Add the Patronage of St. Joseph as a new movable feast with octave

This Duplex I classis feast (instituted by Pius IX, 1847) didn't exist
anywhere in vu's calendar. Dated per the older, pre-1955 reckoning --
Wednesday after the 2nd Sunday after Easter (Easter+17) -- rather than the
1913 Pius X reform's later placement on the 3rd Sunday after Easter
itself, per direct instruction. Mechanism: one new temporal-feast record
plus a new EASTER_OFFSET_STARTS table entry (the only code change --
everything else is the existing generic anchor-driven resolution).

Authored the feast day's own Matins reading and its full 7-day octave
(days 2/3/4/6/7/8; day 5, the Sunday, has no override in the source at
all, correctly left unauthored).

Fixed one real collateral effect: an existing fixed-year calendar test
(St. Pudentiana vs. St. Peter Celestine, 2038-05-19) broke because that
date now falls on this octave's own closing day, tying Celestine's rank
against the octave's threshold -- the app's own documented tie-break
correctly favors the octave that year. Moved the proof date to 2033.
Also bumped the PWA precache file-size cap (6 MiB -> 8 MiB) since this
content pull pushed the main bundle past the previous limit.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01PhysogLP9eCeKS7JEwRi6y

src/data/calendar/temporal-feasts/patronage-of-st-joseph.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+# The Patronage of St. Joseph -- a Duplex I classis feast instituted by
+# Pius IX (1847), with its own privileged octave. Two distinct datings
+# exist in the reference engine: the primary, unsuffixed `Tempora/
+# Pasc2-3.txt` (used here, by direct instruction) keeps it on the
+# *Wednesday* after the Second Sunday after Easter -- the older, pre-1955
+# dating -- while `Pasc3-0t.txt` (a bare `@Tempora/Pasc2-3` alias sitting
+# at the Third Sunday after Easter's own slot) and Pasc2-3's own
+# "(rubrica Newcal)" `[Rank]` variant represent the later (1913 Pius X
+# reform) placement on that Sunday instead -- not used, per this
+# project's own pre-1955 calendar/rubrics baseline (see CLAUDE.md).
+# Monastic (`TemporaM/Pasc2-3.txt`) carries no independent content of its
+# own -- it just re-slices this same secular file's Lectio4-9 into 12
+# lessons (splitting several in half to fill the larger lesson count),
+# same "thin rule override" pattern as most SanctiM files (see memory
+# vu-matins-sanctim-saints) -- so the secular 9-lesson text is used
+# directly, not resliced.
+#
+# Wednesday of the 2nd week after Easter = Easter+17 (Pasc2-0, the 2nd
+# Sunday after Easter, is Easter+14; +3 more days to Wednesday). Verified
+# against the offset formula already confirmed elsewhere in this file
+# (PascN-D = Easter + 7N + D, e.g. Ascension = Pasc5-4 = Easter+39).
+id: patronage-of-st-joseph
+name: "The Patronage of St. Joseph"
+rank: duplex-1-classis
+anchor:
+  kind: easter
+  offset: 17
+octave:
+  enabled: true
+  # No live counter-example found for this feast specifically (unlike
+  # Ascension/Corpus Christi/Sacred Heart's own known Order-III-privilege
+  # conflict) -- `duplex` used as the same project-wide default anyway,
+  # for consistency with every other Duplex I classis octave modeled so
+  # far. The octave's own Sunday (day 5, Pasc3-0) genuinely has no
+  # override in the source at all -- it stays plain "Dominica III Post
+  # Pascha" -- so this threshold is never actually tested against a real
+  # rival on that day; nothing here forces an override where the source
+  # has none, since `octave-readings` is purely additive (see
+  # hours/matins.ts's own `buildReadingPool`).
+  wins: duplex

src/data/propers/nocturn-readings/patronage-of-st-joseph.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,144 @@
+# Matins Nocturn 2-3 for the Patronage of St. Joseph (Wednesday after the
+# 2nd Sunday after Easter, Easter+17 -- see
+# data/calendar/temporal-feasts/patronage-of-st-joseph.yml for the dating
+# note). Sourced from web/www/horas/Latin+English/Tempora/Pasc2-3.txt.
+# Nocturn 1 (Lectio1-3, Genesis 39/41 -- the patriarch Joseph as a type)
+# left to the bible-plan store, same convention as every other nocturn-
+# readings file. Nocturn 2 (Lectio4-6): one continuous sermon of
+# St. Bernardine of Siena on St. Joseph. Nocturn 3 (Lectio7-9): Lectio7's
+# own Gospel pericope (Luke 3:21-23) is a bare "Et réliqua" incipit,
+# dropped per the usual rule; St. Augustine's homily on the two
+# genealogies (Matthew's and Luke's) follows, isGospel: false.
+id: patronage-of-st-joseph
+readings:
+  - nocturn: 2
+    isGospel: false
+    text:
+      la: >-
+        Ómnium singulárium gratiárum alícui rationábili creatúræ communicatárum generális régula
+        est, quod, quandocúmque divína grátia éligit áliquem ad áliquam grátiam sublímem statum,
+        ómnia charísmata donet, quæ illi persónæ sic eléctæ et ejus offício necessária sunt atque
+        illam copióse décorant. Quod máxime verificátum est in sancto Joseph, putatívo patre
+        Dómini nostri Jesu Christi, et vero sponso Regínæ mundi et Dóminæ Angelórum; qui ab
+        ætérno Patre eléctus est fidélis nutrítius atque custos principálium thesaurórum suórum,
+        scílicet Fílii ejus et Sponsæ suæ: quod offícium fidelíssime prosecútus est. Cui proptérea
+        Dóminus ait: Serve bone et fidélis, intra in gáudium Dómini tui.
+
+
+        Si cómpares eum ad totam Ecclésiam Christi, nonne iste est homo eléctus et speciális, per
+        quem et sub quo Christus est ordináte et honéste introdúctus in mundum? Si ergo Vírgini
+        Matri tota Ecclésia sancta débitrix est, quia per eam Christum suscípere digna facta est:
+        sic profécto post eam huic debet grátiam et reveréntiam singulárem. Ipse enim est clavis
+        véteris testaménti, in qua patriarchális et prophetális dígnitas promíssum conséquitur
+        fructum. Porro hic est solus, qui corporáliter possédit, quod eis divína dignátio
+        repromísit. Mérito ígitur figurátur per illum patriárcham Joseph, qui pópulis fruménta
+        servávit. Sed et hic illum præcéllit, quia non solum Ægýptiis panem corporális vitæ, sed
+        ómnibus eléctis panem de cælo, qui cæléstem vitam tríbuit, cum multa sollértia enutrívit.
+
+
+        Profécto dubitándum non est, quod Christus familiaritátem, reveréntiam atque sublimíssimam
+        dignitátem, quam illi exhíbuit, dum ágeret in humánis, tamquam fílius patri suo, in cælis
+        útique non negávit, quin pótius complévit et consummávit. Unde non immérito in verbo
+        propósito a Dómino subinfértur: Intra in gáudium Dómini tui. Unde, licet gáudium ætérnæ
+        beatitúdinis in cor hóminis intret, máluit tamen Dóminus ei dícere, Intra in gáudium; ut
+        mýstice innuátur, quod gáudium illud non solum in eo sit intra, sed úndique illum
+        circúmdans et absórbens, et ipsum velut abýssus infiníta submérgens. Meménto ígitur
+        nostri, beáte Joseph, et tuæ oratiónis suffrágio apud tuum putatívum Fílium intercéde; sed
+        et beatíssimam Vírginem sponsam tuam nobis propítiam redde, quæ Mater est ejus, qui cum
+        Patre et Spíritu Sancto vivit et regnat per infiníta sǽcula sæculórum. Amen.
+      en: >-
+        The general rule governing all the singular graces communicated to any rational creature
+        is this: whenever divine grace chooseth someone for some sublime state of grace, it
+        bestoweth upon him every gift that is necessary for that person so chosen and for his
+        office, and that adorneth him abundantly. This was most of all verified in St. Joseph,
+        the supposed father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and true spouse of the Queen of the world
+        and Lady of the Angels — who was chosen by the eternal Father to be the faithful nurse
+        and guardian of His principal treasures, namely His Son and His Spouse, an office which
+        he fulfilled most faithfully. For this the Lord saith unto him: Well done, good and
+        faithful servant, enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
+
+
+        If thou compare him to the whole Church of Christ, is he not that chosen and singular man
+        through whom, and under whom, Christ was orderly and honourably brought into the world?
+        If, then, the whole holy Church is debtor to the Virgin Mother, because through her she
+        was made worthy to receive Christ, so, next after her, doth she owe to Joseph a singular
+        grace and reverence. For he is the key of the Old Testament, in which the dignity of the
+        patriarchs and prophets attaineth the fruit that was promised them. Moreover, he alone is
+        he who bodily possessed what divine condescension had promised them. Rightly, then, is he
+        prefigured by that patriarch Joseph, who kept in store the grain for the peoples. But he
+        surpasseth him even in this: for he nourished with much diligence, not only bread for the
+        bodily life of the Egyptians, but for all the elect the Bread from heaven, which
+        bestoweth heavenly life.
+
+
+        Assuredly we ought not to doubt that Christ, in heaven, did not deny — but rather fulfilled
+        and consummated — the familiarity, reverence, and most sublime dignity which He showed
+        him while He lived among men, as a son toward his father. Whence not without cause is it
+        added, in the word proposed by the Lord: Enter thou into the joy of thy lord. And though
+        the joy of eternal blessedness entereth into the heart of man, the Lord chose rather to
+        say to him, Enter into the joy, that it might be mystically understood that this joy is
+        not only within him, but on every side surrounding and absorbing him, and, as it were, an
+        infinite abyss engulfing him. Remember us, then, blessed Joseph, and by the pleading of
+        thy prayer intercede with thy supposed Son; and render to us gracious the most blessed
+        Virgin, thy spouse, who is the Mother of Him Who liveth and reigneth with the Father and
+        the Holy Ghost, world without end. Amen.
