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/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