ACTION ITEM! ST. JOSEPH’s name NOW in Eucharistic Prayers II, III, IV

Have you seen the news? Decades after John XXIII placed the name of Joseph in the Roman Canon, it seems that the name of the great Patron of the Dying, Terror of Demons, will be in the Eucharistic Prayers II, III and IV in the 3rd edition of the Missale Romanum.

I received a copy of a document from the USCCB which communicates the decree – Paternas vices (Prot. N. 215/11/L) – of the Congregation for Divine Worship.

The Latin shall be:

II: “ut cum beáta Dei Genetríce Vírgine María, beáto Ioseph, eius Sponso, beátis Apóstolis”
III: “cum beatissíma Vírgine, Dei Genetríce, María, cum beáto Ioseph, eius Sponso, cum beátis Apóstolis”
IV: “cum beáta Vírgine, Dei Genetríce, María, cum beáto Ioseph, eius Sponso, cum Apóstolis”

The English:

that with the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God,
with Blessed Joseph, her Spouse,
with the blessed Apostles

with the most Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God,
with blessed Joseph, her Spouse,
with your blessed Apostles and glorious Martyrs

with the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God
with blessed Joseph, her Spouse,
and with your Apostles

The Spanish:

con María, la Virgen Madre de Dios, su esposo san José, los apóstoles y…

con María, la Virgen Madre de Dios, su esposo san José, los apóstoles y los mártires…

con María, la Vigen Madre de Dios, con su esposo san José, con los apóstoles y los santos…

The language of the decree says “henceforth” and in:

“… by virtue of the faculties granted by the Supreme Pontiff FRANCIS, is pleased to decree that the name of Saint Joseph, Spouse of the Blessed Virgin Mary is henceforth to be added to Eucharistic Prayers II, III, IV, ….”

That means that those of you who celebrate the Novus Ordo tomorrow – or tonight – can and indeed must add the name of Joseph.


Be sure to look at comments, below, about implementation.


About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, Francis, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000 and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Matt R says:

    Wow! It strikes me that they did not add his name in the other three Eucharistic Prayers as Blessed John XXIII did to the Roman Canon. Perhaps they didn’t like the ‘Terror of Demons’ bit, or that he is Patron of the Universal Church. Though I must say, I thought that my priests were already saying his name…

  2. acardnal says:

    Good decision!

  3. Jack Hughes says:


    GOD BLESS Pope Francis

  4. padredana says:

    From my reading of decree, it seems that vernacular translations will be forthcoming – only the Latin text is currently “typical.” Does this mean that in a celebration of the OF in the vernacular we cannot yet insert St. Joseph? It seems to say we should wait for the vernacular translations. Am I correct?

  5. Traductora says:

    This makes me happier than just about anything I’ve read recently.

    When I was at the Worker, Dorothy Day always said “Ite ad Ioseph” and he never failed. St Joseph is the protector of widows and orphans and he will always protect you if you are among those groups – or if you ask his intercession in anything, even if you’re not in those groups.

    I’ve always thought of him as the good Jewish father, a mensch, who is always there for his children – regardless of how they came to him.

  6. PatriciusOenus says:

    Just out of curiosity… why is changing this a good idea?

  7. mamajen says:

    I’m almost certain that I have already heard these versions before, probably when our very traditional former priest was still at our parish. I could be mixing it up with the canon, though. In any case, I’m glad it’s a requirement now!

  8. Mari Kate says:

    Thanks be to God. Always wondered why he wasn’t mentioned. He is also patron saint and protector of the Interior Life. St. Teresa of Avila is credited with bringing St. Joseph into the spotlight. A statue of him was placed in every single monastery founded by Teresa. I figured if he is good enough for Our Lord, Our Lady and Teresa he is certainly good enough for me. I am very happy indeed. After the Virgin Mary, he is simply the best!

  9. Suburbanbanshee says:

    PatriciusOenus — because Eucharistic Prayer I already had it, so it was weird for the others not to.

  10. rtjl says:

    Oh no! An “accretion” to the Liturgy! Now we’re going to have to have a Vatican III to strip it away. Oh, wait it’s just organic growth, or perhaps a recovery of tradition. Whatever it is, I am glad for it. Poor St. Joseph has been forgotten for too long.

  11. Therese says:

    Fortuitous news! I subscribe to the pious prophesy (and every self-respecting Traddie has a cherished place in his heart for such things) that at the end of the present age, the tomb of Saint Joseph will be discovered (or revealed, perhaps, by its guardians) and his body found incorrupt. If I recall correctly, the restoration/rise of his cult within the Church will precede the event.

    (Se è non vero, è ben trovato. ;-)

  12. padredana says:

    Now if we could only get St. Michael, St. John the Baptist, and the holy Apostles Peter and Paul back into the Confiteor, then we would be set.

  13. Pingback: St. Joseph Added to Other Eucharistic Prayers

  14. Frank H says:

    I’m thrilled, but good heavens, why couldn’t this have been done three or four years ago before all the new missals were printed!?!

  15. Random Friar says:

    I’m very happy about the change, but I’m with Frank H on the timing. There I go with my fine-point pen…

  16. Legisperitus says:


    This is, and will probably always remain, purely in the realm of speculative theology, but some have theorized that the body of St. Joseph was assumed into Heaven as a singular honor bestowed for his closeness to Our Lord and Our Lady. We may have to wait for the General Judgment to know for certain…

  17. Father G says:


    According to the decree, vernacular translations of the insertion are forthcoming from the CDWS. Which means we can begin using the insertions beginning today IF Eucharistic Prayer II, III, or IV is said in LATIN. We’ll have to wait until the CDWS announces the English translation.

