CathInfo.com

I, claudel, never contended what this preening peacock claims I did. This is what I wrote:

"The substitution [during the papacy of John XXIII] relating to January 1 involves not strictly a change of name from the Feast of the Circuмcision 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."

Anyone who can read English words on a page ought to be able to see that neither did I deny that "John XXIII downgraded the Feast of the Circuмcision" nor did I assert it. To repeat for the benefit of anyone still deceived by Sean, I wrote that John dropped the former primary name of the feast and elevated its long-standing secondary name to primary status. No more, no less. Farther down in the comment I also wrote that I was among those who find this change very regrettable, but acknowledging that fact clearly doesn't interest Sean.

Is the problem that Sean Johnson simply can't read English, or is it that he prefers to misstate what I wrote for his own purposes, purposes in which honest, respectful treatment of me and my words have no place?

Given that Sean has, with a combination of bluff and bravado, persuaded both himself and others to believe that he is a one-man dicastery of dogmatic and theological wisdom and authority, there is something else that should not be passed over in silence: his patent misunderstanding of what actual Catholics mean when they describe a feast as being downgraded. It is this: a feast is said to be downgraded when its rubrical rank is lowered.

So was the rank of the feast celebrated on January 1 lowered by Pope John XXIII? Here follows some docuмentation from my own library. In both my 1948 Saint Andrew Missal and my 1956 Saint Joseph Daily Missal, January 1 is unsurprisingly named the Feast of the Circuмcision and is ranked Double of the 2nd Class. In my 1960 Saint Joseph Daily Missal and the SSPX's Angelus Press Roman Catholic Daily Missal (1962),* both of which of course employ the very radically simplified ranking system developed during Pius XII's papacy and promulgated in or before 1960 (that's right, Sean, I am admitting that I don't know the precise date), the feast is named the Octave of the Nativity and is ranked … wait for it … it's coming now … 1st Class.

Holy upgrading, Batman!!!

In sum, however much one may regret the (over)simplification of the system of liturgical ranking—as the change is clearly traceable to Bugnini or those of his ilk, I am one of those who regret it—it would be difficult for anyone, at least anyone who doesn't possess Sean Johnson's preternatural ability to see when "1st class" means "less than 1st class," to claim that John XXIII downgraded the feast celebrated on January 1 as distinct from approving the replacement of its primary name with its secondary name. Downgrading is one thing and altering the name is another, and no quantity of Johnsonian bluster can make that state of affairs something other than it is.
_________________________

For those who prefer hard facts to the sneers of a notoriously careless commenter who is also unhealthily addicted to mind-reading, the bottom line is this: as there are several related but independently pursuable lines of inquiry making up the topic of the name change of the January 1 feast, it is something between helpful and essential for those doing the talking to know what it is they are talking about. Here follow some of those lines of inquiry.

(1) What is the timeframe of the two-stage name change of the feast? What authoritative pronouncements, if any, explained or accompanied each stage in the change?

(2) Who are the actors, the important figures, at each stage? Are there connections between the actors at the several stages? If there are and they can be identified, what are they, and what is their significance?

(3) What is known for certain of the various actors' motives, and what can merely be supposed or guessed at? On what bases are any suppositions or guesses being made?

(4) Assuming the acceptance of the maxim "Lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi," what are the consequences—liturgical, doctrinal, and the like—of the suppression of the celebration of the Circuмcision and its replacement with a Marian solemnity whose very character has been left unspecified?

Sean and others will note that I have omitted such things as snarling, sneering, and name-calling from each of the lines of inquiry. Surely the last thing Sean requires is additional encouragement to show his skill in those areas.
_________________________________

* As is widely known, the Angelus Press missal is a freshly typeset printing of the 1962 edition of the Ideal Missal, edited by Father Sylvester Juergens. Only its introduction, notes, and marginal commentary on the Ordinary of the Mass are new.

             The lay peasantry of Cathinfo, stand in humble awe at the raw intellectual firepower demonstrated in this
              exchange between Sean & Claudel.

              And in tribute to their joust, I'd like to offer a picture of these two regal trads to remember this occasion.