There has been some confusion among people who need to organize celebrations of Holy Mass using the 1962 Missale Romanum about when the Feast of St. Joseph ought to be celebrated this year, since it falls during Holy Week.
I believe that some of the traditional version of an Ordo are in disagreement about the date to which St. Joseph should be transferred.
The Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei (which has competence in this matter) has made a determination.
That is to say that the instruction from the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments about the date of St. Joseph applies also to the use of the 1962 Missale Romanum. Therefore, the First Class Feast of St. Joseph in 2008 is shifted from 19 March to 15 March.
Also, the Feast of the Annunciation is shifted from 25 March to 31 March.
Ecclesia Dei nimmt Stellung zum Josefsfest:
Anweisung der Gottesdienstkongregation gilt verbindlich auch für die Missa TridentinaDie Kongregation für die Sakramente und den Gottesdienst hat bekanntgegeben, dass das 1. Klasse-Fest des heiligen Josef im Jahr 2008 ausnahmsweise vom 19. März auf den 15. März verlegt wird. Das 1. Klasse-Fest "Verkündigung des Herrn" wird ebenfalls verlegt und am 31. statt am 25. März gefeiert; bei letzterem ist es jedoch eine liturgisch "planmäßig" vorgesehene Verlegung, während die Verlegung des Joseftags eine einmalige Ausnahme darstellt.
Monsignore Camille Perl, Sekretär der päpstlichen Kommission "Ecclesia Dei" hat am 11.03.2008 auf Nachfrage persönlich gegenüber introibo.net erklärt, dass die ganze Kirche am Samstag den 15. März 2008 nun das 1. Klasse Fest des Heiligen Josef feiere und dass dies (Zitat) "natürlich" auch für die außerordentliche Form des römischen Ritus verbindlich sei.
Loading ...
This is exactly what the FSSP has in their Ordo and Calendar for 2008 (published sometime last fall). Hmm … Perhaps the PCED simply asked the FSSP?
I thought traditionally the feast was commemorated in these instances. What happened in 2005 when the Annunciation fell on Good Friday?
Then they need to change the rubrics, which are quite clear about the instruction to transfer the feast to the “next available day.”
Ken, by this statement, they have changed the rubrics.
Changing the rubrics requires more than a commission secretary making a statement.
For those who didn’t get to read this thread (or the 29 February Remnant article on this issue), there is some good documentation here:
https://wdtprs.com/2008/02/st-josephs-feast-day-this-year-and-holy-week/
Woohoo! First class feast IN lent, I love that! There’s not enough time for a novena to our beloved St. Joseph though. God bless, Liz
Fr Z, here in Australia, where St Patrick is ranked as a solemnity in the OF (and 1st class in the EF), he too has been moved – to Friday the 14th of March. In the spirit of this ruling, should those saying the TLM celebrate St Patrick on Friday? I need to tell my parish priest really quick, since he was planning on celebrating St Joseph and St Patrick, juxta rubricas, on the 1st and 2nd of April.
So, having St Joseph on the 1st of April was only ever for April Fools? ;-)
This ruling places St. Patricks on the 1st of April, as far as I can tell. Rome has in the past supervened to move a feast to a different day than it would move automatically. For instance, December 13 1961 they ruled that in 1962 the Feast of the Precious Blood would be June 22, cause it would have landed on June 29th and then been transferred later.
But this ruling, as far as I can tell, is not saying “adopt the rubric of the novus ordo for transferring” but that for St. Joseph’s use March 15th. IOW it is a particular ruling about a particular feast (Annuciation was already the same). Hence April first is now open, so St. Patrick’s should be on that day instead of April 2nd.
This should have been clarified earlier
In Ireland the bishops have decreed that St Patrick be celebrated on Saturday 15th, and St Joseph on Friday 14th. That was for the NO of course, but one presumes it is valid for the EF as well. One also presumes the the episcopal conference has the authority to do these things. Oder?
