fisheaters

[Rich_C]

Why should “we” promote a private devotion that “we” may not practice ourselves?

Why shouldn’t “we” encourage everyone to pray the divine mercy chaplet daily?

Why shouldn’t “we” encourage everyone to pray any private devotion that they are devoted to daily?

Its a private devotion for a reason. There is no need for every Catholic to be praying the same private devotion daily.

Pushing this makes it seem that Catholics who do not do so are somehow less Catholic than those who do.

We Roman Catholics sometimes forget that others may view the Rosary as sort of a Latin thing, so please be assured no offense is intended. Eastern Catholics who do not pray the Rosary are in no way less Catholic.

But in the West Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament and the Rosary are two devotions (I’m not sure if “private” applies to Benediction, really) that have been pushed and encouraged by saint after saint, many popes, and Our Lady at Fatima. Putting special emphasis on them isn’t meant to slight Catholics of different traditions and in any case no one is suggesting compulsion or pain or sin here.

But he is only following the good example of our forebears by encouraging them, so give him a break. People can still decide not to listen to him, and that’s that. No harm.

 

[newyorkcatholic]

Melchior and Br. JR,

You are confusing the nature of obedience. (Well Melchior, I believe you are. Br. JR you are not, but I think you are misunderstanding my objection).

Dominicans are obedient to the Master of the Order. That means if he decrees they all say 15 mysteries daily they do, if he says 20 they do, if the says it’s up to each house, then it’s up to each house.

He can also say a certain topic is closed for discussion, then it is.

But he’s not infallible. He can’t actually change history. He can’t say, “it was thus” and then automatically we know this is true.

He can be wrong!

The Pope can be wrong as well.

It is really a crazy burden to put on a Catholic, even one in religious vows, to put his assent in all matters including Church history and small-t traditions onto the person of a fallible human being.

The Church as a whole is infallible in specific ways and the Pope alone is in specific ways, but none of it extends to Church history (only matters of doctrine) and no current head of an order, let alone an original founder, has the charism of infallibility as regards to the history of the rosary.

 

[Padraig1972]

Why should “we” promote a private devotion that “we” may not practice ourselves?

Why shouldn’t “we” encourage everyone to pray the divine mercy chaplet daily?

Why shouldn’t “we” encourage everyone to pray any private devotion that they are devoted to daily?

Its a private devotion for a reason. There is no need for every Catholic to be praying the same private devotion daily.

Pushing this makes it seem that Catholics who do not do so are somehow less Catholic than those who do.

A reason why it never will be unity in our church. Members of a small forum cannot even agree to understand what importance the rosary has and what a powerful prayertool it is. Sad, but a fact in the year of 2012.

 

[cothrige]

Had he written today, he would have said the exact same thing, but would not have spoken about 15 mysteries, but about the possibility of 20.

This seems to reflect a tone here now, and I believe it to be quite misleading as to the facts. While I agree with everything else JReducation states in his post, this particular comment as given is quite simply untenable. There is nothing which would suggest that St. Louis de Montfort would definitively not have spoken of 15 mysteries, or that he would have certainly spoken of 20. The Holy Father did not bind anyone to accept his version of the Rosary as better or necessary, and specifically “left [it] to the freedom of individuals and communities.” St. Louis de Montfort would hardly have been somehow less obedient, less saintly or less Catholic if he had not spoken or written of these extra mysteries. The Church does not bind us on how we prefer to say the Rosary or which formula we should use or promote.

I find it interesting that people will recognize rightly that the Rosary is a private devotion and not a matter of dogma, and yet we keep seeing this insinuation of obedience regarding these new mysteries. The faithful are not obliged to pray the Rosary in any form at all, or promote it, and therefore it is plainly improper to suggest disobedience on the part of those who do not prefer or promote this particular formula. Claims that St. Louis would not even have spoken of the 15 mystery Rosary more than implies that doing so would have been wrong, and Holy Mother Church certainly says no such thing.

