Rorate Caeli

Quasi modo geniti infantes, rationabile, sine dolo lac concupiscite

Easter Week is here, which means every day this week is a first class feast day, with the traditional Latin Mass consisting of the sequence "Victimae Paschali laudes immolent Christiani" and the Credo.

The novus ordo, on the other hand, barely tolerates octaves. The new liturgy made the Easter sequence optional and eliminated the Credo this week. No surprise, considering Paul VI already had blurred the lines of Lent and Easter by reducing the Lenten fast from 40 days to a whopping two in 1966.

John Paul II continued the blurring of Lenten fasting and Easter feasting by instituting a "divine mercy novena" through Easter Week. So, after feasting through 95 percent of Lent, when Easter arrived there would be a week of intense prayer "for the sake of His sorrowful Passion." It's like a Vatican II bizarro world.

Thankfully, those who follow the 1962 calendar get to avoid all of this insanity. Universae Ecclesiae is very clear: "28. Furthermore, by virtue of its character of special law, within its own area, the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum derogates from those provisions of law, connected with the sacred Rites, promulgated from 1962 onwards and incompatible with the rubrics of the liturgical books in effect in 1962."

This Sunday, 15 April 2012, has a multitude of names. Low Sunday. Quasimodo Sunday. Quasimodogeniti. Thomas Sunday. Pascha clausum. The First Sunday After Easter. The Octave Day of Easter. Dominica in albis depositis.

JPII's "Divine Mercy Sunday" was promulgated on 30 April 2000. Therefore, it has absolutely nothing to do with the traditional Latin Mass on Low Sunday. Attempting to merge 1962 and 2000 at a traditional Latin Mass this Sunday would clearly be a violation of #28 in Universae Ecclesiae.

That is not to say divine mercy is, per se, not a good thing. Of course it is. But not on a Sunday. And not during Easter. The Feast of the Sacred Heart of Jesus is on Friday, 15 June 2012 -- the liturgical day divine mercy has traditionally been observed.

There is a time for fasting for the sake of His sorrowful Passion, and a time for feasting in celebration of the risen Lord. Easter and all Sundays are times for feasting.


Ryan Ellis said...

Of course, octaves had taken quite a hit by the time the 1961 M.R. came around. 1961 leaves just four octaves (Christmas, Epiphany, Easter, Pentecost). Prior to then, there were over a dozen regular octaves. Before Pius X promulgated the first octave regulations, they were also a big local phenomenon, even after Trent.

The 2002 M.R. has two and one-half octaves (Christmas and Easter, and you can kind of do Pentecost during its old octave). Only Epiphany is truly stricken from the 1961 regime.

As for "Divine Mercy Sunday," that's only a title for the Sunday (just as "Low Sunday" is). It doesn't involve a change in the Mass readings or propers as they were set in 1969. In fact, they are quite similar to the Ex Form Mass propers for that Sunday, so I'm not sure how the "mixing" problem could be an issue here. It's just a theme, not a rubric.

Gratias said...

Linked nearby we have the wonderful Missale Romanum. We are following the daily readings this week and learning much.

J. C. Tzos said...

The designation of the first Sunday after Easter as The Feast of Divine Mercy was from Jesus Himself:

It is indeed sad that your website disparages this Feast because it was not given its prominence until the Pontificate of Blessed Pope John Paul II.

Saint Faustina was canonized by Pope John Paul II. Are there any other Saints to whose writings you give short shrift as hers?

I don't see any requirement in St. Faustina's writings to fast during the Octave of Easter while the Novena is being recited.

Those who dismiss this Feast do their souls a great disservice.

Francis said...

"John Paul II continued the blurring of Lenten fasting and Easter feasting by instituting a "divine mercy novena" through Easter Week. So, after feasting through 95 percent of Lent, when Easter arrived there would be a week of intense prayer "for the sake of His sorrowful Passion." It's like a Vatican II bizarro world"