+    status: { la: verified, en: verified }
+  - nocturn: 3
+    isGospel: false
+    text:
+      la: >-
+        Maniféstum est illud quod ait, Ut putabátur fílius Joseph, propter illos dixísse, qui eum
+        ex Joseph, sicut álii hómines nascúntur, natum arbitrántur. Quos autem movet, quod álios
+        progenitóres Matthǽus enúmerat, descéndens a David usque ad Joseph, álios autem Lucas,
+        ascéndens a Joseph usque ad David; fácile est, ut advértant duos patres habére potuísse
+        Joseph: unum, a quo génitus, álterum, a quo fúerit adoptátus. Antíqua est enim
+        consuetúdo adoptándi étiam in illo pópulo Dei, ut sibi fílios fácerent, quos non ipsi
+        genuíssent. Unde intellígitur Lucas patrem Joseph, non a quo génitus, sed a quo fúerat
+        adoptátus, suscepísse in Evangélio suo, cujus progenitóres sursum versus commémorat,
+        donec exíret ad David.
+
+
+        Cum enim necésse sit, utróque Evangelísta vera narránte, et Matthǽo scílicet et Luca, ut
+        unus eórum ejus patris oríginem tenéret qui genúerat, alter ejus qui adoptáverat Joseph;
+        quem probabílius intellígimus adoptántis oríginem tenuísse quam eum, qui nóluit Joseph
+        génitum dícere ab illo cujus eum fílium esse narrábat? Matthǽus autem dicens, Ábraham
+        génuit Isaac, Isaac génuit Jacob, atque ita in hoc verbo, quod est, Génuit, persevérans,
+        donec in último díceret, Jacob autem génuit Joseph; satis expréssit ad eum patrem se
+        perduxísse oríginem generátium, a quo Joseph non adoptátus, sed génitus erat.
+
+
+        Quamquam si étiam Lucas génitum díceret Joseph ab Heli, nec sic nos hoc verbum
+        perturbáre debéret, ut áliud crederémus quam ab uno Evangelísta gignéntem, ab áltero
+        adoptántem patrem fuísse commemorátum. Neque enim absúrde quisque dícitur non carne sed
+        caritáte genuísse, quem fílium sibi adoptáverit. At vero étiam nos, quibus dedit Deus
+        potestátem fílios ejus fíeri, de natúra atque substántia sua non nos génuit, sicut
+        únicum Fílium, sed útique dilectióne adoptávit.
+      en: >-
+        It is plain that the words, "As was supposed, the son of Joseph," were said on account of
+        those who thought him born of Joseph as other men are born of their fathers. But as for
+        those who are troubled that Matthew names one set of ancestors, descending from David
+        down to Joseph, while Luke names another, ascending from Joseph up to David, it is easy
+        for them to see that Joseph could have had two fathers: one by whom he was begotten,
+        another by whom he was adopted. For it was an ancient custom, even among that people of
+        God, to adopt as sons those whom one had not begotten. Whence it is understood that Luke
+        took up in his Gospel the father of Joseph by whom he was adopted, not by whom he was
+        begotten, and traces his ancestors upward until he reaches David.
+
+
+        For since it must needs be, both Evangelists narrating truly — that is, Matthew and Luke —
+        that one of them should hold to the origin of the father who begot him, and the other to
+        the origin of the father who adopted Joseph, which is it more probable that we should
+        understand held to the origin of the adopter, rather than of him who refused to say
+        Joseph was begotten by him whose son he nonetheless narrates him to be? Matthew, however,
+        saying, "Abraham begot Isaac, Isaac begot Jacob," and so persevering in this word,
+        "begot," until at the last he saith, "And Jacob begot Joseph," hath sufficiently shown
+        that he traced the line down to the father by whom Joseph was not adopted, but begotten.
+
+
+        Yet even if Luke had said that Joseph was begotten by Heli, this word ought not to trouble
+        us so as to make us believe otherwise than that one Evangelist commemorated the begetting
+        father, the other the adopting father. For it is not absurd to say that a man hath
+        begotten, not by flesh but by love, one whom he hath adopted as his son. Indeed even we,
+        to whom God hath given power to become His sons, He begot not of His own nature and
+        substance, as He did His Only Son, but rather adopted us through love.
+    status: { la: verified, en: verified }

src/data/propers/octave-readings/patronage-of-st-joseph-octave-day-2.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+# Sourced directly from the raw reference files (web/www/horas/Latin+English/
+# Tempora/Pasc2-4.txt) -- day 2 of the Patronage of St. Joseph's own
+# movable octave (Thursday), per the Wednesday-based pre-1955 dating (see
+# data/calendar/temporal-feasts/patronage-of-st-joseph.yml). Joins another
+# sermon of St. Bernardine of Siena on St. Joseph (Lectio4-6, distinct from
+# the feast day's own excerpt) with St. Augustine's own continuation of his
+# homily on the two genealogies (Lectio7-9, same Gospel pericope as the
+# feast day; bare incipit dropped). Responsory not sourced, same convention
+# as the other movable octaves in this project.
+id: patronage-of-st-joseph-octave-day-2
+source:
+  la: "Sermo sancti Bernardíni Senénsis; Homilía sancti Augustíni Epíscopi"
+  en: "Sermon of St. Bernardine of Siena; Homily of St. Augustine, Bishop"
+text:
+  la: |
+    Cum inter Maríam et Joseph fúerit veríssimum matrimónium per divínam inspiratiónem contráctum, et in matrimónio fiat únio animórum in tantum quod una dicúntur persóna sponsus et sponsa, ut possit dici únitas quasi summa; quómodo cogitáre potest mens discréta quod Spíritus Sanctus tanta unióne uníret menti tantæ Vírginis áliquam ánimam, nisi ei virtútum operatióne simíllimam? Unde credo, istum virum sanctum Joseph fuísse mundíssimum in virginitáte, profundíssimum in humilitáte, ardentíssimum in Dei amóre et caritáte, altíssimum in contemplatióne. Et quia nóverat Virgo istum sibi a Spíritu Sancto datum in sponsum, et in suæ virginitátis fidum custódem, et ad participándum secum in caritátis amóre et obsequiósa sollicitúdine erga diviníssimam Prolem Dei; ídeo credo, quod totíus cordis afféctu hunc, sanctum Joseph, sinceríssime diligébat.
+
+    Hábuit Joseph erga Christum ardentíssimam caritátem. Quis déneget, óbsecro, quod ipsi tenénti Christum in brácchiis aut confabulánti cum ipso, Christus, sive infans sive adúltus, ingéreret et imprímeret ineffábiles sensus atque jucunditátes de semetípso, et hoc cooperánte extérius grátia Christi cum filiáli aspéctu, affátu atque compléxu? O quanta dúlcia óscula ab ipso recépit! o quanta dulcédine audiébat balbutiéntem Párvulum se patrem vocáre, et quanta suavitáte sentiébat se dúlciter amplexári! Consídera étiam, cum quanta compassióne in itinéribus, quæ fecérunt, párvulum Jesum ex labóre lassum, cum grandiúsculus esset, in suo grémio requiéscere faciébat: quia omni amóre transformatívo ferebátur in eum, ut in dulcíssimum Fílium sibi in cónjuge sua Vírgine per Spíritum Sanctum datum.
+
+    Ideo prudentíssima Mater, quæ expérta fúerat ejus afféctum, ad Fílium suum Jesum in templo reinvéntum ait: Fili, quid fecísti nobis sic? Ecce pater tuus et ego doléntes quærebámus te. Ad hujus verbi intelléctum notándum est, quod duo sapórum génera cóntinet in se Christus, dulcóris et dolóris; et quia sanctíssimus Joseph horum duórum gústuum mirabíliter párticeps fuit, ídeo beáta Virgo vocat eum singuláriter patrem Christi. Hic solum légitur Vírginem Joseph appellásse patrem Jesu: quia sensus dolóris, quem hábuit de Jesu pérdito, verum in eo monstrávit patris afféctum. Si enim secúndum humánas leges divínitus approbátas potest extráneus áliquem adoptáre in fílium, multo magis Dei Fílius datus ipsi Joseph in sua sanctíssima Sponsa sub virginális matrimónii admirábili sacraménto, debet ejus fílius appellári; et étiam credi quod in eo fúerit gustus paternális amóris atque dolóris respéctu dilécti Jesu.
+
+    Neque proptérea non erat appellándus Joseph pater Christi, quia non eum concumbéndo genúerat; quandóquidem pater esset étiam ejus, quem non ex sua cónjuge procreátum aliúnde adoptásset. Putabátur quidem Christus étiam áliter fílius Joseph, tamquam ex ejus omníno carne progénitus; sed ab eis hoc putabátur, quos Maríæ latébat virgínitas: nam Lucas ait: Et ipse Jesus erat incípiens quasi annórum trigínta, ut putabátur, fílius Joseph. Qui tamen Lucas non ejus paréntem solam Maríam, sed ambos paréntes ejus appelláre mínime dubitávit, ubi ait: Puer autem crescébat et confortabátur plenus sapiéntia, et grátia Dei erat in illo; et ibant paréntes ejus per omnes annos in Jerúsalem, in die solémni Paschæ.