@ Joshua:
I am confused as to how the feast of the Most Precious Blood would have
landed on June 29 in 1962 as it is celebrated on July 1. Please advise.
Deo gratias! Finally, a clear and direct answer to the question!
John
This ruling places St. Patricks on the 1st of April, as far as I can tell….
In Ireland the bishops have decreed that St Patrick be celebrated on Saturday 15th, and St Joseph on Friday 14th. That was for the NO of course, but one presumes it is valid for the EF as well. One also presumes the the episcopal conference has the authority to do these things….
The Irish bishops got a particular permission to anticipate St. Patrick’s Day several months ago. Where St. Patrick’s feast isn’t 1st Class, it is this year entirely suppressed.
“I am confused as to how the feast of the Most Precious Blood would have
landed on June 29 in 1962 as it is celebrated on July 1. Please advise.”
Caeromoniarius,
Let’s see. I checked an old Table of Moveable Feasts. In 1962, Easter was on April 22, so the Sacred Heart would have been on June 29 (a Friday).OK, so that means Sts. Peter & Paul would be moved to Saturday, June 30, and the Precious Blood would still be on the Sunday,July 1. Perhaps too many back-to-back First Class Feasts for someone’s taste?
If I may advertise:
St. Joseph ROMAN Catholic Church of Fayetteville, Arkansas will be celebrating it’s patronal feast day on the 15th of March (beware the ides of March) with a High Mass according the the Extraordinary Form. This will be the first Mass of its kind since the early seventies.
All who are able to make it to this humble event are more than welcome!
As it is Passiontide, those who would like may also venerate the relic of the True Cross as well that is on loan to the parish from another parish in the diocese (thanks to a very kind priest).
Father:
I am not trying to create a furor here, however, it is entirely unclear to me (and I do not read German well) whether there was a formal decision made by the PCED, or whether it was limited to Commission Correspondence.
An old canonical truism is that correspondence under a Prot # is limited to those to whom it is formally addressed.
I guess I just don’t know what to think until I can read a good translation.
It would be easy if the PCED just started publishing decrees on the web site. Ahhhh…. the wishes of a generation. Maybe in my children’s….
It’s the nearest following day in the Tabula Paschalis for letter E Sundays for 2008. That sequence is:
23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
* 29 28 27 26 25 xxv 24
per http://www.ecclesiacatholica.com/missale%20romanum/tabula%20paschalis%20nova.htm
Thus moving St Joseph to the 15th and St Patrick to the 14th is correct as those are the nearest following days in the sequence.
I’m in favour of as many First Class feasts in Lent as possible – but isn’t this a bit late to promulgate? Having missed the Sunday bulletins, its a little hard to see many parishes being able to implement this (if they hadn’t already gone with this date) at this late stage. Although the prospect of a three days off fasting (I’m in Australia, so St Patrick’s Day also gets caught up in this) before the start of Holy Week sounds good (albeit a little odd for passiontide)….
Thank you for this very interesting post Father. I find it very disappointing that the attendant confusion could have been avoided MONTHS ago.
The fact is that for the calendar of the ordinary form it was known in July 2007 that the feast of St Joseph, and for those places where St Patrick is a solemnity such as Australia, would be anticipated in 2008 on 15 and 14 March respectively.
If this is a determination by the PCED that the celebrations in the EF should also be anticipated, then as another commenter has alluded too, they (PCED) do not seem to have acted with alacrity to make this known.
I note Henry Edwards comment that “This is exactly what the FSSP has in their Ordo and Calendar for 2008 (published sometime last fall)”. I do not have an ordo for the FSSP but at least in some places FSSP apostolates will observe these celebrations according to the 1962 rubrics (ie transferred to 1 and 2 April). I do not know if this is true for other institutes using the EF. (on a separate gripe I wonder why the FSSP can’t publish their ordo online).
Both the PCED and the EF institutes were in a position to anticipate this issue.
