Another thing to think about, regarding St. Joseph’s insertion to the Canon: there had been 40 Saints in the Canon for centuries. 40 is obviously a round, biblical number (numerologically, one could think of 10 commandments x 4 Evangelists). Now, with St. Joseph, there are 41. It reminds me of the Holy Rosary: 150 Hail Marys "doing duty" for 150 Psalms. With Pope John Paul II's additional mysteries, there are 200 Hail Marys and gone is the “poor man’s Psalter.”
A reader sent me a very interesting passage from the little-known Doctor of the Church, St. Lawrence of Brindisi:
"The parents of John the Baptist are also said to be just, but with that legal justice: 'Both were just in the eyes of God, observing all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blamelessly:' (Luke 1:6) but this is not perfect justice. Perfect justice consists in perfect faith, for 'the just man lives by faith.' (Hebrews 10:38) Zechariah, however, was not perfect in his faith, for he did not believe the angel who announced the birth of John to him. The old man Simeon is also said to be just, but it is not an unqualified justice, for Scripture adds: 'and devout' or 'God-fearing.' (Luke 2:25) Perfect justice, however, is based on love and charity, not on fear, for 'perfect love drives out fear.' (1 John 4:18) So Joseph alone is called just or righteous without qualification: 'Joseph her husband... was a righteous man.'
It is not without good reason that Joseph is called just and the first of all to be called so without qualification. Justice takes its origin from predestination: 'Those he predestined, he also called and... justified.' (Romans 8:30) However, since there are very many who are predestined, to avoid confusion in this multitude, there is need for some order among them. Accordingly, the high priest who served in the place of God for the people, wore the twelve precious stones engraved with the names of the twelve tribes of Israel on his chest over his heart arranged in four orderly rows, as a sign of order among the predestined of God. Paul very clearly teaches us that Christ is predestined: 'Predestined as Son of God,' (Romans 1:4, Vulgate) and predestined to be the first of all those predestined: 'He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.' (Colossians 1:15) 'Those he foreknew he also predestined; It in written of me at the beginning of the scroll.' (Romans 8:29; Hebrews 10:7) Christ, of course, is nor predestined as God but as man and as the Son of Mary and, therefore, the Virgin Mary is predestined together with Christ. Christ is the first predestined of all creation; the Virgin Mary is second. But Christ is also predestined to be the Son of Mary espoused to Joseph. Accordingly, Joseph, her husband, is also predestined along with Mary, his wife. This is what the Gospel is telling us today when it says: 'When his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph.' (Matthew 1:18)
Do you see the order of these three persons? Jesus, Mary, Joseph. Jesus holds the first place in predestination, Mary the second and, so it seems to me, without any doubt, Joseph the third. He is, therefore, rightly called just, for if that star is the brighter and more resplendent which is closer to the sun, the fountain of all light, then since Christ is the Sun of Justice, that saint is endowed with the more perfect holiness who is closer to Christ. The Virgin Mary, accordingly, is the holiest of all the saints and angels, because she is closest to Christ. After Mary, who is closer to Christ than Joseph? She is his mother, but he is his father. Though not his natural father, Joseph still was his legal father. Though not his father by generation, he was his father in his upbringing, his care, and the affection of his heart. It seems to me, therefore, that Joseph is clearly that holiest of all the saints, holier than the patriarchs, than the prophets, than the apostles, than all the other saints. The objection cannot be raised that the Lord said of John the Baptist: 'Among those born of women there has been none greater than John the Baptist.' (Matthew 11:11) Just as this cannot be understood to mean that John is even holier than Christ or the Blessed Virgin, so it cannot be understood in reference to blessed Joseph, the spouse of the Virgin Mary and the father of Christ, for just as husband and wife are one flesh, so too Joseph and Mary were one heart, one soul, one spirit. And as in that first marriage God created Eve to be like Adam, so in this second marriage he made Joseph to be like the Blessed Virgin in holiness and justice.
As that former Joseph was the beloved of his father, so this Joseph is the beloved of God. If God, as I firmly believe, so sanctified all the patriarchs because the Messiah was to be born from them, and sanctified all the prophets to foretell mysteries concerning the Messiah, and sanctified Jeremiah in the womb, and filled John the Baptist with the Holy Spirit to be the herald of the Messiah, and above all sanctified the Blessed Virgin to be the mother of Christ, why would he not also sanctify Joseph, the father of Christ? Now if holiness consists in grace and grace consists in charity, and charity consists in faith in Christ and love for Christ, who of all the saints after the Blessed Virgin had a greater love for Christ than Joseph?
Moreover, if that tunic that Jacob had made for Joseph was also a mark of honor and dignity, then I ask, what greater honor, what greater dignity could God confer on this blessed man? He made him the true husband of Mary, the Queen of the world, the Queen of the angels, the true mother of the Son of God, true God, and made him the true father of Christ by adoption, upbringing, and the love of his whole heart and, even more, his legal father."
