Interesting; thank you. Really, that's one of the more egregious changes, imo.
You're welcome. Yes, egregious is well-said. The Newcalendar
was simply imposed by fiat - it was not "promulgated" at all, just
like the Newmass was not promulgated in fact.
A bunch of meddlesome wreckovationists dreamed up a new
calendar and lots of bishops grabbed it and went with it just for
the sake of novelty. It was a major trial balloon for the insipid
innovations that would come with the unclean spirit of Vatican II.
In fact, at the time, right at the beginning of Vat.II, the
oft-repeated phrase was that whatever novelty was coming
down the pike was "according to the spirit of Vatican II." This
phrase was so overrun it made me sick to hear it and I was
merely a child at the time, but I heard what I heard and I didn't
like it, but I didn't really know why I didn't like it, but for the
consolation I got from my dear mother, God rest her soul, who
had received a fine, traditional formation from nuns in Minnesota.
My sister was born on Pope St. Pius X' feast day (9/3), surely a big reason we're familiar with the "new" feast dates, but I've never quite understood why the calendar was tossed like it was (besides rampant evil).
Happy birthday to your sister!! :rahrah:
We were a bit lucky that school started just before labor day, well after the NO feast date, and we were happily able to insist that St. PPX's true feast day was on the 3rd.
You're going to face ridicule from Newchurchers if you are among
them, when you try to stick with the traditional calendar. The
best approach is to remain firm, and to say that you prefer to
keep the Faith according to Apostolic Tradition, that is, to hand
down that which you have received, instead of something that is
artificially imposed by a questionable mandate from a gang of
It certainly seems to be a PRIMARY EARMARK of any truly
traditional group to use the same calendar that was tossed out
under John XXIII.
And it is therefore a primary concern of ours when any ostensibly
traditional group makes ANY ACCOMMODATION WHATSOEVER
with Newchurch by way of any Newcalendar differences, and
having the Feast Day of St. Pius X on August 21st is a perfect
Now, there might be an exception to the extent that you can
have a conversation with them without getting all angry or
emotional, to the effect that you have a nice discussion about
the history and papacy of St. Pius X in the context of August
21st, since that is the day that they're talking about him. Our
contribution should be primarily on the virtues and signal grace of
his holy pontificate, rather on the deviance of the Newcalendar.
There should be a firm stand, but there needs to be a balance of
priority. I would suggest about 5-to-1 ratio of emphasis, 5 parts
for the marvels of a saintly pope and his works, to 1 part of
denouncing the ridiculous change of his feast day.
You could even make it 10-to-1. And don't let them change your
emphasis! Don't go off track by engaging in a lengthy complaint
about the Newcalendar. Stick to the holiness and the power of
the papacy of ST. PIUS X. There is a LOT to say about that.
In fact, the Wikipedia article that I quoted from, above, has a
very LONG page all about the life and works of this great saint.
I'll copy it here in a subsequent post.
Up until Vat.II and its aftermath (which is where we are now,
actually) St. Pius X was the only pope-saint since St. Pius V, who
had lived and died 350 years previously. We can now say, as of
2013, that these two popes are still the ONLY POPE-SAINTS IN
THE LAST 500 YEARS.
Compare that to the early Church, when every pope was a saint
until something like the 4th century. And in the first 1000 years
of the Church, it was more common for any given pope to be a
saint than not. But in the second millenium, that changed, so
that it has been more common for a pope to NOT be a saint
since the year A.D. 1000. This seems to have been reflected in
the longstanding tradition that popes of the second millenium
have taken names only from among prior popes of the first
millenium. We have not had any popes-the-first whoever since
Then came John-Paul I. At the time, it was quite daring for him
to do that, and it caused a lot of raised eyebrows. But he didn't
last so long, for a number of reasons, not the least of which was
that he was about to do a Vatican Bank shake-down.
So he was "replaced" with another Liberal, only one who was
rather accomplished at ACTING, inasmuch as he was aware of
how to go about believing one thing and all the while pretending
to believe something quite inimical to that. (The inimical thing
was, of course, the Traditional Catholic Faith).
And now we're facing the ominous fact that this imposter of
duplicity is about to be so-called canonized.
Not only that, but all of his buddies-in-arms are slated for the
same conspicuous abomination of desolation,
"he that readeth
let him understand" (Matt. xxiv. 15).
Remember how this started: It was headline news in about the
year 2000 when JPII announced the imminent beatification of
first, Pope Pius IX of happy memory. But then, in the same
announcement was that following on his coat-tails was to be
the alarming so-called beatification of John XXIII.
(Parenthetically, it was actually uncharacteristic of JPII to be so
methodical in his judgments, for he was prone to merely
proclaim something by fiat, and fully expected it to be taken as
such. He was riding in a car, for example, passing a prominent
church in the New York area, or Maryland approximately, when
his the priest sitting next to him mentioned that it is thought
that this church ought to be a Cathedral. JPII said "And so it is."
The priest replied, "Well, your Holiness, it would take some
doing, a lot of preliminary work and putting things in order,
before we could say that..." and the Pope interrupted him,
saying, "You were not paying attention! I said it is a Cathedral
and therefore, it is just that: a Cathedral." I have heard it
argued that JPII made a dogmatic definition protected by
papal infallibility when he said that women cannot be ordained
priests. But it was not touted as such at the time, officially.
Then later, B16 explained in some offhand comment, that that
had not been infallible because JPII had not had the INTENTION
of making it infallible. Everything else was in place, but that one
essential component was missing, therefore, it was not
Stories were immediately circulated at that time regarding the
exhumation of Pope John's remains when they had found his
body to be FACE DOWN inside the casket. Put that together
with the claim that he had muttered "Stop the Council! Stop
the Council!" before he died, and it would seem that the
persistence of Vat.II may have caused him to be "turning over
in his grave."
If JPII was good at anything, it was sleight-of-hand tricks in the
media. It should not be too surprising that he greatly admired
clowns, perhaps because he was never able to be one himself.
You've either got it or you don't.
I am thinking about the death of a true clown, Stanley Laurel (of
Laurel and Hardy fame). He was very gifted at bringing a smile
to the faces of millions of fans, all at once, a talent he maintained
to the bitter end, literally. For when he was very close to death,
he was quoted uttering perhaps his most enduring words of all: "If any of you cry at my funeral, I'll never speak to you again."