A rant for Epiphanytide
Yesterday was Epiphany, & a day of obligation for the Roman sort, but only because it happened to fall on a Sunday. As an ex-Anglican (once vertiginously High) I am still getting used to the Novus Ordo calendar, in which enough changes were made to throw simple folk like me into abject confusion.
In that Anglican tradition, self-consciously “catholic” with a suspiciously small “c,” many Mediaeval conventions were preserved a little longer than elsewhere. I treasure my old (1955) Anglican Breviary, in which Dominican-Sarum usages of the age before Henry VIII leap back into life, closely following the Latin, but translated into the fine English we admire in the Book of Common Prayer. It is Catholic by intention in every nuance; it should therefore be repossessed by the proper authorities in the Holy See. A few tiny corrections would fix Protestant glitches, if any can be found. It won’t be easy to find them, for through it all there breathes a gloriously Catholic spirit, from before even the Council of Trent. They will pull this Breviary out of my cold dead hand.
Changes happen, over long stretches of time, & where they were admirable & necessary they are apt to be retained. Over time stupid arbitrary changes are discarded. I look forward with as much enthusiasm to the 28th century as I do back upon the 14th. Here in the early 21st, however, there are some serious irritations. In most cases we are speaking of changes made suddenly, on a titanic scale. In almost every one I look into, the question of “when” is answered, “sometime since 1962.”
In my backward, regressive, & reactionary opinion, as also in fact, the Calendar & the Liturgy are one thing. Together they bespeak, beyond our manner of public prayer, our way of life. The Mass (as I was casually taught, by transubstantiationist & metousiostical Anglican clerics) is our congregation within the Body of Christ; & the Host is the thing itself. But just as the “spirit of Christmas” is supposed to be remembered throughout the year, the spirit of the Mass goes forth into the world. We do not cease to be Christians when we walk out of church. We have been restored, but this restoration is carried with & within us. With me so far?
From her beginnings, Holy Church was colonizing time. Over centuries this imperial act was accomplished. In the world we have seasons (varying with latitude & location), & the lunar & solar cycles from which any “secular” calendar is constructed. We had months & weeks & days already established, from the pagan Roman world we inherited & re-animated. It was as good as any system then around, there was no need to change it. The Church Calendar was mapped onto this.
Now, the Church seasons do not correspond to the external climate & geography. Rather they inform them, & in a curious way, climate & geography adapt to them. For these are spiritual seasons, describing an inner cycle of things — life within that Body of Christ. Advent, Christmastide, the Epiphany, Candlemas, Septuagesima, Lent, Eastertide, Pentecost — seasons in the Life. Local & universal customs turn in this round, & every Catholic Christian is constantly reminded of the order of things in that turning. Commemorations are built into the fabric, a supple one of moveable & immoveable feasts & fasts; & what emerged over the centuries was astonishingly beautiful.
The season of the Epiphany is within the season of Christmas, but through its Octave begins to turn us with itself, from the Nativity, through the childhood, towards the mission of Christ. By degrees we are brought back to contemplation of the Crucifixion; & through that, & only through that, to the Resurrection, the Ascension, the world to come. It is a continuous motion, a very solemn & reverent dance, & even in the long season after Whitsunday, to the beginning of Advent again, there were & are wheels within wheels, & markers. Not only at Christmas & Easter were we Christian, but in every day throughout the year, & all who would be Christian are included within this liturgical dance: the Liturgy of the Hours within the Liturgy of the Days within the Liturgy of the Seasons. Wheels within wheels.
The most encouraging thing I found in the “reformed & updated” Divine Office I acquired, upon becoming a Catholic, was entitled “The Office of Readings.” The choice & arrangement of texts was quite superb. The translations, at least in the prettily-bound British edition I bought, were good: the best that could be hoped for in contemporary English. I cherish that.