The apparent incongruity between the EF and OF celebrations for these feasts in some (many?) places won’t do much to foster understanding between Catholics who worship in the OF (ie most) with those who worship in the EF.
Re: Precious Blood. It was not the Precious Blood but the Sacred Heart that was moved to June 22
Re: Precious Blood. It was not the Precious Blood but the Sacred Heart that was moved to June 22
Except here in Boston (St. Patrick is the patron of the Archdiocese, and is usually celebrated as a solemnity), about which Cardinal Sean wrote in his blog:
I can make a slight correction to my previous post. The decision for the OF celebration of St Patrick in Australia (also a principal patron) was taken by the Australian Bishops Conference somewhat later than that of ‘Rome’ wrt St Joseph. However the main point still remains – this was done in good time.
and a pps – re an earlier comment about PCED using state of the art technology to disseminate rulings (ie the web), this could, unfortunately, be equally said of the whole Vatican – the website is a monster to navigate or interrogate (IMHO).
This decision is not a violation or a changing of the rubric, but a single exception from the normal rule for this one time and case. In so far as the Roman Rite exisits in two forms it should have been clear that this date or the Feast of Saint Joseph is although to be followed in the usus antiquior.
I agree that a proper translation of the German articles would be useful. But as I read the German we have nothing more than a private opinion. Certainly we do not seem to be dealing with anything that could be worded as strogly as to be called \”a determination.\” At such a stage to change whatever date has been selectected (either March 15 or April 1st) would be pastorally insensitive & impractical. Perhaps due to the confusion where necessary both days could be kept as St Joseph – one as the real feast, the other as a sort of external solemnity?
laudetur JS CHS!
1) As Dr. Lee Fratantuono stated yet(17. Feb.), it´s clear by the rubrics that in the old rite St. Joseph is to be celebrated on 1st of Apr.
2) As also Ken stated (s. above) a statement of a secretary is not sufficient to change any rubrics.
3) Even it would have been more than a statement, it would neither be sufficient to change the rubrics. For the “statement” should be a real law, it must have been promulgated (cf. c. 29 CIC), for it is only an executory decree or an instruction, it lacks all force (it´s null and void) because it´s contra legem (c.33 and c.34, §2).
4) But it is very clear that it is realy only a statement of a secretyry of a commission, so You, Rev. Father Z., are totaly wrong, that “the … commision … has made a determination”. It´s just a “personally” and privat statement from a secretary to a special group – and that lacks of all force, because the liturgical law (the rubrics) say the contrary!
5) So it is absolutly clear that in the old rite St. Joseph is to be celebrated at 1st of Apr. – so clear, that I realy wonder why thinking to celebrate it on the 15th of march…
In CHo per Mam
D.S.
P.S.(to my comment)and to FWF:
I am German and from the text you can only take that it was a privat opinion of the secretary. It´s that clear. Period.
And as I stated that I really wonder why thinking to celebrate the feast at 15.march I must admit that I do not wonder so much …
But this leads us to a point Dr. Fratunatuono made 17th of Feb. (3.09): “It’s interesting that some people were obsessed about fidelity to the 1962 rubrics when it concerned the Second Confiteor, but seem less concerned about following the quite clear rubrics about the date of this feast.”
Yes, that is the point, that we all seem to be biased/jaundiced and not fair in our judgement. So all you folks (and Rev. Fathers) who are hastily in judgement/jumping to conclusions that the SSPX is disobedient, subjectivistic, schismatic, … perhaps you are also disobedient, subjectivistic and and therefor all little schismatics, aren´t You? (Puh.. ah.. grrr…!)…
[So a) please be obediend yourselfe in this very clear point and b) not so bitter and hard (and self-righteous) in your judgement f.e. against some disobedience of the SSPX in points which are much less clear or in which you have strong arguments for beeing justified to disobey. Again: puh.. ah.. grrr..!]
In Cho per Mam
D.S.
