?
Was it more like the road to Emmaus or more like "the Emperor's New Clothes"?
What was he talking about?

When the GIRM was introduced the local experts overshadowed the actual content with
red herring headlines that Rome was changing the way we Catholics receive communion
and the way we are to raise our hands during the Lord's Prayer. There was an elaborate process set up so we all understood the "deep meaning" of these two local changes that were not really contained (though implied) in the GIRM. Through all of this, the real content of the GIRM was ignored!

There currently seems to be an undue urgency introduce the new missal through an elaborate process: meetings, forums, workshops. Many of our facilitators are the very ones who oppose it- so I am expecting and excess of "deep meanings" for a while.
But what will remain for years this better translation that will have more resistance to weak theology.
A better translation of TEMPUS PER ANNUM (“time during the year”) would have spared you that sermon on the "deep meaning "

Mark Thompson and friends,

Thanks for these thoughts. I am hoping the little blog doesn't come off a "grumpy nit-picking," but, rather, a simple musing. God bless!