First, it would be nice if you could provide a source for the claim that the change was done by a "papal committee."

It was added by the 'Sacred Congregation of Rites' as one of the first actions of V2.  The original edition of the 62 missal was a direct papal docuмent (i.e. an Apostolic Constitution, which referenced Quo Primum and asserted (correctly) that the 62 missal was in the spirit of Trent and part of the legal tree of Quo Primum).


The addition of St Joseph was not part of Quo Primum, nor directly from the pope, but came from a V2 committee.

RORATE CÆLI: 1962 Missal at 50 Saint Joseph is added to the Canon: the last major change to the Traditional Mass as we know it (rorate-caeli.blogspot.com)

At the discussion of the schema on the liturgy at the first session of Vatican II, at least three bishops proposed that St. Joseph’s name be added to the Canon of the Mass. One of them was Bishop Peter Čule from Mostar, Yugoslavia, whose health had been seriously compromised by his having been sentenced to eleven years of hard labor in one of Tito’s show trials in 1948. 
New Liturgical Movement: On the Insertion of St Joseph’s Name into the Roman Canon

No one here is claiming (and definitely not me) that the sacred liturgy doesn't have divine elements- the form of the consecration, for example.

My understanding is that the "divine elements" are those things that make the sacrament a valid sacrament (i.e.. the form).  Just as each sacrament has many other prayers said, they are not the critical words that make the sacrament valid, and those things can be changed by the pope. 

Nobody is directly asking:  What is the received liturgical tradition?

So much of the focus here seems on centralised, administrative authority. What, however, has been the received tradition which may vary according to local received usage.

St. Joseph's name was nowhere part of that tradition or usages.

The questions to ask:  Why was the name of our Lord's putative father excluded from the Canon during its initial formation? Why did the name of St. Joseph continue to be excluded over the centuries?

Once the answers to those questions have been obtained, then can one properly proceed to discussing the suitability, liceity, and morality of introducing the name into the Canon in the early 1960s.

My understanding is that the "divine elements" are those things that make the sacrament a valid sacrament (i.e.. the form).  Just as each sacrament has many other prayers said, they are not the critical words that make the sacrament valid, and those things can be changed by the pope.

I think that one could go a little farther as well, where it's the essence of the form that are divinely established, as you can find some (minor) variations from one Rite to another in the essential form itself with some of the Sacraments.

There are some additional nuances in terms of validity.  Just because the essential words are uttered, it wouldn't necessarily make the Sacrament valid if the entire context is not Catholic.  So, for instance, if I had a blasphemous Satanic Black Mass, but inserted the words of consecration in the middle, it would not be valid because the entire intention of the Rite does not match what the Church intends to do.  That's what Pope Leo XIII taught about the Anglican Orders, where a non-Catholic context in the Rite can invalidate the Sacrament even if the essential form is not defective.  There's some blur with the Novus Ordo (it's not quite a Satanic Black Mass), but the principle is very solid, even if one could argue about its application to concrete cases.

Now, just because something wasn't divinely established, the Catholic thinking is that the Holy Spirit has guided the Liturgy over the centuries and so in a sense, indirectly, what we have now is divinely established (in that regard), but it also does not preclude some minor changes here and there because, after all, that's how the Holy Spirit guided the Liturgy to the point where it's at now.

It seems to me the argument of St. Joseph being added to the Canon seems to revolve around the question, was John a pope or not, rather than the question, does the pope have authority to touch the Canon. 

I believe that's why the OP phrases it hypothetically as being done by a Pius XII, to take the Antipapacy of Roncalli off the table.

I hold that a legitimate Pope does have the authority to touch the Canon, with whether he should or not being a different matter altogether. 

That where we get back to Elwin's question.  Why hasn't St. Joseph been added?  Perhaps Elwin could shed some insight, but I suspect that it's due to the fact 1) St. Joseph died under the Old Covenant and/or 2) most (all?) of the saints mentioned in the Canon were martyrs, and thus the mention of them is tied to the practice of having martyrs' relics at the altar (now in altar stones).  Our Lady is generally considered a martyr.  I haven't studied all the names there, so there could be other exceptions to #2.  St. John was not technically a martyr, but his presence at the Cross was construed as the equivalent thereof.  By the same token, however, "all thy saints" is at the very end, without any explicit mention of martyrdom.  So this seems to lead to #1 being the reason St. Joseph wasn't included, but I don't see any compelling theological reason why he couldn't be, given that he's also among "all thy saints".

There's a lot of murkiness around the changes to the liturgy in the 60s, or late 50s. I've read the claim (of course, without source provided) that the "for all" was being introduced into the Mass even before the Novus Ordo.

Anyone know of a good study about the changes that were made to the liturgy before the Novus Ordo? I believe there were several official - Vatican approved - changes in the Latin Mass throughout the 60s. And then there was all kinds of nonsense going on with the bishops in various countries, such as my own USA, making changes.