  18. Pingback: BREAKING: Eucharistic Prayers Changed | Mundus Tranquillare Hic

  19. Father G says:

    Regarding the prophesy that Saint Joseph’s body will be found incorrupt:

    “‘In an ecstasy, a Saint has seen the body of St. Joseph preserved intact in a tomb, the site of which is yet unknown. The more the glorious spouse of the most Blessed Virgin is honored, the sooner will the finding of his body take place, which will be a day of great joy for the Church.’ (Words of Father Paul of Moll, 1824-1896, from Father Paul of Moll, by Edward van Speybrouck, p.238).”
    (Taken from Favorite Prayers to St. Joseph, page 57, Tan Books, 1997.)

  20. louder says:

    This is great news, and praise God for such a great favor! It is important, especially is today’s world because it reminds people that Jesus belonged to a family, with a father/husband and a mother/wife. Imagine, each mass is now contains an explicit invocation of the Holy Family. This a wonderful way to fight the forces that want to weaken family life throughout the world.

    Fr. Matt

  21. Pingback: Those of you who know me in real life…. | The Back of the World

  22. Matt R says:

    On the timing: it beats halting the printing, as Bl John XXIII did for the 1962 Missal, when the books were already halfway through the binding. That is one reason so few priests actually used that missal outside of Italy.

  23. Geoffrey says:

    “Now if we could only get St. Michael, St. John the Baptist, and the holy Apostles Peter and Paul back into the Confiteor, then we would be set.”

    Amen to that. I cannot understand why the Confiteor was revised the way it was. Sure, eliminate the repetitions and let priest and people pray it together. Why change the text?

  24. Cantor says:

    Is there a particular reason they use “sponso”/”spouse” rather than “maritus”/”husband”? I’d thought sponso was more along the line of “betrothed”

  25. JabbaPapa says:

    Cantor :

    Is there a particular reason they use “sponso”/”spouse” rather than “maritus”/”husband”? I’d thought sponso was more along the line of “betrothed”


    Traditionally, Joseph and Mary did not engage in sexual intercourse during the course of their marriage.

  26. Clinton R. says:

    Wonderful news about St. Joseph rightfully being inserted in Eucharistic prayers II, III and IV. The foster father of Our Lord and the chaste spouse of the Virgin Mary is a powerful intercessor for the Church. As some have noted, now if we can have St. Michael, St. John the Baptist, and Ss. Peter and Paul back into the Confiteor, we’ll make good progress in rescuing the Novus Ordo from the ill fated attempt to make the liturgy ‘ecumenical’. And it was also nice to see the Pope referred to as the Supreme Pontiff. Pope Francis seems to prefer the title Bishop of Rome, so I was wondering in the title Supreme Pontiff was going to be verboten. Glad to see it has not.

  27. Fr. Pius, OP says:

    Fr. Z-

    Please allow me to disagree with at least part of what you have to say. I certainly agree that this is very good news. However, I disagree that this takes effect immediately. Laws of universal applicability–like this change to the liturgy–take effect only after promulgation. Promulgation normally occurs by the printing of the decree in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis. In addition, the law usually requires a vacatio legis of three months after promulgation. These requirements can be waived, as Pope Benedict XVI did with the changes to some of the rules for the Conclave. However, it must be done specialiter et expresse to deviate from the normal ‘three months after promulgation’ rule. When Pope John XXIII inserted St. Joseph into the Canon in 1962, there was a vacation legis of about one month. Other canonists can chime in, but I would argue that merely using the word ‘henceforth’ does not meet this requirement.

    Therefore, I think it is incorrect to say that priests may or must insert St. Joseph into the Eucharistic Prayer immediately. Unless and until we hear otherwise from the Holy See, we must wait until three months after the decree has been officially published in AAS.

    I have more information in short blog post I wrote up today:

    In Christ,

    Fr. Pius, OP

    [Thanks for getting into the discussion!]

  28. Pingback: St. Joseph Now in Other Eucharistic Prayers | VERBUM JOURNAL

  29. Random Friar says:

    Dear fr. Pius,

    There seems to be some confusion – so we’re par for the course so far. I agree with the procedure you outline. However, the cover letter from the USCCB General Secretary mentions that it is to be done “as soon as possible,” with the local ordinary of the diocese where I reside similarly adding in his letter, “Attached please find official information from the USCCB which adds the name of St. Joseph to Eucharistic Prayers II, III and IV. This addition is effective immediately.”

    All things considered, I will be adding this today. This will not be on my own volition, but in my understanding of what our local ordinary has stated. I hesitate to say that it is possible that the local ordinary’s office has misinterpreted what Rome has asked, but for now, this seems the most logical course of action.

  30. Imrahil says:

    I think when a Pope announces a liturgical change, of the general sort where the specific time has no special meaning and which is already made up, the new rule takes binding effect on the day it mentions, but facultative effect the instant you now about it.

    It is obedience to obey an authority. It would be legalism to hold it as binding to obey what is nothing but the process of legislation.

    (Of course I think, German priests can and, at least if prudence and legitimate self-protection be set aside, also ought to say “for many” where the Missal as in force still contains “for all”.)

  31. Fr. Pius, OP says:

    The whole purpose for the procedure to determine when laws have binding effect–and this is not unique to the Church–is to avoid confusion as to when people are obliged to follow it and to what exactly they are obliged to follow. When you have an established procedure for determining the effectiveness of a law, it is not legalism to follow it. Quite to the contrary, the failure to do so is to invite confusion and chaos.

    The reason is that to do otherwise is to change authority and obedience into mere expressions of the will. It is as if Catholic life can be reduced to the expressions of the will of the Holy Father. This is an erroneous view of obedience. True obedience–as itself an act of the free submission of the person to authority–involves both the intellect and the will. Obedience is to conform to the greater good, in truth.