+
+    Sed, ne quisnam hic paréntes consanguíneos pótius Maríæ cum ipsa Matre ejus intelligéndos putet, quid ad illud respondébit quod ipse item Lucas supérius dixit, Et erant Pater ejus et Mater mirántes super his, quæ dicebántur de illo? Cum ígitur ipse narret, non ex concúbitu Joseph, sed ex María Vírgine natum Christum; unde eum patrem ejus appéllat, nisi quia et virum Maríæ recte intellígimus sine commixtióne carnis, ipsa copulatióne conjúgii; et ob hoc étiam Christi patrem multo conjúnctius, qui ex ejus cónjuge natus sit, quam si esset aliúnde adoptátus? Ac per hoc, si demonstráre áliquis posset Maríam ex David nullam consanguinitátis oríginem dúcere, sat erat secúndum istam ratiónem, accípere Christum Fílium David; qua ratióne étiam Joseph pater ejus appellátus est.
+
+    Lucas autem non ab inítio Evangélii sui, sed a baptísmo Christi generatiónes enárrat, nec descendéndo, sed ascendéndo, tamquam sacerdótem in expiándis peccátis magis assígnans; ubi eum vox de cælo declarávit, ubi testimónium Joánnes ipsi perhíbuit dicens: Ecce, qui tollit peccáta mundi. Ascendéndo autem transit Abraham et pérvenit ad Deum, cui mundáti et expiáti reconciliámur. Mérito et adoptiónis oríginem ipse suscépit, quia per adoptiónem effícimur fílii Dei, credéndo in Fílium Dei. Satis autem demonstrávit, non se ídeo dixísse. Joseph fílium Heli, quod de illo génitus, sed quod ab illo fúerat adoptátus; cum et ipsum Adam fílium Dei dixit, cum sit factus a Deo, sed per grátiam, quam póstea peccándo amísit, tamquam fílius in paradíso constitútus sit.
+  en: |
+    The marriage between Mary and Joseph was a real marriage, for it was contracted under divine inspiration. Now in marriage there is so close a union of souls that the bridegroom and the bride are said to be one person, for which reason marriage is like unto the very perfection of unity. Hence how can any discerning mind think that the Holy Spirit would unite, in a union of this intimacy, a mind such as the Virgin's, with the soul of a man who had not within him the operation of a godliness like unto hers? Wherefore I believe that this Joseph was holy, the chastest of men and a virgin, completely humble, burning with a passion of charity towards God, and full of the highest graces of contemplation. And since the Virgin knew that he was given her by the Holy Spirit to be her spouse, and the faithful guardian of her virginity, and to share besides in devoted love and affectionate care towards that One who was, in the divinest fashion, the very offspring of God, therefore I believe that she sincerely loved Saint Joseph with all the affection of her heart.
+
+    Now Joseph was most ardent in his love for Christ. For who, pray, would deny that Christ, whether as a child or as a grown man, would most deeply inspire ineffable affection, and the peculiar joys which he alone could give, in one who held him in his arms and conversed at will with him? Who can reckon the bliss of receiving from the Christ Child those gazes of filial love, or his words spoken as a devoted son, or the giving of his trustful embraces? O how sweet were the kisses that Joseph received from him! O how sweet to hear the little One lisp the name of father, and how delightful to feel his gentle caresses! Think again how often, when the little Jesus was growing bigger and was wearied with much walking on the journeys which they made, Joseph must have been filled with compassion, and so carried him at rest in his bosom. For Joseph bore towards Jesus all the fulness of an adoptive love, as to a most dear son, given to him by the Holy Ghost in his Virgin bride.
+
+    Hence it was that a most prudent Mother, who knew the devotion of Joseph to Jesus, said to her Son, when she found him in the temple: "Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? Behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing." In order to understand this, we must note that Christ hath within himself, as it were, two savours: sweetness and bitterness. And since the most holy Joseph was in a wonderful manner a partaker of these two savours, therefore the Blessed Virgin doth bestow upon him, in a special sense, the title of Father of Christ. This is the only place where we read that she did call Saint Joseph the father of Jesus — doubtless because the bitterness of sorrow which he felt at the loss of Jesus showed the fatherly affection which he bore him. For if, according to human laws which are approved by God, a man can adopt as his son the child of another family, how much more truly ought the Son of God to be called the Son of Joseph, seeing he was given to this Joseph by his most holy Spouse, in the wonderful mystery of a virginal marriage. And so it is also to be believed that in Joseph there were these two savours toward Jesus, the sweetness of paternal love and the bitterness of his compassion.
+
+    Joseph cannot be denied the name of father of Christ, merely because he did not beget him by union of the flesh; for he would have been called the father of any child whom he adopted, even if the child were not the issue of his wife, but from another family. It is true that Christ was supposed to be the son of Joseph in another sense — namely, in that of having been actually begotten by Joseph according to the flesh; but this supposition was made only by those from whom Mary's virginity was concealed. Of this Luke saith: "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph." Yet Luke sheweth no hesitation in giving the name of parent, not to Mary only, but also to Joseph, when in another place he saith: "And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was upon him; and his parents went every year to Jerusalem, at the Feast of Passover."
+
+    But lest anyone should think that by the word "parents" there is here to be understood Mary and her forbears only, we must take into account what Luke recordeth earlier: "And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him." Since, therefore, Luke witnesseth that Christ was born, not by the begetting of Joseph, but of the Virgin Mary, how can he call Joseph the father of Jesus, except in the sense that Joseph was a real husband to Mary by virtue of the true bond of marriage, saving only that there never was any carnal intercourse between them? And yet, on account of this bond of marriage, Joseph was the father of Jesus in a much closer sense — seeing that the Christ Child was born of his wife — than if Joseph had adopted Jesus from another family. Hence, also, if anyone could prove that Mary did not trace her origin from David, the same reasoning by which Joseph is called the father of Christ would be sufficient reason for giving Christ the name Son of David.
+
+    Luke giveth the genealogy not at the beginning of his Gospel, but after the account of the Baptism of Christ, and not in the descending order, but in the ascending — more as if he were pointing to Christ as Priest, making atonement for sins, since this was the occasion when the voice spake in testimony from heaven, and when John also gave testimony, saying: "Behold the Lamb of God, Which taketh away the sin of the world." By thus beginning with Jesus and tracing back, Luke passeth up through Abraham and eventually cometh to God, to whom we are reconciled after purification and atonement. Rightly then doth Luke give the origin by adoption, for through adoption and faith in the Son of God we become God's sons. In this fashion Luke sheweth clearly enough why he nameth Joseph as the son of Heli — not because Joseph was begotten by Heli, but because he was adopted by him. For Luke calleth Adam himself the son of God, and this because he was made by God — but by grace, which afterwards he lost in sinning, being set as a son in the paradise of Eden.
+status:
+  la: verified
+  en: verified

src/data/propers/octave-readings/patronage-of-st-joseph-octave-day-3.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+# Sourced directly from the raw reference files (web/www/horas/Latin+English/
+# Tempora/Pasc2-5.txt) -- day 3 of the Patronage of St. Joseph's own
+# movable octave (Friday), same shape/rationale as
+# patronage-of-st-joseph-octave-day-2.yml. Joins a homily of St. John
+# Chrysostom on Matt. 1 (Lectio4-6, Joseph's own just and merciful response
+# to Mary's conception) with St. Augustine's own "Contra Faustum"
+# (Lectio7-9, same Gospel pericope as the feast day; bare incipit dropped).
+# A couple of stray OCR accent marks in the source's own English corrected
+# as clear transcription typos. Responsory not sourced, same convention as
+# the other movable octaves in this project.
+id: patronage-of-st-joseph-octave-day-3
+source:
+  la: "Sermo sancti Joánnis Chrysóstomi; Homilía sancti Augustíni Epíscopi"
+  en: "Sermon of St. John Chrysostom; Homily of St. Augustine, Bishop"
+text:
+  la: |
+    Hunc morem plerúmque tenébat antíquitas, ut sponsæ in sponsórum dómibus haberéntur: sic habitábat étiam María cum Sponso. Et cujus tandem rei grátia, non ántequam desponderétur, Virgo concépit? Ut vidélicet mystérium ínterim quasi obumbrátum latéret, et ut Virgo omnem prorsus occasiónem malígnæ suspiciónis effúgeret. Quando enim ille, qui præcípuo zelo posset ardére, cérnitur non solum non abjícere Sponsam, nec eam ignomínia notáre, sed étiam recípere in consórtium et inservíre post conceptiónem; profécto maniféstum est, quod, nisi apérte nosset ex operatióne Sancti Spíritum illum exstitísse concéptum, numquam vel apud se illam retinuísset, vel ei in ómnibus, quorum indíguit, ministrásset.
+
+    Joseph autem, cum esset justus et nollet eam tradúcere, vóluit occúlte dimíttere eam. Postquam dixit, quod esset ex Spíritu Sancto et absque ulla mixtióne séxuum, sermónem suum étiam aliúnde confírmat. Ne enim áliquis díceret: Et unde hoc potest esse maniféstum? quis vidit? quis audívit aliquándo tale áliquid contigísse? neque putáres discípulum, quasi gratificátum magístro, ista confíngere; introdúcit Joseph ex his, quæ passus est, fidem dictis per cuncta faciéntem, ut plane hinc dícere Evangelísta videátur: Si non credis mihi et testimónium tibi meum forte suspéctum est, crede ígitur vel maríto.
+
+    Joseph enim vir ejus, inquit, cum esset justus. Justum hic, in omni virtúte dicit esse perféctum. Cum ígitur esset justus, hoc est, frugi bonúsque vir, vóluit occúlte dimíttere eam. Proptérea vero Evangelísta dixit quid justo illi accíderit ante notítiam, ut nequáquam de his, quæ post notítiam rei sunt facta, dubitáres. Et certe, si María talis fuísset qualem illam suspício fingébat, non modo publicári merúerat, verum étiam ex legis auctoritáte puníri: sed Joseph non tantum eam damnáre nóluit, sed nec publicáre quidem. Vidísti nempe virum sublímiter philosophántem et tyránnicæ illíus passiónis immúnem. Quamquam hic quæ tandem dicerétur esse suspício, ubi ipse úteri tumor videbátur factum argúere? Sed tamen ita erat ille vir ab hujúsmodi passióne mundus ac liber, ut ne in mínimis quidem Vírgini vellet inférre mæstítiam; et adhuc sub lege vivens, supra legem philosophátur: síquidem adventánte jam grátia, multo sublimióris disciplínæ documénta fulgére oportébat.