Yep, bizarro is the right word to describe Vatican II and its conciliar Popes, especially Paul VI and JPII. Pope Benedict XVI, while being a modernist himself and doing some of the same nauseating modernist novelties as JPII, see's, unlike the other two popes that I just mentioned, the damage that resulted from the Council. Yes, as I said he's not perfect nor has he eliminated the conciliar abominations like, ecumenism Dignitatis Humanae's false and heretical interpretation of religious liberty, collegiality, fast tracking the beatification of JPII and the Novus Ordo as a whole, and not excommunicating heretics in the priesthood and Episcopate who violate basic Catholic doctrine. But IMHO he has done more for tradition than the other two combined. If a deal is reached between Rome and the SSPX the SSPX and His Holiness will need our prayers even more because the enemies of Christ within the Church and outside her will launch a massive bombardment of negativity towards especially the Holy Father. I look at the College of Cardinals with dread because after Pope Benedict XVI dies (not for many years I pray) the Chair of Peter may be filled with someone alot less friendly to at least some tradition as Benedict is. If Cardinal Scola is the next Pope or some other "conservative" like him we trads might be out in the conciliar desert once again. I know I've gotten a little of track from the original story but that's how I feel.

Fr Thomas Crean OP said...

While I generally find myself pretty much in harmony with the sentiments expressed at Rorate Caeli, I disagree with your columnist in this case. In my experience, observing the 'Divine Mercy novena', for example reciting the chaplet on each of the days from Good Friday to Easter Saturday, doesn't impede the spirit of the season: obviously not for the first two days, but nor for the others, where the mercy prayer can be understood as an 'exulting' in a mercy already granted as much as in a plea for mercy still awaited. After all, we have the Kyrie Eleison even at High Mass on Easter Day; a joyful occasion, if ever there was one. The chaplet itself only takes about 5 minutes to recite; a polyphonic Kyrie might take about the same time. No fasting is encouraged as part of the novena (after Holy Saturday), as far as I'm aware.

While it's true that the additional name 'divine mercy Sunday' only applies to the feast as named in the Novus Ordo, all Catholics are eligible for the plenary indulgence which can be gained under the usual conditions on this Sunday by taking part in a divine mercy celebration, or by simply reciting a Pater and a Credo, along with some aspiration to the merciful Saviour, in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament (reserved or exposed).

M. A. said...

Alluluia! Mr. K. Wolfe. Thank you for saying it.

It is sad, indeed,that in the post-conciliar era, words such as "Divine Mercy", and"authentic"-to name only two - have acquired a sour taste, most often leading to a triggering of the gag reflex.

New Catholic said...

"It's like a Vatican II bizarro world." Mr. Wolfe, it had been a while since I laughed out loud in a public place, thank you.


Johannes Faber said...

I agree with Fr Crean, and also JC Tzos. Either the Divine Mercy is an abominable lie, in which case it shouldn't even be allowed in the Novus Ordo - or it's genuine, in which case its allocation to Quasimodo Sunday has a divine mandate. There doesn't seem to be a middle ground here.

Plus I'm no longer convinced by the feasting on Sunday thing. If that was the case, why not uncover the statues on Passion and Palm Sunday? Why have a reading of the Passion on Palm Sunday?

The whole tone of the Novena is our Lord talking about what went on during the Passion, what souls comforted him and what distressed him. What's the problem having that during the Octave?

This does seem like dogmatic anti-BlJP2. I am extremely sympathetic to those who have reservations about Bl John Paul - as I share those reservations and signed the statement last year! Even if it were decided that most of he did was bad, not every single thing he did was bad. So I'll be celebrating the Divine Mercy on Quasimodo after hearing Mass in the old rite.

New Catholic said...

I am quite sorry, but one can happily be in a position of simply ignoring it. It is certainly the case personally with me - following the Traditional calendar, we are not even made aware of this matter, and, if not for this post, I would most surely never have noticed it. And I certainly do not feel bad about it. It is not being anti anything, it is just being pro Tradition. I condemn no one, but please let us not condemn those who do not take part in this, a matter that is, additionally, completely alien to our calendar.


New Catholic said...

"Plus I'm no longer convinced by the feasting on Sunday thing. If that was the case, why not uncover the statues on Passion and Palm Sunday? Why have a reading of the Passion on Palm Sunday?"

See, dear friend, that is the whole beauty of Tradition: it does not matter if you are not "convinced" of something, we should not be worried with "convincing" ourselves with such details. This was, in the end, the whole disaster of the Liturgical Movement as it advanced: all "brilliant" liturgical minds of the 20th century had to add their little grains of sand of personal "conviction", and, in the end, the personal dune swallowed everything.


Johnny Domer said...

