Luminous Mysteries of the Rosary - What's wrong with them?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

Sorry if this question has already been asked, but I read some pretty strong obejctions to the new Luminous Mysteries of the Rosary while I was perusing some of the other posts. I'm curious to know why some of you are so against them and/or refuse to pray them.

-- joseph (josephwill@aol.com), April 23, 2003

Answers

Dear Joseph,

Some people, especially self-described "tradionalists" just don't like change. That's why they are letting the Church pass them by, while desperately attempting to live in the past. There is nothing wrong with the new mysteries the Pope has proposed. After all, the Rosary is not a doctrine. It is a tradition - not Apostolic Tradition - simply a tradition. Many different variations of the Rosary already exist, and the additions suggested by the Holy Father are just another. No-one has to accept it. No-one has to use it. For that matter, no-one is required to accept or use the Rosary in any form. But some people just fear change (I wonder if they still fast from midnight before receiving the Eucharist? Probably not. That's an inconvenient aspect of the "old rite").

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 23, 2003.


Joseph (nice name, btw),

Paul would have you believe some things that are just not true. Not all change is bad, but some things are perfect the way they are, and are in no need of change. Something like, "If it's not broken, don't fix it."

The best 'arguments' I have heard against the new mysteries, are these:

The rosary was first referred to as 'Our Lady's Psalter.' This name was given to it because of the 150 Hail Mary's, which corresponded with the Psalter of David - the 150 Psalms. In many apparitions, Our Lady herself referred to the Rosary as Her Psalter. "To increase devotion to me, and to gain blessings from my Son, teach the people my Psalter." Even many popes have referred to the Rosary as Our Lady's Psalter. Popes had been pushed by modernists before to make changes to the rosary, and they have adamantly refused, saying no one should touch the rosary, it was perfect as it was. When you add or take away any mysteries to/from the Rosary, then it is no longer her Psalter. How can it be so? Do we really want to change something like this and take away the relevance of the name Our Lady herself referred to?

Also, at the time Our Lady gave us the promises of the Five First Saturdays, and one of the requirements was praying the Rosary, the Luminous Mysteries were not a part of the Rosary. So a good question is, if you pray the Luminous Mysteries on a first Saturday, do you fulfil that requirement? A good and valid question, I think.

I know, I know....people will say the Pope has the power to bind and to loose. But one has to remember that this does not fall under that realm. This has nothing to do with Church law. And everything to do with a tradition handed down through many ages of the Church. Tradition, we are told, apostolic or not, should always be respected. And a tradition of *so many* generations........is it wise to change something Our Lady and Her Son endorsed as it was? The question is not right or wrong....but is it *wise*? Or is it just another novelty introduced?

You see, that is the problem that traditionalists have. Practically everything has been changed. Doctrine, the liturgy, the Church calender, the form the of the sacraments, and now the rosary. Where will it end? The Church is becoming unrecognizable from what it once was. Must it all change?

Paul,

That's why they are letting the Church pass them by, while desperately attempting to live in the past.

Pass us by? Where is the Church going? In the past it was the people who tried to pass the Church by, and the Church who kept them grounded. So I ask you, where is the Church advancing to?

There is nothing wrong with the new mysteries the Pope has proposed.

The question is, *is it wise*? Is it wise to keep changing when the faithful are confused enough? In times of great confusion, the best way to keep the people grounded is to adhere to tradition, not to change it.

Many different variations of the Rosary already exist, and the additions suggested by the Holy Father are just another.

You are right, but none of these variations fulfill the request of Our Lady of the daily rosary, and/or the requirement for completing the Five First Saturdays. Do these new mysteries?

I wonder if they still fast from midnight before receiving the Eucharist? Probably not. That's an inconvenient aspect of the "old rite".

Actually, yes, I do. There should be nothing in my stomach contaminating Our Lord. Or if, for no other reason, it is a good penance. The only time I don't is if Mass is later in the afternoon or evening, and then I can't because I have low blood sugar, or something. (I get weak, shaky and nauseaus if I go too long without a little food.)

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), April 23, 2003.


Thanks Paul

I read, also in a previous post, that someone thought the Rosary came from Heaven. I was under the impression that the Rosary came about when Catholics who couldn't read and wanted a prayer that could pray that was similar to the Psalter that was prayed by the Priests, back in the middle ages. The 150 decades of the complete Rosary was meant to imitate or was imspired by the 150 Psalms.

As with so many other things in our Church, through time we tend to apply theology to things that have rather ordinary beginnings, hence, the Rosary is now seen by some as perfect, handed down directly from Heaven.