+
+    Sic de cælo dictum est super aquam Jordánis: Hic est Fílius meus diléctus, in quo mihi bene complácui; quemádmodum dictum est et in monte. Neque enim quia et ibi de cælo vox ipsa sónuit, Fílius Dei ante non fuit; quandóquidem ex útero Vírginis ille accépit formam servi, qui cum in forma Dei esset, non rapínam arbitrátus est esse æquális Deo. Dénique idem Apóstolus Paulus álio loco apertíssime dicit: Cum autem venit plenitúdo témporis, misit Deus Fílium suum factum ex mulíere, factum sub lege, ut eos, qui sub lege erant, redímeret, ut filiórum adoptiónem reciperémus. Ipse ergo est Fílius Dei, qui et Dóminus David secúndum divinitátem, et idem ipse fílius David ex sémine David secúndum carnem.
+
+    Quod si nobis crédere non prodésset, non hoc tam atténte idem Apóstolus Timótheo commendáret dicens: Memor esto Christum Jesum resurrexísse a mórtuis, ex sémine David, secúndum Evangélium meum. Quid ergo jam móveat sancti Evangélii sectatórem, quod sine concúbitu Joseph Christus natus ex Vírgine, fílius tamen David appellátur, cum generatiónum sériem non usque ad Maríam sed usque ad Joseph Matthæus Evangelísta perdúcat? Primo quia maríti ejus fúerat propter virílem sexum pótius honoránda persóna; neque enim quia concúbitu non permíxtus, ídeo non marítus, cum ipse Matthæus narret ab Angelo Maríam cónjugem ipsíus appellátam, qui narrat, quod de Spíritu Sancto concéperat.
+
+    Cum vero unus idémque narrátor utrúmque dicat, utrúmque comméndet, et virum Maríæ Joseph et Christi Vírginem Matrem, et Christum ex sémine David et Joseph in série progeneratórum Christi ex David; quid restat, nisi et Maríam non fuísse extráneam a cognatióne David, et eam Joseph cónjugem non frustra appellátam propter órdinem sexus et animórum confœderatiónem; et Joseph pótius propter dignitátem virílem ab órdine generatiónum illárum non fuísse separándum, ne hoc ipso viderétur ab illa fémina separátus, cui eum conjungébat mentis afféctus?
+  en: |
+    It was the custom in ancient times for betrothed brides to dwell in the houses of their bridegrooms; and it would seem that Mary thus dwelt with her Spouse. And herein we find answer to the question: Why did not the virgin conception take place before Mary was wedded? In order that the mystery might be hid in the meantime, and that the Virgin might escape all danger of evil suspicion. For Joseph had the best right to be moved by jealousy; yet we see that he not only refrained from sending away his espoused, or branding her with infamy, but that he received her as his own, and did cherish her after she conceived. And verily it is evident that he would never have kept her in his house, or ministered to all her needs, if he had not clearly come to know that she had conceived by the operation of the Holy Ghost.
+
+    "Joseph, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily." After the Evangelist hath told us that she was with child of the Holy Ghost, and not of any carnal union, he bringeth testimony from another source to confirm the statement. For lest anyone should say, "And how can this be proved? Who saw it? Who ever heard of any such thing having happened?" and lest you might think that a disciple had invented this tale to please his Master, the Evangelist thus bringeth forward the grief of Joseph, and what he did thereafter, to confirm the story — as if to say: "If ye will not believe me, or if ye hold my testimony in suspicion, at least believe the husband."
+
+    "Joseph her husband," it saith, "being a just man." To be just, as the word is here used, implieth that full growth of righteousness which cometh from the habitual service of God. Being therefore a just man — that is, a worthy and good man — he was minded to put her away privily. Thus the Evangelist recordeth the grief of this just man before he knew the secret of the virgin conception, lest thou shouldst have doubts concerning what happened after he knew that secret. And certainly, if Mary had been such as suspicion would make her out to be, she would have deserved not only to be denounced, but to be punished by the authority of the Law. But Joseph was not only unwilling to condemn her, but even to denounce her. Herein thou dost see an instance of a man full of spiritual understanding, and free from the tyranny of suspicion. But was this a matter of mere suspicion, seeing that the very swelling of her body seemed to prove the fact? Nonetheless, this man was so pure, and so free from that kind of jealousy, that he would not cause the Virgin even the slightest grief; and although he lived under the Law, his understanding was above the Law — for now that the reign of grace was approaching, it was fitting that there should be a shining example of a more sublime spirituality than was common under the Law.
+
+    Thus was it said from heaven over the water of the Jordan: "This is My beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased" — even as it was said also on the mount. Nor is it that, because a voice from heaven sounded there too, He was not the Son of God before; since He Who took the form of a servant from the Virgin's womb, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God. Indeed the same Apostle Paul clearly declareth elsewhere: "But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the Law, that He might redeem them that were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption of sons." He therefore is the Son of God, Who, according to His divinity, is the Lord of David, and at the same time, according to the flesh, is the Son of David, and of the seed of David.
+
+    Were it not profitable for us to believe this, the same Apostle would not have exhorted Timothy so earnestly, saying: "Remember that Jesus Christ, of the seed of David, is risen again from the dead, according to my Gospel." Why then should any follower of the holy Gospel be troubled that Christ, Who was born of the Virgin without union with Joseph, hath His line of descent traced by the Evangelist Matthew through Joseph rather than through Mary — or that, because of Joseph's descent from David, the Evangelist should call Christ the Son of David? First, because the genealogy of her husband would be preferred to hers as a matter of honour to the male sex — for even though he was not joined to her in the union of the flesh, he was not on that account any the less her husband, since Matthew himself witnesseth that Mary was called the wife of Joseph by the Angel, and yet also saith that she had conceived by the Holy Ghost.
+
+    Since, then, one and the same narrator both maketh and approveth all these statements — that Joseph was the husband of Mary; that the Mother of Christ was a Virgin; that Christ was of the seed of David; and that Joseph was in the line of Christ's ancestors from David — what remains, but that Mary too was not a stranger to the kindred of David, and that she was not falsely given the title of Joseph's wife on account of the due order of sex and the bond of their souls; and that Joseph, chiefly on account of his dignity as a man, was not to be separated from that line of genealogy, lest he should thereby appear separated from that woman to whom the affection of his heart bound him?
+status:
+  la: verified
+  en: verified

src/data/propers/octave-readings/patronage-of-st-joseph-octave-day-4.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+# Sourced directly from the raw reference files (web/www/horas/Latin+English/
+# Tempora/Pasc2-6.txt) -- day 4 of the Patronage of St. Joseph's own
+# movable octave (Saturday), same shape/rationale as
+# patronage-of-st-joseph-octave-day-2.yml. Joins the continuation of
+# St. John Chrysostom's Homily 4 on Matthew (Lectio4-6, the angel's own
+# words to Joseph in Matt 1:20-21) with St. Ambrose's own commentary on
+# Luke (Lectio7-9, same Gospel pericope as the feast day; bare incipit
+# dropped). A couple of stray OCR spelling artifacts in the source's own
+# English corrected as clear transcription typos. Responsory not sourced,
+# same convention as the other movable octaves in this project.
+id: patronage-of-st-joseph-octave-day-4
+source:
+  la: "Sermo sancti Joánnis Chrysóstomi; Homilía sancti Ambrósii Epíscopi"
+  en: "Sermon of St. John Chrysostom; Homily of St. Ambrose, Bishop"
+text:
+  la: |
+    Joseph, fili David, noli timére accípere Maríam cónjugem tuam. Quid autem est accípere? Domi profécto retinére; jam enim illam mente dimíserat: sed dimíssam, inquit, retíneas, quam Deus tibi cópulat, non paréntes; cópulat vero, non in fœdus solémne conjúgii, sed in consórtium commúnis habitáculi, et cópulat per meæ vocis offícium. Sicut enim illam póstea comméndat Christus ipse discípulo, ita étiam nunc Angelus Sponso; solátium tantúmmodo ejus habitúram absque fœdere nuptiárum. Deínde honéstius multóque dígnius causa partus expósita, suspiciónem quoque prorsus restínxit. Non modo, inquit, illícito non est violáta compléxu, verum étiam supra natúram morémque fœcúnda est. Noli ígitur de tam felíci partu Sponsæ attráhere mærórem, immo vero in majorem prorúmpe lætítiam; quod enim in ea natum est, de Spíritu Sancto est.
+
+    Páriet autem Fílium, et vocábis nomen ejus Jesum; non enim quia ex Spíritu Sancto est, idcírco te a ministério tantæ exístimes dispensatiónis extráneum. Nam etsi nihil hábeas in hac generatióne commúne (Virgo quippe permánsit intácta), tamen quod est próprium patris quodque nihil offúscat Vírginis dignitátem, hoc tibi fácile concédo, ut scílicet Nato nomen impónas; tu enim illum primum vocábis. Quamquam enim non sit fílius tuus iste, qui náscitur, tu tamen curam erga illum et sollicitúdinem osténdes paréntis; et proptérea te illi ab ipsa statim nóminis impositióne conjúngo. Deínde, ne quis illum ex hoc patrem esse suspicarétur, Páriet, inquit, Fílium. Non dixit, Páriet tibi, sed pósuit illud indefinítum et suspénsum; non enim illi, sed univérso prorsus orbi péperit Christum.
