The twenty-sixth and last Sunday after Pentecost is of semi-double rite and its liturgical colour is green. It is also the fifth Sunday of November. The Gospel pericopes from St. Matthew contain the prophetic words of the LORD concerning the last days and the coming of the Antichrist.At Vespers yesterday afternoon the psalms of Saturday were sung. The antiphon on the Magnificat was Super muros tuos for the Saturday before the fifth Sunday of November. After the collect of the Sunday commemorations were sung of the preceding Office of St. John of the Cross and of St. Catharine. The Suffrage of the Saints was omitted because of the occurring double feasts as were the Dominical preces at Compline.
At Mattins in the first nocturn the lessons are the Incipit of the Book of Michah the Prophet. In the second nocturn the lessons are from St. Basil the Great on the thirty-third psalm. In the third nocturn the homily is from St. Jerome on St. Matthew's Gospel. The Te Deum is sung. At Lauds, after the collect of the Sunday, a commemoration of St. Catharine is sung.
At Prime (Pss. 117, 118i & 118ii) both Quicumque and the Dominical preces are omitted because of the occurring double feast.
Mass is sung after Terce. The Gloria is sung, the second collect is of St Catharine. There is no third collect. The Creed is sung and the preface of the Blessed Trinity.
Vespers are of the Sunday. After the collect of the Sunday commemorations are sung of the following Office of St. Silvester, St. Catharine and of St. Peter of Alexandria. At Compline the Dominical preces are omitted because of the occurring double feasts.
In the 'liturgical books of 1962' there are no commemorations at Vespers. Mattins is cut down to one nocturn of three lessons. At Lauds there are no commemorations. At Mass there is a single collect. Vespers are of the Sunday without any commemorations.
Art: Jerome Nadal Nadal's image of the Antichrist enthroned whilst the clergy and people give him false worship.
Posts
1 comment:
A question: last week we had a short exchange regarding earlier liturgical book (like the one for which you publish your Ordo). Do you believe that Summorum Pontificum set a legal precedent? I ask because the language in 1964 that changes the rubrics of the 1962 Missal and the language promulgating the 1965 Missal seems quite similar to that of all new typical editions after 1911. They seem to assume the adoption of the new rites mentioned without explicitly banning the old—although anyone could see that was the intention. If an explicit prohibition is necessary to "abrogate" a Missal or breviary, could one not legitimately use 1939 or 1967?
Inevitably, should the argument for liturgy not be a moral one, rather than one from positive law?
Post a Comment