June 28 is crowded.
It has, of course, a status as the day before, the Vigil, of the great Solemnity of the Apostles of Rome.
But it then acquired Pope S Leo II.
Then ... when the polemical value of S Irenaeus became apparent, he occupied the day, and S Leo went to July 3.
Until the fashion reverted to the observance of Vigils, when S Irenaeus was relegated to July 3.
And what happened to S Leo?
Who cares, anyway, about Pope S Leo II?
The reason why I care is that S Leo is a quite unique Pope. He is, I believe, the only pope who formally ratified the decrees of an Ecumenical Council, and in doing so condemned with an Anathema a former pope, listing him with heretics. By his negligence, S Leo thought, Honorius had allowed the purity of the Catholic Faith of the Roman Church to be polluted.
I'm not really keen on enabling comments which try to convince me that S Leo II didn't really do any of this.
I will not labour the point of the relevance of all this to our present ecclesial situation, in which, in my view, PF has allowed the Catholic Faith of the Roman Church, and of many other Churches, to be polluted. The precedent of Honorius and S Leo II is highly important. Catholics are not under any obligation to try to convince themseles that PF cannot do wrong; has not done wrong; is incapable of doing anything which is not superduper.
I believe that orders arrived from very deep in the Lowerarchy that S Leo II should be crowbarred out of the record ... and, certainly, out of the Calendar.
It is not thought safe to allow him to show his face in this age in which the Ueberpapalist fanatics are riding so high and with such arrogance.
But stay: there is the CDF liturgical legislation of 2000. Does that allow S Leo to get his red slipper in today's door?