The most discouraging thing was “Ordinary Time.” Suddenly, next Sunday, after celebrating “The Baptism of the Lord,” we will be dumped out of this liturgical sequence into Week One of Ordinary Time. Then after a few weeks of that, saved by Ash Wednesday, & got back on track. We are good for eight Sundays past Easter, till the day after Pentecost as I understand, then we go back into the liturgical dumpster.
Whose bright idea was it to wreck the continuity in this way? To totally smash it up so that we are desperately turning the pages of our missals backwards & forwards, trying to find where in Hell we have now landed? … Well, I have my suspicions on that score.
Parcelled with this convulsion, the knocking around of the most solemn Holy feasts, which once fell where they fell. It was unthinkable to transfer them, say to the nearest Sunday, the way a provincial government transfers bank holidays to the next or nearest Monday — for the sake of a notion of convenience that is aggressively worldly.
Twelve days from Christmas is twelve days from Christmas; one cannot muck with such a plain thing. I, at least, cannot get my little mind around, “The Epiphany of the Lord is celebrated on 6 January, unless, where it is not observed as a Holy day of obligation, it has been assigned to the Sunday occurring between 2 and 8 January.” I pray to God that I will never become so smart that I will be able to understand this instruction.
There is no such thing as “ordinary time,” in the sense intended. (The “Ordinary of the Mass” is the opposite concept: for it refers to what is invariable.) Nothing about time itself is “ordinary” in the street secular sense, as Saint Augustine patiently explained. Everything about it is instead quite extraordinary.
One might blather on about one’s other liturgical grievances & horrors; I am easily willing to play the traditionalist bore. But here there is a breach in time itself. In a grand way, this notion of “ordinary time” is like the experience of riding a Toronto trolley. You were going somewhere, then suddenly it is short-turned. Everyone gets out on the sidewalk to wait until the next (crowded) trolley comes along. Finally we all manage to pack into that one, & then it is short-turned. It is as if the transit authority existed for the sole purpose of punishing people for not buying cars.
The whole of life out there in the post-Christian world is “ordinary time” — i.e. cold, ugly, & brutally meaningless. That is what the world is like, in the absence of Christ. Against that, our fathers’ fathers tried to build a temporal order of warmth, beauty, & meaning. Our task in this world, as I imagine, is to rebuild what their sons tore down; to build, anew, right back over the parking lots of “ordinary” space & time; & to restore the inheritance of which we were so shamefully cheated.
“To rebuild what their sons tore down; to build, anew, right back over the parking lots of ‘ordinary’ space & time; & to restore the inheritance of which we were so shamefully cheated.”
Instaurare omnia in Christo.
– motto of Pope St. Pius X
All of creation was fashioned by God; all of creation, then, is used in His service. Traditionally, the wheels-within-wheels calendar relied on both of our chief heavenly bodies in the service of the Liturgical year: the sun (Christmas, Epiphany) and the moon (Lent, Easter) are conscripted to calculate the Church seasons.
Ordinary time, meanwhile, was a sad surrender to contemporary living conditions. There is no room at the inn of modern life for an on-time Epiphany.
“They will pull this Breviary out of my cold dead hand.” Leave it to those “liberal” “progressives” to advocate for Breviary control laws. (Sorry, couldn’t resist.)
But I have to disagree with your statement that a world without Christ is “cold, ugly, & brutally meaningless.” There are many Jews, Muslims, Hindus and, dare I say, atheists, who would disagree. At most, you can say that your “world” would be cold, ugly and meaningless without Christ, or even that it is your “opinion.” …
I am one of those dastardly atheists (please don’t call me a secular humanist, because I don’t even know what that means). But in spite of this, I see much wonder, beauty and good in the world. I just don’t think that these require an almighty being to exist.
This being said, I also don’t believe that I am morally or intellectually superior to those who believe in a God. After all, I may be wrong and will freely admit it. All I can say with certainty is that I am more intelligent than some, less intelligent than others; have a better moral centre than some, and a worse one than others. In short, I am like everyone else on earth. I am altruistic at times, selfish at times, generous at times, greedy at times, enthusiastic at times and apathetic (some might say pathetic) at times.
