An amazing article. Thank you so very much for writing it. I have shared this far and wide.
You say that "for reasons that remain unexplained . . . almost every new feast that was added to the calendar starting from the 1580s onward was given the rank of duplex." Based on your research, what do you think the most likely reasons were? Or what do you speculate they might have been?
A misplaced desire to honor saints that were newly added to the calendar with duplex status, or a lack of liturgical sensibility/awareness of the intricacies of the existing ranking system? Perhaps a combination of both, or another reason I haven't considered?
Thank you very much for reading and for sharing it! What you ask is probably the great (usually unasked) question of modern liturgical history in the West because it was the key in the door to everything that happened in the twentieth century. As to the why that is something that someone really needs to write a dissertation on. The one thing that is certain is that it started immediately after Trent when the bishops of the world surrendered a great deal of their liturgical to the Roman Pontiffs who then centralized everything in the Congregation of Rites from1588 on.
In some cases it does seem to make some sense that someone like Basil the Great (who curiously only seems to have found his way into the Roman calendar in the 16th century) should have been given somewhat of a higher rank, though maybe not a duplex, or Saint Anne the mother of the Blessed Virgin, who was added around 1588 I believe.
But then you have Francis of Paula being made a duplex on April 2 around the same time which doesn't make any sense whatsoever. This is no knock on him as a saint or on his holiness but for me he was the beginning of a long train of Italian, French, and/or Spanish founders of 'modern' religious orders who for whatever reason held favor in Rome at a certain time being inserted as duplex feasts.
Why they did it? I think your second point probably carries a lot of weight: for some reason after the sixteenth century a lot of liturgical tone deafness started to grow in Rome. At least that's my guess. And then after some time passed it just became 'the way we do things'. And of course there is always the temptation in the circles of liturgical power when only a few people are in charge of the whole calendar to canonize yourself by canonizing (or liturgically elevating) saints of your own era or epoch.
This is a fascinating post. I'm not as well-versed in the different versions of the Breviaries as you are, but I can appreciate how defining time differently would have a profound trickle down effect to all aspects of spirituality. You've given me a lot to think about.
Thank you for reading and thank you for your great comment. You are absolutely correct. Defining time is part of the fabric of life and when it is off then so is everything else. But it is something that you really have to stop and think about because it doesn't just jump out and grab you. Be well.
An amazing article. Thank you so very much for writing it. I have shared this far and wide.
You say that "for reasons that remain unexplained . . . almost every new feast that was added to the calendar starting from the 1580s onward was given the rank of duplex." Based on your research, what do you think the most likely reasons were? Or what do you speculate they might have been?
A misplaced desire to honor saints that were newly added to the calendar with duplex status, or a lack of liturgical sensibility/awareness of the intricacies of the existing ranking system? Perhaps a combination of both, or another reason I haven't considered?
Thank you very much for reading and for sharing it! What you ask is probably the great (usually unasked) question of modern liturgical history in the West because it was the key in the door to everything that happened in the twentieth century. As to the why that is something that someone really needs to write a dissertation on. The one thing that is certain is that it started immediately after Trent when the bishops of the world surrendered a great deal of their liturgical to the Roman Pontiffs who then centralized everything in the Congregation of Rites from1588 on.
In some cases it does seem to make some sense that someone like Basil the Great (who curiously only seems to have found his way into the Roman calendar in the 16th century) should have been given somewhat of a higher rank, though maybe not a duplex, or Saint Anne the mother of the Blessed Virgin, who was added around 1588 I believe.
But then you have Francis of Paula being made a duplex on April 2 around the same time which doesn't make any sense whatsoever. This is no knock on him as a saint or on his holiness but for me he was the beginning of a long train of Italian, French, and/or Spanish founders of 'modern' religious orders who for whatever reason held favor in Rome at a certain time being inserted as duplex feasts.
Why they did it? I think your second point probably carries a lot of weight: for some reason after the sixteenth century a lot of liturgical tone deafness started to grow in Rome. At least that's my guess. And then after some time passed it just became 'the way we do things'. And of course there is always the temptation in the circles of liturgical power when only a few people are in charge of the whole calendar to canonize yourself by canonizing (or liturgically elevating) saints of your own era or epoch.
This is a fascinating post. I'm not as well-versed in the different versions of the Breviaries as you are, but I can appreciate how defining time differently would have a profound trickle down effect to all aspects of spirituality. You've given me a lot to think about.
Thank you for reading and thank you for your great comment. You are absolutely correct. Defining time is part of the fabric of life and when it is off then so is everything else. But it is something that you really have to stop and think about because it doesn't just jump out and grab you. Be well.