First of all, the Divine Mercy devotion is, for the most part, a private devotion. It centers around a chaplet and a novena that are prayed in the days leading up to the Sunday after Easter. The only way in which Divine Mercy is a liturgical function is in the name of that Sunday in the NO calendar ("DOMINICA II PASCHÆ seu de divina Misericordia") and in a few brief references to mercy in its Collect and Gospel readings. If someone tried to import the collect or gospel from the NO to the EF, that would be forbidden by UE 28 (though I hardly have heard a clamor for such a thing to happen from any corner). The chaplet and novena, as private and non-liturgical devotions, are not in any way forbidden by UE 28. I also doubt we can use UE 28 to ban people, even people who attend the traditional Mass, from referring to that Sunday as Divine Mercy Sunday in their private speech. I think it could reasonably be taken as yet another in the sea of popular names that have been attributed to the Sunday after Easter.

Further, isn't this post just a traditionalist version of the kind of hyper-critical modernist argument that would decry the presence of any crucifix in churches during Easter, i.e., that we cannot recall the Passion of our Lord in any way during Easter? It is not incompatible with a proper appreciation of Easter to recall the Passion, and still less to recall God's mercy; indeed, we powerfully recall the Passion and God's mercy in every Mass, including those of the Octave. Would you discourage people from praying the sorrowful mysteries of the rosary during the Octave, or make them think they weren't being appropriately "trad" by praying them? Easter is, in a powerful way, a feast in which we contemplate the mercy of God reconciling mankind to himself, and he did this through the Cross. Just as the Cross has no meaning without the Resurrection, so the Resurrection has no meaning without the Cross. A balanced celebration of Easter is not incompatible with a gentle recollection of the Passion. I hardly think a chaplet that takes 5 minutes to pray is going to destroy our contemplation of the Resurrection.

The Victimae Paschali itself hints at the theme of Divine Mercy, and it also gently looks back at the Passion. We refer to Christ as the Paschal VICTIM, as the Lamb of sacrifice. We end the Victimae by asking him, the Victor King, to have mercy on us.

The idea that you're not a "real trad" if you participate in this (richly indulgenced) devotion does nothing useful. It simply isolates us further from the Church at large and makes us seem like dour sticks-in-the-mud.

As for myself, I am praying the Divine Mercy Novena, and I intend to assist at a Traditional Mass for Low Sunday in the EF. I hardly think I'm confused about what Easter means, or running afoul of UE 28.

Timothy Mulligan said...

Johannes Faber, there is indeed a middle ground. Catholics are under no obligation whatsoever to accept any private revelation. There can be no "Divine mandate."

Respect our freedom, please.

Brian said...

"The novus ordo, on the other hand, barely tolerates octaves."

It has one Octave less (i.e. it has two) than the 1962 books which have three, i.e. the of Pentecost in addition to the Nativity and Easter. Hardly a big difference in 'octave toleration'.

Less than a decade before the 1962 books there were octaves for the Epiphany, Ascension, Corpus Christi, Sacred Heart, St. Joseph, St. John the Baptist, SS Peter and Paul, the Assumption, the Immaculate Conception, St. Stephen, St. John, the Holy Innocents, St. Lawrence, the Nativity of Our Lady, the Patron of the place, the Dedication of the Cathedral, the Titular of the Cathedral, the Dedication of the Church, the title of the Church and others depending on local calendars - now that was octave toleration.

Matthew said...

New Catholic: "And I certainly do not feel bad about it. It is not being anti anything, it is just being pro Tradition."

Is it pro-Tradition to misrepresent what John Paul II did with Divine Mercy?

Concerned said...

Kenneth, I've been a reader of Rorate Caeli since 2005. I'm enthusiastic about Catholic Tradition and generally sympathetic with many of the concerns presented by this blog's contributors.

However, the attack on Divine Mercy is disappointing. The private revelations to St. Faustina (inclusive of the Image, Chaplet and Feast) seem to me to be among the most important of the last 500 years, at least. Our Lord and Savior Himself, if one gives credence to the revelations, asked for the Feast to be celebrated on the Sunday following Easter, and He also asked for the novena of chaplets.

Whatever his faults as pope, John Paul II's pontificate seemed to be caught up, by Divine Providence, in this supernatural message of mercy. His second encyclical focused on God's Mercy ("Dives in Misericordia") and he died on the eve of Divine Mercy Sunday in 2005. He was primarily responsible for the re-opening of Faustina's cause (prior to his election); as pope he beatified her and then made her the first saint canonized in the 3rd Millenium.

