fisheaters

[newyorkcatholic]

The same could be said about any of the other 3 sets of myseries of the Rosary, or for that matter, the entire rosary itself.
It is a private devotion, and is not reqired of any of the faithful.

True, but the 3 standard sets of mysteries are enshrine in Holy Tradition, were popularized by St. Dominic and his brothers, and have a much older history of Promises and are associated with many saints.

According to the writings of Bl. John Paul II himself, the Luminous Mysteries are not in the same category. They are optional.

So for example a priest leading the rosary every day before Mass - using 4 sets of mysteries in rotation would be fine, so would the 3. But using 1, or 2, or adding a new set the priest made up and making it 5 … that would be odd, if not frankly wrong.

 

[Big_Feet]

the 3 standard sets of mysteries are enshrine in Holy Tradition,

I dissagree with the “Holy Tradition” stated here. the rosary is merely a “small ‘t’” tradition, not considered part of the deposit of Faith found in the Holy Tradition of the Church.

 

[Melchior_1]

True, but the 3 standard sets of mysteries are enshrine in Holy Tradition, were popularized by St. Dominic and his brothers, and have a much older history of Promises and are associated with many saints.

There are no writings within the Dominican Order nor the Church that supports that Holy Father Dominic invented the Rosary. There was a Dominican Priest who popularized it, but he showed up 250 years after Holy Father Dominic.

As mentioned elsewhere, the Rosary itself is “tradition”.

According to the writings of Bl. John Paul II himself, the Luminous Mysteries are not in the same category. They are optional.

As a private devotion, the entire Rosary is optional.

So for example a priest leading the rosary every day before Mass - using 4 sets of mysteries in rotation would be fine, so would the 3. But using 1, or 2, or adding a new set the priest made up and making it 5 … that would be odd, if not frankly wrong.

You can do whatever you like; private devotion. If a priest wants to skip the Glorious Mysteries, he can do so.

“Making stuff up” is interesting, considering the foundation for the Divine Mercy Chaplet is done by using conventional Rosaries.

 

[newyorkcatholic]

There are no writings within the Dominican Order nor the Church that supports that Holy Father Dominic invented the Rosary. There was a Dominican Priest who popularized it, but he showed up 250 years after Holy Father Dominic.

As mentioned elsewhere, the Rosary itself is “tradition”.

As a private devotion, the entire Rosary is optional.

You can do whatever you like; private devotion. If a priest wants to skip the Glorious Mysteries, he can do so.

“Making stuff up” is interesting, considering the foundation for the Divine Mercy Chaplet is done by using conventional Rosaries.

I never said St. Dominic invented the rosary.

The Divine Mercy Chaplet was given by Our Lord to St. Faustina, it’s not “made up” either.

Of course the rosary is optional, however there are different levels of optional. The 3 decades are spoken of by Our Lady. Popularized by the Dominicans. Many great saints and popes have written on these mysteries. They have been prayed by millions for centuries.

The “optionalness” of the luminous mysteries is of a different order. According to the very words of Bl. John Paul II they are a suggestion.

What did Bl. John Paul II say about the rosary in general though? Consider it? No, he said to pray it. Which is what most saints and popes, who have said anything about the rosary at all, have said: pray it. It’s optional but highly highly encouraged.

The luminous mysteries? Optional and suggested.

 

[JReducation]

We have to be very careful here.

1. The Holy Rosary is not part of Tradition. It is a tradition in the Latin Church and some Eastern Churches. It’s not even a universal Catholic tradition. Some of the Eastern Churches have a form of Marian devotion that is similar, but not the same. If it were part of Tradition, it would be part of the universal Church.
2. There is no proof that St. Dominic ever heard of the Rosary. The Dominican Masters General have said that it really a pious story. The Dominican Rosary gets its name because a Dominican Friar formatted it as we know it today and the friars took it with them. on mission where ever they went. This seems to have happened about 200 years after the death of our Holy Father Dominic.
3. It is quite believable that the people of the Middle Ages had prayer beads. They were small stones strung up together that they used to keep track of the Office of the Paters. This may have given the Dominicans and Franciscans the idea for their respective rosaries.
4. From an historical point of view, had the Rosary been as popular as the legend about St. Dominic suggests, the mendicant orders that came into existence during the life of Dominic and have a strong Marian cult would have included the Rosary in their daily lives. There is no hint of it in the early writings of the Dominicans, Franciscans, Carmelites or Servites.
5. The 15 decade Rosary is the most commonly known in the Latin Church, but not the only rosary in the Latin Church. At about the same time that the Dominicans came up with the 15 decade rosary, the Franciscans came up with the 7 decade rosary. The former came to be known as the Dominican Rosary and the latter as the Franciscan Crown.
6. There is no doubt that both rosaries were inspired by Our Lady and that both are very powerful prayers. Either should be encouraged. That does not mean that either cannot be expanded, which is what the Holy Father did.

