.

I'd like to start this thread by two paragraphs found today on Wikipedia
(they might not be there tomorrow, and perhaps were not even there
yesterday!):

Pius X's feast day was assigned in 1955 to 3 September, to be celebrated as a Double. It remained thus for 15 years. In the 1960 calendar (incorporated in the 1962 Roman Missal of Pope John XXIII, whose continued use as an extraordinary form of the Roman Rite is authorized under the conditions indicated in the motu proprio Summorum Pontificuм) the rank was changed to Third-Class Feast. The rank in the General Roman Calendar since 1969 is that of Memorial and the feast day is obligatorily celebrated on 21 August, closer to the day of his death (20 August, impeded by the feast day of St Bernard).[35]

The Confraternity of Christian Doctrine was a big supporter of his canonization, partly because he had ordained the need for its existence in every diocese and because it had received a great deal of episcopal criticism, and it was thought that by canonizing the pope who gave them their mandate, this would help inoculate against this criticism.[12] They initiated a prayer crusade for his canonization that achieved the participation of over two million names.[12]

What the Wiki article doesn't explain is why this Feast Day was initially
set at Sept. 3rd upon the Saint's canonization.  It seems rather likely
the answer lies in the fact that the day preferred for a new saint's feast
is the day of his death, because it's the day he met his particular
judgment, which (assured to us by his canonization) had gone very
favorably for him!  But that day was not available, so then they would
have checked the next day.  If that was not available they would check
the following day, and so on, until they find an available day on the
calendar.  This process had been going on for many centuries, already.

Now, take a look at the traditional calendar (the one used by most
traditional groups, which is generally pre-1960, the year the Third
Secret was supposed to be revealed, and you find that every day
starting with the day of his death, August 20th, is occupied by another
saint's feast day of equal or greater rank.  The rank assigned is Double
for the Feast of Pope St. Pius X.  

Beginning with August 20th, we see it is taken by St. Bernard, Abbot &
Doctor of the Church, Double (equal).  So they would have moved on
to the following day, Aug. 21st., and that is taken by St. Jane Frances
de Chantal, Widow, Double (equal).  Then comes Aug. 22nd,
Immaculate Heart of Mary, Double II Class (greater rank than Double),
Sts. Timothy and Companions, Martyrs, and the simple Octave of the
Assumption of Our Lady.  It's noteworthy that neither the feast of Sts.
Timothy &c. or the Octave of the Assumption would have blocked Pope
St. Pius X, but the IHM did, as Dbl. II Cl.

(The IHM was established in the 1940's after the Consecration of Russia
by Pope Pius XII in which he failed to include the particpation of the
world's bishops for whatever reason, maybe it was just too much
inconvenience for the Freemasons in his ranks who would have to do
the work of organizing such collegial cooperation.  Fr. Pfeiffer very
adamantly describes the shortfall of this action and describes the
establishment of the Aug. 22nd Feast Day as rather an INSULT to Our
Lady than a benediction, for it was INSTEAD of doing the Collegial
Consecration that she had asked for.)

If anyone needs more, I can treat of each successive day up to
September 2nd -- which is occupied by St. Stephen, King, Confessor,
Semi-Double (lesser rank than Double).  It seems that this day could
have been overtaken by the new feast, since it is lesser rank by one
degree, but the very next day, Sept. 3rd was entirely vacant, therefore
they chose it instead.  Correct me if I'm wrong.  It seems to me that
if St. Pius X's feast day had overtaken St. Steven's, the latter would
have become commemorated on that day.

In any event, I have a friend who says there were a number of blog
sites and forums on the Web where comments two weeks ago were
going around that "Hey, this is the feast of St. Pius X!"  I told him that
I thought this must be a NovusOrdo influence, and he didn't know
one way or the other.  

When we are going to be discussing Catholicism on the Internet we
ought to know a lot about the Traditional Faith of Catholics so as to
instruct the ignorant and to promote the knowledge of the Faith, and
it often comes down to exposing the wiles and snares of the devil
which manifest themselves in practically ALL of the post-Vat.II
changes, and many of the pre-Vat.II changes, too, like the reform of
Holy Week, for example, beginning in 1954 under Bugnini.

I told my friend that when we run across a situation like this, we ought
to let them know that they are trying to make obsolete ideas still
work, when they've been shown to be a failure.  He replied to me that
we could say, "That's so 1969!"  

Usually, in the movement of feast days, the change agents of pre-Vat.II
Newthink moved feast days BACK on the calendar, so the effect could
be that the feast would be celebrated EARLIER, and anyone who
would try to stick with the old ways would be still waiting for their day
to come when the Newchurchers would be having their party early, so
then when the traditional day finally arived everyone "in the know"
would already have "been there, done that," to make the trads feel
like they're out of touch or something.  See how that works?

Maybe some members recall these kinds of stories, but I suspect you're
not going to be able to get much on it by using a search engine!  I
don't think the topic has been very much covered, yet.  But perhaps
now is the time!!

For the sake of preserving some kind of consistency, one or other Traditional (pre 1969 V2 Council of Mass Destruction instigated) calendar is to be used. There are no doubt good arguments to replace some of the changes made in 1955, but prudence must weigh in. For that virtue, methinks it is best to remain with the 62 calendar until a time in the future when all this present day evil shall have passed. I do not know many Trads who have any truck with the NewCalendar, even though there might be a saint here and there recently introduced that is found appealing or worthy. For all the saints who truly ARE saints, thus elevated since the Time of the Fallout, as they cannot practically be incorporated into the Traditional Calendar, we can choose to offer proper veneration on November 1, that great feast which can serve as a necessary catch all for all those holy saints who were thus acknowledged by the ever dubious conciliar regime.

As a personal desire, it would be better for Holy Week and Eastertide to reclaim parts that were lost. My version of the Liber U. still contains the perfidy pronouncement when it comes to the Red Sea pedestrians during the Good Friday Liturgy of the Presanctified. Amen for small mercies.

I actually heard this prayed before, in a FSSP Mass (before indultery became too much to bear), and boy that was a surprise. It turned out it was an older altar missal that was being used, and the priest did not catch it until it was too late.

Ah, my kingdom for a Resistance priest for my environs!

Father Girouard is the closest..only 2 hours away....by jet aircraft :cry:

"Alas it will generally have to serve until the crisis burns itself out, or the Resistance and other sympathetic Trads are conflagrated.  :heretic:

I am sure there will be a day when we shall see a great restoration of the liturgy. Only small steps can be taken at the present without causing unnecessary disruption. " --Kaz

Could say the same thing about 1965, that "it wasn't that bad, and we'll just have to use this one until the crisis burns itself out."

Best route is just not to compromise.

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
wreckovationists.  

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
example.  

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
A.D. 1000.  

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
infallible.)

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."