-- Leon (vol@weblink2000.net), April 23, 2003.


Isabel

When you're in the middle of your Eucharistic Fast, do you ever stop and contmeplate upon the fact that Jesus offered the first Eucharist with the meal.

Once again, my point about the fact that too many times we fall into the trap of applying theology upon practices with fairly simple beginnings.

This is a simple faith, given by God to humble, simple people, the apostles were not academics or theologans. You've been given a wonderful and blessed gift. Be careful what you do to it.

-- Leon (vol@weblink2000.net), April 24, 2003.


I wonder if they still fast from midnight before receiving the Eucharist? Probably not. That's an inconvenient aspect of the "old rite".

Actually, I started doing this when I started attending the Mass of Trent exclusively earlier this year. No one mentioned it, no one told me about it, no one suggested it; I just started doing it and I don't know why, I just did.

Best not to make assumptions, I guess.

Yes, I am afraid of change, if it concerns things that are of the essence.

That's defendable.

That's why they are letting the Church pass them by, while desperately attempting to live in the past.

Where is the Church going, and what was in the past that is not now? These are entirely valid questions. Do you have answers to them?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 24, 2003.



Emerald

I was struck by your comment about being afraid of change, especially when it concerns things which are of essence.

Not every practice of our church is "of essence." The traditions that Christ gave to us are the essence of our faith. There are many other helps and practices that are a part of our church, which might help us to better understand the originial essence of that which Christ gave to us, but those practices and helps are not part of the original essence.

Fasting is a help and a practice that helps us to remain right in God's stead. It is a good practice and one that, if it helps you to stay close to the original gift of what Christ gave us, then by all means, continue to fast.

Don't confuse fasting with the original essence of the Eucharist. In so doing you place yourself and all others who maintain a fast before Eucharist as being above those who do not fast or practice a different kind of fast. When you do that you are entering into Pharasee teritory and Jesus was quite clear about his distaste for that kind of thinking.

As for the Rosary, it is a beautiful prayer, full of mystery and tradition, but it too is not a part of our original essence. We could leave the Rosary behind entirely and the original essence of our faith would remain intact. Salvation and the whole of our divinity would remain intact.

-- Leon (vol@weblink2000.net), April 24, 2003.


Gradual change over time will eventually make the original disappear. Gradual change over time will eventually make the original appear. Gradual age over time will eventually ake the riginal appear. Gradual change ov time will event make he or pear. Grad an over I'm will vent make the rig sap. Dual hang overt ill all a he gin a pear. U al hangover ill all gin. Hangover, gin.

Traditions should stay traditional.

rod

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), April 24, 2003.


I wonder if they still fast from midnight before receiving the Eucharist? Probably not. That's an inconvenient aspect of the "old rite".

Actually, I do, too.

It's interesting how you think of fasting in terms of convenience.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 24, 2003.


Hi Leon; I think you are linking together my comment about fear of change with the comment about fasting before Communion.

The way I wrote it, I can see how someone would take it that way, but those were two separate thoughts going on there.

The one about fearing change of things that are of the essence is in reference to either the understanding of doctrine, or the inadequate expression of the understanding of that doctrine.

First, I fear any change that in doctrine, obviously, but also on the secondary level, I would also fear any change in or loss of anything the relates to adequately conveying the understanding of those doctrines to the Faithful.

Rod, that's the funniest post I've seen on the forum yet. lol! Now that was funny, my friend.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 24, 2003.


rod,

what a riot! I laughed so hard reading your post. Thanks for that.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), April 24, 2003.



We could leave the Rosary behind entirely and the original essence of our faith would remain intact. Salvation and the whole of our divinity would remain intact.

Leon, While that may sound OK and correct, because the rosary was not handed down from the apostles, I have to disagree with the *essence* of that statement. You are pretty much saying that anything not *mandated* is not essential. I do think Marian devotion is absolutely necessary for salvation. As well as many other things that are not *mandated.* If we do not strive to do more than is required, we will never achieve everlasting life. God vomits the tepid.

Besides Our Lady and her Son have said that for souls to be saved we must pray, sacrifice and say the Rosary.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), April 24, 2003.


I wonder if they still fast from midnight before receiving the Eucharist? Probably not. That's an inconvenient aspect of the "old rite".

Right now I'm pregnant so I have to limit my fast to an hour or two before Mass. After the baby is born, I'll go back to fasting from midnight til Mass.

It's not a question of what is or isn't convenient. For me, it's a little sacrifice I can offer each week.

