Passionate concerns

I was not a little surprised to hear our priest this morning in the sermon refer to today as "Passion Sunday". It was like a voice from the past because I have never been entirely happy with the new calendar. Given the choice, I would bring back Passiontide, along with Septuagesima and the Octave of Pentecost. Septuagesima gave one an early warning for Lent, Passion Sunday was a sort of preparation for Holy Week and, well, I just liked the Whitsun Octave with its red vestments and Veni Sancte Spiritus sequence. While I remember being prepared for mass in the vernacular I have no recollection of ever having had any reason given for the calendar changes other than that for the dropping of some saints whose historical credentials appeared a bit thin. So, Passion Sunday!
(And note, I always refer to the "sermon" and not to the "homily" and to the "Consecration" and not the "narrative of institution". I refer to the "lectern" when it is a lectern and not a genuine ambo, the Sacrament of "Penance" or "Confession" and not "Reconciliation".)
My surprise arose from the fact that since 1970 we have had clergy calling Palm Sunday "Passion Sunday" and that the veiling of statues, where maintained, has tended to be just for Holy Week. Well, who knows? Perhaps we shall see the old calendar restored eventually!
Now I have never considered myself a traditionalist other than in the sense that being a Catholic makes one, by definition, a traditionalist and I have tended to feel that the self-proclaimed traditionalists have a bit of a nerve appropriating the term exclusively to themselves but, be that as it may, I do resent people trying to change my language. It is like doing violence to my memory or part of my soul. In short I have always known that today was really Passion Sunday and that next Sunday will really be Palm Sunday (and the Sunday after Easter will continue to have identity problems). So why the change?