14 April 2016

S Joseph and the Roman Canon

Here is an old post from November 13 2009. I reprint it because the attached thread establishes that S Joseph is not part of the Canon in the 1962 Editio Typica. Accordingly, his insertion in Masses said by virtue of Summorum Pontificum is apparently illegal. 

Readers also discuss the important  fact that, pretty universally, the rather unsatisfactory rite of "1962" is not celebrated as printed but with a lot of the manners, mannerisms, of the previous dispensation. These variations presumably now (Canon 26) have the prescription of consuetudo; and remember O'Connell's discussion of consuetudines contra vel praeter legem.
This is what I wrote in 2009: A very strange youtube video has appeared, from the Ecclesia Dei Commission, showing How To Say Mass. I mention here only the oddity that S Joseph is absent from the Canon. (And, in case you were wondering, there is no Third Confiteor).


Father TE Jones SSC said...

S. Joseph was added to the Canon under the reign of HH John XXIII, thus could the missal being used be that before the amendment?

Rubricarius said...

I immediately noticed bows to the Cross at Glori Patri, Oremus and the conclusion of the collect etc.

Have these people not read their own Ritus servandus in the Missal?

rev'd up said...

I noticed several oddities and anachronisms as well. (In no particular order)

1) The handling of burse and veil by server.

2) No S Joseph in canon but only one collect.

3) The celebrant seems overly fussy with the purificator.

4) Lavabo towel laid on the mensa?

5) Celebrant fails to make the sign of the cross with his biretta at end.

6) Beautiful veil over tabernacle; we don't see enough of them.

7) Does the server say "Amen" after the Benedicat vos or does the Celebrant say it?

8) Celebrant didn't elevate eyes at Veni sanctificator.

This gets at what you mentioned in an earlier post; the multiplicity of rites engenders sloppiness. It's a nice video but they could have done better.

They say: Practice makes perfect. They should say: Perfect practice makes perfect.

David said...

It sounds like a bit of a hodge podge. Ecclesia Dei should know better.

It seems that priests confuse the 1962 Missal with earlier versions. Is this entirely an accident. For reasons of his own, perhaps to screen out sedevacantists, Archbishop Lefebvre opted for the 1962 edition but that missal was really a transition towards what was to come and signs of reform are already apparent in it.

The question is, what will the next edition be like? I suspect there would be a fair degree of support for a return to before 1962.

Fr Michael Brown said...

The decree for adding St Joseph was issued on 13th November 1962. The decree says it is to be included in the canon from December 8th 1962. When was the editio typica of the 1962 missal issued? I`ve not seen a date ever given. However for all of 1962 apart from the last twenty-three days St Joseph was not in the canon. I have an altar missal published in 1962 which omits him. That`s good enough for me.

Father Yohannes - Monk Priest said...

Regarding the placement of St. Joseph in the Canon; I have two Altar editions of the Roman Missal, both published in 1962…still in the boxes none-the-less. The first one, published in early 1962 has no St. Joseph in the Canon, as Father Michael Brown pointed out; the decree to include St. Joseph was from December 8, 1962. The other Altar Missal I have, published in Belgium in November 1962 has St. Joseph in the Canon. Has Rome indicated which editions are permissible or just given the date “1962” as the norm?

pipesmoker said...

The study edition which the Vatican Press now publishes contains St Joseph. I have simply presumed that now that is the typical edition.

Christian said...

There is no second confiteor in the '62 missal. The only reason why it is widely said still is that the traditionalist orders have an indult to say it where it is expected. It has developed, after the recent Motu Proprio, that all include the second confiteor though this is tecnically illegal.

rev'd up,

I have never seen any Roman priest cross himself with his biretta. I think that might just be an Anglican practice or a minority Roman practice.

rev'd up said...

Christian, thank you for the correction! I find myself guilty of a provincialism and am heartily grateful for your help; I will terminate it.

Canon Jerome Lloyd OSJV said...

Never cross with a biretta - not even before preaching?!

Martin said...

I too have never seen a Catholic priest cross himself with his biretta, and I have spent a good many years among Traddies. But maybe it is part of the Patrimony was are all looking forward to.

Rubricarius said...

Fr. Michael Brown

The 'typical' edition of the the 1962 MR was 23 June 1962 declared thus by a decree of SCR. Interestingly, to you as a canonist at least, the declaration of an editio typica did not follow the norms of then Canon Law and the declaration never appeared in AAS unlike the previous 'typical edition' of 1953 (vide: Bugnini, A., 'Editio VI post typicam Missalis Romani' in Ephemerides Liturgicae 67 (1953) pp46 - 61, or the new Order of Mass published in 1965, vide: Bugnini, A., "Il nuovo 'Ordo Missae" in L'Osservatore Romano January 1965. I am afraid I do not have the AAS references immediately to hand but you will find therein the official declaration of 'typical edition' for the 1953 MR and 1965 Ordo but not the 1962 MR.

Andrew said...


I am afraid that I don't understand your first comment here. I am looking at the Ritus servandus of a 1923 Missale Romanum and I see
IV 2) Cum dixit: Gloria Patri, tenens junctas manus, caput inclinat versus Crucem
V 1) et jungens ante pectus, caputque Cruci inclinans, dixit Oremus:

Do I misunderstand something here?

Many thanks,


Little Black Sambo said...


Rubricarius said...


Precisely! Now compare your 1923 version with the RS printed in a 1962 edition of MR.

You can also find several articles in 'Worship', 'Clergy Review' etc explaining the changes introduced in the missal from that time.

Fr Michael Brown said...


Thanks for the info. I depend on Ochoa`s `Leges Ecclesiae` which seems to have everything in it but it has always puzzled me why there is no decree for the editio typica of 1962. So if as you say it was June 1962 then adding St Joseph to the canon is not part of the authentic 1962 missal.

I have looked through the legislation of 1953 in Ochoa and can se any number of decress from the SCR and papal decress but can`t see any for an editio typica. Can you say which month it was issued?

If the 1962 decree was never put in the AAS then it simply doesn`t exist and there is no such thing as the 1962 editio typica.

Andrew said...

Thank you Rubricarius. I suppose that most of us just don't realise how many innovations were introduced in the "1962" rite.


Joshua said...

I believe Fr Z commented upon acting as one of the sacred ministers at a Mass done strictly according to the 1962 rubrics - it was the first time he'd ever done so.

For most trads, strict 1962 with no additions, deletions or alterations is as rare and hypothetical as a strict adherence to the 1662 would be for Anglicans.