    But how are we to know the truth when it comes to merely ecclesiastical law (as opposed to divine or natural law)? Well, we have a procedure for doing that. We know what the law is passed by legitimate authority because it is officially published. We know what the law says because we can read the official publication. We know when we are bound to it because the publication date gives a date certain from which we can offer our obedience.

    The USCCB has no independent legislative power. They are not some ecclesiastical American Senate. When it comes to the liturgy, the cannot do what the Holy See has not permitted. Based on the language of the decree provided, the Holy See has not permitted the immediate use of this text. The law is not even ‘established’ until it is published. Until the Holy See says otherwise, expressly granting a derogation from normal procedure to determine the effective date of this liturgical change, we cannot take it upon ourselves to say we know better. Even if the President of the USCCB says so.

  32. Imrahil says:

    Rev’d dear @Fr Pius,

    I did not say, or think, it was legalism to follow it. I would call that “accuracy”, and it is a good thing, though I’d personally appreciate if it comes with humour. Also, I took as granted hypothesis that there’s nothing intellectually wrong with either option.

    What I did mean was that it would not be morally offensive to disregard such laws.

    I’m aware that “proof by example” is not proof, but nevertheless (and it’s an issue aside, anyway): In Bavaria we had a ban on smoking in pubs. It was obeyed. There was an election. One of the parties campaigned for re-allowing it. The very moment it became clear that this party would make it into a coalition and have the lifting of the ban written down in the coalition contract, people started to smoke again. The legislatory process took another six months. (Later again to be reversed by a referendum, but that’s another story). Well: securus iudicat orbis terrarum. Though I’d admit it is not precisely “orbis terrarum”, here.

  33. Imrahil says:

    To make it clear why I said “legalism” (which, upon rereading, sounds less than clear after my second commend):

    With “legalism” I meant not the accuracy to follow the letter of the law in a precise way, but to hold it a matter of moral binding obedience for anyone to do so.

    I still think so, though I do not mean it as a word of abuse – just saying that I happen to disagree with such an approach. Please forgive anything that might have been offensive.

  34. Ern says:

    This is great news, but does the Holy Father see an up coming persecution of the Church that he would need St. Joseph’s intersession now more then ever ?

  35. Andrew says:

    Fr Pius, OP

    I understood everything you said and I agree completely.

    I also find it very odd and curious that the decree attached by Fr. Z signed by a prelate from Spain should be written in English.

  36. Random Friar says:

    @Andrew: The archbishop’s secretary probably translated it for him officially (see bottom right).

    I find myself in principle agreeing with my brother, fr. Pius, although I’m still left scratching my head. Does the USCCB have documentation or permission that they did not share with us?

  37. acardnal says:

    It seems lawyers are the same no matter if they are civil, criminal or canon! LOL. Hence the need for judges and juries.

  38. SimonDodd says:

    One could scarcely ask for a better example of the need for reforms in Vatican communications. acardnal says that “[i]t seems lawyers are the same no matter if they are civil, criminal or canon,” but courts are not alike: No American court would be allowed to get away with the standards of the Roman Curia for publishing its decisions. How can it be that the Holy See makes change that affects every Roman Rite Catholic, and there nothing about it on the Vatican’s website?

    The Holy See should take a note from the Supreme Court, or at least from the executive branch: It needs a consecutively-paginated, online publication similar in purpose to the Federal Register. If they want to wrap it all together into an annual version called the AAS, that’s great, but the world no longer moves a year at a time.

  39. Fr. Pius, OP says:

    Imrahil: No offense taken. My point is that the Church is a society, and for that society to run in an orderly way, there must be a principled adherence to the rule of law.

    Andrew: This shows the difficulty of this whole process. We are meant to immediately implement a document that has not been officially published, but published in a translation on the internet? The official document is in Latin, which no one has even seen yet!

    SimonDodd: The AAS is usually published monthly. There is an on-line archive from the Holy See, current to last year. But it would be nice if they updated the website monthly as well.

  40. Blog Goliard says:

    Fr. Pius,

    “The USCCB has no independent legislative power. They are not some ecclesiastical American Senate. When it comes to the liturgy, they cannot do what the Holy See has not permitted.”

    In theory, of course not.

    In practice, however? Yes, they can and do.

    Over the past few decades, it has become practically an established norm of ecclesiastical governance for the following to take place:

    1) A dissenting or extra-legal practice arises in certain parishes and dioceses.
    2) The American bishops, in the main, give up on resisting the practice. (Those who weren’t instigating it in the first place, that is.)
    3) Appeals to the law fall on deaf ears. Any attempts to intervene from Rome are ignored.
    4) The USCCB, officially or quasi-officially, endorses the practice.
    5) Somebody in the Curia issues a statement surrendering the point. It may or may not have come from the competent authority…may or may not even be signed. It certainly is not promulgated according to the requirements of canon law. But it sticks. Because when Rome has told one “no…no…no…no…no…no…no…no…no…no…okay, maybe yes”, it’s only that very last answer that gets the “Roma locuta est” treatment.
    6) Neuhaus’ law operates as it normally does, and what was once proscribed becomes increasingly mandatory, while what was once mandatory becomes increasingly proscribed.

  41. Seems that canon lawyers are held in about the same esteem that civil lawyers are. However, I haven’t heard any good canon lawyer jokes!

    That said, I am very happy to read that St. Joseph is to be included in the Eucharistic Prayers.