I’m too young to remember a time before Vatican II, but what was the time between Christmas and Lent (and between Easter and Advent) called before then? It’s definitely a “time” of some sort, where we don’t celebrate any of the “extraordinary” seasons.
The old missal called them the First through Sixth [depending] Sunday after the Epiphany. The Season of Epiphany was part of the Cycle of Christmas. The Season of Septuagesima (Septuagesima, Sexagesima, and Quinquagesima Sundays) was the first season of the Cycle of Easter. Then Ash Wednesday opened the Season of Lent.
God could have made it much simpler if He had made the earth rotate at a rate such that the time to circle the sun was a whole number, and that the number of days that the moon takes to circle the earth was a whole number, and that this number was evenly divisible into the length of the year. Why does He always challenge us? (Just stirring the pot).
I think you’re overdramatizing a bit, as well as mistaking the meaning of “ordinary” time. The word “ordinary” in this liturgical context is not meant to mean routine, dull, workaday, etc. It simply means that the Sundays and weeks are “ordered”, that is, numbered. I’ll admit that the little bit between the end of Christmastide and the start of Lent feels odd. But the long stretch between Pentecost and the following Advent makes all the sense in the world. The holy seasons focus (both in the mass and the breviary) on the mysteries of the Incarnation and Redemption. Ordinary time focuses on everything else: the teachings of Jesus on the Christian morality, practice, prayer, and the sacraments. E.g. we get lots of the discourse on the Eucharist during August. Nothing ordinary about that. Furthermore,every Sunday of the year is meant to be a commemoration of the Resurrection, and, in fact, every hour of Lauds is as well, in a way. Nothing ordinary about that either. Calling it a liturgical dumpster is a bit theatrical.
Moving Epiphany to Sunday is a separate issue. This feast was never a holy day of obligation in the USA, even in the sainted days of pre-1962, so most Americans did not attend mass on this day. I suppose our bishops could have made it a day of obligation. Instead they decided to move Epiphany to Sunday so that people would experience its liturgy. Not such a horrible idea. I’ll admit that it does make a mess of figuring out one’s place in the breviary this week. I’m hoping that the revision of the American breviary that is now in progress will address this.
Liturgically, Christmas ends on 13 January: on this day the Church commemorates the baptism of Christ by St. John. The spirit of the Christmas season and contemplation of the divine childhood continue to be celebrated in the Feast of the Holy Family (1st Sunday after Epiphany) and lasts through Candlemas Day (2 February), which recalls the Blessed Virgin Mary’s purification in the Temple 40 days after the birth of Christ.
Liturgically, the period from 14 January through Septuagesima Sunday (see below) is the Season After Epiphany. Depending on the date of Easter, this season can vary in length from 4 to 38 days.
The three Sundays before Ash Wednesday are titled Septuagesima (i.e. the Sunday approximately 70 days before Easter), Sexagesima (approx. 60 days before) and Quinquagesima (approx. 50 days before). These Sundays are reminders of the Lenten heavy lifting just ahead.
The Monday and Tuesday before Ash Wednesday are titled Shrovetide, from the old habit of being shriven (i.e. going to confession) before Lent.
The old Lenten customs had the faithful not only fasting (i.e. one meal and two collations daily), but abstaining from all dairy products as well. Thus the advent of a Shrove Tuesday celebration to use up all the eggs and sugar in a pancake feast.
Easter is succeeded by the season of Pentecost. The duration of the latter depends on the date upon which Easter falls, and is 23-28 Sundays in length. Thus you have Easter Sunday and Eastertide; Ascension Thursday (40 days after Easter); Pentecost (50 days after Easter); and then the Sundays After Pentecost.
Four times a year you also have the Ember Days; these are penitential events which overlap with the above seasons.
