My argument in favor for St. Joseph in the Canon is more an argument of custom/pious tradition, rather than of strict law under Pope John XXIII. I am leaving the pope question aside for now. My argument is that the majority of pontiffs chose not to introduce St. Joseph in the Canon because it was believed that he died under the Old Law, which is only partially true. I have read "The Life of St. Joseph" by Mother Mary Cecilia Baij, OSB (d. 1736 *By far my favorite book on St. Joseph), "The Glories of St. Joseph" by Healy, and quite frankly, anything of merit that I can get my hands on about St. Joseph. It is clear that the tradition developed that St. Joseph was resurrected by Our Lord after Easter Sunday, that he was reunited with Our Lady during that short interval of time, that he most assuredly received the Sacraments of the Church, and that he ascended with Our Lord into heaven. All this said, it is only most fitting that St. Joseph be in the Canon of the Mass. Who can argue that St. Joseph is not above all the martyrs by virtue of his eminent sanctity? Offer to me a single argument as to why he should not be in the Canon. St. Joseph is completely silent in Holy Writ, but he speaks in the Canon of the Mass. St Joseph and Our Lady were together in life, together in Heaven, and together in the Canon, this only seems to me fitting.
And furthermore, many of us believe that the Age of Mary, yet to come, will be preempted by the Age of Joseph, so to speak. Perhaps the introduction of St. Joseph in the canon is a prefiguring of the Age of Mary. I would personally like to see the Church define dogmatically the perpetual virginity of St. Joseph which is very clearly part of Church tradition, at least as far as I understand the matter.
Topic: Red Alert! Are the Sedevacantists the Only True Followers of Abp. Lefebvre? (Read 23702 times)