    However, I’d appreciate knowing what the reasoning is. For example, I think it important to highlight the importance of spouses and fidelity, especially today. Yet, as a “theologian” once remarked during a class in dogmatic theology at the Citadel of Theological Uncertainty, [LOL!] “Presenting Mary and Joseph as the model of married love doesn’t speak to the reality of marriage.” Agree or disagree with this “theologian,” the enemies of the Sacrament of Marriage as God instituted it would have a field day if the Church was to promote that as the reason for including Joseph’s name in the Eucharistic Prayers. Then, too, just “throwing” the name of St. Joseph into the Eucharistic Prayers because he was Mary’s “Spouse” could be taken to denigrate his very important role as Jesus’ adoptive father. Or, to differentiate between “biological” fathers and “real” fathers would raise problems.

    But, just “To Do It”—like Nike says—comes up a bit short, in my opinion.

  42. SimonDodd says:

    Father, but do you see the difficulty in what you just said? I said that the Holy See “needs a consecutively-paginated, online publication similar in purpose to the Federal Register,” which is a daily publication (although obviously a Vatican analog would not be daily), because “the world no longer moves a year at a time.” And you replied that “The AAS is usually published monthly,” which is good, but “[t]here is an on-line archive from the Holy See, current to last year.” So it’s published in monthly bites… And it’s available through December 2012. For polyglots. They say that the Titanic hit the iceberg because her rudder was too small for a ship of her size, which meant that it took forever to turn. I can’t go to my parish and say “we should be referencing St. Joseph in the Eucharistic Prayer, because Father Z’s blog says that the USCCB says that the Holy See says so, even though I can’t point you toward anything on the USCCB’s website or the Holy See’s website, but if you’ll just trust me, it’ll be available in the AAS. Probably. In six months.” If the AAS is published online monthly, but it’s six months behind, what, from the standpoint of an event happening today, is the practical difference between that and it it being published online every six months and in a timely manner?

    This is insanity. John Allen wrote in one of his books that it’s a pervasive misunderstanding that the Vatican is staffed with the best and the brightest, when in fact it’s staffed by middling Italian bureacrats, who do a good job under the circumstances, but who are no more competent, on average, than any other European civil service. I don’t doubt it. But why is that the case, for goodness’ sakes? Is it really so very difficult to recruit the best and the brightest, especially in these days in which, thanks to technology, the applicant pool comprises every human being on Earth who has a broadband connection? For goodness’ sakes, the Holy See appears incapable of taking advantage of technologies that thousands of priests and bishops use every day.

  43. SimonDodd says:

    I mean, is it really so incredibly difficult to imagine an authoritative, immediate publication that provides the official texts on their effective date, and, if not simultaneously available in however many languages, at least a basic summary of the contents so that those who don’t speak the language in which it happens to be published can immediately know whether it applies to them and therefore that they need to find a translator (or at least to be on notice that they need to read this when the official translation is released)?

  44. Cantor says:

    JabbaPapa –

    Thanks for the response. I suspected a much, but wasn’t certain of the Latin subtleties of the particular word usage. That being the case, looks like a couple of parishes have been named somewhat improperly!

  45. Pingback: Pope Francis: The Gospel of Life is the Way to Freedom -

  46. AvantiBev says:

    Could not be more timely. I sit here typing up visitation schedules for divorcing dads and moms. Between the out of wedlock births and divorces in this post-sexual revolution world we need daily prayers and recourse to St. Joseph’s intercession and his model as inspiration. If God the Father sent his angels to St. Joseph to tell him he was very much a part of The Great Plan. What hubris we have in thinking dads are optional or fathering can be reduced to siring, shooting sperm, sending a support check or visiting on holidays.
    Thank You God and Mom for giving me the best of all dads. St. Joseph pray for all the fatherless of the West.

  47. Fr. Pius, OP says:

    SimonDodd: I largely agree. The technology is certainly there. The only thing I can say is that a sure sign of the divine institution and constitution of the Church is that despite being run by Italians, She continues to survive.

  48. I love St Joseph, he lends powerful assistance throughout my life.

    Additional considerations:

    1. Adding St Joseph illustrates the confusion of the several canons and options in the Ordinary Form. While we are at it, lets correct all the O. F. Canons, hey, just create one good one! Why can’t all the Canons be combined into one, more perfect, fuller Canon to begin with? Why do all these O.F. options even exist?
    All the Canons of the O.F. Mass truncate specific prayers, objectives, and reverences. As we have learned, the specifics of the old Ritual prayers and blessings, exorcisms and even the fuller prayers in the Extraordinary Form [Tridentine] Mass are necessary to give full potency to the prayers and intentions of the Church.
    There are stronger references to the Holy Spirit in the shorter Canons, while the Roman Canon I of the O.F. completely omits the Epiklesis, the direct invocation of the Holy Spirit for the Sacrifice. What’s with all the omissions throughout the Canons?

    2. Originally the Canon only mentioned martyrs until St Joseph was added. As the ‘hidden saint’, does inserting his name into the list of Martyrs please St. Joseph? The old guard, pretty much long-dead now, objected to this change to the Canon for reasons now most of us don’t know or understand or would believe, and why old Papal warnings and dire prohibitions exist for making any changes to the Mass.

  49. Imrahil says:

    Is it really so very difficult to recruit the best and the brightest, especially in these days in which, thanks to technology, the applicant pool comprises every human being on Earth who has a broadband connection?

    I have a theory that yes, it is. It is not possible to recruit the “best and brightest” out of a given pool of applicants, whether the job be that of a car mechanic, that of a university professor, or that of a bureaucrat. (The fact that bureaucrat comes after university professor in this tricolon is, I guess, sufficient evidence that I do not mean to put car mechanic anyway “lowest” or so.)