 

[newyorkcatholic]

This seems to reflect a tone here now, and I believe it to be quite misleading as to the facts. While I agree with everything else JReducation states in his post, this particular comment as given is quite simply untenable. There is nothing which would suggest that St. Louis de Montfort would definitively not have spoken of 15 mysteries, or that he would have certainly spoken of 20. The Holy Father did not bind anyone to accept his version of the Rosary as better or necessary, and specifically “left [it] to the freedom of individuals and communities.” St. Louis de Montfort would hardly have been somehow less obedient, less saintly or less Catholic if he had not spoken or written of these extra mysteries. The Church does not bind us on how we prefer to say the Rosary or which formula we should use or promote.

I find it interesting that people will recognize rightly that the Rosary is a private devotion and not a matter of dogma, and yet we keep seeing this insinuation of obedience regarding these new mysteries. The faithful are not obliged to pray the Rosary in any form at all, or promote it, and therefore it is plainly improper to suggest disobedience on the part of those who do not prefer or promote this particular formula. Claims that St. Louis would not even have spoken of the 15 mystery Rosary more than implies that doing so would have been wrong, and Holy Mother Church certainly says no such thing.

I don’t know if Br. JR really implied that was “wrong” by this to say only 15 mysteries. I doubt that was his intention.

But I do think the “fact” that St. Louis de Montfort would have written about all 20 is not something he can really claim.

 

[JReducation]

Melchior and Br. JR,

You are confusing the nature of obedience. (Well Melchior, I believe you are. Br. JR you are not, but I think you are misunderstanding my objection).

Dominicans are obedient to the Master of the Order. That means if he decrees they all say 15 mysteries daily they do, if he says 20 they do, if the says it’s up to each house, then it’s up to each house.

He can also say a certain topic is closed for discussion, then it is.

But he’s not infallible. He can’t actually change history. He can’t say, “it was thus” and then automatically we know this is true.

He can be wrong!

The Pope can be wrong as well.

It is really a crazy burden to put on a Catholic, even one in religious vows, to put his assent in all matters including Church history and small-t traditions onto the person of a fallible human being.

The Church as a whole is infallible in specific ways and the Pope alone is in specific ways, but none of it extends to Church history (only matters of doctrine) and no current head of an order, let alone an original founder, has the charism of infallibility as regards to the history of the rosary.

It has nothing to do with infallibility. Founders, superiors general and abbots are not infallible. However, they are to be obeyed, without question, even in fallible matters . . . unless they leave room for discussion. Benedict and Francis make this very clear in their rules. They tolerate no questions from their sons, unless they invite the questions. They tolerate no differing opinions on any matter, human or divine, unless they grant permission for it.

In the case of the Dominicans, they are part of the Augustinian tradition. In that tradition, there is more room for consensus than in the Benedictine and Franciscan traditions. But even there, Augustine makes it quite clear that the priors have the last word. Unless a prior, general or abbot asks you to believe something that is sinful, you must comply. There is no wiggle room in these traditions.

As you correctly state, this is a incredible “burden” put on religious in vows. However, we don’t see it as a burden, because we have consented to it by professing obedience to these men. No one forced us to do so. When we conclude our novitiate, we know what we’re getting into. We know that we can be asked to leave an idea outside the front door, not matter how good it is or how long it’s been part of Catholic tradition. If it’s not a doctrine, moral or natural law, the superior has the right and the power to command such submission, even if he’s talking about how to fry an egg. If he says that scrambled is the only way to eat eggs, then scrambled it is. If he says that scrambled is the way to eat eggs, but he’s interested in hearing about other ways to eat them, he is leaving the door open for ongoing dialog.

That’s why the vows of monks and mendicants are solemn whereas the vows of all other religious are simple. Therein lays the difference between a solemn vow of obedience and a simple vow of obedience, the degree of authority of the superior over the subject.

Keep in mind, that the superior can never command sin. He can command that you put distance between yourself and the opinion of historians or historical theories, which is really the case here. There is no historical proof that Dominic received the Rosary from Our Lady. It’s a theory or as the Master General once said, “It’s a nice story.”

Somewhere on Catholic Answers, there was an article written by one of the Dominican scholars on this very question. It may be online. It appeared in the CA magazine several years ago.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

A reason why it never will be unity in our church. Members of a small forum cannot even agree to understand what importance the rosary has and what a powerful prayertool it is. Sad, but a fact in the year of 2012.