And the fox said to the little prince: men have forgotten this truth, but you must not forget it. You become responsible, forever, for what you have tamed. — Antoine de Saint-Exupery, author and aviator (1900-1945).
Oh dear, dare I say it Acartia, but in my humble opinion I don’t think there are any genuine atheists — merely folk who say “no.” Atheism is a Faith. Hope is what distinguishes us from the other animals — hope being the universal craving for mercy, which is engraved on all human hearts and completely incompatible with Darwin’s theory of natural selection (a.k.a. survival of the fittest), which by its own rule would completely crush any sign of mercy at the moment of hatching. But the fact is mercy exists: we have all experienced it; either by receiving it or dispensing it, or at different times both.
Courtship Modelled on the Heavens
The young woman would have made it much simpler if she had arranged her schedule to correspond with our work schedule and personal holiday arrangements. If she had been genuinely interested in our concerns, she would have planned her birthday to match ours. Her personal interests and hobbies are fine on her own time, but she should be willing to put them down when yours truly enters the room and attend to our person. Why does she always challenge our sincere efforts at chivalrous romance?
(Just stirring the pot.)
And to further clarify for Acartia, secular humanism (a.k.a. modernity or “liberalism”) is just a gussied up version of atheism, another guise of the same rebellious impulse.
Stephen, I must respectfully disagree that atheism is a faith. As an atheist, I will admit that I could be wrong and would change my view if shown incontrovertible evidence. By definition, a person of faith can’t do either of those.
You do not understand natural selection if you think that mercy (and altruism) do not exist in nature. Herd animals continually perform acts that, on the surface, appear to decrease their probability of survival. Or other animals who will raise the young of another individual. And there are many other examples. Natural selection explains how these could arise quite nicely.
It might be instructive to know what Acartia means by the term “faith.” I hypothesize that it is not the same as what a person of faith means by the term. I’ll wait for the evidence to come in and then see how the hypothesis holds up.
I suspect it would also be instructive to know what Acartia thinks would be “incontrovertible evidence,” but that is another research project.
Hmm. Compassionate herd animals. Isn’t that what we mean by Liberals?
An atheist commenting on the Epiphany is not unlike a blind man taking a critical stand on action painting and nearly as entertaining.
Atheism is indeed a faith. What many “atheists” actually are are agnostics. True atheists would never say that they might be wrong. For them “the proof” is always overwhelming, at least in their own minds. Dogmatism is one of the marks of true atheism.
To be frank, atheism is actually a willfully absurd position, as it asserts quite flatly that something can come from nothing and order from chaos. If God did not exist, there would obviously be only a void – no matter, no life, no anything. The immense complexity of living organisms precludes there not being an Intelligent Designer. One has to completely disregard the mathematical probabilities of chance to believe that living human bodies, for example, came about by purely natural forces acting on lifeless matter and then underdeveloped living matter over time.
I have got into protracted arguments with atheists in the past, and have found it is a complete waste of time. Emotion is what drives someone to totally reject God, not reason. People who reject God tend to ignore man’s fallen nature and assume that a fantastical personal goodness (or at least positive universal conformism) can exist in the great mass of human beings. That is why atheists, agnostics, and apostate “religious believers” tend towards ever wishing for the establishment of some sort of utopia. With the Nazi atheists that utopia was a mystical racial paradise free of alleged human vermin. With communist atheists it was a worldwide civilization where economic equality would erase all injustice. With liberal “progressive” atheists it is a society where education and government-enforced empathy will one day erase all evil.
A thing that has always amazed me about atheists and agnostics is the cavalier attitude they display when stating that they either do not believe in God, or simply don’t know. The consequences of rejected God in this life are very clear – eternal damnation. What I try to imagine regarding atheists is someone stating that they do not know if a gun is loaded or not, and then pulling the trigger with the barrel pressed against their head. The consequences of being wrong are horrific, not trivial.