Folks, I know I’m just being silly here, but this idea that there should be two different calendars for saints’ days and holy days in the one Latin Rite just doesn’t work. They need to get on the ball and issue *one* unified calendar.
Just MHO
To recent comment (of NGCJY):
Well, yes, You are right.
(But it´s also not normal that you have two “uses”, an new and an old one, inside the one and the same roman rite… Shows the abnormality of this situation resp. the whole situation of the Church, whole the crisis….)
A bit off topic. I was looking at 15 March 2008 in my OF “Ordo Missae Celebrandae et Divini Oficii Persolvendi”, and I noticed some things I cannot explain.
1) On 14 March (a feria) there is no mention that we should use I Vespers of the following solemnity, as there normally is. I would expect that we should celebrate I Vespers of St. Joseph the evening of the 14th.
2) On 15 March (the solemnity) it says that compline is to be for Sunday after II Vespers. This would be the case if the Solemnity did not fall on a Saturday, but I would think that this Saturday evening, Palm Sunday I Vespers and compline would take precedence over St. Joseph day II Vespers and compline.
So are these cut and paste errors, or am I not understanding the rubrics?
Folks, I know I’m just being silly here, but this idea that there should be two different calendars for saints’ days and holy days in the one Latin Rite just doesn’t work. They need to get on the ball and issue one unified calendar.
Yes and this is where it will go downhill.
It seems sadly that Rome has not learnt from the disasters of the past 45 years in the liturgy and is willing to have another bite at the cake and “get it right” this time. Slowly but surely all the changes of the Paul VI rite will be forced onto the 1962 Missale Romanum, until it becomes unrecognisable and you get some “synthesis” of the two rites. Traditional priestly societies will no longer be able to respectfully complain because the PCED will say, “We gave you the Motu Proprio to make your lives easier: now you have to toe the line and accept any changes we want – no matter how arbitrary they are.”
Hopefully people will become aware of the myth that Vatican II started the destruction of the Roman Missal and see how the “minor” changes from 1945 onwards were incriminating steps towards Bugnini’s final master-product: the Novus Ordo.
Except here in Boston (St. Patrick is the patron of the Archdiocese, and is usually celebrated as a solemnity), about which Cardinal Sean wrote in his blog:
Comment by Steve Cavanaugh
Actually this is wrong. The rubric in the 2003 MR is clear. The patron of a diocese, even the principal one, is just a Feast not a solemnity. Hence he would not be transferred. But in Ireland he is a solemnity.
But in the EF a patron of a diocese is a 1st class feast and therefore gets transferred.
It seems sadly that Rome has not learnt from the disasters of the past 45 years in the liturgy and is willing to have another bite at the cake and “get it right” this time. Slowly but surely all the changes of the Paul VI rite will be forced onto the 1962 Missale Romanum, until it becomes unrecognisable and you get some “synthesis” of the two rites. Traditional priestly societies will no longer be able to respectfully complain because the PCED will say, “We gave you the Motu Proprio to make your lives easier: now you have to toe the line and accept any changes we want – no matter how arbitrary they are.”
I think it will happen the other way. Slowly but surely, the Novus Ordo will become more and more like the 1962 Missal.
Hopefully people will become aware of the myth that Vatican II started the destruction of the Roman Missal and see how the “minor” changes from 1945 onwards were incriminating steps towards Bugnini’s final master-product: the Novus Ordo.
Comment by Ottaviani
There is no change from 1945 until the mid 60’s that mandated mass to be said in the vernacular and versus populum–nor for that matter all but eliminated the Offertory. Don’t you think it is a little silly to equate adding St Joseph’s name to the canon to the Protestantization of the liturgy?
BTW. there is no such word as “hopefully”.
For a commission that wants to unite the SSPX with diocesan-sponsored traditional Latin Mass communities and communicants, it sure doesn’t understand the fact that many holdouts predicted these sorts of things (novus ordo calendar, vernacular readings, re-written prayers…) would happen.