-- Regina (Regina712@lycos.com), April 24, 2003.


We could leave the Rosary behind entirely and the original essence of our faith would remain intact. Salvation and the whole of our divinity would remain intact.

You can save your soul without the Rosary? Maybe so, but I wouldn't recommend trying. While not part of the Deposit of Faith, the Most Holy Rosary has been highly favored by the Saints and by the teaching of the Popes. Very few sacramentals enjoy such renown.

To lay the Rosary aside because it's not part of Divine revelation is, to say the least, imprudent.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 24, 2003.


The fact that a particular devotion or other sacramental is popular doesn't make it necessary for salvation, or even necessarily preferable to other kinds of devotional prayers. Sacramentals, by definition, are aids to spiritual growth, but are not essential either to salvation or to living an exemplary Christian life. If the rosary hadn't been devised, some other form of devotional prayer, probably a currently existing one, would necessarily hold the position of "most popular". That wouldn't give it any greater spiritual weight than it carries now. We should make use of the means God and the Church have provided for our spiritual growth, but we should avoid elevating them to a status they simply do not have. And, we should use those sacramentals and prayers which are most helpful to us personally, and refrain from suggesting that all Catholics should pray as we pray.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 24, 2003.

joseph, I believe history will look on the institution of the Luminous Mysteries as the hightlight of Pope John Paul II's tenure. (no pun intended).

The Mysteries point out the positive, hope-filled, aspects of Jesus' time on Earth.

I am very proud of our Pope on this issue. God Bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), April 24, 2003.



Paul,

The fact that a particular devotion or other sacramental is popular doesn't make it necessary for salvation, or even necessarily preferable to other kinds of devotional prayers.

How can something Our Lady has asked us to do over and over again not be something that is preferable? Why would she attach so many wonderful promises to the Rosary and the First Saturdays if they were not preferable.

Here is a link showing the 15 promises of Our Lady by saying the Rosary. Why would you not want to?

We should make use of the means God and the Church have provided for our spiritual growth, but we should avoid elevating them to a status they simply do not have.

Were popes elevating it to a 'status it doesn't have' when they so highly recommended and encourage every person say the rosary? A good example of the power of the rosary is Lepanto. Look into this story if you do not know it.

Here is a link to an encyclical on the Holy Rosary.

And, we should use those sacramentals and prayers which are most helpful to us personally, and refrain from suggesting that all Catholics should pray as we pray.

But Our Lady has requested that we pray her rosary daily. Is it wise to not do the things Our Lady requests, when we know those requests come straight from Heaven?

Our Lady of Fatima:

"Say the Rosary every day to obtain peace for the world. And after each decade say the following prayer: 'O my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of Hell, and lead all souls to Heaven, especially those who have most need of Thy mercy.'"

"God wishes to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart. If people do what I tell you, many souls will be saved and there will be peace."

john,

I believe history will look on the institution of the Luminous Mysteries as the hightlight of Pope John Paul II's tenure.

We will see, but you have not addressed any of the important issues pointed out on this matter that were addressed above. Very valid concerns and questions, I think.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), April 24, 2003.


WOW! I was afraid this was going to be hot topic! :)

Isabel, I respect your love and devotion to the Mother of God. I share your love for Her! However, I am concerend about the use of private revelation (something that isn't essential to faith or salvation) to validate your point. We all know that private revelation can be helpful as a way of augmenting one's faith and sacramental life, yet it is still private, not public, and is meant primarily for the receiver of the revelation, not necessarily for all. If such was the case, we would call it "public revelation" and Fatima, Lourdes, La Salette, etc. would be equal to the Scripture and Tradition. So, I still don't really see the theological problem with the Luminous Mysteries other than a person dislike for it.

The Roman Missal says the following about the Rosary [I paraphrase]:'The Rosary is a prayer consisting of 150 "Aves" divided into decades, separated by "Paters" with meditations on ONE of the mysteries of our Redemption.' Interestingly, the Roman Missal doesn't say WHICH mystery(ies) are to be contemplated, just that one of the mystery(ies) of our redemption are to be contemplated. Therefore, one would not even need to use the traditional Mysteries of 5, 10, 15, or 20, but just 1! Any one of the 15 or 20 mysteries would fall into that category!

