Tuesday, December 9, 2014


John R is proposing the adoption of the 1911 octave system in his Ordo, which seeks to follow the old psalter and kalendar system with some modern feasts and re-ranking of existing feasts to smooth out the problems that led to the Pian (X) changes. Click here and tell him why he is wrong.


  1. My dear RadTrad, I am not proposing the adoption of the 1911 system, just borrowing an aspect of it (Simplex rank), and a modified adoption at that.

  2. Honestly, this doesn't seem like an awful idea per se. I understand and sympathize with the intent.

    I'd take it over '62.

  3. I cannot understand the reduction in rank of the Octaves of the Nativity of the BVM, St. John the Baptist and St. Lawrence? I would sympathise with removing Octaves from Advent.

    1. Rubricarius, with respect to the first and third, the antecedent feast is a Duplex II Classis, so my methodology for them (in addition to the comites' feasts) is based on their relative lower feast rank. For S. John the Baptist and the IC, it's a judgment call based on the surrounding liturgical timing; in the case of the former, a plethora of other octaves, in the case of the letter, Advent. What have you to say about the presence of Simplex octaves among the non-Roman Western rites? According to Gregory DiPippo of NLM, there is historical precedent for the Simplex octave based on these.

    2. John,
      I see the issue as more about relative values. Trinity Sunday was, for instance a DIICl for a long time. Such an important saint as St. John the Baptist is worth an octave I would have thought.

      Ultimately, I must say I cannot see a lot wrong with the older system - with the exception that I think there is an argument for not having a double rite Octave day outrank a 'green' Sunday.