A secretary of a commission writing a German letter to someone does not have the authority to change the rubrics of the traditional Mass. To those who can’t wait to start accepting novus ordo calendar days for the traditional Mass, let me be the first to wish you a happy Ascension Sunday.
It’s unfortunate that all this wasn’t decided earlier. But that doesn’t mean people should ignore their bishop or whatever. The Vatican has the right to make decisions of this sort, and the bishop has the right to modify things like this for pastoral reasons.
Unfortunately, we don’t have the feast now where I live. :( I have to admit, it would have seemed strange but them’s the breaks.
First off, the 1962 (actually 1960-1961) rubrics are quite clear. Joseph would be celebrated on 1 April. The FSSP Ordo was in error here; their ordo, while a wonderful service, is not free from mistakes.
Second, this response to a German questioner reminds me of a PCED letter I received in 2004 in answer to a few liturgical questions. The Commission indicated that one could always use the “normative calendar” in celebrations using the 1962 books.
In other words, one could celebrate St. Mathias on 14 May, or St. Ignatius on 17 October.
This response is in the same vein: one can always follow the “Novus Ordo” calendar, in which Joseph falls on 15 March this year.
Private letters do not rubrical changes make. Apparently one can celebrate Joseph on 15 March, and, for that matter, Mathias on 14 May, etc., while using the 1962 books. But such permissions do not forbid following the 1962 rubrics, where Joseph is on 1 April.
Indeed, liturgically it would seem far preferable to observe Joseph on an otherwise empty Tuesday after Low Sunday, rather than interfere with the proper Mass and Office of the Saturday in Passion Week, with its important gospel for the unfolding of the passion narrative. There is a wisdom in the 1962 rubrics…these admittedly great feasts receive their due, but not at the expense of the ferias of Passiontide, where our minds ought to be focused intently on the passion mysteries.
Thank you Father Z. St. John Cantius in Chicago will be celebrating the TLM High Mass on Saturday, March 15, 2008. We are grateful for this privilege during lent.
Rob F.
Concerning your Ordo, that has to be an error. I can see no reason I Vespers would not be celebrated on Friday evening. I believe II Vespers of a Solemnity outranks I Vespers of Sunday in Ordinary Time, but not the other seasons. I could be wrong on that point, however. So it should probably be I Vespers of St. Joseph on Friday, I Vespers of Palm Sunday on Saturday.
First off, the 1962 (actually 1960-1961) rubrics are quite clear. Joseph would be celebrated on 1 April. The FSSP Ordo was in error here; their ordo, while a wonderful service, is not free from mistakes.
Perhaps amusingly, the Angelus Press calendar for 2008 — probably printed at about the same time as the FSSP calenday — shows St. Joseph on March 31 and the Annunciation on April 1, but came with an insert on which the editor responsible apologized for the error, and pointing out that, instead, the Feast of St. Joseph would be on April 1 this year, with the Annunciation preceding on March 31.
Even funnier, now I see that the 2008 calendar from the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception — probably the first of them all to be printed — has the two feasts incorrectly reversed the same way as the original Angelus Press calendar.
Hmm … One must wonder whether the SSPX was simply following the same wrong USCCB directions that BNSIC likely followed.
To RBrown:
There certainly is such a word as ‘hopefully’, but it means ‘in a hopeful manner’ and not ‘with hope’. Hence it is wrong to write, ‘Hopefully, it will not rain tomorrow’. But it is correct to write, ‘She tackled the problem hopefully’.
We would be completely naïve to think that the changes from 1950 to 1970 were not all part of a programme of revolution, superintended generally by the man appointed in 1948 to begin this work, Annibable Bugnini. Later on, Paul VI exiled him by appointing him nuncio to Iran, and he dissolved his Consilium at the same time, after he became convinced that Bugnini was a Freemason.