Our Lady's Psalter:

A lot talk about the Rosary being Our Lady's psalter...not quite correct. Our Lady's psalter is the Little Office of the BVM established in the 6th century, way before the rosary was codifed as we know it today. The Rosary has often been used as a SUBSTITUTE for the 150 psalms and the Little Office of the BVM. In addition, the devotion of "Paternosters" and "Avemarias" are recorded to have been prayed in groups of 7's, 10's, 12's, 100's, 300's, without the Gloria, Apostle's Creed, Our Father, etc., interspersed. Therefore, someone ADDED those extra prayers, giving us the rosary closer to it's present form. Still, it wasn't until around the 13th century that it was codifed into 15 groups of 10's with Mysteries assigned to each decade. I believe it was Blessed Alan (Dominican) that did this. It was also in the mid 1400's when the second part of the Hail Mary, "Holy Mary, Mother of God..." was codifed. We all know that original, the name of Mary wasn't even used, and the Holy Name of Jesus was added around the 10th century (?) So, even the Hail Mary underwent changes and I am sure no one here objects to the way it is prayed today. If you want to be a purist, it could be said that we should return to praying either the 150 psalms, or the Little Office, since we are now a society mostly of literates and do not need to substitute the rosary for the Little Office, psalms, etc. If we believe Our Lady favors the Rosary, then we have to admit that Our Lady favors [some] change.

5 or 15 decades?

At Fatima, Our Lady said, "Eu seu a Senhora do Rosario," "I am the Lady of the [15 decade] Rosary." She used the word Rosario which in Portugese, means the full 15 decade Rosary, not the 5 decade Rosary called a Terco, or "chaplet." Now, I am almost sure that Our Lady used the word Rosario (not Tercos - the 5 decade rosary) when she told Lucia, Jacinta and Francisco the world needed to pray the Rosary. I used to have the complete memoirs of Sr. Lucia in Portugese and it mentions Rosario and not Terco. The French also makes the distiction between the 15 decade rosary, "Rosaire" and the 5 decade Rosary, "Chapelet."

So, according to Our Lady of Fatima, nothing less than the 15 decades counts as the Rosary. YIKES! But we all know that most people pray the 5 decade Rosary, considering it a complete Rosary, fulfilling certain requirements. The Blue Army published an article about this years ago, with the explanation that the 5 decade Rosary fulfills Our Lady's wish vs. the 15. So, we CAN at times alter things for the greater good...Hmmmmm...maybe even the Mysteries?

I can't see anything wrong theologically with the New Mysteries. It might shake things up for those who are used to "old" way. However, no one MUST use the new mysteries - it's an additional spiritual help given to us by our Holy Father. If it bothers a person, omit it! I am glad that our Holy Father out of his profound love for the Mother of God, has instituted these Mysteries. The Catholic faithful has received it with overwhelming joy and acceptance. I can't help but to believe heaven is glad with it too. If there weren't changes over the course of history, we would not have this beloved form of prayer today that we call the Rosary. Change can be good. Prayer always is.

-- joseph (josephwill@aol.com), April 24, 2003.


joseph,

Very good post. At least you went into more depth, with factual information, than others supporting your stance. And I totally respect that. You made some very good points, and I would like to go into this a bit more, because there are a couple of things I take issue with, such as your 'private revelation' opinions. But bear with me, because I am busy tonight. If I do not have time tonite, I will do so tomorrow.

An "old-fashioned" Rosary is being said for you. :) Until next time........

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), April 24, 2003.


Isabel,

I receive the graces from your "old fashioned" Rosary with a glad heart! I'll offer up an "old-fashioned" one for you as well :)

Peace,

Joseph

P.S. It's nice when we can have talks about our faith, rather than name calling, insults and high emotions all over the place! What we all value here is our CATHOLIC FAITH! Till I get my credentials from the Magisterium, I remain just a humble thought-giver of my own journey and experience in Christ's One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

-- joseph (josephwill@aol.com), April 24, 2003.


I still think you guys tack on way too much theology to the simple tenants of our faith. You're clouding the essence rather than revealing it.

-- Leon (vol@weblink2000.net), April 24, 2003.

It's nice when we can have talks about our faith, rather than name calling, insults and high emotions all over the place! What we all value here is our CATHOLIC FAITH! Till I get my credentials from the Magisterium, I remain just a humble thought-giver of my own journey and experience in Christ's One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Joseph:

(Great name - my patron Saint!)

Your cordiality and class are well received and very much appreciated. What a breath of fresh air! May your spirit of true Christian charity be contageous. Thank you & God bless you.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 24, 2003.


I did not notice any changes to the Rosary recently. The Holy Father recently added some new mysteries, but he certainly did not change the Rosary. The new mysteries do not have to be said! It's a choice, so if you feel uncomfortable saying these new mysteries then don't say them.

