It requires no more than a brief trawl through a well-furnished memory or a roughly five-minute expenditure of time and its apposite effort to confirm that the substitution of the Solemnity of Mary for the Feast of the CircuŠ¼cision postdates both John XXIII's life and the rubrical revision credited to him (or rather, blamed upon him).
The actual 1962 substitution relating to January 1 involves not strictly a change of name from the Feast of the CircuŠ¼cision but rather (1) the dropping of that name and (2) the elevation to primary status of the day's quite Traditional but previously secondary title: the Octave Day of the Nativity of Our Lord. The redesignation as Solemnity of Mary might have been applied as soon thereafter as January 1, 1965, or as late as January 1, 1970,* but it emphatically did not happen during John's papacy.
....
As for Sean, before the inevitable next instance where he draws poor conclusions from false premises, he might do worse than adopt as his own the long-standing rule of thumb of professional tailors: measure twice, cut once.
Dear Claudel-
The next time you are having tea and crumpets with your buddy McFarland, you might pour over your post once again. In doing so, you will (probably not) discover:
1) You thought you perceived an opportunity to defend the SSPX, and attack me, and that was the reason for your haughty, arrogant post. But as the highlighted portions demonstrate, my rebuttal of you was anything but "trivial", but strikes right at the heart of your post:
Your primary contention (evident in the final paragraph quoted above) and insinuation was that I drew false conclusions from false premises, where as in fact, it is YOU who did that very thing in contending that these changes were falsely attributed to John XXIII.
2) Like a jilted woman, finding your arrogance roundly refuted, and feeling acutely the sting of it, you chose to leave the subject, and concentrate on my use of the phrase "pulling your (rather large) head out of your buttocks," and made an ad hominem attack. And because of your acute humiliation, you exagerrate the "filthy-mindedness" of it.
Nice try.
If you are that offended by such a benign and colloquial phrase, you must find life very difficult!
But this ad hominem diversion is no more than an admission that you could muster nothing more.
3) As for the theory of my OP which you found so horrific, and which jolted you out of lurkerdom, you might now give it reconsideration, now that your argument against it (i.e., John XXIII was not responsible for the 1960 changes, which you allege were not made until 1962*) is destroyed.
You see, Claudel, I match your tenor.
"Give some, get some."
You would do well to take your own advice, and "measure twice, cut once."
[*The changes were made in 1960. They appeared in the missal in 1962. Obviously, if the changes were made in 1960 by John XXIII, the speculative post Claudel objected to 3rd from top of this page- remains plausible.]
Topic: January 1, 2020 - Solemnity of Mary??? (Read 2540 times)