I agree this is quite an excellent series of arguments from fittingness. But they are not decisive to my mind, only suggestive. One could, with similar logic, begin to make arguments about the hierarchy of various saints on the basis of their importance in the life of Christ or the life of the Church, e.g., St. Thomas is holier than all other theologians, or St. John than all the other apostles, or St. Joachim than any of the patriarchs because he was the grandfather of Christ, etc. Do you see what I mean? It's a sort of snowball effect. I suppose my main hesitation is that the earlier tradition didn't merely assume John was the greatest saint after Our Lady, they enacted it in the liturgy, and they defended it theologically. This makes Lawrence kind of the "odd man out," though I fully acknowledge he's a doctor of the Church.
I'll preface this by saying that Saint Joseph shouldn't have been added to the Roman Canon. It was fine the way it was and should have been left alone and one suspects Saint Joseph would quite agree. That said I think it is a mistake to set up some sort of false dichotomy between John the Baptist and Joseph. Both of them are perfect expressions of the Old Covenant: Joseph being an heir of David of the kingly and John of the prophetic line so there is no opposition between them.
As to why John had so much more of a public liturgical role early on the answer is quite obvious: he had an earthshattering public role during the public life of Our Lord. He publicly and definitively fulfilled the role of all of the prophets of the Old Covenant when he pointed to Our Lord and said this is the One. And this was personally known to all of the Apostles and had been witnessed by their own eyes. So it is natural that this public role should have been celebrated in the Church's public prayer from the earliest days.
As to Saint Joseph absolutely none of this would have happened without him. There would never have been a role for John the Baptist if Joseph hadn't gotten them out of Bethlehem that night and put them on the road to Egypt and safety. He was the one to whom Our Lord's continued existence on this earth was entrusted at his absolutely most vulnerable moment when the Christ was yet but a suckling infant and a group of assassins were coming to strike him down. And it was Joseph who kept that disaster from happening.
Perhaps that is why from the 19th century onward when the Church had lost her earthly glory and was becoming more and more vulnerable with each passing day to enemies without and within that she has fostered devotion to this great man.
Absolutely! I am not setting up a dichotomy (except inasmuch as I used a provocative title for the article). Both saints are hugely important and for different reasons. But it is a simple fact that devotion to John the Baptist as such has receded almost into non-existence. When's the last time you heard a Catholic say "St John the Baptist, pray for us" or "Let's do a novena to St John the Baptist"? etc. Yet can we doubt that this fiery prophet of the truth and defender of the law of God is more needed than ever as a patron of the Catholic Church and of her hierarchy, who are supposed to preach the truth in season and out of season?
I thought it weird to have a Memorare to St. Joseph and would like to know if there is a special prayer to St. John the Baptist. Thank you for this excellent article.
In the penultimate paragraph you seem to speculate on how this may have happened. The answer is pretty clear, I think: the Spanish conquest & evangelization of the New World happened. The ascendancy of the cultus of St Joseph may be dated precisely to this 15th century event, when the model of a stable, faithful family man was perceived as a useful aide in evangelizing the indigenous. Within 100 years, St Joesph was declared patron of the New World, even reaching French Catholics in Canada.
It seems to me that utility rather than tradition, Biblical or Patristic evidence propelled this “silent and hidden” figure (as you said) to the top ranks of sainthood.
And also explains why a similar phenomenon never took place in the Christian East.
Thank you, this is an excellent observation, and one that had sort of occurred to me thinking about St Teresa of Avila, but then I never followed it up and put it into writing. And now you have done so!
Let me add a further point.
I find it quite telling that if one looks at the official reasons why St. Joseph was inserted into the Canon, two were given. The first has to do with an increase of devotion to St. Joseph in modern times. Fair enough. The second is that the inclusion of St. Joseph in the Roman Canon is to serve as a liturgical monument to the Second Vatican Council and the fruits thereof (a bit overly enthusiastic and hopeful here as the Council had just started; see Decretum in the Acta 13 November 1962!). This second reason could also be given as to why his inclusion in the Canon was a misstep: it was put there to celebrate, in advance, something that never happened.
I feel bad for St. Joseph as more recently things have not been about him, but he was used by the Church for other ends. In the Canon, he was included to celebrate the Second Vatican Council and the (hoped for) fruits thereof. On the new May 1st Feast, it is a celebration of work clothed in St. Joseph. It feels like devotion to him has been, to some extent, hijacked.
That nonsensical May 1 Feast that Pius XII foisted on the Church is just the Marxist-Leninist May Day in Catholic clothing. I'm very happy it has lost its prominence. I think it is now down to an Optional Memorial in the Novus Ordo. The only people stuck with it are the 1962 crowd where it got blown up to a I class feast.
You can find already a push to include the March 19 Feast of Saint Joseph on the liturgical calendar at the time of Jean Gerson in France at the beginning of the 15th century who actually composed an Office for that Feast. This was a lifetime before Columbus arrived in the New World so I don't think that argument about the Spanish holds much water.
That may indeed be the beginning of it but the cultus undoubtedly received a huge impetus in its utilization in New World evangelism, without which (in my opinion) he would not have been so quickly propelled to such a high status after 15 centuries of obscurity.