The addition of St. Joseph to the Canon in 1962 was not bad per se but had a deliberately bad effect, which was to assert that the Canon, the very centre of the Mass, was still not untouchable, many centuries after the formative period of the Rite had ended. Only eight short years later, the one Roman Canon had been replaced by several optional Eucharistic Prayers with a reformed Formula of Consecration. Not a coïncidence. Not in the least. Moreover, if the Canon can be changed, anything can be changed–and was.
However, I am not suggesting that we go back to 1950. I would assert that all the changes from 1950 on were part of a programme of revolution. But that is only so because they were interrelated in their implementation; they were, taken together, part of an historical continuum of reform. Divorced from that context (the 1950s and 1960s), they do not have the same effect. I think that it would likely be imprudent, given the current context, to return to the editio typica of 1920 (still in force in 1949). Our current context includes the 1984 Indult, “Ecclesia Dei” of 1988, and the recent m.p. “Summorum Pontificum”. We need to respect that because these are acts of Supreme Pontiffs which affect the current liturgical situation. The standard, for us, is best that of the Missal of 1962, even if the Missal of 1920 might be ideal were we living in an historical vacuum.
This is only my opinion on the matter. Faithful certainly have the right to assert that it would be best to return to the situation of 1920, but then they also have the right to assert that we should all abandon the old Mass and that only the N.O. be allowed. A Supreme Pontiff has the authority to alter Missals. Whether or not he has the power to abolish or efface entire rites has been disputed.
P.K.T.P.
HELP!
What happens when the proper calendar of a congregation has a 2nd class feast on March 15? The Redemptorist Calendar has March 15 as St. Clement Mary Hofbaur, C.Ss.R., a feast in the OF and of the 2nd class in the EF. So, March 15 is not a free day in our calendar in either form of the Roman Rite. Additionally, in some of our parishes, either because of title or location St. Patrick is a Solemnity/1st class feast. When do we celebrate whom?
FSSP Parish (divine mercy, vancouver) 9 March 2008 Bulletin:
Feast of the Annunciation and Feast
of St. Joseph Transferred
Due to Holy Week and the Octave of
Easter, and to the precedence of Our
Lady over St. Joseph, the Feast of the
Annunciation of Our Lady will be celebrated
on Mar 31, and the Feast of St.
Joseph on April 1. This has been confirmed[/u]
by the FSSP District Superior.
The information appearing in the FSSP
Calendar and Ordo is therefore in error.
(N.B.: in the Novus Ordo, the Feast of St.
Joseph is celebrated on March 15 this year, but in the Traditional Roman rubrics a feast is moved back, not forward).
FSSP Parish (divine mercy, vancouver) 9 March 2008 Bulletin:
Feast of the Annunciation and Feast
of St. Joseph Transferred
Due to Holy Week and the Octave of
Easter, and to the precedence of Our
Lady over St. Joseph, the Feast of the
Annunciation of Our Lady will be celebrated
on Mar 31, and the Feast of St.
Joseph on April 1. This has been confirmed
by the FSSP District Superior.
The information appearing in the FSSP
Calendar and Ordo is therefore in error.
(N.B.: in the Novus Ordo, the Feast of St.
Joseph is celebrated on March 15 this year, but in the Traditional Roman rubrics a feast is moved back, not forward).
What about the feast of our lady of sorrows in passiontide? That’s this Friday. So does one say II Vespers of the seven sorrows in passiontide, or I Vespers of St. Joseph?
Steve Cavanagh points out that the dates in the OF were known some time ago – this is of course irrelevant to the EF given that the calendar and rubrics are different. Most of the traditional communities in Australia (including the FSSP) use a locally produced Ordo (using the correct rubrics!)given the differences in Holy Days of Obligation, Solemnities etc observed here. The Sydney FSSP website, for example, advertises that the Feast of St Joseph has been transferred to 1 April.
Seems like the consensus is that this ruling is not binding, and is probably based on previous rulings of the PCED that it is possible for the TLM to adopt the modern calendar dates. If Fr Z could confirm this or indicate why he rejects this view, that would be helpful.