In conclusion, to discourage people from doing what the Church allows is wrong. Because we are not a second or a parallel Magisterium. There is only one Magisterium. The fact that previous popes never thought of adding five mysteries to the rosary does not mean that they would disapprove. To say so would be pure speculation on our part.

In addition, not pope can bind a future pope on anything that is not dogma, moral law or natural law. As we can see from above, the rosary does not fall into any of the three catergories.

That Our Lady of Fatima asked the children to pray the rosary does not mean that she tied the hands of the popes or that she discouraged any changes to the rosary. She asked for the devotion to the Holy Rosary. How it’s formatted fall in the domain of the Church’s authority, not hers. Our Lady does not govern the Church, nor does she want to. She is Mother of the Church, not the Vicar of Christ. These are different roles with different rights. She certainly would not approve of anyone discouraging others from doing what the Church lawfully allows.

Just as the Holy Father said that the Luminous Mysterious are optional, so too must we say. To discourage is to take away the option and to make the choice an error. The graces obtained through the rosary are obtained through the devotion and the prayer, not through the mysteries themselves. People were praying the Rosary long before the mysteries existed.

In that sense, the writer of the article builds his argument on the mysteries. The Rosary is not about the mysteries. It can be prayed without mysteries. It’s about the prayer itself. There lays its power. Were it all about the mysteries, we would not have other rosaries with different mysteries. Different religious orders have them as well as different Catholic traditions.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Padraig1972]

Instead of keep saying all the time that the rosary is:

a) a private devotion
b) it does not matter how it is being prayed

what about this:

a) we should strongly encourage everyone to pray the rosary daily
b) and we should try as hard to as possible in the traditional 15 mysteries way

When i read what some state, it is like listening to those saying: no, faith is a private thing. Don`t you understand that by undermining the rosary and traditions that you also undermine the church itself?

Is that what you really want?

 

[Melchior_1]

b) and we should try as hard to as possible in the traditional 15 mysteries way

Why not try as hard as possible to do it the way John Paul II recommended?

 

[Padraig1972]

Because the original rosary has 15 mysteries. Not 20.

 

[JReducation]

. Don`t you understand that by undermining the rosary and traditions that you also undermine the church itself?

Is that what you really want?

People are not undermining the Church if they are doing what the Church allows and suggests. Unless you want to say that Bl. John Paul undermined the Church. To say that, puts you on a very slippery slope. To discourage people from what a pope suggests is undermining the Church.

Why not try as hard as possible to do it the way John Paul II recommended?

That’s exactly what we should be doing. We should encourage people to pray the rosary and educate them by explaining what Bl. John Paul wrote and that it’s OK to follow it, rather than discourage.

Because the original rosary has 15 mysteries. Not 20.

That is not the essence of the devotion or the power of the prayer. It’s not about the number of decades. Are you going to tell 1.7 million Franciscans that we cannot pray the rosary with seven decades? We happen to believe that it is as powerful a prayer as five decades or 15 decades and the Church has always approved.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[cothrige]

People are not undermining the Church if they are doing what the Church allows and suggests. Unless you want to say that Bl. John Paul undermined the Church. To say that, puts you on a very slippery slope. To discourage people from what a pope suggests is undermining the Church.

I think “suggest” as used often on this thread can, occasionally, be misread. It can leave the impression that BL JP II preferred that we use these mysteries over the old format, and yet his words don’t really go so far. He made several statements that very strongly indicated he did not intend to overturn the traditional form, but rather simply desired to expand some options for those interested. I worry that many people might get the impression that there was a stronger endorsement for these from the Holy Father than he necessarily invested them with. Doing that can imply discouragement from the old form which is most certainly also allowed by the Church, and has been promoted by numerous popes. I don’t see how discouraging that approved option is any better than its reverse.

This has been my personal concern on these periodic threads about the Luminous mysteries. Church communities have basically abandoned the old form of the Rosary. Prayer books cannot be found, believe me I have looked, which contain the old format with the old weekly setup. One cannot get anything other than the impression that the Church now not only allows the Luminous mysteries, but requires them. That, IMHO, is definitely to discourage something that the Church has allowed. I think that is a very unfortunate development.