Like I said he already had a liturgical Feast before the New World was evangelized. And for my money it was in the 19th century that the real propagation of what we think of as the modern devotion to Saint Joseph took off. And this was likely because of the introduction of divorce post French Revolution and the passage of laws that portended the destruction of the family.
There are a lot of saints who didn't have liturgical expression at Rome in the earliest centuries. People like Saint Justin Martyr, Saint Irenaeus, etc. didn't find their way onto the calendar until fairly recently even though they were very ancient and very well celebrated in the ancient world. The earliest liturgical celebrations, outside of the Feasts of Our Lord, were of the martyrs and usually fairly local martyrs.
My point was not that but rather the rapid *ascendancy* of his cultus, if you read my comments again. Pope Sixtus IV approved the feast in 1480 and inside of 100 years (a remarkably short time in ecclesiastical history) St Joseph was declared patron of the New World. Why the ‘New World’?
There is a reason, which I have already given. It’s not my original idea, I read it in a scholarly study. I cannot remember where but the pieces all fit.
In all honesty I don't really have any experience of Saint Joseph as 'patron of the New World'. I'd never actually heard of it until you mentioned it here. Who did it I'm not sure but to me that is no one of his titles that has ever really gained any traction in the Church or if it did it has fallen out of use. Much more prominent is that of his wife, Our Lady of Guadalupe, as patroness of the Americas
And you’re quite right about Our Lady of Guadalupe. She is the patroness of Latin America and much beloved & venerated. As she should be.
I don’t think though that her importance negates the relative importance of St Joseph in the evangelization of the New World. If anything, they are complimentary.
“Devotion to St. Joseph was firmly established in the New World within the first decade of the conquest of Mexico (begun in 1518 and completed in 1521). It became so widespread that in 1555 Joseph was proclaimed patron of the Viceroyalty of New Spain (present-day Mexico, Central America, and the Philippines). In 1524, New France (Canada) followed suit and chose Joseph as its patron. St. Joseph is indeed the "Patron Saint of the New World."
In ‘Patron Saint of the New World; - Spanish American Colonial Images of St. Joseph’
St Josephs University Press
The book goes into greater detail on how this happened with the evangelization of the indigenous.
Considering that his feast day was only approved by Pope Sixtus IV in 1480, I believe it safe to say that the New World was the start of his rapid ascent to the title of ‘Patron of the Universal Church’ bestowed on him in 1870 by Pope Pius IX.
I don’t doubt that Patron of the New World is not used much in our day ~ we don’t call the Americas that very often anymore and it may have been more of a regional title anyway.
It is pretty clear to me but this is not a hill I’m willing to die on. You seem dead set against the very possibility of it, and that’s fine. The cultus of St Joseph was very important in the New World, it took hold very quickly and very soon after his feast day was formally established ~ that much at least, I hope we can agree on. 😊
Very interesting. I’ve just returned from Malta and the little town I was visiting (Zurrieq) were preparing for their annual festa celebrating St. Catherine of Alexandria.
Peter, with reference to your comment above: "But pious beliefs do not always stand up to scrutiny: for example, many seem to think that Our Lord appeared to His Mother after His resurrection, but the witness of Scripture points in a different direction..", it is interesting to note Dom Prosper Gueranger's take on it in his publication The Liturgical Year. Refer to Volume VII - Paschal Time Book One pages, 104 and 105 of the Loreto Publications edition. The 2 pages referenced are an interesting reflection. He states in part with respect to Jesus first appearing to Mary: "There was no need of it being mentioned in the Gospel; the tradition of the holy Fathers, beginning with St Ambrose, bears sufficient testimony to it..."
With regard to St Joseph, I had an interesting experience a few years ago. I had completed the 33 day preparation for making a consecration of myself to St Joseph. After I made the consecration it came to me that St Joseph must have been released from original sin and its affects at the moment he accepted the commission from the angel to take Mary to his home to be his wife and to take care of Jesus, the Son of God. I don't think a mere man without this release and special grace could have undertaken such a task which he carried out diligently and with great love. I am not suggesting that he should ever have been included in the Canon. Maybe there is a reason that the Church generally was slow to recognise the greatness of Joseph. We know that St Teresa of Avila certainly had a great devotion to him. Maybe God wanted him especially recognised in these awful times we are living through.
It is true there is a diversity of opinion on all these matters, and I think that is healthy. There are so many things we don't know and shouldn't prematurely close off.
It is definitely true that the Church has been led gradually into a deeper devotion to St. Joseph, and that strikes me as perfectly fitting.
This is excellent. I think part of the problem, which you have begun articulate, is that the post Vatican II Church cares too much about how it looks to the world. John the Baptist preaches repentance. He died rebuking an adulterous marriage. There isn’t any way to sugar coat the saint or his message.
Yes, what you say is true. Of course, Joseph doesn't exactly present a politically correct message, either: patriarchal head of the family, recipient of angelic visions, hard-working artisan, protector of a virgin... Yet John the Baptist has absolutely no place in the modern world.