Had the ruling been known sufficiently in advance, I’m sure it would have been adopted (not withstanding the loss of some beautfiul and important Gospel readings). As it is, its promulgation here seems more likely to lead to confusion and angst rather than being helpful.
ps As I write its less than six hours or so until vespers of Thursday in first passion week – or first Vespers of St Patrick!
Isn’t there a rule that Feasts which occur in Holy Week are transferred to after the Octave of Easter?
I think that there are several FSSP (and other?) parishes which are celebrating the feasts after Easter Octave. And I tend to agree with this.
Shouldn’t there be something official from Rome on this outside of a letter from the monsignor? I wouldn’t think a personal correspondence constitutes an official declaration in such a matter.
Unfortunately, we’ve been in something of a rubrical desert since the late 1960s. Many things that could be settled quite definitively and easily simply aren’t.
My wishlist:
1) A Vatican Press ordo for both the 2002 and the 1962 Missals;
2) Regular updates from the Vatican for the Martyrology, to account for new beatifications and canonizations…they used to issue fascicles/supplements, which means they can do so again;
3) Finally releasing the 5th and last volume of the Liturgia Horarum, which has languished in proof form since 1971;
4) And, most “wishfully” of all, having someone recognize that the Breviarium Romanum of 1961 is nothing more than a cut to ribbons pastiche of its predecessor, and that the dignity of Sunday would be raised by restoring the full Matins to all Sundays of the year, rather than having only the first third of gospel homilies, some of which ask questions the Father or Doctor doesn’t get to answer because the second and third lessons are cut.
As for which Vespers are prayed on which days:
Assuming St. Joseph is on March 15th., Friday evening will be the I Vespers of St. Joseph with a Comm. of the Feria. Saturday evening will be the II Vespers of St. Joseph w/ Comm. of the I Vespers of Palm Sunday.
St. Joseph & Palm Sunday are of equal rank, i.e. First Class. In all such ases when two liturgical days of the same rank concur, the table of precedence is determined strictly by chronological order, not order of inherent importance (as was the case prior to 1960). So, St. Joseph being the first day of a two day back-to-back I Class concurrence, his II Vespers take precedence over the I Vespers of the following day.
The Feast of the Seven Sorrows is universally a Commemoration in the 1962 Calendar for thre Friday in Passion Week. Hence, there is no Vespers celebrated for this on Friday a tall, except in particular locations where the Feast is observed as I or II Class.
If the Seven Sorrows is observed as I Class, then Friday evening will be II Verspers of the Seven Sorrows w/ Comm. of the I Vespers of St. Joseph and of the Feria. If observed as II Class, Friday evening will be I Vespers of St. Joseph w/ only a comm.of the Feria. These possible scenarios are all laid, quite clearly, in the Tables of Concurrence in the General Rubrics of 1962. Wonderful, crystal clear 1962 rubrics when compared to the 1970 and later options ad nauseam…
Dr. Lee Fratantuono:
You read my mind concerning the fifth volume of the Liturgy of the Hours. I’ve been doing research to find out as much about it as possible. It would be wonderful to finally have it.
Speaking of leaving things in proof form, I would very much like the see the revised Rituale Romanum prduced by the Pian/Johannine commission, that was left in proof form becasue the Vatican bookstore feared that they wouldn’t be able to see it with the Concil being called.
Josh, thanks for the confirmation. I have had disagreements with my ordo before, and have always wound up being in the wrong. But this time I did’nt see how I could be. Still, I needed your sanity check; my previous experience has tought me enough humility to know that!
Please explain for me: what is the fifth volume of the Liturgia Horarum?
The so-called “fifth volume” contains the complete 2-yr. cycle for the Office of Readings, as well as the psalm prayers.
Notitiae published the Holy Week section for the 2-yr. cycle about a decade ago, and, of course, the monastic lectionary published by Solesmes in the mid-90s also has the 2-yr. cycle, though arranged for the monastic office.