I think what rattles Eastern Catholics is that Roman Catholics tend to speak about Catholic traditions in a very dogmatic manner.

It’s not the intent of Roman Catholics to be dismissive of Eastern Catholics or to impose on them. I think the issue is twofold.

First, most Roman Catholics know very little about Eastern Catholicism. There is an assumption that “all Catholics do this”, whatever this may be. That’s not true. All Catholics don’t do the same thing or have the same spirituality. The truth is that the Eastern Churches have a very profound and mystical Marian theology, but its expression is very different from that of Roman Catholics.

Second, because of the size of Roman Catholicism, many Roman Catholics forget that there 22 other Catholic Churches and some may not even know that they are there. Many people think that the Eastern Catholics are Orthodox Christians. They don’t look to the East to see what they do and how they do it.

As a result of these conditions, the Eastern Catholics often feel that the Roman Catholics are imposing on the universal Church or are uncaring about their feelings and their spirituality.

This seems to reflect a tone here now, and I believe it to be quite misleading as to the facts. While I agree with everything else JReducation states in his post, this particular comment as given is quite simply untenable. There is nothing which would suggest that St. Louis de Montfort would definitively not have spoken of 15 mysteries, or that he would have certainly spoken of 20. The Holy Father did not bind anyone to accept his version of the Rosary as better or necessary, and specifically “left [it] to the freedom of individuals and communities.” St. Louis de Montfort would hardly have been somehow less obedient, less saintly or less Catholic if he had not spoken or written of these extra mysteries. The Church does not bind us on how we prefer to say the Rosary or which formula we should use or promote.

I find it interesting that people will recognize rightly that the Rosary is a private devotion and not a matter of dogma, and yet we keep seeing this insinuation of obedience regarding these new mysteries. The faithful are not obliged to pray the Rosary in any form at all, or promote it, and therefore it is plainly improper to suggest disobedience on the part of those who do not prefer or promote this particular formula. Claims that St. Louis would not even have spoken of the 15 mystery Rosary more than implies that doing so would have been wrong, and Holy Mother Church certainly says no such thing.

I don’t know if Br. JR really implied that was “wrong” by this to say only 15 mysteries. I doubt that was his intention.

But I do think the “fact” that St. Louis de Montfort would have written about all 20 is not something he can really claim.

My sentence did not come out the way I was thinking. My thinking was that if St. Louie were alive today he may have written about the 20 mysteries instead of 15. Observe the use of the word “may”. I said this because what made him a saint was not his writings, but his communion with the Church. St. Louie would never have thought of dismissing what Bl. John Paul had to say about the Rosary. He was a man with a deep sense of communion with the Church. He would have found a way to include Bl. John Paul’s statement, because of his profound sense of unity with the pope.

This would not be an issue of obedience to St. Louie or any other saint. For them, it would have been an issue of communion. Saints always avoid saying anything different from what the popes say. We never hear whether they agree or disagree. Sometimes, we find out certain things after they’re dead, but no in life. It’s like St. Catherine. We know about her disagreements with the hierarchy after her death, because her letters have become public. In life, she never gave a clue that she had disagreements. In fact, she was interesting, because she flogged anyone who expressed disagreement with the hierarchy. The saints always maintain a public demeanor of agreement or at the very least, support of papal statements. St. Louie would be consistent in this practice of public assent, whatever his personal views were.

For him and other saints, it would be an issue of public unity, not agreement. Unity with the Pontiff was more important to the saints than agreement. In writing about the Rosary, a saint would have found some way to include the Holy Father’s ideas or would have avoided speaking about the number of mysteries at all so as not to compromise themselves.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Melchior_1]

Melchior and Br. JR,

You are confusing the nature of obedience. (Well Melchior, I believe you are. Br. JR you are not, but I think you are misunderstanding my objection).

Brother JR and I are essentially saying the same thing. A difference is that Brother JR took solemn vows, whereas I will be taking promises due to already have taken a set of vows that I am bound to (currently being married).

Dominicans are obedient to the Master of the Order. That means if he decrees they all say 15 mysteries daily they do, if he says 20 they do, if the says it’s up to each house, then it’s up to each house.