In my wanderings around ancient English churches (especially including those built pre-schism), I can categorically state that many are dedicated to John the Baptist and none to St Joseph, however much he was revered in the nativity story. I think you hit the nail on the head here:
"It could have something to do with the fierceness, wildness, and uncompromising zeal of St. John, which perhaps lack appeal to the modern psyche, whereas the comforting, fatherly, protective, and domestic presence of St. Joseph very much appeals to us."
"Paenitientiam agite" is what John preached and that is out of favour in the modern church. But I confess it is difficult to understand why he has dropped out so much, I'm still puzzling over it myself.
Well said. My view is that we do need St Joseph in modern times, but we ALSO need the Baptist, because if there's one thing that's missing from the modern Church, it's the courage to proclaim the truth boldly in the face of secular power and even unto the shedding of blood. Our churchmen might as well be called "cavemen" because they cave in at every opportunity.
"Cavemen" lol. I will steal that, if you don't mind, and use it to refer to the Bishop of the diocese in which I live (but don't worship, going to the TLM in the diocese next door).
I'm still a beginner. I struggle with seeing devotion in a heirarchy. However, that doesn't mean that this post wasn't most informative and edifying, nor that it failed to deliver more beautiful images for my computer's desktop wallpaper file. St. John the Baptist is a "biggie" for me, too.
I would like to point out that the ancient Confiteor is addressed first to Almighty God, then to Blessed Mary Ever-Virgin, then to St. Michael the Archangel, THEN to St. John the Baptist, then to Ss. Peter and Paul, then to all saints, and to “you, Father”. Not mentioned: St. Joseph, dear though he is. The fact that St. John the Baptist is mentioned by name before Peter, Paul, and all Saints supports your thesis, I think.
Another obvious fact is that in Catholic churches it is traditional to have a Mary altar on the left of the main altar and a St. Joseph altar on the right. Imagine how strange it would be to have a John the Baptist altar on the right.
I can see now that you are truly unaware of the history of this question. It is a very recent development (in terms of 2000 years of church history) to have statues of St. Joseph in churches. If you look at the plans of most churches built before the Reformation, and indeed in many built before the 18th century, you will find Our Lady, St. John, SS. Peter & Paul, St. Michael, the church's patron and local patrons, etc., much more often than you will find St. Joseph. There simply wasn't that much popular devotion to him until recent centuries.
The rest of your argument about the hypostatic union does not hold theological water.
Note that in The St. Andrew Missal, under August 29, page 1424, we read: "St. John the Baptist holds in the worship of the Church the first rank after the angels." So let the contentions cease as to whether St. Joseph or St. John the Baptist is the greater saint. St. Joseph, by his marriage to the Great Mother of God and the Queen of Angels, holds a place of rank greater than the angels. St John the Baptist is lower than the angels. St. Joseph holds the title of Patron of the Universal Church.
St. Joseph, by his marriage to The Great Mother of God, is "of the Order The Hypostatic Union." (See: The Glories of St. Joseph, TAN) Other than being God Himself, no man could hold a greater rank.
Marriage does not transfer graces over to the spouse. Mary's divine motherhood, giving the very flesh to the Word of God, has no parallel in Joseph's life or vocation.
Moreover, not a single reputable author has ever claimed that Joseph is greater than all the angels. In fact, the Church's constant practice refutes you, because in every traditional litany or calendar Joseph comes after John.
Finally, it is at least highly probably that John the Baptist, in his public role as the last of the prophets and greatest of the prophets and the immediate precursor to the Redeemer, was given the highest position in salvation history after that of Christ and His Mother.
Ask the aristocracy why they wanted to make marriage alliances with each other. Titles and power did transfer with the marriages. Joseph was the Head over Mary, the Queen of the angels. Marriage gave him a certain authority/ status over Mary his wife. She was subject to Him. Also, the Church holds that Joseph was of the Order of the Hypostatic (Trinitarian) Union. But this marriage was of a much greater order than than that of the common Christian marriage. I think you have not read very many books about St. Joseph. Lord willing I will go back over some that I have read and cite exact references.
An example of some ducks that don't seem to remain in a row like you want them to: notice also that most of the Biblical references to St. Peter seem to shed a bad light on him and point out his failings. This was not because he was bad, but because in his humility, St. Peter wanted it this way. So also, contrary to common thinking of what is fitting, St. Joseph, the Silent, wants to be the most hidden of the saints. But make an effort and you will discover that he is at the root of all Christian foundations, often even appearing in person to help do the physical building. His "Fiat" is also irresistible.
Another thing to think about, regarding St. Joseph’s insertion to the Canon: there had been 40 Saints in the Canon for centuries. 40 is obviously a round, biblical number (numerologically, one could think of 10 commandments x 4 Evangelists). Now, with St. Joseph, there are 41. It reminds me of the Holy Rosary: 150 Hail Marys "doing duty" for 150 Psalms. With Pope John Paul II's additional mysteries, there are 200 Hail Marys and gone is the “poor man’s Psalter.”
