Ordo (DA)

[MRoth1910]

I believe that this is the right spot for a meta comment.

I am, surprisingly, only in possession of the Mass rubrics in Latin and then Gerhard Eger's translation of the general rubrics.

My breviary doesn't even have the Latin.

I do most of my work by looking at the St Lawrence Press Ordo and checking Stercky if I'm confused. If that doesn't solve it, I research a historical ordo from a year that should correspond (except for Easter, sometimes). In this case, whether or not Saint Monica's assigned gospel should be proper, 1919, 1924, and 1930 are what we're looking for: Easter fell on April 20 in those years; otherwise, 1941, 1947,or 1952 would at least get us Sunday, May 4. See: #4447

so that is a long way of prefacing my remarks to say that I am not the guy, and I'm not sure that I could become the guy, since there are a lot of quirks (which Scriptural readings at Matins must be read is nightmarish to calculate sometimes), and that maybe my criticism is not well taken.

But when I find something that does not accord with Stercky or the historical ordines, it's because Restore the 54 did something that DivinumOfficium copied or was set up to do and then was checked against Restore the 54.

And without pitting people against each other…I don't know what to do. I can't rely on Rubricarius forever, or any one person for that matter.

[FAJ-Munich]

Surrexit Dominus vere, alleluja!

I can feel your pain especially since it seems from time to time that Tridentine and DA versions show errors which haven't been in before. When it comes to Translation of Feasts, 1570 and 1617 versions are definatively still far removed from being complete as every Semiduplex and above needs to find its proper place when impeded. The same holds true for Scriptural/Matins readings which, looking at the online available Ordo from 1572, actually have had quite some logically sound transfers which are not in line with the litteral reading of the rubrics in the Tridentine books of the time.

When it comes to the missa, personally (and I know of some other regular maintainers too) there is just not as much familiarity with the perl code and the older rubrics yet as to make big improvements. Given your experience with older Ordos, maybe you have a suggestion on how to tackle the issue of the proper Last Gospel logically/mathematically? To me the rubric IX $3 in Additiones et Variationes in Rubricis Missalis is too obscure to make full sense of it.

My breviary doesn't even have the Latin.

By now, I have PDF downloads of 1570, 1888, 1906, 1942 Roman breviaries and 1617 and 1930 Monastic. I think mostly from archive(dot)org. Let me know if you cannot find the download links.

[MRoth1910]

I agree that it's very hard to get the proper Last Gospels right (but IMHO better to have to add one back in than present one when it should be the usual text from Saint John). I need to think more about this.

And I'm not trying to knock people because, well, I don't want to compile a full ordo (but maybe I should aim for that), it's just that this mistake is getting systematized with the Restore the 54 ordo on the web (it is better this year, at least for Sundays, but this one still snuck in). Now that ordo is not available all that far in advance (they publish chunks and not even a whole civil year at a time). Nevertheless, it means that if someone went to check their work so to speak, they'd be satisfied when they saw this proper Last Gospel on Sunday 5/4/2025.

I am leaning towards saying that anyone interested in the 1954 rubrics should consult, at least when looking in the same civil year, the Benedicamus Domino ordo from Poland, then Saint Lawrence Press (technically 1939, but mostly the same except for a handful of a feasts and then the Mass and office texts, e.g. common of popes, new Assumption texts), in addition to or instead of Restore the 54.

As far as checking historical sources go, I'm good at finding where a paper copy might be, but not so good at finding them digitized (and available, since technically many are still under copyright protection).

[FAJ-Munich]

I don't think that prior to your first raised issues on the topic of the Last Gospel, there have been any deliberate adjustments made to include or exclude the Last Gospel. If Restore-the-54 has based its Ordo on DO, I don't know. I am more certain noone here at DO has used them as a source. At least it is not known to me.