He can also say a certain topic is closed for discussion, then it is.

This is it exactly.

But he’s not infallible. He can’t actually change history. He can’t say, “it was thus” and then automatically we know this is true.

No one has said he’d be infallible. But we are saying that we are called to obey. If the Master of the Order has done research and declared something to be false that does not undermine Tradition, I will obey.

The Pope can be wrong as well.

I’ll remember this the next time someone posts a Pope’s preference as it pertains to traditional practices.

It is really a crazy burden to put on a Catholic, even one in religious vows, to put his assent in all matters including Church history and small-t traditions onto the person of a fallible human being.

Are you kidding me?! This is one of the things I’m the most looking forward to in my promises!! All of this talk, all the semantics, all of the little actions. All of the practices, devotions. All the little things. I don’t need to worry anymore! I can focus on getting back to basics, going back to the manger with the Child Jesus. The essentials. What’s wrong with that?

Why should I not trust the successor of St. Dominic? That’s like not trusting the Pope as being the successor of St. Peter!

Yes, critical thinking needs to happen. But in the case of Dominicans, it’s essentially “we obey!”. After assenting, we then begin to piece together why this is the case, why it makes, sense, break it down and dissect it. See how it fits into the Church.

 

[cothrige]

In writing about the Rosary, a saint would have found some way to include the Holy Father’s ideas or would have avoided speaking about the number of mysteries at all so as not to compromise themselves.

I believe that JReducation’s words here are still too speculative as to specifics about what a given saint may or may not do or write about, and how that would reflect on their sainthood, so to speak. I will concede that more than likely one would expect saints to avoid public disagreements with papal pronouncements, but choosing to promote a particular approved private devotion does not reflect on that. St. Louis did not, as far as I can remember, promote other forms of the Rosary such as that used by Franciscans, and yet that doesn’t mean he did not assent to the Church’s approval of any other specific private devotional prayer. Bl. JP II did not, in Rosarium Virginis Mariae, bind Catholics to any particular form of the Rosary and therefore nobody, even saints, would be bound by some form of obedience or assent to choose to promote one particular form.

As I see it, suggestions that St. Louis would have included these mysteries or not written about mysteries at all more than implies that their definition and inclusion is dogmatic even though the Rosary is most assuredly otherwise. It is also certain that the Holy Father never wrote that his additional mysteries were anything other than an option people could freely choose to use or pass by. This would go for St. Louis de Montfort as well as any of us. Speculations are only that, speculation.

 

[FIU_student]

I realize this thread is currently on a (very thought provoking!) discussion on the rosary and traditional devotions in general, but I want to bring up an aspect of the fisheaters site I feel merits discussion.

I’m new to the faith (believer since Christmas 2010, being baptized this Easter vigil ) and Vox and the Fisheaters site have helped nurture my faith immensely. I go to the site at least weekly.

That said, I keep coming across antisemitism. “One Jewish-Catholic Relations” get’s ugly at times. Including old chestnuts like “the Jews” (all Jews) being responsible all of Soviet Russia’s crimes.

It makes me uncomfortable.

 

[JReducation]

I realize this thread is currently on a (very thought provoking!) discussion on the rosary and traditional devotions in general, but I want to bring up an aspect of the fisheaters site I feel merits discussion.

I’m new to the faith (believer since Christmas 2010, being baptized this Easter vigil ) and Vox and the Fisheaters site have helped nurture my faith immensely. I go to the site at least weekly.

That said, I keep coming across antisemitism. “One Jewish-Catholic Relations” get’s ugly at times. Including old chestnuts like “the Jews” (all Jews) being responsible all of Soviet Russia’s crimes.

It makes me uncomfortable.

Being Jewish myself, that makes me very uncomfortable where ever I hear it, be it FE or any other place. The Soviets were very cruel to Jews, Muslims and Orthodox Christians. Any expression of faith was punished and even more harshly when these individuals refused to condone or cooperate with the state’s agenda. People who make such comments know very little about Soviet politics.

In addition, one has to understand that Jewry is different from Islam and Christianity in that it’s is both, a culture and a religion. Not all Jews are of the Jewish faith. Many are atheists and a small group are Christians. However, we’re still Jews and will be Jews until the day we die, just as an Irishman can give up his Catholicism, but remains Irish.