A reader sent me a very interesting passage from the little-known Doctor of the Church, St. Lawrence of Brindisi:
"The parents of John the Baptist are also said to be just, but with that legal justice: 'Both were just in the eyes of God, observing all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blamelessly:' (Luke 1:6) but this is not perfect justice. Perfect justice consists in perfect faith, for 'the just man lives by faith.' (Hebrews 10:38) Zechariah, however, was not perfect in his faith, for he did not believe the angel who announced the birth of John to him. The old man Simeon is also said to be just, but it is not an unqualified justice, for Scripture adds: 'and devout' or 'God-fearing.' (Luke 2:25) Perfect justice, however, is based on love and charity, not on fear, for 'perfect love drives out fear.' (1 John 4:18) So Joseph alone is called just or righteous without qualification: 'Joseph her husband... was a righteous man.'
It is not without good reason that Joseph is called just and the first of all to be called so without qualification. Justice takes its origin from predestination: 'Those he predestined, he also called and... justified.' (Romans 8:30) However, since there are very many who are predestined, to avoid confusion in this multitude, there is need for some order among them. Accordingly, the high priest who served in the place of God for the people, wore the twelve precious stones engraved with the names of the twelve tribes of Israel on his chest over his heart arranged in four orderly rows, as a sign of order among the predestined of God. Paul very clearly teaches us that Christ is predestined: 'Predestined as Son of God,' (Romans 1:4, Vulgate) and predestined to be the first of all those predestined: 'He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.' (Colossians 1:15) 'Those he foreknew he also predestined; It in written of me at the beginning of the scroll.' (Romans 8:29; Hebrews 10:7) Christ, of course, is nor predestined as God but as man and as the Son of Mary and, therefore, the Virgin Mary is predestined together with Christ. Christ is the first predestined of all creation; the Virgin Mary is second. But Christ is also predestined to be the Son of Mary espoused to Joseph. Accordingly, Joseph, her husband, is also predestined along with Mary, his wife. This is what the Gospel is telling us today when it says: 'When his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph.' (Matthew 1:18)
Do you see the order of these three persons? Jesus, Mary, Joseph. Jesus holds the first place in predestination, Mary the second and, so it seems to me, without any doubt, Joseph the third. He is, therefore, rightly called just, for if that star is the brighter and more resplendent which is closer to the sun, the fountain of all light, then since Christ is the Sun of Justice, that saint is endowed with the more perfect holiness who is closer to Christ. The Virgin Mary, accordingly, is the holiest of all the saints and angels, because she is closest to Christ. After Mary, who is closer to Christ than Joseph? She is his mother, but he is his father. Though not his natural father, Joseph still was his legal father. Though not his father by generation, he was his father in his upbringing, his care, and the affection of his heart. It seems to me, therefore, that Joseph is clearly that holiest of all the saints, holier than the patriarchs, than the prophets, than the apostles, than all the other saints. The objection cannot be raised that the Lord said of John the Baptist: 'Among those born of women there has been none greater than John the Baptist.' (Matthew 11:11) Just as this cannot be understood to mean that John is even holier than Christ or the Blessed Virgin, so it cannot be understood in reference to blessed Joseph, the spouse of the Virgin Mary and the father of Christ, for just as husband and wife are one flesh, so too Joseph and Mary were one heart, one soul, one spirit. And as in that first marriage God created Eve to be like Adam, so in this second marriage he made Joseph to be like the Blessed Virgin in holiness and justice.
As that former Joseph was the beloved of his father, so this Joseph is the beloved of God. If God, as I firmly believe, so sanctified all the patriarchs because the Messiah was to be born from them, and sanctified all the prophets to foretell mysteries concerning the Messiah, and sanctified Jeremiah in the womb, and filled John the Baptist with the Holy Spirit to be the herald of the Messiah, and above all sanctified the Blessed Virgin to be the mother of Christ, why would he not also sanctify Joseph, the father of Christ? Now if holiness consists in grace and grace consists in charity, and charity consists in faith in Christ and love for Christ, who of all the saints after the Blessed Virgin had a greater love for Christ than Joseph?
Moreover, if that tunic that Jacob had made for Joseph was also a mark of honor and dignity, then I ask, what greater honor, what greater dignity could God confer on this blessed man? He made him the true husband of Mary, the Queen of the world, the Queen of the angels, the true mother of the Son of God, true God, and made him the true father of Christ by adoption, upbringing, and the love of his whole heart and, even more, his legal father."
This long quotation is from his Sermon for St. Joseph in his Feastday Sermons (pages 537-538), which can be purchased at https://www.mediahouse.online/product/saint-lawrence-of-brindisi-11-feastday-sermons/
My response:
I agree this is quite an excellent series of arguments from fittingness. But they are not decisive to my mind, only suggestive. One could, with similar logic, begin to make arguments about the hierarchy of various saints on the basis of their importance in the life of Christ or the life of the Church, e.g., St. Thomas is holier than all other theologians, or St. John than all the other apostles, or St. Joachim than any of the patriarchs because he was the grandfather of Christ, etc. Do you see what I mean? It's a sort of snowball effect. I suppose my main hesitation is that the earlier tradition didn't merely assume John was the greatest saint after Our Lady, they enacted it in the liturgy, and they defended it theologically. This makes Lawrence kind of the "odd man out," though I fully acknowledge he's a doctor of the Church.