When we pray the Rosary, we honor God, when we mediatate on the mysteries. These new mysteries honor different aspects of God's life, and by doing so, it's impossible for it to be an offense to God, if prayed devoutly.

I highly recommend that people read the book, The Secret of the Rosary by St. Louis De Montfort. It is one of the greatest books I have ever read. It tells of the history of the Rosary.

The Rosary at one point in the Church's history, did not exist, but was introduced as an additional devotion. Some people at that time, did not like this, and opposed the Rosary, as those people were traditionalists. If the traditionalists won out, we would not have this incredible powerful devotion of the Rosary today.

btw, the devotion was new, but not the prayers.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 24, 2003.


Jake,

Thank you for your compliment. However, I sinned earlier this week by getting into a pretty nasty posting-war with another poster here. I think we both were pretty sensitive to what the other was saying, responding in a "reactive" mode that was flavored with self- righteousness. Sometimes I must ask myself are these posts really good? I think it's important for us to share our thoughts and feelings and experiences as Catholic Christians, knowing that they may be VERY different at times from someone else. I think we can have charitable conversation (and even respectful dissent!) by learning to "Speak one's truth without blame or judgement." I do try to live by that rule, and if you see that I don't, correct me, please! Please pray that I will always heal, not hurt, bless not curse, lift up, not put down.

Joseph, sinner.

-- joseph (josephwill@aol.com), April 25, 2003.


Joseph, this is a great question and I'm glad you asked.

Isabel, excellent post! Your right on girl!

Paul, why are you so angry? Lighten up a little dude! Just because some of us dont agree with the new mystery doesn't mean we're all "self-described traditionalists afraid of change". Ouch! Do you condemn everyone who you disagree with?

Afterall the Pope did say it was up to each individual whether to accept or not. He never said YOU MUST DO IT THIS WAY!

You go on to say "But some people just fear change (I wonder if they still fast from midnight before receiving the Eucharist? Probably not. That's an inconvenient aspect of the "old rite")." Sounds to me like your wanting to start a fight. Why? Some of us have never head of this, I havent, but that doesnt' mean I'm a bad catholic for not practicing it.

Paul you are a weath of information, but I would like to reiterate that our Lord says "judge not others". Seems to me your putting alot of us down because we are exercising our right not to adhere to the new mystery the Pope has suggested. You have "thrown the first rock" Paul, and it's not very becomming of you.

I ran across an article right after this new mystery was introduced and it said (in a nutshell), that Our Lady originally asked us to say 1/3 of the rosery every day. Now if we were to add the new mystery into that 1/3 of the rosery, then that would be 6.66 instead of the 5 decades of it to say. I for one do not like those numbers, therefore I choose not to say them.

Peace & Love

-- Choas (Choas@nomail.com), April 25, 2003.


Jmj

Dear friend Choas, I think that you have misunderstood something that is happening in this thread.

Your own position is just fine -- choosing not to pray the Luminous Mysteries. As you and others have stated, the pope made them an optional addition to the Rosary. The problem (which I think you have missed) is that the schismatic folks here [Jake-1, Emerald, and Isabel] are mistaken in one of two ways:
EITHER (1) they wrongly believe that the pope is trying to require us to use the Luminous Mysteries ...
OR (2) they know that these Mysteries are optional, but they flatly reject the very idea that anyone could dare to modify, or add to, the Rosary in any way.

My impression, Choas, is that the schismatics' position is #2. I don't think that you would agree with position #2, Choas. I don't, and Paul doesn't. I think that's why Paul has been opposing them. I think that we admit that the pope is permitted to recommend a change or an addition to the Rosary (or any other sacramental).
I leave open the possibility that the schismatics hold to position #1, which would come into play if they did not read the papal encyclical and therefore have a mistaken impression about the optional quality of the Luminous Mysteries. If they hold to #1, they have simply made an honest mistake.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 25, 2003.


Dear Isabel,

You claim: "How can something Our Lady has asked us to do over and over again not be something that is preferable? Why would she attach so many wonderful promises to the Rosary and the First Saturdays if they were not preferable."