One has to be careful to distinguish between people of Jewish faith and ethnic Jews. Otherwise, one could say the same about Christians. Hitler was a baptized Catholic. Stalin and Lenin were baptized Russian Orthodox. Even though a Christian does not cease to be a Christian, because he cannot undo the Sacrament of Baptism, these gentlemen were certainly not part of the Christian Church. The same happens among Jews. The unfortunate thing for Jewry is that Jew is both an ethnic and a religious term; whereas, Christian dose not imply one’s ethnic background. A Christian who ceases to be a believer can disappear into the national crowd (ie. Russian, German, etc).

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

We Roman Catholics sometimes forget that others may view the Rosary as sort of a Latin thing, so please be assured no offense is intended. Eastern Catholics who do not pray the Rosary are in no way less Catholic.

While I am a Byzantine Ruthenian Catholic I am not unfamiliar with the Latin Church as I am a member of the Carmelite Order which (at this time) has no male Byzantine foundations.

But in the West Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament and the Rosary are two devotions (I’m not sure if “private” applies to Benediction, really) that have been pushed and encouraged by saint after saint, many popes, and Our Lady at Fatima. Putting special emphasis on them isn’t meant to slight Catholics of different traditions and in any case no one is suggesting compulsion or pain or sin here.

But he is only following the good example of our forebears by encouraging them, so give him a break. People can still decide not to listen to him, and that’s that. No harm.

Benediction is a Liturgy so it is one of the prayers of the Church.

While Saints may encourage private devotions that does not mean that every Catholic needs to do them.

The suggestion that “we” encourage the practice came off as a compulsion.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

A reason why it never will be unity in our church. Members of a small forum cannot even agree to understand what importance the rosary has and what a powerful prayertool it is. Sad, but a fact in the year of 2012.

Unity is not found in private devotions.

I have not seen any one here deny that the rosary is a powerful prayertool.

All I have seen is the acknowledgement that not every private devotion is for every one.

 

[newyorkcatholic]

Unless a prior, general or abbot asks you to believe something that is sinful, you must comply. There is no wiggle room in these traditions.

This I have trouble believing. I would really love a source. A superior can ask you to do something and you must as long as its not sinful, but a superior can hardly command a belief the Church does not command by preserving it as a teaching.

Obedience can include things like “don’t discuss this, don’t write about this” and so on.

But the very different nature of commanding personal belief is very limited. As I said before, yes the Pope can be wrong. When the Pope promotes traditional practices he’s right because they are traditional not because he’s always right.

Even the Popes and the Church herself has always made this clear. She has refused to condemn Molinism or Thomism. She delineates what we must give assent to very clearly so we are quite free outside of that sphere.

We are even free to withhold assent to approved Marian apparitions. E.g. I can choose not to believe Our Lady appeared at Lourdes (though I don’t know why anyone wouldn’t believe it).

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

This I have trouble believing. I would really love a source. A superior can ask you to do something and you must as long as its not sinful, but a superior can hardly command a belief the Church does not command by preserving it as a teaching.

Obedience can include things like “don’t discuss this, don’t write about this” and so on.

But the very different nature of commanding personal belief is very limited. As I said before, yes the Pope can be wrong. When the Pope promotes traditional practices he’s right because they are traditional not because he’s always right.

Yes, this is the difference between true obedience and feigned obedience.

Just looking like you are doing as you have been commanded, that would be to all outward appearances doing what you are told while holding to a personal belief that is different and actually modifying your personal belief.

We make vows but we are not automatons. We have to work at it and modify our personal beliefs as necessary.

Br JR is talking about the ideal, something that many of us are striving to reach. That does not change the fact that it is the ideal that we are all to strive for even if few of us reach it.

As for you believing. That is not required. It is what it is.

 

[newyorkcatholic]

Yes, this is the difference between true obedience and feigned obedience.

Just looking like you are doing as you have been commanded, that would be to all outward appearances doing what you are told while holding to a personal belief that is different and actually modifying your personal belief.

We make vows but we are not automatons. We have to work at it and modify our personal beliefs as necessary.