I'll preface this by saying that Saint Joseph shouldn't have been added to the Roman Canon. It was fine the way it was and should have been left alone and one suspects Saint Joseph would quite agree. That said I think it is a mistake to set up some sort of false dichotomy between John the Baptist and Joseph. Both of them are perfect expressions of the Old Covenant: Joseph being an heir of David of the kingly and John of the prophetic line so there is no opposition between them.
As to why John had so much more of a public liturgical role early on the answer is quite obvious: he had an earthshattering public role during the public life of Our Lord. He publicly and definitively fulfilled the role of all of the prophets of the Old Covenant when he pointed to Our Lord and said this is the One. And this was personally known to all of the Apostles and had been witnessed by their own eyes. So it is natural that this public role should have been celebrated in the Church's public prayer from the earliest days.
As to Saint Joseph absolutely none of this would have happened without him. There would never have been a role for John the Baptist if Joseph hadn't gotten them out of Bethlehem that night and put them on the road to Egypt and safety. He was the one to whom Our Lord's continued existence on this earth was entrusted at his absolutely most vulnerable moment when the Christ was yet but a suckling infant and a group of assassins were coming to strike him down. And it was Joseph who kept that disaster from happening.
Perhaps that is why from the 19th century onward when the Church had lost her earthly glory and was becoming more and more vulnerable with each passing day to enemies without and within that she has fostered devotion to this great man.
Absolutely! I am not setting up a dichotomy (except inasmuch as I used a provocative title for the article). Both saints are hugely important and for different reasons. But it is a simple fact that devotion to John the Baptist as such has receded almost into non-existence. When's the last time you heard a Catholic say "St John the Baptist, pray for us" or "Let's do a novena to St John the Baptist"? etc. Yet can we doubt that this fiery prophet of the truth and defender of the law of God is more needed than ever as a patron of the Catholic Church and of her hierarchy, who are supposed to preach the truth in season and out of season?
I always thought it was interesting that Saint John the Baptist is mentioned in the authentic version of the Roman Confiteor.
I thought it weird to have a Memorare to St. Joseph and would like to know if there is a special prayer to St. John the Baptist. Thank you for this excellent article.
Excellent article!
In the penultimate paragraph you seem to speculate on how this may have happened. The answer is pretty clear, I think: the Spanish conquest & evangelization of the New World happened. The ascendancy of the cultus of St Joseph may be dated precisely to this 15th century event, when the model of a stable, faithful family man was perceived as a useful aide in evangelizing the indigenous. Within 100 years, St Joesph was declared patron of the New World, even reaching French Catholics in Canada.
It seems to me that utility rather than tradition, Biblical or Patristic evidence propelled this “silent and hidden” figure (as you said) to the top ranks of sainthood.
And also explains why a similar phenomenon never took place in the Christian East.
Thank you, this is an excellent observation, and one that had sort of occurred to me thinking about St Teresa of Avila, but then I never followed it up and put it into writing. And now you have done so!
Let me add a further point.
I find it quite telling that if one looks at the official reasons why St. Joseph was inserted into the Canon, two were given. The first has to do with an increase of devotion to St. Joseph in modern times. Fair enough. The second is that the inclusion of St. Joseph in the Roman Canon is to serve as a liturgical monument to the Second Vatican Council and the fruits thereof (a bit overly enthusiastic and hopeful here as the Council had just started; see Decretum in the Acta 13 November 1962!). This second reason could also be given as to why his inclusion in the Canon was a misstep: it was put there to celebrate, in advance, something that never happened.
I feel bad for St. Joseph as more recently things have not been about him, but he was used by the Church for other ends. In the Canon, he was included to celebrate the Second Vatican Council and the (hoped for) fruits thereof. On the new May 1st Feast, it is a celebration of work clothed in St. Joseph. It feels like devotion to him has been, to some extent, hijacked.
That nonsensical May 1 Feast that Pius XII foisted on the Church is just the Marxist-Leninist May Day in Catholic clothing. I'm very happy it has lost its prominence. I think it is now down to an Optional Memorial in the Novus Ordo. The only people stuck with it are the 1962 crowd where it got blown up to a I class feast.
You can find already a push to include the March 19 Feast of Saint Joseph on the liturgical calendar at the time of Jean Gerson in France at the beginning of the 15th century who actually composed an Office for that Feast. This was a lifetime before Columbus arrived in the New World so I don't think that argument about the Spanish holds much water.
That may indeed be the beginning of it but the cultus undoubtedly received a huge impetus in its utilization in New World evangelism, without which (in my opinion) he would not have been so quickly propelled to such a high status after 15 centuries of obscurity.