+
+    Proptérea et nomen ejus de cælo Angelum detulísse Evangelísta memorávit, ut hinc quoque osténderet illum mirábilem esse partum, quo ejus nomen ad Joseph et per Angelum et a Deo missum docéret. Nam et ipsum vocábulum non inániter pósitum est, quod certe mille cóntinet thesáuros bonórum. Propter quod illud étiam Angelus interpretátur bonis mæréntem spebus animándo; et hoc quoque illum modo ad credéndum quod lóquitur, invítat. Fácile namque sollicitámur ad próspera, et prómptius fidem accommodámus secúndis. Ipse enim, inquit, salvum fáciet pópulum suum a peccátis eórum. Hinc quoque benefícii nóvitas indicátur. Non enim a bello visíbili neque a gládio barbarórum, sed, quod his longe majus est, a peccáto suo pópulum suum núntiat liberándum: quod præstáre nulli fuit hóminum aliquándo possíbile.
+
+    Néminem movére debet, quod ita scriptum est: Qui putabátur fílius Joseph. Bene enim putabátur, quia natúra non erat; sed ídeo putabátur, quia eum María, quæ Joseph viro suo erat desponsáta genúerat. Sic enim habes: Nonne hic est fílius Joseph fabri? Díximus supra qua ratióne per Vírginem, díximus étiam, qua ratióne per desponsátam, et quare census témpore nasci volúerit Dóminus salutáris; non aliénum étiam vidétur, ut qua ratióne fabrum patrem habúerit, declarémus. Hoc enim typo eum patrem sibi esse demónstrat, qui fabricátor ómnium cóndidit mundum. Nam etsi humána non sunt comparánda divínis, typus tamen ínteger est, quod Pater Christi igne operátur et spíritu, et tamquam bonus ánimæ faber vítia nostra circúmdolat; cito secúrim ádmovens arbóribus infœcúndis, secáre doctus exígua, culmínibus serváre sublímia, rígida méntium spíritus igne mollíre, et in vários usus omne humánum genus divérsa ministeriórum qualitáte formáre.
+
+    Cur autem Joseph magis quam Maríæ generátio describátur, cum María de Spíritu Sancto generávit Christum, et Joseph a generatióne Dómini videátur aliénus, dubitáre possémus, nisi consuetúdo nos instrúeret Scripturárum, quæ semper viri oríginem quærit. Viri enim persóna quæritur, qui étiam in senátu et réliquis cúriis civitátum géneris assérvat dignitátem. Quam defórme autem, si relícta viri orígine, orígo féminæ quærerétur, ut viderétur patrem non habuísse ille totíus mundi pópulis prædicándus! Vides ubíque famíliam per virórum generatiónes esse decúrsam. Noli mirári quod Joseph orígo descrípta est. Etenim secúndum carnem natus, usum débuit sequi carnis, et qui in sæculum venit, sæculi débuit more descríbi; máxime cum in Joseph orígine étiam orígo sit Maríæ.
+
+    Cur autem sanctus Matthæus ab Abraham generatiónem enumeráre cœperit Christi, sanctus vero Lucas a Christo usque ad Deum perdúxerit, explanándum vidétur. Lucas ad Deum putávit oríginem ejus esse referéndam, quod verus Christi generátor Deus sit, vel secúndum veram generatiónem Pater, vel secúndum lavácri regeneratiónem mystici múneris auctor. Et ídeo non a primo generatiónem ejus cœpit descríbere; sed posteáquam baptísmum ejus explícuit, Auctórem ómnium Deum per baptísmum cúpiens demonstráre. Christum quoque a Deo órdine manásse successiónis asséruit, univérsa contéxens, ut et secúndum natúram et secúndum grátiam et secúndum carnem Dei Fílium demonstráret. Quod autem evidéntius divínæ generatiónis indícium, quam quod de generatióne dictúrus, ipsum Patrem præmísit loquéntem: Hic est Fílius meus diléctus, in quo complácui?
+  en: |
+    "Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife." But what is "to take"? Undoubtedly, to maintain, and that in his own house — for he had already sent her away in his mind. But now the Angel commandeth: her whom thou wouldst send away, maintain; her, do thou, and not her parents, maintain, for God joineth her to thee — joineth her to thee, not in the sacred commerce of marriage, but in the fellowship of a common home, and joineth her to thee through the ministry of my words. Just as Christ Himself later entrusted her to the care of His disciple, so now the Angel giveth her to her spouse, in such manner that she may have the consolation of his company without other conjugal rights. By this means her confinement would be explained in a worthier and more honourable way, and suspicion would be wholly allayed. It is as though the Angel said: Not only was she not dishonoured by an unlawful embrace, but indeed she is fruitful in a manner above nature and usage; therefore grieve not at the happy confinement of thy Bride, but break forth into greater joy — for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
+
+    "And she shall bring forth a Son, and thou shalt call His Name Jesus." That is: think not that the ministry of this great dispensation, because it is of the Holy Ghost, is a thing apart from thee. For even though thou hast no part in His generation, since the Virgin remaineth inviolate, yet do I readily grant thee this — namely, that thine are all the rights of a father, in so far as they obscure not the dignity of the Virgin; thou shalt certainly give the new-born His Name, thou shalt be the first to call Him by His Name. For even though He Who is born is not thy son, nonetheless thou shalt shew Him the care and solicitude of a parent, and therefore I unite thee to Him by this immediate giving of the Name. But, lest anyone might think from this that Joseph was the begetter of Christ, the Angel was first careful to say: "She shall bring forth a Son." He doth not say, "She shall bear thee a son," but maketh His statement in an undetermined and indefinite way; for Mary did not bear a son to Joseph, but brought forth Christ to the whole world.
+
+    Therefore the Evangelist relateth that the Angel brought His Name from heaven, so that thus might be shewn how wonderful was His birth, seeing that He Himself taught His Name to Joseph by an Angel sent from God. For this Name, which verily containeth a thousand treasures of good, was not given without meaning. Therefore the Angel doth himself interpret it, thereby consoling Joseph's grief with good hopes, and thus also inviting him to believe these words — for we are easily summoned to that which is pleasant, and give prompt credence unto good tidings. Wherefore the Angel said: "He shall save His people from their sins." This also sheweth the novelty of the gift. For he announceth that this people are to be saved, not indeed from external wars, nor from the swords of barbarians, but from what is far greater than these — from their sins — which no mere man could ever accomplish.
+
+    No one should be troubled at the words, "As was supposed, the son of Joseph." For it was no more than a supposition, seeing that Christ was not the son of Joseph by nature; but it was so supposed because Mary, who was espoused to her husband Joseph, gave Christ birth. And so, referring to Joseph as father, it is written: "Is not this the carpenter's son?" We have already discussed why the Lord of salvation chose to be born of a Virgin; we have also discussed why she was an espoused Virgin when her conception took place, and why it took place at the time of the enrollment for taxing. Nor does it seem out of place to explain why Christ had a working-man for His father. For thereby is figured Christ's divine Father, Who as Maker of all things framed the world. Even though human and divine matters be not equal to each other, yet is this figure a complete one: Christ's Father worketh by fire and by breathing on things. Yea, like a good carpenter of the soul, He chippeth away our defects; promptly doth He lay His axe to the barren trees and hew them down; skilful is He in correcting whatever is built scantily, and in buttressing whatever is to be built magnificently; He tempereth the hardness of hearts as with fire and with His gentle breath, and by His diverse workings He formeth the quality of the human race.
+
+    We might wonder why the genealogy of Joseph, rather than of Mary, is given — since Mary conceived Christ by the Holy Ghost, and Joseph had no part in the Lord's conception — were it not that Holy Scripture teacheth us how it was the custom to trace descent on the male side. For in this fashion the person of the man is set forth as pre-eminent, and his dignity maintained, even as it is wont to be done in the Senate and the other high places of the commonwealth. And how unseemly it would have been to have passed over the lineage of the father, and to have given that of the mother, since the doing so would have appeared to proclaim to all the peoples of the world that Christ had no father! It is a world-wide custom to trace the genealogy of a family in the male line. Therefore be not perplexed that the lineage of Joseph is given: forasmuch as Christ was born in the flesh, He was bound to follow this custom of the flesh, and He Who came into the world had to be enrolled for taxing in the worldly manner — the more so that Joseph's descent was the same as Mary's.
+
+    But some explanation is required as to why Saint Matthew reckoneth Christ's descent from Abraham forward, whilst Saint Luke traceth the same from Christ backward to the creation of Adam by God. By this Luke would have us understand that Christ's lineage should be traced to God, because God was Christ's true Progenitor — both as His Father, of Whom He was begotten, and as the Author, in the laver of baptism, of the mystical gift of the Spirit. Wherefore Luke doth not begin his Gospel with the reckoning of Christ's lineage, but recordeth it after the account of the Baptism, thereby shewing forth in baptism the working of God, the Author of all things. Thus also Luke asserteth that Christ came forth from God according to a certain rule of orderliness, for he weaveth all things together to prove that Christ is, by nature, by grace, and in the flesh, the Son of God. But what more evident proof of Christ's divine descent could we have than what Luke giveth? For before the Evangelist reckoneth the genealogy of Christ, he giveth the words of the Father Himself: "This is My beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased."
+status:
+  la: verified
+  en: verified

src/data/propers/octave-readings/patronage-of-st-joseph-octave-day-6.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
+# Sourced directly from the raw reference files (web/www/horas/Latin+English/
+# Tempora/Pasc3-1.txt) -- day 6 of the Patronage of St. Joseph's own
+# movable octave (Monday of the following week; day 5, the Sunday, has no
+# override in the source at all, correctly unauthored). Joins St. Bernard's
+# own homily "Super Missus Est" on Joseph as a second David (Lectio4-6)
+# with St. Ambrose's own commentary on Luke's genealogy through Nathan vs.
