tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8669950994040167422.post6671164257782729149..comments2024-03-25T11:45:15.757+00:00Comments on The Saint Lawrence Press Blog: Within the Octave of the AssumptionRubricariushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05050302650867319277noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8669950994040167422.post-52161929587069776492011-08-20T05:11:18.834+00:002011-08-20T05:11:18.834+00:00Interesting question. I have only the physical bo...Interesting question. I have only the physical book, a totum dated 17 July, 1956, calling itself the Editio Typica...oddly, I've seen the same totum with Ursuline propers dated 1957, where the rubrical changes ARE incorporated...as they are on fascicles of S. Lawrence of Brindisi from 1959.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8669950994040167422.post-76494458849933233982011-08-19T14:28:44.066+00:002011-08-19T14:28:44.066+00:00Do you have a reference for the promulgation Dr. F...Do you have a reference for the promulgation Dr. F.?Rubricariushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05050302650867319277noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8669950994040167422.post-85962325928396019682011-08-19T13:25:35.330+00:002011-08-19T13:25:35.330+00:00Oddly, the Vatican Press did publish a typical edi...Oddly, the Vatican Press did publish a typical edition of the Breviary in 1956, the first since 1948. It contains the novel offices of May 1 and May 31, but otherwise, as per the strange 1955 rule that new copies of the Breviary could not incorporate the new rubrical changes...thus, arguably, making the 1956 typical breviary the first ever that could not actually be used.<br /><br />-Dr. Lee FratantuonoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8669950994040167422.post-87515216751342985372011-08-19T12:53:03.727+00:002011-08-19T12:53:03.727+00:00Paleo-Con,
Thank you for your kind wishes.
The ...Paleo-Con,<br /><br />Thank you for your kind wishes. <br /><br />The 1940s were really a preparatory period where the impetus for reform grew, hindered of course by the Second World War. Those, rather bitter, fruits ripened in the 1950s and later.<br /><br />The only versions of typical editions published in the 1950s were of the <i>Rituale</i> - with increasing use of the vernacular and simplifications - and the <i>editio sexta post typicam Missalis Romani</i> that was published in 1953. Mgr. Bugnini wrote an article about the latter that appears in <i>Ephemerides Liturgicae</i> 67, pp. 46-61 detailing the tinkerings therein.Rubricariushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05050302650867319277noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8669950994040167422.post-68064424415372163502011-08-19T07:25:04.309+00:002011-08-19T07:25:04.309+00:00Peter,
In that case the preface would be of the Tr...Peter,<br />In that case the preface would be of the Trinity.Rubricariushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05050302650867319277noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8669950994040167422.post-58274706318382576792011-08-19T00:32:50.394+00:002011-08-19T00:32:50.394+00:00Rubicarius:
Could it be possible to prov...Rubicarius:<br /> Could it be possible to provide in the Blog a summary of the day’s office as celebrated in the 1954 liturgical books (when different from 1939 as are 15 and 18 August) as you do for those of 1962. There are many, besides myself, who would greatly appreciate this.<br /> God Bless you for your work,Paleo-Conhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12932584031702915500noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8669950994040167422.post-3190301828598194422011-08-18T23:26:33.688+00:002011-08-18T23:26:33.688+00:00If the feast of St Joachim were to fall on a Sunda...If the feast of St Joachim were to fall on a Sunday would the preface be of the BVM for the Octave or of the Trinity for the Sunday?Peternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8669950994040167422.post-29361884621119280262011-08-18T11:14:40.595+00:002011-08-18T11:14:40.595+00:00Dear Fr. Durham,
I fear it is an error with the t...Dear Fr. Durham,<br /><br />I fear it is an error with the text from <i>Ordo</i> 2010 when the Assumption fell on a Sunday. In 1954 too the Assumption fell on a Sunday, the X Sunday after Pentecost, hence the entry in your <i>Ordo</i>.Rubricariushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05050302650867319277noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8669950994040167422.post-61474681808197045632011-08-18T08:58:19.147+00:002011-08-18T08:58:19.147+00:00Dear Rubricarius,
I was wondering about the colle...Dear Rubricarius,<br /><br />I was wondering about the collects for today (4th day in the Octave). At first, I thought that you had made an error using 'cut and paste' as you mention in your post. However, I have a photocopy of the Ordo for Lausanne, Geneva, and Fribourg from 1954, which has the same collects as printed in your ordo, i.e. Mass of the preceding Sunday, 2. or. Oct, 3a s. Agapiti -- or Private Mass of the Octave, 2a or. Dom., 3a s. Agapiti. What exactly is the basis for the commemoration of the preceding Sunday ? Is it because the Octave is a common octave ? It seems strange because the Sunday was not impeded... Please keep up the good work and God bless.<br />Fr. DurhamAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com