Like I said he already had a liturgical Feast before the New World was evangelized. And for my money it was in the 19th century that the real propagation of what we think of as the modern devotion to Saint Joseph took off. And this was likely because of the introduction of divorce post French Revolution and the passage of laws that portended the destruction of the family.
There are a lot of saints who didn't have liturgical expression at Rome in the earliest centuries. People like Saint Justin Martyr, Saint Irenaeus, etc. didn't find their way onto the calendar until fairly recently even though they were very ancient and very well celebrated in the ancient world. The earliest liturgical celebrations, outside of the Feasts of Our Lord, were of the martyrs and usually fairly local martyrs.
Sure. No objection to all of that.
My point was not that but rather the rapid *ascendancy* of his cultus, if you read my comments again. Pope Sixtus IV approved the feast in 1480 and inside of 100 years (a remarkably short time in ecclesiastical history) St Joseph was declared patron of the New World. Why the ‘New World’?
There is a reason, which I have already given. It’s not my original idea, I read it in a scholarly study. I cannot remember where but the pieces all fit.
In all honesty I don't really have any experience of Saint Joseph as 'patron of the New World'. I'd never actually heard of it until you mentioned it here. Who did it I'm not sure but to me that is no one of his titles that has ever really gained any traction in the Church or if it did it has fallen out of use. Much more prominent is that of his wife, Our Lady of Guadalupe, as patroness of the Americas
And you’re quite right about Our Lady of Guadalupe. She is the patroness of Latin America and much beloved & venerated. As she should be.
I don’t think though that her importance negates the relative importance of St Joseph in the evangelization of the New World. If anything, they are complimentary.
“Devotion to St. Joseph was firmly established in the New World within the first decade of the conquest of Mexico (begun in 1518 and completed in 1521). It became so widespread that in 1555 Joseph was proclaimed patron of the Viceroyalty of New Spain (present-day Mexico, Central America, and the Philippines). In 1524, New France (Canada) followed suit and chose Joseph as its patron. St. Joseph is indeed the "Patron Saint of the New World."
In ‘Patron Saint of the New World; - Spanish American Colonial Images of St. Joseph’
St Josephs University Press
The book goes into greater detail on how this happened with the evangelization of the indigenous.
Considering that his feast day was only approved by Pope Sixtus IV in 1480, I believe it safe to say that the New World was the start of his rapid ascent to the title of ‘Patron of the Universal Church’ bestowed on him in 1870 by Pope Pius IX.
I don’t doubt that Patron of the New World is not used much in our day ~ we don’t call the Americas that very often anymore and it may have been more of a regional title anyway.
It is pretty clear to me but this is not a hill I’m willing to die on. You seem dead set against the very possibility of it, and that’s fine. The cultus of St Joseph was very important in the New World, it took hold very quickly and very soon after his feast day was formally established ~ that much at least, I hope we can agree on. 😊
Madonna and Child with Saints in the Enclosed Garden
Robert Campin
c. 1440-1460
Early Netherlandish
https://it.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Master_of_Flkmalle_Madonna_and_Child_with_Saints_in_the_Enclosed_Garden.jpg
Very interesting. I’ve just returned from Malta and the little town I was visiting (Zurrieq) were preparing for their annual festa celebrating St. Catherine of Alexandria.
Peter, with reference to your comment above: "But pious beliefs do not always stand up to scrutiny: for example, many seem to think that Our Lord appeared to His Mother after His resurrection, but the witness of Scripture points in a different direction..", it is interesting to note Dom Prosper Gueranger's take on it in his publication The Liturgical Year. Refer to Volume VII - Paschal Time Book One pages, 104 and 105 of the Loreto Publications edition. The 2 pages referenced are an interesting reflection. He states in part with respect to Jesus first appearing to Mary: "There was no need of it being mentioned in the Gospel; the tradition of the holy Fathers, beginning with St Ambrose, bears sufficient testimony to it..."
With regard to St Joseph, I had an interesting experience a few years ago. I had completed the 33 day preparation for making a consecration of myself to St Joseph. After I made the consecration it came to me that St Joseph must have been released from original sin and its affects at the moment he accepted the commission from the angel to take Mary to his home to be his wife and to take care of Jesus, the Son of God. I don't think a mere man without this release and special grace could have undertaken such a task which he carried out diligently and with great love. I am not suggesting that he should ever have been included in the Canon. Maybe there is a reason that the Church generally was slow to recognise the greatness of Joseph. We know that St Teresa of Avila certainly had a great devotion to him. Maybe God wanted him especially recognised in these awful times we are living through.
It is true there is a diversity of opinion on all these matters, and I think that is healthy. There are so many things we don't know and shouldn't prematurely close off.
It is definitely true that the Church has been led gradually into a deeper devotion to St. Joseph, and that strikes me as perfectly fitting.
This is excellent. I think part of the problem, which you have begun articulate, is that the post Vatican II Church cares too much about how it looks to the world. John the Baptist preaches repentance. He died rebuking an adulterous marriage. There isn’t any way to sugar coat the saint or his message.