How can a million lemmings all be wrong?
Dear Acartia.
This universe we inhabit is finite — nothing finite can exist of itself — nothing finite can determine its own being. Darwin’s Natural Selection theory is a crock — implying that chance brought everything into being. English poet Gerard Manley Hopkins put it nicely by saying “Chance applies only to things possible; what must be does not come by chance and what cannot be by no chance comes.” Are we to “believe” that chance is its own action, operation, energy? The Florentine poet Dante writing eight centuries ago said “the soul of every animal and plant is drawn from its compounded potency.” Begs a good question, right? What/who is the author of that “compounded potency”? Check out the first three verses of St John’s gospel.
Regarding “incontrovertible evidence” — I’ll go with what French poet Charles Péguy said, “until the Day of Judgement, when they will no longer be necessary. Christianity’s best proof, its only proof, is not to offer proofs. Otherwise there would be no liberty for Man.” The same applies for Atheism. Yes Faith and Free Will are like husband and wife — neither can exist without the other — faith and free will define the human person.
Denying Atheism is a Faith places you very neatly into my category of folk who just say “No.” You cannot have it both ways.
Viscount Dochart said, “One has to completely disregard the mathematical probabilities of chance to believe that living human bodies, for example, came about by purely natural forces. …” Again, this assumes that natural selection is a random event, which it most definitely is not.
If humans were designed, why were we not designed better? A squid’s eye is a better design than a human’s eye. Why do humans have an appendix which, before antibiotics and advanced medicine, killed thousands of people every year? Why is our body not better designed for upright posture? Our posture makes us more susceptible to lower back problems and hernias, problems that mammals that walk on all fours do not have. I could list hundreds of such “design flaws” but I think that I have made my point.
As an atheist, and I agree that maybe atheist is not the proper term in my case, I don’t believe that there is anything that is beyond our comprehension. Which is not to say that we will ever fully comprehend everything. But in order to have complete faith in a God you must accept that there are certain things that will forever be beyond our comprehension, at least this side of heaven.
I’ve just had an Epiphany! The uncaused cause, the perfect simplicity of non-contingent being cannot exist because such cannot be comprehended! Now that that has been sorted out, we can down to business on cost-free design. Hey! We can finance it with cost-free deficit spending! There is a free lunch! Imagine there’s no heaven. It’s easy if you try, no hell below us and above us only sky. … You may think that I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one. Someday you may be urged to join us and the world will live as one. … Or else.
Over lunch one day a non-believing colleague said he was confident that one day science will be able to provide a rational explanation for all observable phenomena.
“It takes a lot of faith to believe that,” I observed.
Even the other agnostic at the table chuckled at that one.
By the way, David, I’ve never come across the term “Epiphanytide” before this epistle. I might have missed your source, but this could be a nifty neologism.
Dear Stephen Sparrow,
“The universe we inhabit is finite.” Do you not mean, “The planet we inhabit is finite”? Who is to say whether or not the “universe” is finite?
Would you include yourself among those who say the earth is around 7,000 years old (or young), and that men lived alongside dinosaurs?
I agree with you that atheism is a kind of faith — after all “god(s)” is embedded in the very word. But it is not a religion, if one accepts the root meaning of religion to be “to reconnect.”
It is not the business of religion to offer “proof.” The same could be said for atheism. But it is the business of science. Any quest to scientifically prove or disprove God is bound to fail.
I hesitated to publish this last comment, for I don’t think the writer realizes how obnoxious it is. Mr Sparrow’s point about the finite universe depends not on religious but on scientific understanding: what follows from the Big Bang of 13.7 billion Earth years ago. An earlier generation of scientists assumed the universe was infinite in space & time; & were genuinely shocked at the physical discovery that it had a fixed beginning, from which could be construed a limited extent & a fixed end in time. Earlier modern materialism, including Darwinism, depended consciously on the notion that the universe had been around forever, thus infinite time for e.g. evolution to follow random courses.