+# Matthew's through Solomon (Lectio7-9, same Gospel pericope as the feast
+# day; bare incipit dropped). A couple of stray OCR spelling artifacts in
+# the source's own English corrected as clear transcription typos.
+# Responsory not sourced, same convention as the other movable octaves in
+# this project.
+id: patronage-of-st-joseph-octave-day-6
+source:
+  la: "Sermo sancti Bernárdi Abbátis; Homilía sancti Ambrósii Epíscopi"
+  en: "Sermon of St. Bernard, Abbot; Homily of St. Ambrose, Bishop"
+text:
+  la: |
+    Desponsáta est María Joseph, vel pótius (sicut ponit Evangelísta) viro, cui nomen erat Joseph. Virum nóminat, non quia marítus, sed quod homo virtútis erat; vel pótius quia juxta álium Evangelístam non vir simplíciter, sed vir ejus dictus est, mérito appellátur quod necessário putátur. Débuit ergo vir ejus appellári, quia necésse fuit et putári; sicut et pater Salvatóris non quidem esse, sed dici méruit, ut putarétur esse, dicénte hoc ipso Evangelísta: Et ipse Jesus erat incípiens quasi annórum trigínta, ut putabátur, fílius Joseph.
+
+    Non est dúbium, quin bonus et fidélis homo fúerit iste Joseph, cui Mater desponsáta est Salvatóris. Fidélis, inquam, servus et prudens, quem constítuit Dóminus suæ Matris solátium, suæ carnis nutrítium, solum dénique in terris magni consílii coadjutórem fidelíssimum. Huc accédit, quod dícitur fuísse de domo David. Vere enim de domo David, vere de régia stirpe descéndit vir iste Joseph, nóbilis génere, mente nobílior. Plane fílius David, non degénerans a patre suo David; prorsus, inquam, fílius David, non tantum carne, sed fide, sed sanctitáte, sed devotióne, quem tamquam álterum David Dóminus invénit secúndum cor suum; cui tuto commítteret sacratíssimum atque secretíssimum sui cordis arcánum; cui, tamquam álteri David, incérta et occúlta sapiéntiæ suæ manifestávit, et dedit illi non ignárum esse mystérii, quod nemo príncipum hujus sǽculi agnóvit.
+
+    Cui dénique datum est, quod multi reges et prophétæ, cum vellent vidére, non vidérunt, audíre et non audiérunt; non solum vidére et audíre, sed étiam portáre, dedúcere, amplécti, deosculári, et nutríre et custodíre. Non tantum autem Joseph, sed et María descendísse credénda est de domo David; alióquin non esset desponsáta viro de domo David, si non esset et ipsa de domo David. Ambo ígitur erant de domo David; sed in áltera compléta est véritas, quam jurávit Dóminus David, áltero tamen cónscio et teste adimplétæ promissiónis.
+
+    Quod per Salomónem Matthǽus generatiónem derivándum putávit, Lucas vero per Nathan, álteram regálem, álteram sacerdotálem Christi famíliam vidétur osténdere. Quod non ita accípere debémus, quod álterum áltero vérius; sed alter álteri pari fide et veritáte concórdet. Fuit enim vere et secúndum carnem regális et sacerdotális famíliæ, Rex ex régibus, Sacérdos ex sacerdótibus; licet oráculum non de carnálibus, sed de cæléstibus exprimátur: quóniam et Rex in Dei virtúte lætátur, cui judícium a Patre Rege defértur, et Sacérdos est in ætérnum, secúndum quod scriptum est: Tu es Sacérdos in ætérnum secúndum órdinem Melchísedech.
+
+    Bene ígitur utérque ténuit fidem, ut Matthǽus per reges ductam oríginem comprobáret, et Lucas per sacerdótes a Deo transmíssam in Christum sériem géneris deducéndo, sanctiórem ipsam oríginem declaráret. Simul in hoc quoque vítuli figúra signátur, quod ubíque sacerdotále mystérium putat esse servándum. Nec miréris, si ab Abraham plures secúndum Lucam successiónes usque ad Christum sunt, paucióres secúndum Matthǽum, cum per álias persónas generatiónem fateáris esse decúrsam. Potest enim fíeri, ut álii longǽvam transégerint vitam, altérius vero generatiónis viri immatúra ætáte decésserint; cum videámus complúres senes cum suis nepótibus vívere, álios vero viros statim fíliis obíre suscéptis.
+
+    Illud quoque advértimus, quod sanctus Matthǽus, Jacob, qui fuit pater Joseph, fílium Mathat esse memoráverit; Lucas vero Joseph, cui desponsáta erat María, fílium Heli, Heli autem fílium Melchi esse descrípserit. Quómodo uníus duo patres, id est, Heli et Jacob? Duórum fílius dictus est, quia altérius secúndum generatiónem, altérius secúndum legem factus est fílius. In quo præscrípto legis futúram perpetuitátem defunctórum séminis nobis esse promíssam non intelléxit pópulus Judæórum, sed secúndum lítteram accípiens, grátiam corrúpit oráculi. Alius enim erat frater, qui defunctórum fratrum semen suscitáret, non frater secúndum carnis germanitátem, sed secúndum grátiæ puritátem. Et ídeo fortásse Frater non redémit, redémit homo; quia non germánus frater ille, sed mediátor Dei et hóminum, homo Christus Jesus, resurrectiónis grátiam propagávit.
+  en: |
+    Mary was espoused to Joseph, or rather, as saith the Evangelist Luke, "to a man whose name was Joseph." He is called a man, not because he was her husband, but because he was a person of manliness; or rather, because the other Evangelist calleth him not simply "a man," but "her man," he is rightly given by desert the title which was necessarily supposed of him. He was bound, then, to be called her man, because it was necessary that he should also be so supposed; just as the Saviour's father he was not, indeed, in fact, but was worthy to be called, that he might be supposed to be so — the Evangelist himself saying: "And Jesus Himself began to be about thirty years of age, being, as it was supposed, the son of Joseph."
+
+    There is no doubt that this Joseph, to whom the Mother of the Saviour was espoused, was a good and faithful man. Faithful, I say, and a wise servant, whom the Lord appointed to be the comfort of His Mother, the nurse of His own flesh, and, in a word, His sole and most faithful helper on earth in His great counsel. Add to this, that he is said to have been of the house of David. For truly, of the house of David, truly of royal stock, did this Joseph descend — noble in birth, nobler yet in mind. A true son of David, not degenerate from his father David; utterly, I say, a son of David, not only in flesh, but in faith, in holiness, in devotion — whom, like another David, the Lord found to be a man after His own heart, to whom He therefore safely entrusted the most holy and hidden secret of His heart; to whom also, like another David, He manifested the uncertain and hidden things of His wisdom, and granted that he should not be ignorant of a mystery which none of the princes of this world had known.
+
+    To him, in short, was given what many kings and prophets, when they desired to see, saw not, and to hear, heard not — not only to see and to hear, but even to carry, to lead, to embrace, to kiss, and to nourish and guard. We must believe that not only Joseph, but Mary too, was descended from the house of David — for she would not have been espoused to a man of the house of David, had she not herself been of the house of David. Both, therefore, were of the house of David; but in the one was fulfilled the truth which the Lord had sworn to David, while in the other was given a conscious witness to the fulfilment of that promise.
+
+    That Matthew should trace the lineage of Christ through Solomon, and Luke through Nathan, would seem to indicate that the one desireth to shew the royalty of Christ's descent, and the other the priestliness thereof. We need not infer from this that one is more accurate than the other; rather, each agreeth with the other, with equal good faith and veracity. For He was indeed, according to the flesh, of both a royal and a priestly family, a King sprung from kings, a Priest from priests — though the oracle speaketh not of carnal but of heavenly things: since the King rejoiceth in the strength of God, from Whom the Royal Father's judgment is given him, and He is Priest for ever, according as it is written: "Thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech."
+
+    Therefore both Evangelists keep well within the truth: for Matthew doth establish descent through the kings, whereas Luke, by tracing through the priests the lineage transmitted to Christ from God, manifesteth his more sacred origin. In this too is signified the figure of the calf, for everywhere he bringeth forward the mystery of the sacrificial priesthood. Nor need it surprise us that Luke giveth many more generations from Abraham to Christ than doth Matthew, since we can recognize that the line of descent is traced through different persons: it may be that some lived long lives, while men of the other line died at an immature age; for we see many old men living with their grandchildren, and others dying as soon as their children are born.
+
+    We notice also this: that Saint Matthew recordeth Jacob, who was the father of Joseph, as the son of Matthan; whereas Luke recordeth that Joseph, to whom Mary was espoused, was the son of Heli, and that Heli was the son of Melchi. How then could one man have two fathers, namely Heli and Jacob? He is called the son of two, because he was made the son of the one according to nature, and of the other according to the Law. In this provision of the Law — regarding the raising up of seed to a brother who had died — the Jewish people did not understand that a future perpetuity of the seed of the dead was promised to us; but, taking it according to the letter, they corrupted the grace of the oracle. For that other was called brother who raised up the seed of the dead, not a brother according to the kinship of the flesh, but according to the purity of grace. And therefore, perchance, it was not the brother who redeemed, but the Man who redeemed — for it was not that own brother, but the Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, Who spread abroad the grace of the resurrection.
+status:
+  la: verified
+  en: verified

src/data/propers/octave-readings/patronage-of-st-joseph-octave-day-7.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+# Sourced directly from the raw reference files (web/www/horas/Latin+English/
+# Tempora/Pasc3-2.txt) -- day 7 of the Patronage of St. Joseph's own
+# movable octave (Tuesday). Joins the continuation of St. Bernard's
+# "Super Missus Est" homily (Lectio4-6, Joseph's own reasoning for
+# wishing to put Mary away privily) with St. John Damascene's homily on
+# the two genealogies (Lectio7-9, same Gospel pericope as the feast day;
+# bare incipit dropped). Responsory not sourced, same convention as the
+# other movable octaves in this project.
