December 9 and the Immaculate Conception Conundrum

[Wenceslav]

This is from the "THE HOMILETIC AND PASTORAL REVIEW" December 1957 - the last time  that the Immaculate Conception happened to fall on a Sunday during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII. Clearly, the Second Sunday of Advent superseded the Feast of the Immaculate Conception which was transferred to Monday although one would satisfy his obligation of Mass attendance on the Sunday. I think this is what the CMRI is doing.


URL: https://archive.org/details/sim_homiletic-pastoral-review_1957-12_58_3/page/280/mode/1up?view=theater

p. 280
December 7: Fast & Abstinence
The fast and abstinence previously attached to the vigil of the Assumption, August 14, has been permanently transferred to December 7, the vigil of the Immaculate Conception. This is for all the faithful, everywhere. This has been established by a decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, issued in view of the request of many bishops and others, who, because of the difficulties of time and place, felt that many obstacles stood in the way of the former arrangement.

RELEVANCE
The feast of the Immaculate Conception falls on Sunday this year, and since all the Sundays of Advent are duplex of the first class, the festivity will be celebrated on Monday, December 9, both in the Office and in the Mass.

The obligation of attending Mass is not transferred to Monday, however. Any "double obligation" (to use a phrase) incident upon both Sunday and the Immaculate Conception falling on the same day, will be satisfied by the one attendance at Mass on Sunday, December 8.

[Maximilian]

This is from the "THE HOMILETIC AND PASTORAL REVIEW" December 1957 - the last time  that the Immaculate Conception happened to fall on a Sunday during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII.

More relevant is that 1957 is after 1955 when a great many changes to the calendar were made, including the ranks of feast. Nearly all the vigils were suppressed, for example.

the Second Sunday of Advent superseded the Feast of the Immaculate Conception which was transferred to Monday although one would satisfy his obligation of Mass attendance on the Sunday. I think this is what the CMRI is doing.

Yes. The CMRI clings to the moment in time of 1958, just in the same way as the SSPX similarly clings to the moment of time of 1962. So they follow all the changes implemented in 1955. In both cases the CMRI and the SSPX are preserving liturgical standards that were in place for only a couple years at most, or even only months.

I attended Mass at a CMRI chapel this morning, and it was exactly as your say. The Mass for the Second Sunday in Advent was celebrated, with no commemoration of the Immaculate Conception. It was announced that the Mass for the Immaculate Conception will be celebrated tomorrow, but that there is no obligation.

URL: https://archive.org/details/sim_homiletic-pastoral-review_1957-12_58_3/page/280/mode/1up?view=theater
p. 280

The feast of the Immaculate Conception falls on Sunday this year, and since all the Sundays of Advent are duplex of the first class, the festivity will be celebrated on Monday, December 9, both in the Office and in the Mass.

My missal is from 1949, and in that missal the Feast of the Immaculate Conception is a 1st-class feast while the Second Sunday of Advent is a 2nd-class feast. So prior to the 1955 changes, we would have celebrated the feast of the Immaculate Conception today as it previously took precedence over the Sunday.

[QuaeriteDominum]

What you will NOT likely hear in a Diocesan church:

"Doesn't matter .. I go to Mass every day"

[Wenceslav]

Max, as you know the CMRI accepts Pius XII as the last legitimate pope. Hence the following excerpt from Fr. Kevin  Vaillancourt's book  (i.e. Which Rite is Right?) is the logical conclusion from that premise. Note, I sympathize with much of what you write above but Pius XII's reforms must be infallibly safe and acceptable to Catholics.

In the Novus Ordo Missae the substance of the Sacrament has been altered; in the restored rites of Holy Week, this is not the case. While some may be disappointed at the work of Pope Pius XII in permitting the restored rites, such an action does not take away the fact that he was a legitimate pope. On the contrary, the doctrinal errors promulgated by Paul VI in his Novus Ordo Missae do lend credence to the claim that he couId not have been a legitimate Holy Father.

Therefore, I observe the "reformed" rites promulgated during the reign of Pope Pius XII in a spirit of Fourth Commandment obedience to legitimate authority. This obedience is supernatural (the catechism teaches) when we obey all legitimate commands -especially the ones we do not personally like - for the love of God and to renounce ourselves (as the Gospel commands). Am I saddened by some of these "reforms"? Yes, but, to me, presuming to stop their observance is disobedience, tantamount to expressing a spirit that is contrary to the obedience we profess toward God and His Church. What is more, for me, presuming to stop the observances of the "reforms" is on the same level as being too comfortable with the condition the Church is in right now, assuming that we can make changes in the rites, invoking epikeia in a manner I can't imagine the lawgiver wishing us to. With this state of being comfortable comes a frame of mind that ceases working for a Restoration in every way we can. If we do not feel the sting of obedience to the Church from time to time, especially in things that go against personal preference, then from what source will the graces come to heal the wound that our Mother, the Church, is suffering at this time?

[Melkor]

as the SSPX similarly clings to the moment of time of 1962. So they follow all the changes implemented in 1955. In both cases the CMRI and the SSPX are preserving liturgical standards that were in place for only a couple years at most, or even only months.

I attended Mass at a CMRI chapel this morning, and it was exactly as your say. The Mass for the Second Sunday in Advent was celebrated, with no commemoration of the Immaculate Conception. It was announced that the Mass for the Immaculate Conception will be celebrated tomorrow, but that there is no obligation.