The whole period is a mess, and apparently there's no good record of it. Or is there? Again, anyone know of a good study on this?

This text is from Tradition in Action site. There is a sentence in there about the laity having an equal status with the priest.
So,   St Joseph, simple man, not a martyr, added to the Canon.  I wonder if that addition was a pre-precursor to facilitate this radical alteration of the role of the laity ...just a long shot thought. 

SSPX 1962 Missal has a short commentary about this..., page 887. "St Joseph is invoked as the patron of the universal Church. "
Fr. BEAUDOUIN was a bad actor. 

...The time – was that it would be used to justify the destruction of centuries of Catholic liturgy and the creation of a radically new Mass in which the “People of God” are regarded as the celebrants on an equal footing with the priests.

The role of Dom Lambert Beauduin

After the fateful and entirely inappropriate expression “active participation” appeared out of the blue in 1903, it got a muted reception. Few people – unless they had a goal to score – knew what to make of it or what to do with it.

The first person to pick up the ball and run with it was the Benedictine monk, Dom Lambert Beauduin (1873-1960) of the Monastery of Mont César in Belgium. His goal was both ecuмenical and secular: to promote the “universal priesthood of all believers” through “participatory” liturgy and unite them in a common programme of social reform and pan-Christian “unity.”

It was not for nothing that Beauduin is regarded as the founder of the New Liturgical Movement and a prophet of the “pastoral” Vatican II. He actually anticipated by half a century the most important progressivist advances of Vatican II in the key areas of liturgy, ecuмenism and ecclesiology.

The barbarian in the citadel

From the beginning of his clerical career, Beauduin revealed a deep alienation from the values and spirituality of traditional Catholicism. He pursued a campaign of increasing hostility against Catholic devotions. Even in his seminary days, he rebelled against the regime of spirituality and the necessity to follow the strict rubrics of the Mass. (1)

It is unsurprising that he showed no interest in the Missal: it was, for him, “a closed and sealed book” (un livre fermé et scellé). He considered the liturgical books in general to be no more than “mumbo jumbo, incantations and magical formulae” (des grimoires). He also admitted that he had never recited his Breviary with the least devotion or interest. (2)

It is clear that, as a priest, Beauduin had not received – because he rejected – a proper Catholic formation. Instead, he spent his days in the seminary at Liège under the tutelage of the Professor of Moral Theology, Fr. Antoine Pottier, who, as the local leader of the Christian Democrat Movement, was a political firebrand, kindling workers’ demonstrations and strikes.

Dear OABrownson1876,

So far in this thread, no one has been able to cite one docuмent from the Church, or from a pope that stated that a pope can change the Canon in any way. Nor did you define what the Canon is, or provide any other requested information. You are rushing to conclusions. Why?

Texana, The Canon begins at the first ringing of the bells at the Sanctus, and if you open your missal, '55, '62, the pages should read "Canon of the Mass."  The first prayer is the Communicantes, ending with the Per ipsum...The Canon of the Mass has undergone a growth from the first Mass on Holy Thursday, to the present form, whether the priest includes St. Joseph or not.  

Obviously the Novus Ordo has butchered the Canon beyond recognition, but the argument among some traditionalists is whether to include St. Joseph in the Canon or not when it comes to the Latin Mass.  So far I have not concluded anything, other than the fact alluded to by Lad, that I lean toward John XXIII being a valid pope, hence St. Joseph in the Canon is acceptable.  But I do not criticize priests and faithful who insist on Mass without St. Joseph in the Canon.   

Do you think that the Latin Rite Canon was dropped from Heaven and handed to St. Peter ... before some of the saints mentioned in the Canon were even born?  Of course Popes can and have changed the Canon.  Trent teaches (as cited) that the Pope has the authority to change the Rites of the Church, and there was no exclusion made for the Canon.  Can you provide docuмentation saying that the Pope cannot change the Canon?  And before you try to cite Quo Primum, except for matters of divine law and dogma, a Pope cannot bind another pope.

Council of Trent, Session XXII
http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch22.htm

CHAPTER IV 

On the Canon of the Mass. And whereas it beseemeth, that holy things be administered in a holy manner, and of all holy things this sacrifice is the most holy; to the end that it might be worthily and reverently offered and received, the Catholic Church instituted, many years ago, the sacred Canon, so pure from every error, that nothing is contained therein which does not in the highest degree savour of a certain holiness and piety, and raise up unto God the minds of those that offer. For it is composed, out of the very words of the Lord, the traditions of the apostles, and the pious institutions also of holy pontiffs.

...

CANON VI.--If any one saith, that the canon of the mass contains errors, and is therefore to be abrogated; let him be anathema.

One must understand, the Latin word "canon" literally means "measuring line or rod." To add something to a "measuring rod" will change the measuring standard itself. So an addition or a subtraction or any change will automatically "abrogate" the previous standard of the "measuring rod."

Trent says that cannot be done.