That is not Catholic teaching. What the Church teaches is that a Catholic is free to believe that Our Lady asked us such and such, or made such and such promises, during one of her supposed apparitions, if we choose to believe that - OR, not to believe it at all, if that is our choice, without compromising our Catholic faith in any way. That is the teaching of the Church. To be so dogmatic about something that is so open-ended and tenuous in the eyes of Holy Mother Church is unwarranted. Those Catholics who choose to believe that Mary has appeared, and has given us messages, are on good ground, since the Church has approved such belief. Those who choose not to believe in apparitions at all are also on good ground, since the Church has approved such belief. But those who insist that the Church itself do this or do that because "Mary said so" are not on solid ground at all. They are confusing the possibility of private revelation with the certainty of the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the Church.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 25, 2003.


Dear Chaos,

Why do you suppose that I am angry? I seldom speak in anger, and in this case I see nothing to be angry about. OK, I confess to a bit of frustration over the same situation which is causing other faithful Catholics some frustration here - the domination of the forum by a handful of self-proclaimed "traditionalists" who reject true Apostolic Tradition, clinging instead to a nostalgic security blanket of childhood religious experiences, and attempting to legitimize that stance on theological grounds and impose it on the rest of the Church. But, I support their right to voice their views.

I did not state that anyone was a "self-described traditionalist, afraid of change" simply BECAUSE they don't like the newly suggested mysteries. As you so rightly stated, that matter is up to each individual whether to accept or not, and I am 100% at peace with that, since it is what the Holy Father has said. What I did say is that some individuals certainly are "self-described tradionalists, afraid of change", and that we can expect such individuals to reject the new mysteries offhand, simply BECAUSE they constitute a change. That attitude is obstructionist, not traditionalist, and is an obstacle to spiritual growth in the Church as a whole.

My mention of fasting after midnight was a reference to the pre- Vatican II regulation regarding the Eucharistic fast. I am sure that many of the younger contributors here are unfamiliar with it. But the "cling to the past" crowd are not among the younger contributors. So, I just wondered if they still adhere to this discipline, along with their clamoring over the Latin Mass and other nostalgic artifacts. Obviously, not following this old discipline does not make anyone a "bad Catholic" today, since it isn't required today! That was exactly my point! Today's Catholics should live by the teaching of the Church today. Of course, if anyone feels called to additional fasting, that's great - as long as they don't try to pass it off as a requirement they are fulfilling and the rest of God's Church is disobeying.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 25, 2003.


we can expect such individuals to reject the new mysteries offhand, simply BECAUSE they constitute a change. That attitude is obstructionist, not traditionalist, and is an obstacle to spiritual growth in the Church as a whole.

If we refuse something foreign, even if it's BECAUSE it constitutes a change, and even though the Pope has taken pains to advise us that this is his not Church teaching and that we're free to do it our own way; well, how is that "obstructionist?" What are we obstructing? The implication is: "Get on board with the 'Luminous Mysteries' lest you expose yourself as a crank." It's not a litmus test for orthodoxy. It can never be. Not on any level. Ever.

[on fasting]:

I am sure that many of the younger contributors here are unfamiliar with it. But the "cling to the past" crowd are not among the younger contributors.

I can't answer for Ed, not knowing his age, but I can say that Regina, Emerald, Isabel, & myself are all under 40, though some of us are a LOT closer to 30 than others (Ouch. Sorry, Emerald!) So you can just get this notion of "clinging" out of your mind. Let it go. It's a non-issue. We were all (or at least 4 of us) in the Novus Ordo for the majority of our lives, and we chose Tradition - in some cases no easy task for a variety of reasons, but I'm not here to toot our collective horn. I'm just advising you that Traditionalists aren't all grumpy old folks who can't get out of the Way-Back machine.

So, I just wondered if they still adhere to this discipline

...and you got your answer.

if anyone feels called to additional fasting, that's great - as long as they don't try to pass it off as a requirement they are fulfilling and the rest of God's Church is disobeying.

We didn't, we haven't and we won't.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 26, 2003.


though some of us are a LOT closer to 30 than others (Ouch. Sorry, Emerald!)

lol! Hey, I still get carded. Double-plus good, I still pretend to be irritated.

Know what though? I'm starting to get aches and pains... wow, I really am going to die someday. 'magine that.

As for Ed, being the one so often passed off as the village idiot, I have to say in all honesty that I believe the man to have deep insight and the ability to express his essence very well. But above all, note that no matter how many cubic yards of dung are poured over his head, the man seldom if at all loses his cool, and keeps plugging forward like a true patriot.

Even if Ed were completely wrong, he'd get a 10 from me for style and basic charity and good cheer.

Thing is, I agree with a lot of what he says.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 26, 2003.


Hey, I still get carded. Double-plus good, I still pretend to be irritated.