Uh, the SSPX celebrated the IC as a 1st class feast day, with the Sunday as a commemoration (literally today...I was there). So I dunno what you're on about? But don't conflate the CMRI and the SSPX with this issue, it's just plain uneducated and flat-out wrong.

[SebR]

as the SSPX similarly clings to the moment of time of 1962. So they follow all the changes implemented in 1955. In both cases the CMRI and the SSPX are preserving liturgical standards that were in place for only a couple years at most, or even only months.

I attended Mass at a CMRI chapel this morning, and it was exactly as your say. The Mass for the Second Sunday in Advent was celebrated, with no commemoration of the Immaculate Conception. It was announced that the Mass for the Immaculate Conception will be celebrated tomorrow, but that there is no obligation.

Uh, the SSPX celebrated the IC as a 1st class feast day, with the Sunday as a commemoration (literally today...I was there). So I dunno what you're on about? But don't conflate the CMRI and the SSPX with this issue, it's just plain uneducated and flat-out wrong.

Surely he was not conflating the SSPX and CMRI but pointing out their differences in praxis.  CMRI follow the rubrics in force in 1958 so transfer the Immaculate Conception when it falls on the second Sunday of Advent (as a consequence of the Cum nostra changes March 1955).  The SSPX follows 1962 where the Immaculate Conception (and that feast alone) is allowed to outrank the Sunday. 

[drummerboy]

My conundrum is why is the feast of the IC celebrated on the 8th and not the 9th? It seems the Eastern Rites, when using the Gregorian calender, celebrate it today.

[Heinrich]

Cincinnati Archbishop did not dispense the 1962 TLMs.

[Wenceslav]

My conundrum is why is the feast of the IC celebrated on the 8th and not the 9th? It seems the Eastern Rites, when using the Gregorian calender, celebrate it today.

The following excerpt is from the  Catholic Ruthenian Archeparchy of Pittsburgh. According to this website, Latin Rite Catholics did originally celebrate this great feast on December 9 but changed to a day earlier i.e. December 8 in the 1700s. Note, there are no references to back this up in either of the articles i quoted below but their explanation seems reasonable.

URL: https://archpitt.org/the-immaculate-conception-the-conception-of-st-anne-when-she-conceived-the-holy-mother-of-god-according-to-the-ruthenian-tradition/

The period of St. Anne's pregnancy, according to Byzantine tradition, was shortened by one day to indicate the intervention of divine grace in the conception of Mary, referred to by St. John Damascene as the Bud of Grace. Here, at least implicitly, the doctrine of the immaculate conception was advanced by the Byzantine tradition, repeatedly affirmed by St. John Damascene: "Your immaculate body, which was preserved from all stain of sin , did not remain on the earth" (cf. P.G., 96, 719-720).
...
In the beginning, the Latin Rite Churches also celebrated the feast on the ninth of December, as was the custom in the East. It was much later, at the beginning of the 18th century, that the feast was moved to December 8th in the Roman calendar. Yet it was not until December 8, 1854, when Pope Pius IX proclaimed the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, that December 8th became a holyday of obligation in the Latin Rite Church.

From an  Eastern Rite Catholic poster  "Daniel Joseph Barton"
(No references provided but it seems to concur with the information from the Archeparchy of Pittsburg)

URL: https://www.geocities.ws/mysticrose.geo/barton3.html

The East has always considered the Conception of the Holy Mother of God as a miraculous event, due to Sts Joachim and Ann being elderly and barren, and only then being given a child by the power of God's blessings due to their prayers. We celebrate her Nativity (8th of September), but the Feast of Mary's Conception (conceived in St Anne's womb) was intentionally advanced from what should have been celebrated on 8th December to 9th December. This effectively shortened the normal nine-month development phase to underscore this mysterious action/ intervention of divine grace given from God to Mary. Here, at least implicitly, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was advanced by Byzantine tradition.
Alternately, on both the Roman and the Byzantine Church calendars, Christ Jesus' development in the womb is precisely a nine-month period from the 25th of March (Annunciation - the supernatural Conception) to the 25th December (Nativity), to underscore His perfect humanity, and therefore refute those who claimed that Christ Jesus was not fully human. Each setting of celebration dates had a theology behind it, and Rome celebrated the 9th December Feast of the Conception of St Ann just as the East did.

However, in the 18th century, some Easterners refuted the West's growing focus on the doctrine of Immaculate Conception, and tried the novel claim that the "one-day-short-of-nine-months" rule for Mary meant that she was NOT perfect, NOT pure and immaculate. Rome then changed the Feast of Immaculate Conception to 8th December in the 18th century to underscore her perfect humanity, just as Jesus had perfect humanity. (Hence, some Eastern Catholic Churches celebrate Immaculate Conception on the 8th of December, while others continue to celebrate Conception of St Ann on 9th of December - which includes the Immaculate Conception of Mary within the womb of St Ann). Another probable reason for Rome's changing of the celebration date would have been the constant Protestant claims against Rome as to "deifying Mary". By changing the date, Rome was also reinforcing Mary's total humanity, just as Jesus had total humanity.

[drummerboy]

@ Wenceslav: thank you!  Answered my question fully