+id: patronage-of-st-joseph-octave-day-7
+source:
+  la: "Sermo sancti Bernárdi Abbátis; Homilía sancti Joánnis Damascéni"
+  en: "Sermon of St. Bernard, Abbot; Homily of St. John Damascene"
+text:
+  la: |
+    Scriptum est: Joseph autem vir ejus, cum esset justus et nollet eam tradúcere, vóluit occúlte dimíttere eam. Bene, cum esset justus, nóluit eam tradúcere; quia, sicut nequáquam justus esset, si cógnitam ream consensísset; sic nihilóminus justus non esset, si probátam innóxiam condemnásset. Cum ergo justus esset et nollet eam tradúcere, vóluit occúlte dimíttere eam. Quare vóluit dimíttere? Accipe et in hoc, non meam, sed Patrum senténtiam. Propter hoc Joseph vóluit dimíttere eam, propter quod et Petrus Dóminum a se repellébat, dicens: Exi a me, Dómine, quia homo peccátor sum; propter quod et centúrio a domo sua eum prohibébat, cum díceret: Dómine, non sum dignus, ut intres sub tectum meum.
+
+    Ita ergo et Joseph, indígnum et peccatórem se réputans, dicébat intra se, a tali et tanta non debére sibi ultra familiáre præstári contubérnium, cujus supra se mirábilem expavescébat dignitátem. Vidébat et horrébat divínæ præséntiæ certíssimum gestántem insígne; et quia mystérium penetráre non póterat, volébat dimíttere eam. Expávit Petrus poténtiæ magnitúdinem: expávit centúrio præséntiæ majestátem: exhórruit nimírum et Joseph, sicut homo, hujus tanti miráculi novitátem. Miráris quod Joseph prægnántis se consórtio Vírginis judicábat indígnum, cum áudias et sanctam Elísabeth ejus non posse ferre præséntiam, nisi cum tremóre quidem et reveréntia? Ait namque: Unde hoc mihi, ut véniat Mater Dómini mei ad me?
+
+    Ideo ítaque Joseph vóluit dimíttere eam. Sed quare occúlte, et non palam? Ne vidélicet divórtii causa inquirerétur, exigerétur rátio. Quid enim vir justus respónderet pópulo duræ cervícis, pópulo non credénti et contradicénti? Si díceret quod sentiébat, quod de illíus puritáte comprobáverat, nonne mox incréduli et crudéles Judæi subsannárent illum, lapidárent illam? Quómodo namque Veritáti créderent tacénti in útero, quam póstea contempsérunt clamántem in templo? quid fácerent necdum apparénti, cui póstmodum ímpias manus injecérunt étiam miráculis coruscánti? Mérito ergo Vir justus, ne aut mentíri aut diffamáre cogerétur innóxiam, vóluit occúlte dimíttere eam.
+
+    Matthæus opus suum ínchoans, Liber generatiónis, inquit, Jesu Christi fílii David, fílii Abraham: verum hic non subsístit; étenim ipsíus sermo étiam usque ad Vírginis Sponsum progréssus est. Lucas autem post Salvatóris in baptísmo declaratiónem, oratiónem suam non nihil derívans, ad hunc modum scribit: Ipse Jesus erat incípiens quasi annórum trigínta, ut putabátur, fílius Joseph, qui fuit Heli, qui fuit Mathat; et sic deínceps in altum ascendéndo usque ad Seth, qui fuit Adæ, qui fuit Dei. Proínde cum Joséphi genus ad hunc modum recenseátur, certe Virgo quoque ipsa ac Dei Génitrix María ejúsdem cum eo tribus esse simul demonstrátur. Síquidem Móysis lege non licébat ulli tríbui cum áltera tribu permiscéri, ne géneris heréditas ab una tribu ad áliam laberétur.
+
+    Non abs re Christi ex Spíritu Sancto natívitas apud vulgus silebátur, ac Joseph loco patris assumebátur; atque inde, ut vero consentáneum est, tamquam Púeri pater recensebátur. Nam, nisi hoc exstitísset, patre carére Puer existimátus fuísset, quod a patérno látere genus ipsíus mínime recenserétur. Quam ob rem ab exímiis Evangelístis necessário tunc factum est, ut Joséphi genus recensérent. Nam si, hoc prætermísso, a matérno látere géneris ipsíus sériem texuíssent, prætérquam quod istud indecórum fuísset, a divinárum quoque Scripturárum consuetúdine abhorruísset. Cómmode ígitur Joséphi genus a Davíde, ob eam quam attúlimus causam, ducéntes, simul quoque Vírginem Maríam ex Davíde ortam esse confírmant, per Sponsum scílicet uxóris genus una inferéntes.
+
+    Quod quidem justítia præditus Joseph esset, ac vitam legi consentáneam dúceret, némini obscúrum est. Ex legis porro præscrípto vivens, profécto non aliúnde quam ex sua tribu ortam uxórem despondébat. Quocírca, si Joseph ex tribu Juda atque ex Davídis sorte ac família erat, an non consentáneum est Maríam quoque ab iísdem proficísci? Ex quo factum est, ut Sponsi genus recenserétur. Nam, cum de Apóstoli senténtia caput mulíeris vir sit; quid tandem afférri potest, quin, cum cápitis genus recensétur, corpus quoque una cum cápite recenséri consequátur? Maniféste ígitur osténsum esse árbitror, Joséphi genus apud Evangelístas non frustra recenséri, ex quo necessário Virgo quoque a Davíde oriúnda esse per consecutiónem intellígitur, et qui præcellénti miráculo ex ipsa génitus est Christus, ante sæcula Dei Fílius.
+  en: |
+    It is written: "Joseph, her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily." Being a just man, he was rightly unwilling to expose her — for as he would not have been a just man had he connived at known guilt, so he would have been no less unjust had he condemned proven innocence. Being a just man, therefore, and not willing to make her a public example, he was minded to put her away privily. Why did he wish to put her away? On this hear, not my opinion, but that of the Fathers. Joseph wished to put her away for the same reason that made Peter seek to put away the Lord, when he said: "Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord"; and that made the centurion also seek to keep the Lord away from his house, when he said: "Lord, I am not worthy that Thou shouldst come under my roof."
+
+    In like manner Joseph, holding himself unworthy and sinful, said within himself that he ought no longer to enjoy the familiar companionship of one whose marvellous dignity, above his own, filled him with awe. He saw and trembled at the sure sign of the divine presence, and, since he could not fathom the mystery, he wished to put her away. Peter trembled at the greatness of that power; the centurion trembled at the majesty of that presence; Joseph too, being but a man, was filled with awe at the strangeness of this great mystery. Dost thou wonder that Joseph judged himself unworthy of the companionship of this pregnant Virgin, when thou hearest that even holy Elizabeth could not bear her presence save with trembling and reverence? For she said: "Whence is this to me, that the Mother of my Lord should come to me?"
+
+    And so Joseph was minded to put her away. But why privily, and not publicly? Lest, that is, enquiry should be made about this separation, and a reason demanded. What should a just man reply to a stiff-necked people, a faithless and gainsaying people? If he had said what he thought, what he had proved concerning her purity, would not the unbelieving and cruel Jews soon have mocked him, and stoned her? For how would they have believed in the Truth lying silent in her womb, whom afterward they despised as He cried aloud in the temple? What would they have done to Him before He had yet appeared, who afterward laid impious hands even on Him Who shone with miracles? Rightly, then, did the just man, lest he be forced either to lie or to defame the innocent, wish to put her away privily.
+
+    Matthew, beginning his Gospel, saith: "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham" — but he doth not stop there; his own account proceedeth even to the Virgin's Spouse. Luke, however, after the declaration of the Saviour at His baptism, turneth his account somewhat aside, and writeth thus: "Jesus Himself began to be about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, which was the son of Matthat" — and so on, ascending upward even to Seth, "which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God." Since, then, Joseph's lineage is thus reckoned, it is shown at the same time that the Virgin herself, the Mother of God, Mary, was of the same tribe as he. For by the Law of Moses it was not lawful for any tribe to intermarry with another tribe, lest the hereditary right of one tribe should pass into another.
+
+    Not without reason was the birth of Christ by the Holy Ghost kept from common knowledge, and Joseph taken in the place of a father, and thence, as was indeed fitting, reckoned as the Child's father. For had this not been so, the Child would have been thought fatherless, since His lineage would not have been reckoned from the father's side at all. Wherefore it was of necessity that the excellent Evangelists should reckon Joseph's lineage. For had they, passing this over, woven the line of His descent from the mother's side, that would have been unseemly, besides being contrary to the custom of the divine Scriptures. Fittingly, then, tracing Joseph's lineage from David for the reason we have given, they at the same time confirm that the Virgin Mary too sprang from David, inferring the wife's lineage together through the husband.
+
+    That Joseph was endowed with righteousness, and led a life conformable to the Law, is plain to all. Living, moreover, by the precept of the Law, he assuredly betrothed a wife sprung from no other than his own tribe. Wherefore, if Joseph was of the tribe of Judah and of the lot and family of David, is it not fitting that Mary too should proceed from the same? Whence it came about that the Spouse's lineage was recorded. For, since by the Apostle's own word the head of the woman is the man, what can be said against this: that when the lineage of the head is recorded, the body too is recorded together with the head? I judge, then, that it hath been plainly shown that the Evangelists did not record Joseph's lineage in vain, from which it is necessarily understood that the Virgin too descended from David by consequence, and that Christ, Who was born of her by a surpassing miracle, was, before all ages, the Son of God.