That’s exactly what we should be doing. We should encourage people to pray the rosary and educate them by explaining what Bl. John Paul wrote and that it’s OK to follow it, rather than discourage.

I agree we should encourage the Rosary, and we should certainly also encourage people read the writings of Bl. JPII, but not actively encouraging these mysteries is hardly tantamount to discouraging them, especially given their status today in the Church. And, why would saying one doesn’t agree with these automatically be the same as discouraging what the Church allows as seems to be the concensus on this thread? Does the Church allow modern music in Mass? Yes, and yet these fora are filled with voices criticising banal choices in such areas. Does the Church allow guitars? Yes, but we still hear people say they don’t like them and even argue against them. Does the Church allow Latin? Yes, and even promotes it, and yet that doesn’t stop people all over CA from saying that they oppose its use. Do they get criticised for discouraging what the Church allows? I have never seen it. This is the first thread I can ever remember seeing such constant recourse to this phrase. Why is that?

Please understand that I am not attacking anything BL. JP II wrote, thought or believed and neither am I suggesting that one should not pray the Rosary any way they like. I just wonder why so much is being said about being extra careful in how we express any thoughts about one particular option offered for an already entirely optional prayer which belongs to private devotional practice in the first place? What makes this one option so much more sacred than those many others, such as Latin or guitars in the Mass itself, which are so often discussed and debated on these fora without all the defensiveness?

 

[Padraig1972]

Hmm, i think this got off the wrong path:

I certainly are not encouraging anyone to dismiss or discourage what Bl. Pope John Paul II suggested when he added the Luminous Mysteries in october 2002. For a time i used them myself. Sticking to the traditional 15 mysteries feels historical and more right.

As for promoting the rosary, pray it. Yes, daily and 5, 15 (or hmm…i do disagree, but if you must…20 mysteries (suggested on thursdays). I know about the franciscan crown and respect it of course (anything else would be absurd - forgot to mention it though).

So it is that i disagree in the suggestion of making the Luminous Mysteries into a regulary rosary. That is all. If anyone here knew my heart, they would realize that i could go on all day long about the importance of praying the rosary,

I respect the church teachings and hope the Lord may forgive me some day for being troubling in understanding this subject and lack of humbleness and insight.

 

[JReducation]

The rosary is a powerful and beautiful prayer, regardless of the number of mysteries: 5,7, 15 or 20. There is one Eastern Church that has nine. I don’t recall which one.

The case is that we need to promote the prayer. Our Lady does not really care about the number of mysteries. She never focused on that part. She asked that we pray the rosary. We can pray whatever version we know.

We do have to be careful not to mix legend with fact, because we come out with the wrong conclusions and then we get all upset when the pope or the Holy See says something different. This is what the author of the article does. He assumes that the legends around the rosary are factual. Now, here comes the Dominican Master General and says that this is not the way it happened. Those who don’t know what the Master General said are still going on the legends thinking that they are facts.

In the past, scholars knew that these were legends and not facts, but they did not use the word “legend” because they were afraid of it. There was always the fear that if you told people that this or that was a legend, people would not take the message seriously.

I can understand their hesitation to use the word legend, even though they knew these were legends that still needed to be proven. The truth is that people are stubborn. If you tell them that the story is a legend, but that the rosary’s power is a fact, they don’t understand the difference. They stuck on the word legend and fail to pay attention to the important part, that the rosary is an inspired prayer of great power.

Another part that people don’t understand is the relationship between popes or the relationship between councils and popes. St. Boniface VIII made it very clear that no pope and no council can bind a pope. A pope is only bound by dogma, moral law and natural law. He has the authority to overrule and entire council, because he is the Living Law of the Church.

When the Council of Trent speaks of these things, it is not speaking as if the Rosary were a dogma or a sacrament. Therefore, it is not teaching dogma. It is teaching spirituality. Spirituality can be subject to growth and expansion. When Bl. John Paul adds the Luminous Mysteries, he too is teaching spirituality, not dogma. He’s expanding on what’s already there, not taking away from it. People need to understand that Christian Spirituality is always in a state of growth. When it’s expanded, it is not the same as tearing down. In this case, nothing has been torn down.

Even the idea that the Rosary was prayed by saying this mystery on this day and those on that day, is part of spirituality, not part of doctrine or law. For that reason, it’s not always followed. On the other hand, the there is a general consensus on what days to pray which mysteries of the Dominican Rosary. That has not been thrown out. It’s an option that one can continue to follow, because it is a good thing. We don’t need to shy away from it.