Br JR is talking about the ideal, something that many of us are striving to reach. That does not change the fact that it is the ideal that we are all to strive for even if few of us reach it.

As for you believing. That is not required. It is what it is.

I think this is a misunderstanding of obedience. As you and brother JR are religious, it’s very likely you are right about something here and I am wrong, but I need a legitimate source.

If it’s really true that you have to work to believe something a superior tells you to believe, even something not taught by the Church (of course assuming it’s not something the Church teaches against) … well I’ve simply never heard it. Obedience does by it’s nature consider outward things. The internal part of obedience is to do it with joy – not to abandon one’s intellectual faculties and believe whatever the superior tells you to. The next superior might say the opposite and the next switch back! With practices changes make sense, not arbitrarily with beliefs unless there is new evidence.

I don’t ask to make it difficult, but sincerely I ask for a good source on this. I have never understood obedience this way. Even with parents and children, parents can tell their children to study the faith, keep an open mind, go to Mass. But you can’t tell you child to believe something under obedience. I think it’s fundamentally impossible, and what is impossible cannot be commanded.

 

[JReducation]

This I have trouble believing. I would really love a source. A superior can ask you to do something and you must as long as its not sinful, but a superior can hardly command a belief the Church does not command by preserving it as a teaching.

Obedience can include things like “don’t discuss this, don’t write about this” and so on.

But the very different nature of commanding personal belief is very limited. As I said before, yes the Pope can be wrong. When the Pope promotes traditional practices he’s right because they are traditional not because he’s always right.

Even the Popes and the Church herself has always made this clear. She has refused to condemn Molinism or Thomism. She delineates what we must give assent to very clearly so we are quite free outside of that sphere.

We are even free to withhold assent to approved Marian apparitions. E.g. I can choose not to believe Our Lady appeared at Lourdes (though I don’t know why anyone wouldn’t believe it).

**
And if at times a subject sees things which would be better or more useful to his soul than those which the superior commands him, let him sacrifice his will to God. This is true and charitable obedience which is pleasing to God and to one’s neighbor.

From the Rule and Admonitions of St. Francis of Assisi.**

It is not just about doing, it’s about attitude, values, ideas and worldview as well.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Melchior_1]

**
And if at times a subject sees things which would be better or more useful to his soul than those which the superior commands him, let him sacrifice his will to God. This is true and charitable obedience which is pleasing to God and to one’s neighbor.

From the Rule and Admonitions of St. Francis of Assisi.**

It is not just about doing, it’s about attitude, values, ideas and worldview as well.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I believe something similar is in most of the Rules of the consecrated religious.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I think this is a misunderstanding of obedience. As you and brother JR are religious, it’s very likely you are right about something here and I am wrong, but I need a legitimate source.

If it’s really true that you have to work to believe something a superior tells you to believe, even something not taught by the Church (of course assuming it’s not something the Church teaches against) … well I’ve simply never heard it. Obedience does by it’s nature consider outward things. The internal part of obedience is to do it with joy – not to abandon one’s intellectual faculties and believe whatever the superior tells you to. The next superior might say the opposite and the next switch back! With practices changes make sense, not arbitrarily with beliefs unless there is new evidence.

I don’t ask to make it difficult, but sincerely I ask for a good source on this. I have never understood obedience this way. Even with parents and children, parents can tell their children to study the faith, keep an open mind, go to Mass. But you can’t tell you child to believe something under obedience. I think it’s fundamentally impossible, and what is impossible cannot be commanded.

I can’t get into this in the way that Br JR can as the Carmelite view of obedience is not as strict as that of the Franciscans.

It is important to note thought, which I believe the quote from St Francis Br JR supplies above alludes to. We believe that it is the voice of God coming through our superiors.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I believe something similar is in most of the Rules of the consecrated religious.

Chapter 23 of the Rule of St Albert
And you too, the other brothers are humbly to honour your prior, and rather than thinking about him, you are to look to Christ who set him as head over you; he said to the leaders of the Church, whoever hears you hears me, and whoever despises you despises me. Thus you will not judged guilty of contempt, but through obedience you will merit the reward of eternal life.

That’s the closest our rule gets to something like that. Our rule is very short.