Our Lord's promise of what amounts to a complete renewal of baptismal grace in return for honoring Divine Mercy on the feast day (which is distinct from the indulgence the Church has attached to it) should be a cause of great joy for Catholics the world over, whether they assist as Masses in the extraordinary form or ordinary form. The link between Low Sunday and the Feast of Divine Mercy also seems to reside in these special promises. By ancient tradition, neophytes would lay aside their baptismal garments on Low Sunday -- it is as if Our Lord is saying: The visible sign you have lain aside, today or perhaps years go, I have renewed its underlying reality to pristine splendor, because I am Love and Mercy itself.

There is certainly precedent for private revelations to affect the liturgical life of the Church. For over a century and a half, the Church has universally celebrated the Feast of the Sacred Heart. More recently, Pope Pius XII established the Feast of the Holy Face to be celebrated on Shrove Tuesday. The reason for his doing so lay squarely in the private revelations to Bl. Maria Pierina (beatified by Benedict XVI in 2010), in which Our Lord asked for that feast to be established. Sadly, the Feast of the Holy Face was forgotten in the revised calendar.

There is more to consider. For example, I believe a case can be made there is a deep connection between the private revelations given to Josefa Menendez, Maria Pierina and Mary Faustina Kowalska. Have you read Josefa's diary? Jesus spoke to her of other souls on whom He chose to bestow special visitations when He was away from her, and to whom He likewise entrusted special missions (all three lived in the same era). Pius XII was a devotee of the revelations to Josefa and Maria (there is no doubt, it is a matter of record). When controversy swirled around Faustina (owing it seems to problems with an early translation of her diary), Cardinal Ottaviani asked Pius XII to sign a condemnation. Whether by circumstance and so only by Providence, or perhaps owing to personal spiritual insights (we may never know), Pius XII refused.

In some ways, I think a full appreciation of the Divine Mercy revelations is delayed until that time when the messages given to Josefa Menendez and Maria Pierina experience a resurgence of interest and devotion. Perhaps that time can begin now. Or perhaps I am quite wrong about these matters. Peace of Christ be with you.

New Catholic said...

I have no idea what John Paul II "did with Divine Mercy", Matthew. I honestly completely ignore the whole matter. As a convert, there is just so much I have had to learn! At the moment, I am still stuck in the first centuries, on readings, and in 1917, regarding private revelations and devotions. Now, ask me in a few decades, and I may then be able to respond.

Concerned, thanks.


Elizabeth said...

Amen to a great post. Thanks to Mr. Wolfe. I also have an aversion to the Divine Mercy-mania ~ at least that's what it feels like in one Novus Ordo quarter that I worked 8 hrs. a day in. As we approached Holy Week all the buzz was about Divine Mercy chaplets, prayers, on and on.

Maybe I'm just a stick-in-the-mud traditionalist fuddy duddy, but it's HOLY WEEK and it's EASTER SUNDAY and now it's EASTERTIDE.

That's just me. I loved the article and I'm relating totally to New Catholic.

God bless all of you!


Jeffrey said...

Blessed John Paul II did not institute the Divine Mercy novena, as it is indeed a private devotion, which means that we may ignore or embrace it just as the Rosary, Sacred Heart, etc.

I would encourage traditionalists to take a look at the Gospel reading for the Sunday after Easter. It is the same in both forms of the Roman Rite. In addition to telling the story of "doubting Thomas", it is also about the institution of the Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation... sometimes called the Sacrament of Mercy... go figure!

OLOF said...

Did Rome heed the call of Our Lady of Fatima for the consecration of Russia?

kend said...

Why reject Divine Mercy? Did God's mercy stop flowing through His Church in 1962? If He came into the world in the flesh today, would you reject Him if it were only a ferial day?

Peterman said...

For the record I'm on the side of about nothing that JP2 did because IMO he did so much damage to the Church. I also feel that Divine Mercy Sunday was not even his doing. It was the work of the Holy Spirit and Saint Faustina proving that God can even use people like JP2 to accomplish his work. And Saint Faustina never attended a NO mass.

For the Sake of His Sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.

Bob Allard said...

