CathInfo.com

I am confused about some of the responses on this topic.  Until now, I was sure that even the 1962 Missal did not name January 1st as the "Solemnity of Mary" and that this is the name given for this Holy Day only in the Novus Ordo.  Is this incorrect?

All of my missals (I have a pre-1955, the 1955 missal, and the 1962 missal) say January 1st is either the Octave of the Nativity or the Circuмcision.  None of them say Solemnity of Mary.

As was discussed last year, the SSPX quit calling Jan 1 the Feast of the Circuмcision in 2006:

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/sspx-obscuring-the-feast-of-the-circuмcision-of-our-lord/

So it is a Novus Ordo and SSPX thing.  Is that right?

Yes, but more of a branding thing:

The poster "B from A" observed (on the 2nd page of the thread just linked to):

"1 Jan 2005 - Angelus calendar says "The Circuмcision of Our Lord"
19 April 2005 - Pope Benedict XVI elected
1 Jan 2006 - Angelus calendar says "The Circuмcision of Our Lord"
August 2007 - Fr. Markus Heggenberger replaced Fr. K. Novak as the editor at Angelus Press
1 Jan 2008 - Angelus calendar says "Octave Day of the Nativity"  (and continues to say this in the next ~4 years)

He says he is not sure what the 2007 calendar says, or the ones after 2012 (i.e., He didn't have those).

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/sspx-obscuring-the-feast-of-the-circuмcision-of-our-lord/15/

Later down the thread/page, Last Tradhican adds:

"I found my old SSPX calendars, I have 2000-2006, 2008-2014 and they corroborate what you wrote above. Another interesting change was that in 2008 he also added the Novus Ordo fasting rules on the calendar, like letting people know that the old fasting rules are optional."

… Until now, I was sure that even the 1962 Missal did not name January 1st as the "Solemnity of Mary" and that this is the name given for this Holy Day only in the Novus Ordo. Is this incorrect?

No, it is not incorrect. On the contrary, it is quite correct. The designation "Solemnity of Mary" came subsequent to the issuance of the 1962 Missal.

… All of my missals (I have a pre-1955, the 1955 missal, and the 1962 missal) say January 1st is either the Octave of the Nativity or the Circuмcision.

As well they should. Furthermore, the Angelus Press missal reads precisely the same way; that is, it names the feast the Octave of the Nativity of Our Lord. I presume that its "competitor," the Baronius Press missal, also uses the same name—it certainly ought to—but till confirmation comes from someone hereabouts who owns one, this is just a guess.

______________________________

At least for those who genuinely embrace the R&R position—and last I looked, that is still the formally declared position of this forum and its owner—there is a far more fundamental issue at play here, an issue rooted in the Power of the Keys, and it is an issue that has so far not even been broached. It is this: Might it be the case that the legitimate authority of the successor of Peter, even so scandalous and blasphemous a one as Francis, should be seen as extending to the assignment of feast names in the liturgical calendar unless such a designation or change has consequences hostile to one or more doctrines of the Faith?

I for one would like to see this matter addressed by someone with the theological authority that stems from well-established credentials.* That is to say, not a "celebrity Catholic"—i.e., an Ed Peters or a Taylor Marshall—still less a local boy such as Incredulous (absit omen!). Of course, the sun is bright and the yellow-brick road is free of potholes for Bishops Dolan and Sanborn, for Father Cekada, and for all their sedevacantist comrades here at CI, but for those of us who live not in Oz but in the real world, things lamentably tend to get messy from time to time.
_________
* My own completely unauthoritative inclination is to regard any alteration to the calendar from a Novus Ordo source as inherently contaminated by wicked intention (mens rea) and as such to have the possibility of its validity overridden by the certain absence of its liceity.