    You can set standards of education and sort out applicants who do not fulfil them. You can sort out those who have no master’s degree, or who have no bachelor’s degree, etc. You can sort out those who master the Latin, or Old Greek, or Italian, or English, or French, etc. language. You can sort out those who do not give the impression of belonging to the hardly definable, but, despite all historic exaggerations, still not negligible group called the gentlemen.

    When this is said and done, you can sort out by initial sympathy, familial bondings, the performance in certain tests, or by drawing lots for what it’s worth. And I don’t know which is best of these.

    But you cannot, I believe, sort out the best and brightest n applicants (n a number).

    Now to the specific problems of priests.

    The first sort-out would be: I want only those who uncompromisingly have the faith, and are determined not to allow themselves to become attached to mortal sins.

    But after that, there are very different excellencies you might wish for a priest, and excellency in one thing need not necessarily come with excellency in the other; nor would I see I can give any ordering of most to least important here. I’d enumerate – the numbers not giving ranks of importance, but only to not trouble this combox with to many new-lines – : 1. personal holiness in what goes beyond the “first sort-out” of above, 2. pastoral industry, 3. universal education in the secular sense, 4. theology, 5. academic specialization in a field other than theology (not for everyone), 6. charming, popular and jovial personality, 7. good rhethorics and argumentation in discussion, 8. in catechesis, 9. in preaching, 10. tact in openly combatting immorality and uncompromising attitude plus good rhethorics and argumentation when doing so, 11. the talent of being a good confession-father, 12. administratorial (managerial) talent.

    And since the Curia bureaucrats are, at least mostly and (and they should be) in the most important position, priests, it would not either be good in the end to have a selection of those priests who pass as faithful Catholics aware of their priestly duties, and are a selection of the very best managers. It takes all sorts, even to make a Curia, except perhaps two numbers of the above:
    11. Who can do everything else but just is not at his best in hearing Confessions, might as well work in the Curia.

    And, about the highest posts, 2.

    Because it’s always good to remember the word of General von Hammerstein:

    I divide my officers into four categories: the industrious, the lazy, the stupid and the bright. Mostly two of the categories come together. The lazy and stupid, who make out over 90 % of the officers’ corps in any army, are sufficient for running day-to-day duties. The industrious and bright absolutely need to be put into the general staff. I reserve the highest posts of command for the lazy and bright, for they along bring with themselves the equanimity to make the most important decisions. There remain the industrious and stupid: and of them, beware, for wherever you put them, they can only produce mischief.

  50. Emilio III says:

    Fr. Pius:

    When Christ at a symbolic moment was establishing His great society, He chose for its corner-stone neither the brilliant Paul nor the mystic John, but a shuffler, a snob, a coward — in other words a man. An upon this rock He has built His Church, and the gates of Hell have not prevailed against it. All the empires and kingdoms have failed, because of this inherent and continual weakness, that they were founded by strong men and upon strong men. But this one thing, the historic Christian Church, was founded on a weak man, and for that reason it is indestructible. For no chain is stronger than its weakest link.

    G.K. Chesterton

  51. The Papal Bull Auctorum Fidei Contra Pistoia not only defines the need for a bishop but also that a bishop may not exert power that disregards the Pontiff and the rest of the Church – perhaps of interest to some here regarding the power of any bishop’s conference like the USCCB, such as:
    “Rights Attributed to Bishops Beyond What is Lawful”
    6. The doctrine of the synod [of the condemned Pistoia] by which it professes that “it is convinced that a bishop has received from Christ all necessary rights for the good government of his diocese,” just as if for the good government of each diocese higher ordinances dealing either with faith and morals, or with general discipline, are not necessary, the right of which belongs to the supreme Pontiffs and the General Councils for the universal Church,
    —schismatic, at least erroneous.

    7. Likewise, in this, that it encourages a bishop “to pursue zealously a more perfect constitution of ecclesiastical discipline,” and this “against all contrary customs, exemptions, reservations which are opposed to the good order of the diocese, for the greater glory of God and for the greater edification of the faithful”; in that it supposes that a bishop has the right by his own judgment and will to decree and decide contrary to customs, exemptions, reservations, whether they prevail in the universal Church or even in each province, without the consent or the intervention of a higher hierarchic power, by which these customs, etc., have been introduced or approved and have the force of law,
    —leading to schism and subversion of hierarchic rule, erroneous.

    8. Likewise, in that it says it is convinced that “the rights of a bishop received from Jesus Christ for the government of the Church cannot be altered nor hindered, and, when it has happened that the exercise of these rights has been interrupted for any reason whatsoever, a bishop can always and should return to his original rights, as often as the greater good of his church demands it”; in the fact that it intimates that the exercise of episcopal rights can be hindered and coerced by no higher power, whenever a bishop shall judge that it does not further the greater good of his church,
    —leading to schism, and to subversion of hierarchic government, erroneous.

    [Oh that Pius VI’s 1794 Bull would be more widely read! The Auctorum Fidei Contra Pistoia Bull condemns many modern Church practices such as abrogating the fasts of Advent or moving feasts to Sundays, or general changes to disciplines. This is the Faith described, as with all the good ole’ Papal documents.]

  52. Pingback: Papa Francisco manda introduzir São José nos Canons II, III e IV do Novus Ordo | Montfort

  53. Imrahil says:

    Dear @Tina in Ashburn,

    I don’t think anyone doubts the Papal authority here.

    And if a bull in 1794 condemned a practice, it condemned to introduce it unlawfully or contrary to law. It appears that you use that to throw bad light on practices which, though perhaps equal in content, were, whatever we may think of whether they are good or not, introduced quite lawfully. Lifting the Advent fast, which had happened somewhere before or in 1917 (and so before all post-Conciliar upheaval), or dispensing from a holiday (perhaps including having an exterior celebration on the following Sunday, something quite common when, before 1954, the feasts still had octaves), are not violations of The Faith.

