Monday 20 September 2010

September 6th - XVII Sunday after Pentecost

Today is the seventeenth Sunday after Pentecost and the second Sunday of September. The Sunday is, as usual, of semi-double rite and the liturgical colour is green. The Gospel pericopes at Mattins and Mass come from the twenty-second chapter of St. Matthew and have the Pharisees asking the LORD what is the greatest commandment.

At Vespers yesterday afternoon the antiphons and psalms of Vespers for Saturday (Pss. 143, 144, 145, 146 & 147) were sung. The chapter was O Altitudo and the Office hymn O lux beata Trinitas. The antiphon on the Magnificat was In omnibus hisfor the Saturday before the second Sunday of August. After the collect of the Sunday the Suffrages of the BVM Sancta Maria succurre etc, the Apostles Petrus Apostolus etc, of the Patron and lastly for peace Da pacem Domine . At Compline the Dominical preces were sung.

At Mattins the invitatory is Adoremus Dominum and the Office hymn Nocte surgentes. In the first nocturn (Pss. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 & 14) are sung. The lessons continue to be read from the Book of Job, taken from the ninth chapter. The first lesson consists of all the first and second lessons from the modern editions, Et respondens Job ait...quorum non est numerus. The second lesson begins Si venerit ad me... and includes all the text of the modern third lesson but, in addition, has Non concedit requiescere... me amaritudinibus (v. 18). The third lesson is not found at all in the modern books Si fortitudo quaeritur...non parceres delinquenti (vv. 19 - 28). In the second nocturn (Pss. 15, 16 & 17) the lessons are from the Book of Morals of St. Gregory. These are the same as those in the modern books. In the third nocturn (Pss. 18, 19 & 20) the homily is from St. Chrysostom on St. Matthews's Gospel. The eighth and ninth lessons are are longer than those found in modern editions. The Te Deum is sung.

At Lauds the Sunday psalms (Pss. 92, 99, 62-66, Benedicite 148-49-150) are sung. After the collect of the Sunday the Suffrages of the BVM Sancta Maria succurre etc, the Apostles Gloriosi principes etc, of the Patron and lastly for peace Da pacem Domine etc are sung.

At Prime (Pss. 117, 118i & 118ii) Quicumque is sung as are the Dominical preces.

Mass is sung after Terce. The Gloria is sung, the second collect is A cunctis, the third collect chosen by the Dean or rector. The Credo is sung, the Common Preface is sung.

Vespers are of the Sunday Pss. 109, 110, 111, 112 & 113). After the collect of the Sunday the Suffrages of the BVM Sancta Maria succurre etc, the Apostles Petrus Apostolus etc, of the Patron and lastly for peace Da pacem Domine . At Compline the Dominical preces are sung. At Compline the Dominical preces are sung.

Art: Jerome Nadal


  1. I think there is a small typing error here. 19 September N.S. corresponds to 6 September O.S., not to 3 September O.S.

  2. Thank you Flying Dutchman.

    My ability to take 13 from the Gregorian date is clearly beyond my mathematical skills.

    Thanks again for pointing this out, corrected now.

  3. Dear Rubricarius,
    I enjoy reading your blog, and thank you for providing this information. It is upsetting to see how the Roman Rite has been continually changed and abreviated from its medieval form, especially in the last century, but how does one decide where to go back to? Some argue that the pope has no authority to change the liturgy, but surely that means even the revision after Trent cannot be accepted, as St Pius V removed many feasts and sequences, and changed the ordering of the Psalms for Prime (although only slightly). I have also read that he decreed every feast should have Scriptural readings. Thus, for example, the Office St Thomas wrote for Corpus Christi was no longer used in it's entirety. I am sometimes challenged as to why I think one reform is acceptable, but not another, and so would be interested to read other peoples' thoughts. Thank you once again.

  4. Dear Anonymous,

    Thank you for your kind words, which are very much appreciated.

    As to your question I am afraid I am not going to answer it because I have no answer. However, I do think it is important that we study the history of liturgy and are not taken in by what I might term the 'politics of polarisation'. The reason for this blog is that fifteen years or so ago I actually bothered to look at some Pius V Missals and Breviaries at the British Library and Lambeth Palace Library. What shocked me was that the 1570 MR was different in details (some rather noticeable like a triple blessing given by a priest at the end!) and hardly anyone seems to have been remotely interested. Jungmann and J.B. O'Connell certainly noted the changes to be fair but 'Traddieland'.... The delusional polemic of 'No reform before Paul VI' is truly absurd and needs challenging by proper study and didactic process. We can only start by being honest!

    I completely share your view: why is one reform acceptable and another not so? Twenty years ago I was certainly opposed to the Pius XII changes, particularly of Holy Week, but was rather blinded to anything else. It was Fr. Edward Black, now SSPX Superior in Australasia who planted seeds in my mind about that.

    As I said, I have no answer but I do believe there should be far greater flexibility and variance - i.e. a return to a far less regulated system where local praxis can develop without centralised control as happened in Medieval times, and of course, that we treat each other with Charity and accept diversity.

  5. Dear Rubricarius,
    Thank you for your reply. I must say I'm more for greater unity in the Liturgy than for local variations, as emphasising the unity of the Church, though I do think it a great shame that most Orders have abandoned their distinctive rites, many of which had many beautiful prayers and interesting practices.
    On another point, regarding a post on your other blog, this year in the Gregorian calendar, September 12th was the 3rd Sunday in September, and the Sunday within the Octave of the Nativity of Our Lady - wouldn't this have meant (before Pope St Pius X's reform) that the feasts of the Most Holy Name of Mary, and of the Seven Sorrows fell on the same day? I thought this, but your post on the 19th said that that was the Sunday when the 7 Sorrows could be observed. Was there a different way of calculating this Sunday than was used for the readings at Matins? If the two feasts did conflict, would one be transferred, commemorated, or not observed that year?

  6. Dear Anonymous,

    I must beg to differ with you. I do think one can have unity without uniformity. The centralisation after Trent ended organic development of the liturgy (in the Western rites at least). Had there been a wide variety of thriving local uses, and the Religious were committed to their uses, what happened in the last century simply would have been impossible.

    To your other point: There is a difference as to how Sundays are computed for Mattins and other purposes. In the Gregorian Kalendar the 12th September this year was the third Sunday of September in terms of its Mattins lessons but the second Sunday in September for the purpose of former feast days etc. So September 12th, being the Sunday within the Octave of the Nativity of the BVM allowed a celebration of the Holy Name. The following Sunday, the 19th, allowed the Seven Dolours.

  7. Dear Rubricarius,

    Thank you for your clarification. I can see your point about local uses too - it's a thought to ponder upon!