Dr. Fratantuono: does not the four volume Latin editio typica already include both cycles of readings?
And I thought the “psalm prayers” were the creation of the ICEL for the English books.
Thanks, John
No, the Latin 4-vol. edition only has one cycle, not the full 2-yr.
The references for the 2-yr. were published in Notitiae, and of course the Lectionarium Monasticum uses it.
ICEL didn’t create the psalm prayers; they exist in the Latin 5th vol.
Dr. Fratantuono (12th of March, 11.34),
if the rubrics of 1962 (1961…) are this clear, then it is not only allowed to celebrate St. Joseph on the 1st of April but it is mandatory to do so. So it is clearly not allowed (without changing the rubrics) to celebrate him in March. Doing so would be contra legem, so disobedience.
And as you stated, a privat letter or instruction is not to change the rubrics. (See also my comment of 12th of march, 7.01 – and cf. cc. 33 & 34).
It is clearly not allowed to celebrate the feast in march.
From the announcement below, it appears that VIS didn’t get the word about the transfer (contra rubrics) of St. Joseph to March 15 this year (for both OF and EF).
NOTICE
VATICAN CITY, 18 MAR 2008 (VIS) – As previously advised, the VIS bulletin will be suspended tomorrow Wednesday 19 March, Solemnity of St. Joseph and the Holy Father’s name day, then from Thursday 20 March to Tuesday 25 March, the holy days of Easter and holidays in the Vatican. Service will resume on Wednesday 26 March.
There certainly is such a word as ‘hopefully’, but it means ‘in a hopeful manner’ and not ‘with hope’. Hence it is wrong to write, ‘Hopefully, it will not rain tomorrow’. But it is correct to write, ‘She tackled the problem hopefully’.
Yes, I should have added “used in that manner”.
We would be completely naïve to think that the changes from 1950 to 1970 were not all part of a programme of revolution, superintended generally by the man appointed in 1948 to begin this work, Annibable Bugnini. Later on, Paul VI exiled him by appointing him nuncio to Iran, and he dissolved his Consilium at the same time, after he became convinced that Bugnini was a Freemason.
The addition of St. Joseph to the Canon in 1962 was not bad per se but had a deliberately bad effect, which was to assert that the Canon, the very centre of the Mass, was still not untouchable, many centuries after the formative period of the Rite had ended. Only eight short years later, the one Roman Canon had been replaced by several optional Eucharistic Prayers with a reformed Formula of Consecration. Not a coïncidence. Not in the least. Moreover, if the Canon can be changed, anything can be changed—and was.
However, I am not suggesting that we go back to 1950. I would assert that all the changes from 1950 on were part of a programme of revolution. But that is only so because they were interrelated in their implementation; they were, taken together, part of an historical continuum of reform. Divorced from that context (the 1950s and 1960s), they do not have the same effect. I think that it would likely be imprudent, given the current context, to return to the editio typica of 1920 (still in force in 1949). Our current context includes the 1984 Indult, “Ecclesia Dei” of 1988, and the recent m.p. “Summorum Pontificum”. We need to respect that because these are acts of Supreme Pontiffs which affect the current liturgical situation. The standard, for us, is best that of the Missal of 1962, even if the Missal of 1920 might be ideal were we living in an historical vacuum.
This is only my opinion on the matter. Faithful certainly have the right to assert that it would be best to return to the situation of 1920, but then they also have the right to assert that we should all abandon the old Mass and that only the N.O. be allowed. A Supreme Pontiff has the authority to alter Missals. Whether or not he has the power to abolish or efface entire rites has been disputed.
P.K.T.P.
Comment by Peter Karl T. Perkins
I agree that there was a program of revolution, but I disagree that the addition of St Joseph opened the door to that revolution. It makes no sense to equate a minor change to the Missal with suppressing the Offertory, adding new Eucharistic Prayers, discouraging regular use of the Roman Canon, and vernacularizing the liturgy (all of which required the promulgation of a new rite).