When / if your hair falls out, that'll solve that little problem.

no matter how many cubic yards of dung are poured over his head, the man seldom if at all loses his cool, and keeps plugging forward like a true patriot.

Even if Ed were completely wrong, he'd get a 10 from me for style and basic charity and good cheer.

I've little doubt that Ed will perservere in the Faith until the end.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 26, 2003.


What a beautiful thread to read. Many good points have been made on both sides of this issue.

In celebrating the mysteries we do, the Rosary has often been referred to as the Prayer of the Gospels. It seems to me the Holy Father merely recognised this fact and felt more elaboration in its “formal” structure was warranted which could then be helpful in enriching the prayer lives of all who pray it.

Whenever the subject of the Rosary comes up I always reflect on what John told the forum a few years ago and his words bear repeating here: “…the Rosary is not a "liturgical prayer," but rather a prayer of pious devotion that can be recited publicly (i.e., led aloud in church), in a family group, or privately. Since it is not a liturgical prayer, there are no restrictive Vatican regulations governing its recital. (Believe it or not, one can even create privately used sets of mysteries -- e.g., based on the miracles of Jesus, Old Testament prophesies of redemption, etc.). The various ways in which mysteries have been associated with days of the week and weeks of the year are based only on ("small t") tradition -- i.e., formed by custom. And customs vary from locale to locale.”

Whenever discussing any changes in the Rosary it is always prudent to reflect on what John has said. We can pray the Rosary any way we want to. So what’s the problem? When praying the Rosary in public we go with what the majority favour. When praying the Rosary in private we pray it the way we want to. It is prudent however, to remember the Rosary is just a devotion like many others we have. “Liturgical celebrations and the pious practice of the Rosary must be neither set in opposition to one another nor considered as being identical.” (Pope Paul VI – Marialis Cultus)

Leon, I really enjoyed your comment about the “essence” of the faith. You are quite right – the Truth is unchangeable, immutable. However, Jesus left us His Church to assist us in progressing in our faith and at the same time, to protect all that is sacred in it until such time He would return. I agree with you, this would seem not to preclude any changes not affecting Truth that would, at the same time, enhance the depth of our faith.

Joseph, you are extremely well informed and your posts are very enlightening. I echo others in saying your compassionate approach is refreshing and this approach to others here at the forum needs to be encouraged.

Isabel, while I don’t share all of your views, I also enjoy your posts immensely. They are always informative and well reasoned and reflect a passion for the faith that I aspire to and admire greatly. One question I would like to ask you is, while you apparently lay a great degree of importance in the private revelations wherein Our Lady has asked us to pray the Rosary, you didn’t mention the fact that she has also repeatedly asked us in many of these same private revelations to listen to the Holy Father in all that he tells us. If we are going to lend credence to these private revelations, is it not prudent to listen to Our Lady in all that she has told us through them and not to pick and choose what we desire for our own liking? If this were done, would this not reconcile you to accepting the Luminous Mysteries, as there is no contradiction in praying the Rosary she asked us to pray (Lucia, in 1917) at the convent at Pointe Vedra; and praying the “new and improved” version of the Rosary our Holy Father has suggested? I am not trying to be cheeky here. I am sincerely trying to understand how you reconcile these the many things Our Lady has told us that on the surface might seem contradictory.

Also, in reading this thread and the objections some have to the new mysteries, it struck me that what if a new prayer were created that soon became ten times, nay, a hundred times more popular than the Rosary. Let’s suppose that this prayer alone soon became responsible for thousands of souls per month discovering Truth and converting to the Catholic faith. Would some of us object in this prayer simply because it was new? Maybe we can treat the “new” set of mysteries like such a prayer. Since no Catholic is obliged to pray the “new” mysteries, let’s all pretend that nothing old has been changed (since we are still permitted to pray the Rosary any way we desire), but rather, that something new has been created.

“The Rosary is an excellent prayer, but the faithful should feel serenely free in its regard. They should be drawn to its calm recitation by its intrinsic appeal.” (Pope Paul VI – Marialis Cultus)



-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), April 26, 2003.


Well stated, I could let it go at that.

-- Leon (vol@weblink2000.net), April 26, 2003.

Thanks, Ed L, for your summary of comments.
I was very honored to learn that you remembered my poor comments from so long ago.
I appreciate your quoting from "Marialis cultus," which is such a helpful document.
JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 27, 2003.

Well put Ed!) I never thought of it like that.

Peace & Love

-- Choas (Choas@ivillage.com), April 29, 2003.