Historically, a Last Gospel for a commemorated Saint (not talking about a Sunday or Lenten day which gets it always) has been included by the script whenever a [Evangelium] hash has been present in the database file for a feast; even when it has been a reference to a Common. If it has been working originally, I am sure that over time it broke mainly due to different maintainers' style of including necessary/unnecessary references and redundant text in the database files being unaware of the consequence on the Last Gospel part.

When it comes to the Rubrics itself, what puzzles me the most is what

stricte proprium (et non appropriatum, vel ex aliquo Communi assignatum, ...)

actually is supposed to mean. After all, correct me if I am wrong, the Commons have been built from some Saints propers and not the otherway round. For instance, St. Martin's feast is the source for the Hymn Iste confessor and also the Introit Statuit ei, isn't it? Despite these not being the Gospel in question here, wouldn't these be strictly proper to St. Martin even though other feasts have inherited them?

[MRoth1910]

Hmm. Well, it's curious that these are the ones with the same mistake. The Restore the 54 people are a bit opaque at the moment.

As to strictly proper, no.

But this is also why I rely on the SCR decrees that tell you which gospels to read, such as on July 22 or 29, BVM feasts of double major rank that fall on a Sunday and are commemorated, the Angels etc. but not certain other days, only the first impeded day of the octave of the Apostles, etc.

You might not catch them all this way, but better to be less zealous. (As a practical matter too: I find it easier for all involved to accidentally say the usual text than to mistakenly read a proper one when no one expects it due to the feast commemorated not being one of the listed ones).

[MRoth1910]

This #4516 reminds me of this point.

What are we actually doing? There's no documentation that this (UNRUBRICAL) change was made ad hoc. But apparently no one bothered to updated the website, and everyone now just assumes that the Queenship is actually a part of the DA rubrics, when it isn't.

Particularly since I actually contribute to make this site correct, I don't think that I deserve a dismissal as short as "well, other people want this wrong thing, so we're doing it, tough."

It is not a historical version of the office if we do what we like to it. You want the Queenship? Do your own office.

I'm not even asking to go back before 1954, which is the ideal. The Assumption and what little remains of the octave is destroyed with the reforms of Pius XII, but there seems to be, for now, a consensus around 1954.

[APMarcello3]

@MRoth1910 Would you kindly contact me offsite? Thank you.

[MRoth1910]

well it sounds like I'm being scolded…

but there are just a whole host of other issues buried here where the conversation needs to be upfront. namely, the multiplication of calendars instead of trying to accomodate various calendars. One program per calendar, not one program, a lot of things appended on to it (which require a bunch of ad hoc solutions). And then not actually making DA DA.

[FAJ-Munich]

Since this topic has had been discussed and addressed in #3712, I see this point rather as a caution that no new erroneous last gospels are introduced. As of today, I am not aware there are any left but if there are please point them out. Again, since the code for missa is largely in its original state, maintenance is a very tough exercise.

[MRoth1910]

yes, I know, but I am basically confused as to how these are getting introduced and how and why the two sites are basically copying each other in whole or in part. "Who is using whose work is the question?" and it's puzzling that, if as you say, the DO folks aren't checking Restore the 54, the DO site has these same errors.

Introducing Last Gospels where they don't belong seems much harder than omitting the legal-fiction ones (Our Lady, the Angels, etc.) or getting it right in the octave of the Apostles…and I am struggling to understand how the compiler of the Restore the 54 ordo is making this mistake year in and year out (I know who it is, he knows the rubrics, or should. It is baffling, and I'd ask him directly but I don't have a good reliable way to reach him these days, unfortunately; trust me, putting it on GitHub wasn't my preference.)

but this also gets back to the question of who's going to learn to compile an ordo…I don't want to do it but I may well have to learn from Rubricarius.

[FAJ-Munich]

Well, I can tell you what I think is the cause for these errors: before you raising this issue last year, the code simply produced a last gospel whenever an [Evangelium] hash is present in an offices txt file; even if this hash is just a necessary cross-reference to a (different) commune file or completely redundant.
As I have seen in many instances, contributers tend to rather add extra hashes "to be safe" not knowing the unintuitive consequences on other matters like this one in question.