  54. Pingback: St. Joseph added to Novus Ordo Eucharist Prayers | A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics

  55. padredana says:

    Here in the diocese of Sioux Falls, SD we just received a communication from the Chancery providing us with the “approved formulae in English” and instructions to begin this “as soon as possible.” The memo says the communications and directives being passed on to us came directly from the Congregation in Rome.

  56. Adding St. Joseph to the Canon may have been a test run by the Liturgical Movement prior to the construction of the Novus Ordo. If the Canon could be altered, ANYTHING could be altered. I pray to St. Joseph every day, but changing the liturgy can be motivated by other agendas.

  57. Father G says:

    Jimmy Akin from Catholic Answers says he spoke to the U.S. Bishops’ Secretariat for Divine Worship regarding the matter.
    It appears we are not to be adding Saint Joseph’s name just yet.

  58. Dear @Imrahil, The excerpt is about unlawful power of bishops to make it clear that they cannot contradict the Holy See in any fashion, such as paperwork or catechesis or discipline.

    Your reaction may have demonstrated the reason I posted the excerpt. :-) Consider reading the Bull before you comment further. This Bull gives excellent context to the the gravity of the changes the Church we’ve been seeing in modern times. I imagine that I am not the only one here who has heard ad nauseum that modern changes ‘are lawful’ – yea, some are – but read this Bull. You might be surprised at the descriptions of condemned practices common today. Don’t argue with me LOL, this isn’t some droll opinion but detailed descriptions of what the Faith is, written by the Church.

  59. The Sicilian Woman says:

    YES! **fist pump**

    In contrast to his being the man who raised Jesus Christ and who was the guardian and provider for the Holy Family (the model of husbands and fathers as St. Mary is the model of wives and mothers), St. Joseph (second only to the Blessed Virgin in sainthood) has not been given the level of respect/reverence (for lack of better words) that he’s due. Or so it has seemed to me.

    I needed good news. Thanks!

  60. Douglas Kraeger says:

    Please correct me if I am wrong in the following.
    CCC 2741 “Jesus also prays for us-in our place and on our behalf. All our petitions were gathered up, once for all, in His cry on the Cross, and, in His resurrection, heard by the Father. This is why He never ceases to intercede for us with the Father. If our prayer is resolutely united with that of Jesus, in trust and in boldness as children, we obtain all that we ask in His Name, even more than any particular thing: the Holy Spirit himself, Who contains all gifts.”
    What does this teaching of the Catholic Church (CCC 2741) mean?
    How should we understand “If our prayer is resolutely united with that of Jesus…….we obtain… the Holy Spirit himself.”?
    If we do not resolve to resolutely unite our prayer with the prayer of Jesus…are we not implying that we do not want to follow God’s way (as the Church says) of acquiring the Holy Spirit?
    The Prayer of Jesus: What can we know about it?
    1. Jesus died for all sinners (CCC 579) and therefore He prayed for all sinners, even those who choose to go to hell for ever and ever and ever and ever….
    2. Jesus has only one infinite prayer for everyone at every point of space and time, all at once.
    3. His prayer for each and every one is the best possible and we should will to change our prayer to His, to pray HIS PRAYER, whatever that is “not my will, but your will be done”.
    4. If our prayer is resolutely united WITH His prayer, then He unites His prayer to us and prays His prayer with us and with everyone who is resolutely united with Him (who each is also praying HIS PRAYER whatever it is).
    5. Joseph and Mary believed Jesus to be the Son of God made man and therefore of the same infinite nature as God the father and resolutely united their prayers with the Prayer of Jesus and He united His prayer to theirs and prayed His prayer with them honoring them with Love, honor and obedience, accepting Joseph as the Head of the Family and Jesus’ prayer honors St. Joseph as the Head of the family and therefore our prayer (when we make Jesus’ prayer our prayer) honors St Joseph as the Head of the family with all the responsibilities and authorities of the Head of the Family.
    6. Could this be why Mary at Fatima, on August 19 and Sept. 13, 1917 promised that in October She would come and perform a miracle and JOSEPH AND THE CHILD JESUS would come to give peace to the world?
    7. The saints in heaven (for whom partial knowledge has ceased, CCC314) are also praying His single prayer for everyone and with those who are resolutely uniting their prayers to the one, infinite, always in the present tense prayer of Jesus and they all honor St. Joseph the way Jesus does, the same as when Jesus was a little Child because to God, that time is eternally present..

  61. I am not a canon lawyer, or a civil one, though I do have a pretty good understanding of how civil laws work – and are promulgated. But it seems to me that the idea that a document by an appropriate authority has effect when it is signed into law. The recording of the document in, say, the congrlressinal record, city council minutes, etc. served to record the act for public record and future reference, not to give it legal standing. It seems that the AAS serves this purpose.

    FWIW I seem to recall a point of de ate on these pages when Summorum Pontificum was signed and released on 7-7-7 to be effective on 14 Sept 07 there were several who maintained that it was not church law and could not be u til it was published in the AAS, which it was several months later. I thought that was a silly argument then – and remains so now.

    Would love to hear Mr. Peters’ angle on this one.

    But, more importantly – AWESOME that St. Joseph is being put int all of the EP’s. thank You Holy Father!

  62. Therese says:

    Thanks, Father G, for running that St. Joseph prophesy to earth. Couldn’t recall where I’d read it. (Legisperitus, I wouldn’t be surprised.)