+status:
+  la: verified
+  en: verified

src/data/propers/octave-readings/patronage-of-st-joseph-octave-day-8.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+# Sourced directly from the raw reference files (web/www/horas/Latin+English/
+# Tempora/Pasc3-3.txt) -- day 8, "In Octava Patrocinii S. Joseph," the
+# octave's own closing day (Wednesday, per the Wednesday-based pre-1955
+# dating). Joins St. Augustine's own "De Nuptiis et Concupiscentia"
+# (Lectio4-6, Joseph and Mary's true marriage) with another sermon of
+# St. Augustine on Christ's baptism as a "second birthday" (Lectio7-9,
+# same Gospel pericope as the feast day; bare incipit dropped).
+# Responsory not sourced, same convention as the other movable octaves in
+# this project.
+id: patronage-of-st-joseph-octave-day-8
+source:
+  la: "Sermo sancti Augustíni Epíscopi; Homilía sancti Augustíni Epíscopi"
+  en: "Sermon of St. Augustine, Bishop; Homily of St. Augustine, Bishop"
+text:
+  la: |
+    Non falláciter ab Angelo dictum est ad Joseph: Noli timére accípere Maríam cónjugem tuam. Conjux vocátur ex prima fide desponsatiónis, quam concúbitu nec cognóverat nec fúerat cognitúrus; nec períerat nec mendax mánserat cónjugis appellátio, ubi nec fúerat nec futúra erat ulla carnis commíxtio. Erat quippe illa Virgo; ídeo et sánctius et mirabílius jucúnda suo viro, quia étiam fœcúnda sine viro, prole dispar, fide compar. Propter quod fidéle conjúgium paréntes Christi vocári ambo meruérunt, et non solum illa mater, verum étiam ille pater ejus, sicut conjux matris ejus, utrúmque mente, non carne. Sive autem ille pater sola mente, sive illa mater et carne, paréntes tamen ambo humilitátis ejus, non sublimitátis; infirmitátis, non divinitátis.
+
+    Neque enim mentítur Evangélium, ubi légitur: Et erat Pater ejus et Mater mirántes super his, quæ dicebántur de illo. Et álio loco: Ibant paréntes ejus per omnes annos in Jerúsalem. Item paulo post: Et dixit Mater ejus ad illum: Fili, quid fecísti nobis sic? Ecce pater tuus et ego doléntes quærebámus te. At ille, ut osténderet habére se præter illos Patrem, qui eum génuit præter matrem, respóndit eis: Quid est, quod me quærebátis? Nesciebátis, quia in his, quæ Patris mei sunt, opórtet me esse? Et rursum, ne hoc dicto paréntes illos negásse putarétur, Evangelísta secútus adjúnxit: Et ipsi non intellexérunt verbum quod locútus est ad illos; et descéndit cum eis, et venit Názareth, et erat súbditus illis. Quibus súbditus nisi paréntibus? Quis autem súbditus, nisi Jesus Christus, qui, cum in forma Dei esset, non rapínam arbitrátus est, esse se æquálem Deo?
+
+    Cur ergo illis súbditus, qui longe infra formam Dei erant, nisi quia semetípsum exinanívit formam servi accípiens, cujus formæ paréntes erant? Sed profécto nec ipsíus formæ servi paréntes ambo essent, nisi inter se étiam sine carnis commixtióne cónjuges essent. Unde et séries generatiónum, cum paréntes Christi connexióne successiónis commemorántur, usque ad Joseph pótius, sicut factum est, fúerat perducénda; ne in illo conjúgio viríli séxui, útique potióri, fíeret injúria, cum veritáti nihil períret, quia ex sémine David, ex quo ventúrus prædíctus est Christus, et Joseph erat et María. Omne ítaque nuptiárum bonum implétum est in illis paréntibus Christi: proles, fides sacraméntum. Prolem cognóscimus ipsum Dóminum Jesum; fidem, quia nullum adultérium; sacraméntum, quia nullum divórtium.
+
+    Natális hódie alter est quodam modo Salvatóris. Nam eísdem eum signis, eísdem miráculis cognóscimus génitum, sed nunc majóri mystério baptizátum. Ait enim Deus: Hic est Fílius meus diléctus, in quo mihi complácui. Præclárior plane est secúnda, quam prima natívitas. Illa enim sine teste siléntio Christum génuit; ista cum divinitátis professióne Dóminum baptizávit. Ab illa se Joseph, qui pater putabátur, excúsat; in hac se Pater, qui non credebátur, insínuat. Ibi labórat suspiciónibus Mater, quia professióni déerat pater; hic honorátur Génitrix, quia Divínitas Fílium protestátur.
+
+    Honorátior, inquam, secúnda, quam prima natívitas. Síquidem Pater hic Deus majestátis inscríbitur; illic Joseph ártifex æstimátur. Et licet in utráque Dóminus per Spíritum Sanctum et natus sit et baptizátus, tamen honorátior est qui de cælis clamat, quam qui in terris labórat. Joseph ergo faber in terris pater putabátur esse Dómini Salvatóris, nec ab hoc ópere Deus, qui vere est Pater Dómini nostri Jesu Christi, exclúditur; nam est et ipse faber.
+
+    Ipse enim est ártifex, qui hujus mundi máchinam non solum mirábili, sed étiam ineffábili poténtia fabricávit; tamquam sápiens architéctus cælum sublimitáte suspéndit, terram mole fundávit, mária cálculis alligávit. Ipse est ártifex, qui ad mensúram quamdam supérbiæ depónit fastígia, humilitátis extréma sublímat. Ipse est ártifex, qui in nostris móribus præcídit supérflua ópera, utília quæque consérvat. Ipse est ártifex, cujus secúrim ad radícem nostram pósitam Joánnes Baptísta comminátur, ut omnis arbor, quæ normam justæ discretiónis excésserit, excísa radícitus tradátur incéndio; quæ autem mensúram veritátis habúerit, cælésti fábricæ deputétur.
+  en: |
+    The Angel did not speak falsely when he said to Joseph: "Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife." She is called wife because of the mutual confidence established between them at the time of her espousal, although he had not known her carnally, nor was he ever so to do; and the name of wife was not lost or rendered untrue because there had not been, nor would there ever be, any union of the flesh. For she was indeed the Virgin, and therefore was she a holier and more wonderful source of joy to her husband, in that she became fruitful without a man's part — unlike him in her offspring, yet like him in faithfulness. On account of this faithful union, both of them merited the name of Christ's parents: not only is she called His Mother, but he also is called His father, as the husband of His Mother — both in mind, not in flesh. But whether he was a father only in mind, or she a mother both in mind and flesh, yet both were the parents of His humility, not of His glory; of His infirmity, not of His divinity.
+
+    For the Gospel doth not lie, where it saith: "And His Father and His Mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of Him." And in another place: "His parents went to Jerusalem every year." And a little further on: "And His Mother said unto Him: Son, why hast Thou thus dealt with us? Behold, Thy father and I have sought Thee sorrowing." But He, to shew that, apart from them, He had a Father Who begat Him without a mother, answered them: "How is it that ye sought Me? Wist ye not that I must be about My Father's business?" And, lest anyone should think that by these words He denied His parents, the Evangelist immediately addeth: "And they understood not the saying which He spoke unto them; and He went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them." To whom was He subject but to His parents? And who was thus subject but Jesus Christ, Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal to God?
+
+    Why then was He subject to them, who were so far below the form of God, except that He emptied Himself, taking upon Himself the form of a servant, of which form they were the parents? But truly, neither of them would have attained to the parenthood of this form of a servant, had they not also been, between themselves, husband and wife, albeit without any union of the flesh. And hence, when the ancestors of Christ are recounted in the direct line of succession, the genealogy was fittingly traced down to Joseph, as indeed it was; lest it should be a slight upon the male sex, which is rightly accorded the greater dignity — and the truth suffered nothing thereby, for both Joseph and Mary were of the seed of David, from which it was foretold that Christ should come. Thus all the goods of marriage are found fulfilled in these parents of Christ: offspring, fidelity, and the sacred bond. The offspring we know was the Lord Jesus Himself; the fidelity, in that there was no adultery; the sacred bond, in that there was no divorce.
+
+    The day of His baptism is, in a manner, a second birthday of the Saviour. For we know that He was born with the same signs and the same wonders, but now baptized with a still greater mystery. For God saith: "This is My beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased." Plainly the second birth is more glorious than the first. For that birth, in silence and without a witness, brought forth Christ; this baptism, with a proclamation of His divinity, revealed the Lord. There, Joseph, who was supposed to be His father, excuseth himself from the claim; here, the Father, Who was not believed, declareth Himself. There, the Mother laboureth under suspicion, because no father could be acknowledged; here, she that bore Him is honoured, because the Godhead proclaimeth Him as Its Son.
+
+    More honoured, I say, is the second birth than the first. For here the Father is inscribed as the God of majesty; there Joseph was reckoned a craftsman. And although in both the Lord was born and baptized through the Holy Ghost, yet He That crieth out from heaven is more honoured than he that laboureth on earth. Joseph, then, a workman on earth, was supposed to be the father of the Lord and Saviour; nor is God, Who is truly the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, excluded from this same work, for He too is a craftsman.
+
+    For He is the Artificer Who hath wrought the fabric of this world with power not only wondrous but ineffable — like a wise architect He hath hung the heavens on high, founded the earth in its mass, and bound the seas within their bounds. He is the Artificer Who, by a certain measure, bringeth low the heights of pride and exalteth the depths of humility. He is the Artificer Who, in our own conduct, cutteth away what is superfluous and preserveth what is useful. He is the Artificer whose axe, as John the Baptist warneth us, is laid to the root of our tree: that every tree which exceedeth the rule of just discernment be cut down at the root and given to the fire, but that which hath the measure of truth be counted worthy of His heavenly building.
+status:
+  la: verified
+  en: verified