15 or 20 Mysteries of the Rosary?

  • Thread starter Thread starter corsair
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What an attack on a Pope! This is a “Catholic” paper!

I have no problem with the Luminous Mysteries, they, like all the mysteries, proclaim significant moments in the ministry of Jesus. If someone doesn’t want to include the Luminous Mysteries, no problem, just don’t do it.
 
This would explain it.

“Seattle Catholic is not affiliated with the Archdiocese of Seattle”

At the top of the page.
 
po18guy said:
This is a bunch of schismatics! I advise all faithful Catholics to have nothing to do with them, except to pray for them.
Click to expand...
Who are the schismatics you accuse? I didn’t read anything schismatic in the article referenced.
 
corsair said:
Just thought I’d add a little something to the rather intense discussion on the Traditional Rosary and the JPII additions. Has anyone read this article listed on Seattle Catholic archives?
seattlecatholic.com/article_20021108_The_Twenty_Mysteries_of_the_Rosary.html

Please read it and share your thoughts.
Click to expand...
It’s an old article. No one likes to see it, but it all happened, and the author is correct. They changed EVERYTHING. Those mysteries are optional, yes. I don’t find them disturbing or non Catholic, but I don’t care to meditate on them or make them part of the Rosary when I pray it.
 
diggerdomer said:
Who are the schismatics you accuse? I didn’t read anything schismatic in the article referenced.
Click to expand...
They are too close to Sedevacantists for me. They teach and preach division, suspicion and they question Church authority. They link to writers (John Vennari) who attack EWTN and Mother Angelica personally. They are grossly mislead. I trust nothing they say.

IMO, the whole “I’m not gonna pray 20 decades, 'cause it’s not the ‘original’ Rosary” belief is lunacy. It’s a private devotion, folks! Is there nothing else wrong in this world that we have to begin eating our own?
 
po18guy said:
They are too close to Sedevacantists for me.
Click to expand...
Again, who are “they”? What is your problem with what “they” write? Catholics can disagree or not with specific things Mother Angelica or EWTN or any other non-Magisterial source presents.

If it’s truly a private devotion, as you claim, then there’s no need to accuse anyone of lunacy whether they prefer praying only 15 or the new 20 mysteries. Right? If it’s a private devotion, personal preference, then no lunacy is involved.
 
po18guy said:
They are Sedevacantists, believing that we have no Pope. They link to writers who attack EWTN and Mother Angelica personally. They are grossly mislead. I trust nothing they say.

IMO, the whole “I’m not gonna pray 20 decades, 'cause it’s not the ‘original’ Rosary” belief is lunacy. It’s a private devotion, folks! Is there nothing else wrong in this world that we have to begin eating our own?
Click to expand...
JPII said it’s optional. Stating a preference for the Dominican Rosary is not anything but just that, a preference. Nothing more nothing less. Doesn’t matter if H.H, BXVI states it or a sede does.

As far as eating, why do those who delight in irritating traditionalists and spreading falsehoods about the SSPX come to TC ? Lunch ?

I suppose if I told you the SSPX has been advised by Rome their hearing confessions is valid, you would not believe it ? Of course you would not believe it. You would cite the letter H.H, wrote to his bishops after lifting the excommunications. You would wave it around as the fact of the matter. But when presented with a more recent statement, you may or may not accept it. Even if you did, many here would ignore it just as they ignore the repeated statements by Cardinal Hoyos that the SSPX is not in schism. This blatant, and arguably “schismatic” attitude in ignoring the statements of the Good Cardinal is displayed every day on this forum.

Eating our own indeed. :cool:
 
At_Trent said:
JPII said it’s optional. Stating a preference for the Dominican Rosary is not anything but just that, a preference. Nothing more nothing less. Doesn’t matter if H.H, BXVI states it or a sede does.
Click to expand...
So, should we then pay rapt attention to the constant negative drumbeat that “Mr. Sunshine” Vennari so consistently pounds out?
 
By way of correction, I should not say that ‘they’ are schismatic. I’m not sure what ‘they’ are, or even if there is a “they”. The purpose of this site seems to be to link to articles and authors seen in the pulp friction publication “Catholic Family News”. Many of those articles are surprisingly negative in overall tone and content. After perusing some of the articles which incessantly bemoan the “post-conciliar” Church, one wonders what the purpose actually is, other than indulging a penchant for negativity. “They” may not even be disobedient, but the pathological negativity which permeates some of the expressed opinions certainly accomplishes no good. For that reason alone, IMO, the site is nothing more than a soap box for the disgruntled fringe.

In trying to dig a little deeper, it does not appear that this organization exists. The reference to Seattle may date back to the 1980s, when the Seattle Archdiocese had numerous problems that resulted in Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger taking unprecedented action against then Seattle Archbishop Raymond Hunthausen. And there may be the link to Seattle, since I quickly found at least one article that did not paint a flattering picture of Pope Benedict XVI. Surprise surprise!
 
po18guy said:
The purpose of this site seems to be to link to articles and authors seen in the pulp friction publication “Catholic Family News”. Many of those articles are surprisingly negative in overall tone and content. After perusing some of the articles which incessantly bemoan the “post-conciliar” Church, one wonders what the purpose actually is, other than indulging a penchant for negativity.
Click to expand...
I’m glad that you pointed this out. I saw that this was a reprint from “Catholic Family News” and I had already had a negative opinion of that publication years ago.

And I like the luminous mysteries of the rosary. It gives us five more decades in the life of Christ to reflect on. When our parish renovated/remodeled our church a couple of years ago, we added six stained glass windows that included the luminous mysteries and a window of Pope John Paul II in the wall separating the vestibule from the nave. The stained glass windows in the nave include the fifteen decades of the rosary on the side walls and now the five luminous in the back.
 
po18guy said:
So, should we then pay rapt attention to the constant negative drumbeat that “Mr. Sunshine” Vennari so consistently pounds out?
Click to expand...
No we should respect anyone’s right to choose the traditional rosary over the one with added mysteries. And vice versa. That is all I meant and you know it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top