  63. Imrahil says:

    Dear @Tina-in-Ashburn,

    well, I did read the bull now. Thanks for the opportunity :-)

    One thing, you are mistaken about the Advent fast. Apparently there was no such thing at the time the bull was written. That was a surprise for me, for I did have been thinking that the Advent fast had silently fallen into abeyance and had been abolished by omission in the 1917 Code. But not so; what the Bull against Pistoia condemns is (the bishop without lawful authority, and yes that’s important) dislodging fast days into Advent.

    Second, many condemnations have indeed an “insofar” attached to it, especially an “insofar that this means that the bishop may do so by his own judgment”. And I’ll stick to that: a practice that was condemned for its unlawful enactment is not, therefore, disqualified for lawful enactment. And if, for instance, the usage of the vernacular was condemned as (not absolutely wrong, if I remember correctly, but) “abetting the heretics’ insults”, that may well be right, and it is, without irony, a fine trait of Catholics (though one of manly dignity and hence, not understood in modern times) to be against the vernacular for that reason also that it seems to imply that the heretics had been right after all; nevertheless that does not mean that the Church would have walked into error or any such thing when she did introduce the vernacular.

    As for the feeling that “it is the Faith”, I did not have it – although I did have it, in a sense, upon reading Ardenti cura or Quas primas, the Tridentine canons, or to a less extent the Syllabus. I, at least, like to distinguish here: correct things are correct things. For something to “be the Faith”, there has to be more than a condemnation of some odd and self-ascertainingly wrong statements which a robber synod had seen fit apt to formulate.

    Not an “hey, that’s a good opportunity to show what the Faith is, for this is not it”. But “sigh, why do these fellows bring up that old hat again?” I kind-of think that the latter was what the Pope thought, too.

  64. Andrew says:

    Paternas vices erga Jesum exercens, in oeconomia salutis super Familiam Domini constitutus munus gratiae Sanctus Joseph Nazarenus luculenter adimplevit et, humanae salutis mysteriorum primordiis summopere adhaerens, benignae humilitatis est exemplar, quam christiana fides sublimes ad fines provehit, et documentum communium humanarum simpliciumque virtutum, quae necesse sunt, ut homines boni sint verique Christi sectatores. Per eas vir Justus ille, amantissimam gerens Dei Genetricis curam laetantique studio Jesu Christi sese institutioni devovens, pretiosissimorum Dei Patris thesaurorum custos factus est et tamquam mystici illius corporis, quae est Ecclesia, subsidium assiduo populi Dei cultu per saecula prosecutus est.

    In Catholica Ecclesia christifideles jugem erga Sanctum Joseph praebere consueverunt devotionem ac sollemnioribus ritibus assiduoque cultu castissimi Deiparae Sponsi memoriam adhuc utpote caelestis universae Ecclesiae Patroni adeo percoluerunt, ut iam Beatus Ioannes Pp. XXIII tempore Sacrosancti Oecumenici Concilii Vaticani Secundi nomen eius vetustissimo Canoni Romano addi decerneret. Quae honestissima placita pluribus ex locis perscripta Summus Pontifex Benedictus XVI persolvenda suscepit atque benigne approbavit ac Summus Pontifex Franciscus nuperrime confirmavit, prae oculis habentes plenam illam communionem Sanctorum, qui jam nobiscum viatores in mundo ad Christum nos adducunt eique coniungunt.

    Exinde, attentis expositis, haec Congregatio de Cultu Divino et Disciplina Sacramentorum, vigore facultatum a Summo Pontifice Francisco tributarum, perlibenter decrevit, ut nomen Sancti Joseph Beatae Mariae Virginis Sponsi Precibus eucharisticis II, III et IV, quae in editione typica tertia Missalis Romani sunt, posthac adiciatur, post nomen Beatae Virginis Mariae additis verbis, uti sequitur: in Prece eucharistica II: « ut cum beáta Dei Genetríce Vírgine María, beáto Joseph, eius Sponso, beátis Apóstolis »; in Prece eucharistica III: « cum beatíssima Vírgine, Dei Genetríce, María, cum beáto Joseph, eius Sponso, cum beátis Apóstolis »; in Prece eucharistica IV: « cum beáta Vírgine, Dei Genetríce, María, cum beáto Joseph, eius Sponso, cum Apóstolis ».

    Circa textus lingua latina exaratos, adhibeantur hae formulae, quae nunc typicae declarantur. De translationibus in linguas populares occidentales majoris diffusionis ipsa Congregatio mox providebit; illae vero in aliis linguis apparandae ad normam juris a Conferentia Episcoporum conficiantur, Apostolicae Sedi per hoc Dicasterium recognoscendae.

    Contrariis quibuslibet minime obstantibus.

    Ex aedibus Congregationis de Cultu Divino et Disciplina Sacramentorum, die 1 mensis Maii anno 2013, sancti Joseph opificis.

    Antonius Card. Cañizares Llovera

    + Arturus Roche
    Archiepiscopus a Secretis

  65. SimonDodd says:

    carolina publican says: “[I]t seems to me that the idea that a document by an appropriate authority has effect when it is signed into law. The recording of the document in, say, the congressional record, city council minutes, etc. served to record the act for public record and future reference, not to give it legal standing. It seems that the AAS serves this purpose. … I seem to recall a point of debate on these pages when Summorum Pontificum was signed and released … there were several who maintained that it was not church law and could not be u til it was published in the AAS, which it was several months later. I thought that was a silly argument then – and remains so now.”