It is a shame that some people will not accept that it was Jesus Himself that asked for the Feast of Mercy to be established on the Sunday after Easter. How arrogant these people are. They question Jesus about placing His Feast of Divine Mercy on a Sunday. We are living in a time where there is so much sin and souls are perishing in great numbers. Jesus said that the loss of each soul plunges Him into mortal sadness. Yet, we argue about the placing of the feast on the Octave Day of Easter, which is a sort of "grand finale" for the world's greatest feast; Easter. Shouldn't the world's greatest feast offer the world's greatest gift? The Octave Day of Easter is the day that we receive the Easter Gift. And what is this Easter Gift? A complete renewal of Baptismal grace. No greater gift can be found anywhere. Please don't hurt Jesus anymore by questioning His placing of the Feast of Divine Mercy where it was always meant to be. Look at the readings for the Latin Mass, in particular, the Epistle that mentions the Blood and Water, not once, but three times, that is portrayed in the Divine Mercy image that Jesus wants to be solemnly blessed and venerated on that day. The two light rays display the Sacraments of Divine Mercy; the Eucharist and the washing away of sins in Baptism and Confession. These Sacraments poured forth from the side of Christ at His Crucifixion. Jesus wants us to take advantage of His offering. Do not continue in your arrogance against the wishes of the Lord. You will be only showing your ignorance and lack of knowledge of the Liturgy and Sacred Scripture.

New Catholic said...





Repeat after me... It is very respectful and admirable, and the fact that it is a private revelation does not mean it should be taken lightly, but it is simply NOT BINDING, and one does not have to accept that "it was Jesus Himself" who "asked" anything. That is particularly true for those of us who follow a different, traditional, calendar, in which this matter is not even mentioned.

TomD said...

Its a shame so many people here just criticize BLESSED POPE John Paul II as if it were no big deal. We do not have to agree with every adminstrative decision of the Pope, but we should respect all that he does as leader of the Church. We all have flaws, and JP2 encountered a Church that was in deep trouble, who are we to say he did so much damage? It is presumptuous to the extreme to act this way and on a side note, have some charity and recognize the fact that he was holier than all of us here (probably put together)

As for the Divine Mercy as a feast, what's the big idea? Did the effects of Christ's passion end at Easter? Is it not on every Sunday until the end of time that we re-present Christ's Sacrafice? (every Day for that matter) And is our symbol no longer the Crucifix after Easter? Come on, just be grateful for God's mercy

Yes, it is a private revalation but that does not mean we can simply disreguard it. Different people have different devotions, and this is fine. This may not be the devotion for you. But still, Divine Mercy is essentail (not the revalation but the Mercy itself). And remember, it is a private revalation that happens to be approved and the visionary is Canonized, I have even read some talks about making her a Doctor of the Church. Well, too all who are so critical, I guess you no longer need Divine Mercy....

Anyway, sometimes I wonder if some so called "Traditional" Catholics are just so ready to reject anything after 1962 that they fail to see any good in this time. To the modernists: the Church was not born at V2, and to those "traditionalists" The Church did not die at V2.

I think it would be good to remember this: "IN essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, and in all things charity"

The Postmodernist said...

I clearly disagree with this article. Although to say that the Divine Mercy is a private revelation, is agreeable. But to judge traditional Catholics observing this feast as "violators" of Universae Ecclesiae, is quite another. The columnist is not PCED. St. Faustina, even Our Lord never commanded to alter any rubric or prayers of Quasimodo Sunday. The writer of the article begs the question, how are we in violation. Please do remember that the Divne Mercy ranks on equal footing with that of the Sacred Heart and Our Lady of Fatima. I never do comment on anything on this great blog since much of what I believe is very much represented by columnists. But to attack devotees of the Divine Mercy and reminding us it's just private revelation, as if it is a bad thing to Tradition; is also to attack those of us clamoring the fulfilment of the request of Our Lady of Fatima for the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart.

croixmom said...

I wonder if the Feast of Divine Mercy were celebrated NOT on a Sunday, would it still enjoy as much popularity as it does, on a Sunday?

Why does the current liturgical calendar see the need to "transfer" observances of [formerly/pre-1962] Holy Days of Obligation to the closest Sunday? which is to say, the current calendar has abandoned most Holy Days of Obligation.

Fr. Paul McDonald said...

Careful !

"Despise not prophecies".

There are, I think, modernist roots to the *idea* that one is under no obligation whatsoever to accept so-called private revelations. Can God speak to human beings? If he does, is one obliged to listen. (I know full well that there is no adding to the *depositum fidei*.)

