Going back to Saturday October 28: why is, in this case, the commemoration of Ss Simon and Jude before that of the Sunday? Normally, the order is commemoration of the following, then of the preceding and any other offices in order. You just have to know that there are exception. (I think, but am not sure, that something similar happened last Dec 10; Vespers are of the 3rd Sunday, with commemorations first of the octave — even though the next day is Sunday, impeding the office of the octave — and then of Pope St Damasus, but it's St Damasus, then the octave, if Dec 11 is a Saturday instead…)
Because Vespers on Saturday 28th are first Vespers of Christ the King. The first commemoration is of the preceding Office, i.e. SS Simon & Jude and then of the Sunday.
Right, but is there something other than guesswork?
The DivinumOfficium contributors are trying to fix things (see https://github.com/DivinumOfficium/divinum-officium/issues/3418#issuecomment-1805595399)
It is not always apparent when or why one makes a commemoration of the preceding office first (in this case it has some logic, but neither the rubrics nor the Additiones et Variationes spell out some of these cases). And my understanding that because Christ the King concurs, then you say the commemorations in order of dignity doesn't hold entirely (see Dec 2, where St Bibiana's commemoration is made before that of St Francis Xavier…).
Prior to Leo XIII's changes commemorations at Vespers were always in order of dignity. Afterwards it is the concurrent Office that gets commemorated first, whatever its rank, then other commemorations - if there are any - in order of dignity.
So, e.g. if a simple feast occurs on a Monday it will get commemorated first at Sunday Vespers.
P.S. You are incorrect to say Additiones et Variationes (Pius X's) do not indicate this.
See VII, 5: "Quando plures fieri debeant Commemorationes, cauto quod in Vesperis semper fit prima Commemoratio de Officio concurrenti, cujusvis ritus et dignitatis," [My emphasis]
Going back to Saturday October 28: why is, in this case, the commemoration of Ss Simon and Jude before that of the Sunday? Normally, the order is commemoration of the following, then of the preceding and any other offices in order. You just have to know that there are exception. (I think, but am not sure, that something similar happened last Dec 10; Vespers are of the 3rd Sunday, with commemorations first of the octave — even though the next day is Sunday, impeding the office of the octave — and then of Pope St Damasus, but it's St Damasus, then the octave, if Dec 11 is a Saturday instead…)
ReplyDelete@Matthew,
ReplyDeleteBecause Vespers on Saturday 28th are first Vespers of Christ the King. The first commemoration is of the preceding Office, i.e. SS Simon & Jude and then of the Sunday.
Right, but is there something other than guesswork?
ReplyDeleteThe DivinumOfficium contributors are trying to fix things (see https://github.com/DivinumOfficium/divinum-officium/issues/3418#issuecomment-1805595399)
It is not always apparent when or why one makes a commemoration of the preceding office first (in this case it has some logic, but neither the rubrics nor the Additiones et Variationes spell out some of these cases). And my understanding that because Christ the King concurs, then you say the commemorations in order of dignity doesn't hold entirely (see Dec 2, where St Bibiana's commemoration is made before that of St Francis Xavier…).
@Matthew,
ReplyDeleteIt is certainly not guesswork.
Prior to Leo XIII's changes commemorations at Vespers were always in order of dignity. Afterwards it is the concurrent Office that gets commemorated first, whatever its rank, then other commemorations - if there are any - in order of dignity.
So, e.g. if a simple feast occurs on a Monday it will get commemorated first at Sunday Vespers.
@Matthew,
ReplyDeleteP.S. You are incorrect to say Additiones et Variationes (Pius X's) do not indicate this.
See VII, 5: "Quando plures fieri debeant Commemorationes, cauto quod in Vesperis semper fit prima Commemoratio de Officio concurrenti, cujusvis ritus et dignitatis," [My emphasis]