Yes, what you say is true. Of course, Joseph doesn't exactly present a politically correct message, either: patriarchal head of the family, recipient of angelic visions, hard-working artisan, protector of a virgin... Yet John the Baptist has absolutely no place in the modern world.
In my wanderings around ancient English churches (especially including those built pre-schism), I can categorically state that many are dedicated to John the Baptist and none to St Joseph, however much he was revered in the nativity story. I think you hit the nail on the head here:
"It could have something to do with the fierceness, wildness, and uncompromising zeal of St. John, which perhaps lack appeal to the modern psyche, whereas the comforting, fatherly, protective, and domestic presence of St. Joseph very much appeals to us."
"Paenitientiam agite" is what John preached and that is out of favour in the modern church. But I confess it is difficult to understand why he has dropped out so much, I'm still puzzling over it myself.
Well said. My view is that we do need St Joseph in modern times, but we ALSO need the Baptist, because if there's one thing that's missing from the modern Church, it's the courage to proclaim the truth boldly in the face of secular power and even unto the shedding of blood. Our churchmen might as well be called "cavemen" because they cave in at every opportunity.
"Cavemen" lol. I will steal that, if you don't mind, and use it to refer to the Bishop of the diocese in which I live (but don't worship, going to the TLM in the diocese next door).
Steal away!
Just firing up my devotion to St. Joseph, too. Bummer.
I'm sure you meant this tongue-in-cheek, right?
I am all in favor of devotion to St. Joseph. Just don't leave the Baptist out of the picture!
I'm still a beginner. I struggle with seeing devotion in a heirarchy. However, that doesn't mean that this post wasn't most informative and edifying, nor that it failed to deliver more beautiful images for my computer's desktop wallpaper file. St. John the Baptist is a "biggie" for me, too.
Wonderful and thought provoking as always Peter thank you
I would like to point out that the ancient Confiteor is addressed first to Almighty God, then to Blessed Mary Ever-Virgin, then to St. Michael the Archangel, THEN to St. John the Baptist, then to Ss. Peter and Paul, then to all saints, and to “you, Father”. Not mentioned: St. Joseph, dear though he is. The fact that St. John the Baptist is mentioned by name before Peter, Paul, and all Saints supports your thesis, I think.
Thank you for a wonderful article.
Another obvious fact is that in Catholic churches it is traditional to have a Mary altar on the left of the main altar and a St. Joseph altar on the right. Imagine how strange it would be to have a John the Baptist altar on the right.
I can see now that you are truly unaware of the history of this question. It is a very recent development (in terms of 2000 years of church history) to have statues of St. Joseph in churches. If you look at the plans of most churches built before the Reformation, and indeed in many built before the 18th century, you will find Our Lady, St. John, SS. Peter & Paul, St. Michael, the church's patron and local patrons, etc., much more often than you will find St. Joseph. There simply wasn't that much popular devotion to him until recent centuries.
The rest of your argument about the hypostatic union does not hold theological water.
Note that in The St. Andrew Missal, under August 29, page 1424, we read: "St. John the Baptist holds in the worship of the Church the first rank after the angels." So let the contentions cease as to whether St. Joseph or St. John the Baptist is the greater saint. St. Joseph, by his marriage to the Great Mother of God and the Queen of Angels, holds a place of rank greater than the angels. St John the Baptist is lower than the angels. St. Joseph holds the title of Patron of the Universal Church.
St. Joseph, by his marriage to The Great Mother of God, is "of the Order The Hypostatic Union." (See: The Glories of St. Joseph, TAN) Other than being God Himself, no man could hold a greater rank.
This is quite overstated.
Marriage does not transfer graces over to the spouse. Mary's divine motherhood, giving the very flesh to the Word of God, has no parallel in Joseph's life or vocation.
Moreover, not a single reputable author has ever claimed that Joseph is greater than all the angels. In fact, the Church's constant practice refutes you, because in every traditional litany or calendar Joseph comes after John.
Finally, it is at least highly probably that John the Baptist, in his public role as the last of the prophets and greatest of the prophets and the immediate precursor to the Redeemer, was given the highest position in salvation history after that of Christ and His Mother.
Ask the aristocracy why they wanted to make marriage alliances with each other. Titles and power did transfer with the marriages. Joseph was the Head over Mary, the Queen of the angels. Marriage gave him a certain authority/ status over Mary his wife. She was subject to Him. Also, the Church holds that Joseph was of the Order of the Hypostatic (Trinitarian) Union. But this marriage was of a much greater order than than that of the common Christian marriage. I think you have not read very many books about St. Joseph. Lord willing I will go back over some that I have read and cite exact references.
An example of some ducks that don't seem to remain in a row like you want them to: notice also that most of the Biblical references to St. Peter seem to shed a bad light on him and point out his failings. This was not because he was bad, but because in his humility, St. Peter wanted it this way. So also, contrary to common thinking of what is fitting, St. Joseph, the Silent, wants to be the most hidden of the saints. But make an effort and you will discover that he is at the root of all Christian foundations, often even appearing in person to help do the physical building. His "Fiat" is also irresistible.
No one prays to him enough.