Wow! What thoughtful responses but what about the obvious. The Rosary is a very special and powerful prayer and devotion to saying the Rosary is commendable. In that light, given more events in the life of Christ and more time spent with His mother praying the rosary can only be beneficial to us and to the reasons we were given the Rosary to pray in the first place

-- Thea (kiserj@portsmouthcatholic.com), May 28, 2003.

Hello,

There's nothing wrong with the New Mysteries of the rosary. It's perfect coz if you'll try to think of it, it must have been there a long time ago. Many Non-catholics say that the Rosary is more for The Virgin Mary. Well, now they'll see that it truly focuses in the Life of Jesus. (I really love the second mystery of light) Remon Ramos, Philippines

-- Remon Ramos (bogieman_05@yahoo.com), June 04, 2003.


I have found all of your responses to be very enlightening. I was raised in the Catholic church and have recently been thinking about re-joining it. For a little while at the beginning of the posts, I was thinking that I was making a bad choice because of the oppostition and sarcasm, especially when it came to a person's personal opinion. But, towards the end of the posts every one came together and we were all happy again. :)

I know that I am coming in a little late on this conversation, but I personally enjoy the "traditional" Catholic religion. I put it in quotes because because I know that it is not the origional Catholic practices.

And, I do fast before Eucharist because, not only is it a small sacrifice that I can do for God every Sunday, but also because the Eucharist celebrates the last supper, which was the Passover feast. Since Jesus was the first born son [obviously :)], he had to practice the Fast of the First Born, so personally, I feel closer to Christ when I fast. And don't think that I am an older "traditionalist" (sorry...) because I am 17 and haven't been a part of the Catholic church for about 5 years, so I was even younger when I made this choice.

Thank you for all of the posts, you have taught me a lot.

-- Aubrey (kitten21388@yahoo.com), June 25, 2003.


Welcome to the forum, Aubrey. It was a great pleasure to read your message. I certainly hope that you will rejoin the Church some day soon.
God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 26, 2003.

Like many Catholics, I completely forgot about the Rosary and have only recently begun praying it again. I thought it would be difficult to reconnect, but it has been very easy to sink back into Mary's comforting arms again. She is like any mother, always there for you.

My reaction to the addition of the Luminous mysteries is that they obscure the purpose of the original three mysteries and the construction of the rosary itself. The rosary is built, using the numbers one (representing God, the father), three (representing the trinity), five (representing Mary) and 10, which is really one, amplified. The rosary begins with the sign of the cross, which is said once, and the cross represents the Trinity. The cross is then used to recite the apostle's creed, which is said once. The first bead stands by itself and is used for the Our Father. There is a space, followed by three beads, which are used for three hail Marys. Then there is another space, followed by one more bead, which is used for the Glory Be. This establishes the basic framework for the Rosary. The remainder of the Rosary is laid out in five decades of hail Marys. Each decade is preceded by contemplating one of the mysteries, followed by an Our Father. Ten Hail Marys are recited and concluded with another Glory Be. This is done five times.

The numbering is very important and symbolic. The sign of the cross and apostle's creed are each said once, because they represent the head. The next sequence of beads, while totalling five, is broken into a grouping of three. The first bead represents the Father, which is always One. The middle group is three, which is the number of the Trinity. The third single bead is used for the Glory Be which is the prayer to the Trinity signifying that it is three in one.

The three mysteries are consistent with the rest of the rosary, in that they repeat the Trinity theme. Again each mystery has five contempletive subtexts that accompany each of the rosary's decades. The mysteries focus on Joy, Sorrow and Glorifying God. Like Eastern mysticism, the message is not direct. Through prayer and contemplation, we can hope to achieve a more intimate knowlege of her Son, Our Lord. Mary promises that the Way to her Son, our own personal revelation, will come through our prayer. It is the light (luminosity) that will show us the way. It is our own personal salvation and the hope of our planet.

For these reasons, the addition of the luminous mysteries obscures and confuses the power of the rosary. The number 4 is not associated with the rosary. Luminosity if not a mystery in and of itself, but a spiritual synergism that comes through prayer, belief and desire. The light that saves cannot be willed because it does not come from the head. It is a true spiritual desire that comes from the heart. It is the samelove that Christ modeled for us in His Passion.

I don't know why the number 5 is associated with Mary, but it always has been, just as the color blue has been. The month of May (the 5th month) is Mary's month, as is October, the 10th month.

Maybe someone else knows more about the relationship between Mary and the number 5.

-- kargo (rosary4life2003@yahoo.com), July 31, 2003.


Very interesting kargo.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 31, 2003.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