"Do Jesus and Mary retain the right to intervene in the life of the Church?" asked the Abbé de Nantes. Of course they do. And if they do intervene, and one is certain of the truth of it, to conclude that one is morally free to disregard what God wants, is incoherent.

After 67 (!) scientifically proven and ecclesiastically approved miracles at Lourdes, and the canonization of St. Bernadette, it is *wrong* to refuse to recognize the reality of the apparitions of the Immaculate Virgin.

No, you are *not* (morally) free to reject real interventions of Almighty God in the life of His Church.

liz said...

I am a Traditional Catholic, and I have deep reservations about the Divine Mercy cultus. The message says nothing new, nothing definitive, and at times, it's theologically questionable. (God's divine mercy is his greatest attribute? Seriously? Can one attribute be greater than the others? To say God's being all merciful is greater than His being omnipotent could possibly put a limit on His omnipotence. And what about that bit spoken to Sr. Faustina, "You will not be judged." I thought for sure I read in the scriptures that we would indeed be judged and accountable for our sins.) I happily ignore the whole thing, knowing it's a private devotion, and I don't have to worry myself about it. God, in His mercy, will sort things out and enlighten the darkness of our minds. There are many more theologically sound devotions available, and these I use. And anyway, it will always be Quasimodo Sunday to me!

TomD said...

You are free to like any devotion you like within the Church but your comment is problematic. First of all, no private revalation should introduce something totally new...maybe a specific prophecy or something...but if we go too far we will forget the point of private revalations, they are to reinforce what we have been given in Scripture and Tradition. Secondly, before you call it theologically questionable, remember that the Church has already approved. Also, you might have a problem with St. Thomas who also places mercy as number 1, here is a good article:

Maybe you should look at Luke 6:37 also... "Not being judged" does not mean not undergoing a particular judgment but being judged means condemned...
So, I fully support your decision to like any devotion, I have my preferences as well, but maybe you should rethink the Divine Mercy message, in reality it is almost the exact same as the Sacred Heart and it was St. M. Mary's confessor who said (I think it was him): Devotion to the Divine Mercy is the Theological consequence of devotion to the Sacred Heart"

Anonymous said...

I see that what I wrote above lacks precision. Let me correct that.

No Catholic is bound or even may give the assent of the theological virtue of the Catholic Faith to mere "private revelations". After the death of the last Apostle, nothing may be added to the deposit of the Faith.

But one can sin against the light (of reason or even of grace) in matters of HUMAN FAITH. Sometimes to give one's human consent is *obligatory* and to fail to do so is wrong.

Even in merely human matters, having seemingly nothing to do with the Faith.

Every error in the intellect is preceded by sin in some will, perhaps not the erring person, but perhaps another, who may have lied, been guilty of presumption, etc.

If a person, knowing *sufficiently* well the facts of Lourdes, refuses to agree that our Lady appeared there, he is not sinning against the Faith, nor against the Magisterium, but he *is* sinning against the light (notice the "sufficiently" enlightened above).

But the fact of thinking that the Church could impose a feast of the "Apparition of the Immaculate at Lourdes" and that this could be false does have implications for doctrine (I believe that it is obligatory in the 1962 missal, optional in that of 2002).

In any case, the minimalistic view of private revelations by theologians in the later 20th century is not that traditional, I think, and is not without roots in modernism.

"The message of Fatima imposes an obligation on the Church." Blessed John Paul II

« Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church. » (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 67)

Is it not wrong to despise an "authentic call of Christ"? May one without fault ignore an "obligation"?

What I have just (more precisely, I hope) written may not be that to which one is accustomed, but it is certainly within the bounds of orthodoxy. Fr Paul McDonald

liz said...

Thank you, TomD. Actually, my immediate response to anything new is skepticism, having grown up through the changes in the liturgy. I have always clung to the 'tried and true.' In truth and in practice, however, I would not want to dissuade anyone from prayer and devotion, and truly, each of God's holy attributes is deserving of a feast and all the honor we can give. But, each person has an individual calling, which includes his/her calling to God through devotions. It is as unique and personal as our love for God, and His love for us is. If we dismiss the feast, it is okay -- there are thousands of beautiful devotions, each as beautiful as the next, because God is endless in His glories, and we can't possibly do them all!