DISORDERED ORDO IX

We should, indeed, honor St. Joseph, since the Son of God Himself was graciously pleased to honor him by calling him father. St. Alphonsus Maria de' Liguori

Editor's Note: Today's DISORDERED ORDO, a somewhat lengthy and complicated post, is entirely devoted to a liturgical error. So enormous is the blunder that this month PL has foregone pointing out mistakes in Latin and editorial consistency in order to spotlight how jaw-dropingly transgressive Dannie's goof is.  By the time you finish reading about $GG impiety, even Gerties will tell Wee Dan and Silly Sal to stop hawking ordines. 

If the Readers were asked to give just one, solitary example why no priest (and no “priest”) should ever use $GG's ordo, we'd have to offer Dannie’s following instruction from Saturday, March 19, 2016 (p. 30), the Feast of St. Joseph, Spouse of the BVM:

Ad Vesp: seq. Dom. Palmarum, Color violaceus, Antt. et Pss. de Sabb, Ant. ad Magnif: Pater juste, com. præc. (“At Vespers: of the following Palm Sunday [N.B. = First Vespers!!], Color violet, Antiphons and Psalms of Saturday, Antiphon on the Magnificat: Pater juste [“O righteous Father”], commemoration of the preceding.”)

Right off the bat, we’ll stipulate this date in 2016 was a real toughie for rank amateurs to figure out its Vespers, what with St. Joseph, a Double of the First Class falling on Saturday, and the liturgically untouchable Palm Sunday following. Whew! Complicating the matter is this statistic from M. J. Montes:  a calendar with a March-27-Easter (upon which the date of Palm Sunday obviously depends) occurs only 5 times over the period a.d. 1875-2124, inclusive— at the bottom fifth of the frequency table. 

Furthermore, during that 250-year interval, the only years in which a March-27-Easter occurs are 1910, 1921, 1932, 2005, and 2016. Consequently, if you're producing an ordo based on “Pius-X-rubrics” and want to see what pre-Vatican-II compilers did, you've got two choices — '21 and '32. Admittedly, it might be hard for most folks to lay their hands on an ordo from so far back. Moreover, if you're Dannie or Silly Sal, you might be too bone-idle to look or too confident in your disturbingly inadequate knowledge of the liturgy to bother to check. 

This year's Vespers decision, then, was clearly a matter for pros, not malformed, Latin-less dilettantes.

Real liturgical experts with whom we conferred told us that Dannie's entry is virtually all wrong, largely because he seemingly doesn't know the elementary difference between concurrence (= the "conflict of two Offices, one of which follows the other on two consecutive days...[and] can take place only in the Vespers") and occurrence (= the "conflict of two or more offices falling on the same day"*).

March 19, the date of St. Joseph's feast, fell this year on Saturday, not on Palm Sunday. It was, therefore, to be celebrated normally, and not transferred. Hence, Saturday, 3/19/16, is a case of concurrence, not occurrence. As one of our expert advisors skillfully explained,

[Vespers] on Saturday, March 19, 2016, would be as follows: Second Vespers of St. Joseph, commemoration of Palm Sunday, color white.  The Antiphons and Psalms would NOT be of the Saturday, but would be those proper to the feast of St. Joseph, as, of course, would the Antiphon on the Magnificat. The Antiphon that Dannie lists, Pater juste, is that of the commemoration of Palm Sunday.

Insofar as competently compiled ordines are written in succinct, formulaic language, all that was really needed for the Latin instruction were the following six “words,” not Dannie’s 18:

V fest, com Dom, color albus (“Vespers of the feast, commemoration of Sunday, color white”) 

Why so short when compared to the English of our experts? First, in an ordo, it’s unnecessary to add Palm Sunday, for even an idiot cult “priest” can see that when he looks at the ensuing March 20 entry. Second, in the formula we just used, there’s no need for a  “2” before the “V” because V[esperae] fest[i] in liturgical parlance means “Second Vespers,” i.e., of the feast being celebrated, viz. St. Joseph, Spouse of the BVM. Third, it’s unnecessary in an ordo to repeat St. Joseph 's name since it's in the title of the entry.  (First Vespers, BTW, is of the feast to be celebrated and is sometimes styled V[esperae] seq[uentis], to which Deficient Dan’s ad Vesp: seq… is equivalent. )

At this point, some foaming-at-the-mouth culties out in cyberspace are moistly roaring back at their spittle-sprayed screens in a barely intelligible, hill-jack drawl:

“How dew yew'ns know, Puh-EE AY-yul? Yer ’non'mous “ache-spurts” maat be raw-ung! It’s jes’ thay-er opinion, ya know. Them dudes DEE-uhd-n’t make no pre -V2 oar-DOUGHS. Thayerfer, da BEE-uh--ship WEE-ins, 'n' yew'ns loust!”