To then ask, does he think the planet is 7000 years old, & that men lived among dinosaurs, is extremely insulting. It is indeed this sort of question that causes religious people, who often know a lot more basic science than their Darwinist adversaries, to doubt both their intelligence & their decency. For how can one argue with someone who replies to anything by repeating such smears?
David, I sincerely asked the questions and did not intend to smear Mr Stephen Sparrow. Perhaps I lack perception, but based on his comment that Darwin’s theory is a “crock,” I was uncertain as to where he stood. It has been my experience that many persons who advocate what is called Intelligent Design also believe the planet to be 7000 years old, and most certainly do not subscribe to the Big Bang theory.
Very well. Now that you mention it I’ve met someone who works for NASA in Houston — quite an advanced engineer — who thinks the world was formed on Sunday, 23 October, 4004 B.C., God bless him. The calculation is from Archbishop Ussher, of the (Anglican) Church of Ireland, in the 17th century. Typical modern nonsense.
An attentive Bible reader would note that in Psalm 104 (Confitemini Domino) & several other places in the Old Testament (Exodus & Deuteronomy at least), God gave his covenant forever, & “the word which He commanded to a thousand generations.” Since Biblical generations are on the long side, generally 40+ years, this takes us back nicely to about the time that Homo sapiens sapiens emerges in the archaeological record, for the work of the final day of Creation.
“Day” in Hebrew can mean 24 hours, or “an age.” We retain something like this in modern English, when we say, “in his day.” And since Genesis gets the sequence of events since the Big Bang in, arguably, the right order, there is really no trouble accepting more recent empirical discoveries.
So, anyway, I argued to the NASA engineer: Ussher got it wrong. He also failed to grasp the telescoping of generations in his Biblical number-crunching. It is the sort of trap these statistically-obsessed post-Reformation types are apt to fall into.
Moreover, there is no mention of cohabitation with dinosaurs in the Bible. That part is just a Bible Belt flourish.
(Insert smiley-face icon here, on behalf of Lord Jowls.)
Thank you Otiosus for defending me in my absence. May we leave the last word to another poet?
Till Darwin came to earth upon a year
To show the evolution how to steer,
They mean to tell us, though, the omnibus
Had no real purpose till it got to us.
Never believe it. At the very worst
It must have had the purpose from the first
To produce purpose as the fitter bred:
We were just purpose coming to a head.
Accidentally on Purpose
Robert Frost
After sleeping on it, thought I should add, that I can think of only one other actual living person I ever met (besides that NASA engineer) who ever defended the notion that the Earth is a few thousand years old. And that guy was quite possibly being droll. I’m sure they exist, but I think, vastly more of them in the liberal imagination than in, say, the American South.
On the other hand I’ve met any number of people who will buy into almost anything rather than accept Darwinian premisses which they believe (correctly) to be an assault on their faith & the moral order.
As to “Design,” intelligent or otherwise, the word was found until recently on every second page of standard, vaguely Darwinist, biology textbooks. Only in the 1990s did it start being expurgated for fear of association with “ID.” The reason for its prior appearance was obvious: there is no creature in nature that does not have a very elaborate design, however that design was come by; & since the recognition of DNA we have even known how the blueprints are copied.
Conversely, the textbooks would often start with a Preface in which ritual obeissance to Darwinism was pledged, & then no mention of it in the remaining 500 pages, just vague references to “evolution,” which incidentally Intelligent Design types also buy into. (It is the mechanism they dispute.) The obvious inference here is that formal Darwinism is unnecessary, except for the purpose of keeping one’s job in the academy.
I share the view that Darwinism is a crock, & came to that view as a young atheist with a fascination for biology. (There is no shortage of atheist anti-Darwinists.) But I agree with the Darwinists that “ID” is not a theory. There are things men just don’t know, & are extremely unlikely to find out, this side of Judgement.