    Canon law specifically addresses this point—canons 7 and 8 of the 1983 code explain that “[a] law is established when it is promulgated,” and “[u]niversal ecclesiastical laws are promulgated by publication in the official commentary, Acta Apostolicae Sedis, unless another manner of promulgation has been prescribed in particular cases. They take force only after three months have elapsed from the date of that issue of the Acta unless they bind immediately from the very nature of the matter, or the law itself has specifically and expressly established a shorter or longer suspensive period.”

    So, with regard to SP, it wasn’t a silly argument then and it isn’t now, because SP was inarguably legislative. But what isn’t clear to me is whether canons 7 and 8 are relevant to the present issue, because I don’t know whether this change is legislative in character. I am inclined to think so, because I think of things such as this as forming part of the liturgical law of the Church, but I really don’t know.

    Nevertheless, my point wasn’t that these documents are without legal effect, but that they can and will be ignored if they are unknown. Ecclesiae de mysterio was stillborn because no one knows about it. I’ve encountered people who have never read the GIRM, let alone Redemptionis Sacramentum. And frankly, I’m hard-pressed to blame them, because how would they know about these things? What is needed is an up-to-date official source (if the Acta is to be published monthly, and if it is kept up to date, then that suffices) and, quite frankly, a clarification on the various weights of curial and papal documents, and codification (or at least an index) of those documents.

  66. Fr. Thomas Kocik says:

    The Ordinary Form in its most recent edition (2002/08) features ten Eucharistic Prayers. What about the others in addition to I-II-III-IV, namely, the two “For Reconciliation” and the four “For Use in Masses for Various Needs”? Why not “go whole hog” and insert mention of St Joseph in those as well?

  67. Father G says:

    The following was released today:

    Decree from the Holy See in various languages:

    The USCCB press release:

    Vatican Information Service announcement with the English translations:

    In Eucharistic Prayer II:
    that with the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God,
    with blessed Joseph, her Spouse,
    with the blessed Apostles …

    In Eucharistic Prayer III:
    with the most Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God,
    with blessed Joseph, her Spouse,
    with your blessed Apostles and glorious Martyrs …

    In Eucharistic Prayer IV:
    with the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God,
    with blessed Joseph, her Spouse,
    and with your Apostles …

    Vatican Information Service announcement with the Spanish translations:

    En la Plegaria Eucarística II:
    Con María, la Virgen Madre de Dios,
    su esposo San José,
    los apóstoles y…”-

    En la Plegaria Eucarística III:
    Con María, la Virgen Madre de Dios,
    su esposo San José,
    los apóstoles y los mártires..

    En la Plegaria Eucarística IV:
    Con María, la Virgen Madre de Dios,
    con su esposo San José,
    con los apóstoles y los santos…”

  68. SimonDodd, thanks for that information – great explanation.

    I get Canons 7 & 8, but I still don’t get the reasoning behind it. I could see when there was a several month delay for “the word to get out”, but those days are gone (until the next big solar storm anyway). I just find it amazing that the AAS can’t be updated on a practically daily basis. And that being done, those changes could be sent out in almost real time to almost every diocese worldwide. Sure, keep the big, vellum book in Rome with the official “hard copy” – one which controls over all the others in case of a dispute later on – but from a practical, operational standpoint, it seems that it should be a lot more timely.

    And regarding your other point on ignoring the documents – THAT is a problem. Sad, but true nonetheless, that certain things are ignored.

  69. FatherHoisington says:

    The USCCB website says that the prayers are to be used “immediately”:
    “The Vatican has provided Latin texts of the revised prayers as well as official translations in the major western languages, including English and Spanish. The revised prayers are approved to be used immediately.”

  70. Pingback: Papa Francisco manda introduzir São José nos Canons II, III e IV da missa

  71. Random Friar says:

    @carolina publican:

    Part of the reason for the delay in promulgation is also to make sure everyone has time to get everything prepared as needed: proper catechesis, proper training, proper procedures change, etc, depending on the type of decree or law promulgated.

    In general, it’s better to explain, then do, than do, then explain. That was one of the chief complaints of many after the more liturgically chaotic years after the implementations of Vatican II. You show up, and all of a sudden, something changes and the only explanation you got was “that’s what ‘they’ said we do now.”

  72. Pingback: El Papa Francisco Ha Decidido Que San José Sea Invocado En Las Plegarias Eucarísticas II, III y IV | Ramita De Dios

  73. Rev. Paul L. Vasquez says:

    A vacatio legis (and the requirements for there not to be one) belongs to the treasure of practical wisdom contained in canon law for many years, and indeed the same wisdom is found in the civil law as well.

    In general, I find this decree (both in wording and in the way it was promulgated) problematic. I’m glad for the new norm, just not happy about the lack of attention to detail that canon law requires. This isn’t rocket science. The requirements for shortening the vacatio or removing it altogether are not in some obscure document known to only a few. It belongs to the kind of canonical inattention that seems to be creeping more into Vatican canonical matters outside of anything in Cardinal Burke’s purview.

  74. Random Friar says:

    Random question: What happens with Masses for Reconciliation I-II and Masses for Special Needs I-IV? The format is similar to EP II-IV, right?

  75. Pingback: St. Joseph unforgotten? « Sacerdotus

  76. Fr. Thomas Kocik says:

    Random Friar: I asked the same question (see above). This is the response I received from Fr Dan Merz, Associate Director, USCCB Secretariat of Divine Worship: “You are correct. The permission extends only to Eucharistic Prayers II, III and IV.” Go figure.

  77. fides249 says:

    I’ve learned that this addendum to the Missal was a project of PBXVI and passed on to Pope Francis to implement. The folks who composed the additional EPs during the implementation of the reform of the liturgy right after Vatican II forgot or refused or did not know that they should have added to the new EPs the 5-worded text which Pope John XXIII inserted in the 1962 Missal’s Canon.

Comments are closed.