Well, the Readers thought the mad-dog “fans-o’-Dan” might bark something along those rustic lines.

That’s why PL looked for a pre-Vatican II ordo with a March-27-Easter before sitting down to post. Fortunately for PL, which does have the energy to do the research, our Readers acquired a copy of a 1932 ordo from Verona, Italy. (How’s that for authoritative?)

At March 19, the feast’s caption reads:

Alb. Sabb. S. JOSEPH SPONSI B. M. V. Conf. dupl. 1 class. Off. festiv. pr. ut in Brev. (“White Saturday [feast] of St. Joseph Spouse of the BVM Confessor double of the 1^st class proper festive Office as in the Breviary”),

and here’s what it gives for Vespers:

In 2 Vesp. (ut in Brev.), com. Dom... ** (“In Second Vespers (as in the Breviary), commemoration of Sunday...”)

For those of you who aren’t familiar with “ordo speak,” permit us to gloss:

On Saturday, March 19, 1932, the crisply designed Italian ordo informed the trained clergy of Verona that:  

(1) The feast being celebrated that day in white vestments was that of St. Joseph, Spouse of the BVM, and it had a proper festive Office, “which,” as Matters Liturgical says, does “not take any of [its] constituent parts ... from the occurring Ferial Day….” Accordingly, there’s nothing to be taken from the ferial Office of Saturday in Passion Week. (Besides, if the ferial Office were to be said, the entry caption would have read something like 19 Viol. Sabb. De eo etc.); and 

(2) The proper festive office is “as in the Beviary,” here meaning it’s found in the “Proper of Saints” section of the Roman Breviary under March 19. 

As a result, when the well-formed Veronese clergy reached their Vespers instructions, they at once knew they had to say Second Vespers from the sanctoral Office of March 19 (viz., St. Joseph, Spouse of the BVM, the feast being celebrated, not to be celebrated) and then make a commemoration of the next day, Sunday.

Hunnh? Pardon us. What’s that you’re growling? Go, ahead ... repeat it, Gerties. We’ll listen. We promise. Just wipe your twisted mouths first:

“That thar EYE-tal-yun oar-DOUGH don’t make us'ns no never mind. EE-ut coo-ud be raw-ung. Anyhows, that’s onlyest one yaar. Yew'ns ain’t proved jack squat!”

Spewed out like a loyal cult zombie, that's for sure!

PL anticipated Gertie genetic throw-backs would find cover in ridge-runner skepticism, so the Readers were ready. It so happens PL also got hold of a 1921 ordo from Carcassonne, France, where we found for March 19 the following:

Alb. Sabb. — S. JOSEPH, SPONSI etc….— Off. ut in breviar....Vesp. de festo, com. seq. Dom. ("White, Saturday, [feast] of St. Joseph, Spouse etc....Office as in the Breviary...Vespers of the feast, commemoration of the Sunday following").

So, there, you saucer-eyed cultie cretins! Our modern-day experts do have corroboration from the good ol’ days: they’re right, and your "BEE-uh-ship" Dumbo Dan is oh-so-wrong. Just as our learned consultants said: “Second Vespers of St. Joseph with commemoration of Sunday, color white” and not  “First Vespers of Palm Sunday, color violet, etc.,” as “One-Hand Dan” egregiously misled his dubious “clergy” (and most likely Big Don’s zeroes, too).

Let's now move on from the mentally incapacitated Gerties, O.K.?

A rational objection to our critique — one, say, from an overly fair-minded, educated traditional Catholic (therefore, not a cultie) — might claim that Li’l Daniel blundered in good faith. Not having an old ordo at hand,  they could argue, “Dannie's only mistake, albeit a big one, was to give precedence to the Sunday Vespers over the Double of the First Class.  As it was a Sunday of the First Class, there is some room for excusing his error.”

Fair enough (as Cheesy might retort with a smirk). Maybe early 20^th century ordines are hard to find if you’re a slouch. However, there are plenty of 2005 Saint Lawrence Press (SLP) editions available. $GG was known to buy multiple copies, and so did the pesthouse. In fact, Tradzilla used to save them and probably still does. Why didn’t Dannie consult it for a another opinion? After all, $GG’s ORDO 2016 plundered SLP’s scheme for noting the Psalms (click here), and as we’ve seen, the cult isn’t above plagiary (click here).