Meanwhile, to those of philosophical mind, may I strongly recommend, From Aristotle to Darwin & Back Again: A Journey in Final Causality, Species, & Evolution, by Étienne Gilson, trans. John Lyon (Notre Dame, 1984), … that will be a lot easier to find in French (D’Aristote à Darwin & retour; Vrin, 1971). … An incredibly impressive demonstration of what a “mediaeval mind” can make of our controversy. And incidentally, one that is extremely well-informed on the empirical science.
Let me reiterate what I’ve said here before: Darwinism actually precludes evolution in any true sense of the word.
Meanwhile, even if ID is not a scientific theory, can’t it be validated, or at least evaluated philosophically? Or is my lack of philosophical training showing?
Intelligent Design is a scientific fact, not a theory. It is another name for God. Without Intelligent Design we would have unintelligent chaos in a void.
Furthemore, the elephant (or maybe dinosaur) that is always standing in the room when atheists and theists clash, is the obsessive need for certain people to reassure themselves of what they have chosen to believe. Darwin quickly became a God the Father figure to atheists and agnostics because he appeared to “prove” that the Bible is bunk, and that there is no need to fear experiencing hell after one dies. The typical modern godless mind is not godless at all, but obsessed with God. All one has to do is publish an article or letter supporting religion for any reason, and immediately Darwin’s troops go into action and a barrage of nasty, haughty, pedantic assaults pour in. It is as though the theist has started a fire in a barn beside the hay loft, and everything must be done to put it out as quickly and thoroughly as possible.
Many theists are no better than the atheists and agnostics. Instead of dismissing Darwinists as they would astrologists found in the newspapers, they feverishly go on and on quoting from various Recent Creationist broadsides that “prove” that evolution could not be true because the world came into being not long before the building of the pyramids. This, of course, opens these theists up to justified ridicule and contempt.
In all the years that I have argued with atheists and agnostics in the newspapers and on websites, I have never met one that had any interest in paying attention to a single thing supporting God that I said or presented. What I experienced was the feeling that there was an idea in my head that these people desperately wished to smash, burn, or scald out of existence.
Vic, of course they do. You stand for a very unpleasant future for them. They convict themselves, but turn the resulting anxiety (horror really) on you. Their vehemence and industry give them away.
Alas, I am a bit late to this discussion, but I do want to second DW’s dismay with regard to Ordinary Time. While Daria puts as good a face on it as is possible, even with the best of intentions, the idea of a season of “ordered Sundays,” as distinct from seasons of Holy Days, makes no liturgical or sacramental sense. With the coming of the Church and the Gospel of the birth, death and resurrection of the Incarnate Son of God, all days relate to the cycle of holy feasts and fasts. The season now called Ordinary Time is free floating in temporality — unconnected to anything. We all knew that the Sundays after Pentecost were a time between the great holy seasons of Easter and Advent, but they were connected to what came before and reminded us that we are currently living in the age of Pentecost that will end at the Parousia. But until that Day, the cycle of Advent, Christmas, Epiphany, Septuagesima, Lent, Easter and Pentecost would continue, keeping us Christians rooted in Sacred Time.
Apparently and surprisingly unlike our scribe, I have often before heard the line that “Ordinary Time” is so-named because it is ordinal, rather than common.
Frankly, I find this to be a silly canard.
The old calendar’s in-between Sundays were ordinal as well: e.g., “5th Sunday after Pentecost.” I have never seen anything suggesting that they were called “Ordinary Sundays.” For that matter, I have never in any other setting seen the English word “ordinary” used to mean “numbered.”
My impression, for which I admit having no actual evidence, is that this proffered explanation must be a post-hoc rationalization. It simply doesn’t make enough sense to be anything other than a lame excuse offered up for the sake of those given the unenviable job of having to defend the dumpster fire that is the alteration to the liturgical calendar.
I offer no comments on the age of the universe or Darwinism.