One glance at p. 27 of the 2005 SLP edition should have cleared up any doubts or at least given rise to some second thoughts:

V fest, com seq (“Vespers of the feast, commemoration of the following [day, viz. Palm Sunday].”) 

And big as life in the right-hand column is the capital letter “A” signifying White vestments. But His Self-Importancy and dribbling Silly Sal chose not to seek guidance from an intellectual and social superior.

Finally, it remains to address Dannie’s instruction Ant. ad Magnif: Pater juste ("Antiphon on the Magnficat: O righteous Father”), the only element that comes close to being right. Although mention of that Antiphon on the Magnificat from the Saturday Office in Passion Week is totally unnecessary for a properly trained, skilled user of the Breviary (seeing that the economical V fest, com Dom, color albus would've been sufficient). To be sure, that Antiphon was to be recited BUT …. as the commemoration of the SUNDAY!***

In spite of Dannie’s maladroit positioning of the instruction, some Bambi-inspired souls might defend his inclusion of Ant. ad Magnif etc. as a good-hearted attempt to help his liturgically challenged “clergy” figure out which Antiphon to say. Sometimes, you know, the old ordines were so expressively parsimonious, they became almost cryptic to the neophyte. And for that reason, even though Dirtbag Dan pretty much botched the whole thing, his attempt at greater specificity should be imitated in today’s ordines.

And you know what? PL would have to agree.

Priestly formation in the infamous sede “seminaries” is so bad that their completers need every bit of assistance from today’s ordo compilers. But let’s make sure the assistance doesn’t add to a grotesquely malformed user’s already overwhelming difficulties. And let’s make sure it’s in the right place, shall we? Hence, this is what we’d suggest by way of a contribution (although it’ll never be needed in our, our children's, or our grandchildren's lifetimes, seeing that the Astronomical Society of South Australia's tables show the next occurrence will fall in 2157!):

V fest, com Dom (ant ad Magn: Pater juste e Sab infra Hebd Pass) (“Second Vespers of the Feast, commemoration of Sunday [Antiphon on the Magnificat: Pater juste from Saturday of Passion Week]”)

THE BOTTOM LINE

There’s no mistaking it: Wee Dan and his addled sidekick messed up royally. Wrong Vespers. Wrong Office. Wrong color. Wrong Psalms. Wrong Commemoration assignment.

Utterly incompetent!

But it’s actually worse. On Saturday, March 19, 2016, any cult “priest” who recited what we'll call The Silly-Sal Vespers, a massacre of the Roman liturgy, necessarily failed to observe the liturgical rights of St. Joseph’s Office.

As a matter of fact, if "clergy" used $GG ‘s ORDO, then, at Vespers, they reduced the Patron of the Catholic Church to a mere commemoration on his feast day! (We hope the Mexican clergy associated with $GG had enough sense to ignore Dimwit Dan and thereby please God by praying the rightful Vespers of our Lady’s holy Spouse.)

IOHO, any “priest” who used Dannie’s ORDO and thereby omitted the Vespers of St. Joseph is culpable because everybody knows the $GG crowd is way out of its depth. Cult “priests” should have bought the SLP edition, not Dannie’s impious mess. If these clerical wannabes still possess the slightest sense of the Catholic religion, they should firmly resolve to ignore Dannie and Silly Sal’s sales pitch this December when the $GG ORDO 2017 goes on the market. "Clergy" can get the real thing from England (click here).

Reparation, "reverend" gentlemen, is in order. And you know it!

STARVE THE BEAST!

*Definitions from Wuest’s Matters Liturgical, where the all the rules for the “Concurrence of Feasts — Arrangement of the Vespers” may be found. (Emphases ours.) Although there’s a Latin edition, this book is available in English, so it should have been accessible to Dannie and Silly Sal. Fewer wasteful trips to Mexico would have left more money to buy indispensable reference books.

** We omitted the local commemoration since it does not apply to a universal ordo, a standard "Do-What-You-Want" Dan and Silly Sal can’t seem to observe (see, e.g., DISORDERED ORDO 2/21/16)

*** The Jesuit Bernard Hausmann makes clear all the rules in his indispensable Learning the Breviary. We recommend his work to every lover of the traditional liturgy (available here), but we must raise one caution: the handbook assumes you’re using an expertly edited ordo, not Dannie's disaster.