The case is that one must always ask oneself, “How is my complaint making me a saint?”

This is something that I always teach my novices when they complain.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

what about this:

a) we should strongly encourage everyone to pray the rosary daily
b) and we should try as hard to as possible in the traditional 15 mysteries way

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.

 

[JReducation]

I think that we can teach the power of the Rosary and the good in praying it.

We have to be very careful not to be so rigid as to treat it as if it were doctrine, sacrament or liturgy. It does not fall into any of those categories. We have to teach it in its proper domain, which is spirituality.

If we want people around the world to pray together in a public manner, we have the Divine Office that serves that purpose and which is a higher form of prayer than the Rosary, because the Divine Office is liturgy, regardless of which form one uses.

I have seen people thumb their noses at the Divine Office in favor of the Rosary. That is not right. We have man leave our postulancy program, because he did not have time to pray the rosary three times a day. When asked what was stopping him, because there is no prohibition against it . . . he said that he could only get in two rosaries a day. I asked him again to explain the problem and he told me that the Divine Office was taking too much of his time. You can imagine me scraping my jaw off the floor.

When I proceeded to remind him that the Divine Office is liturgy, he was resistant. To sacrifice one rosary, for the Divine Office or simply get up 30 minutes earlier to get that extra rosary in by himself.

The truth is that we pray the Crown every day. But the Crown only has 7 decades. If someone is trying to squeeze in 15 decades of the Dominican Rosary into a day that has five liturgical hours, daily mass, the crown, adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, Lectio Divina, work and community meals and recreation, he would need a day with 27 hours.

We have to teach the power and benefit of the rosary, careful not to elevate it to the place of liturgy or sacrament. That would be incorrect and would really confuse people.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Melchior_1]

Additionally, the Master of the Dominican Order is the successor of Holy Father Dominic. If whomever is/was in that position says that the story of Dominic getting the Rosary is legend/myth, then that’s the bottom line.

The Rosary mostly everyone knows about is the Dominican version. 200+ years after the death of our founder, the Order of Preachers took this Rosary, and used it as they traveled. It speaks to the effectiveness of the order that it was soon accepted by the majority of the Church. You look at the writings and reflections of St. Monfort, and another layer gets added; Monfort was a Tertiary Dominican. This is just one more example of practices of religious orders being integrated into the Church as a whole.

But like Brother JR has said, there are other practices by other Catholics which differ. The Dominican Rosary is 15 decades, the Franciscan Crown is 7. Seven years from now after my promises if I met up with a Secular Franciscan at his home, should I start saying “your Rosary isn’t traditional, mine is!” Of course not, he and 1.7 million other people have their authentic tradition of the Crown.

One last point here; I once saw someone say “Monfort would have never approved of these new mysteries”. If the Master of the Order said “these new mysteries are legit, good to use, and generally are awesome” then St. Monfort would have probably been incredibly fine with them and would have promoted their use. And if he didn’t, he would have assented anyway. You know, the whole promise of obedience to the Pope and the successor of St. Dominic thing.

 

[JReducation]

Additionally, the Master of the Dominican Order is the successor of Holy Father Dominic. If whomever is/was in that position says that the story of Dominic getting the Rosary is legend/myth, then that’s the bottom line.

The Rosary mostly everyone knows about is the Dominican version. 200+ years after the death of our founder, the Order of Preachers took this Rosary, and used it as they traveled. It speaks to the effectiveness of the order that it was soon accepted by the majority of the Church. You look at the writings and reflections of St. Monfort, and another layer gets added; Monfort was a Tertiary Dominican. This is just one more example of practices of religious orders being integrated into the Church as a whole.

But like Brother JR has said, there are other practices by other Catholics which differ. The Dominican Rosary is 15 decades, the Franciscan Crown is 7. Seven years from now after my promises if I met up with a Secular Franciscan at his home, should I start saying “your Rosary isn’t traditional, mine is!” Of course not, he and 1.7 million other people have their authentic tradition of the Crown.

One last point here; I once saw someone say “Monfort would have never approved of these new mysteries”. If the Master of the Order said “these new mysteries are legit, good to use, and generally are awesome” then St. Monfort would have probably been incredibly fine with them and would have promoted their use. And if he didn’t, he would have assented anyway. You know, the whole promise of obedience to the Pope and the successor of St. Dominic thing.

To add to what you’re saying, one has to understand what made St. Louie a saint. He lived in communion with the Church. What he wrote was based on what the Church had at his time.

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. At the end of the day, the number of mysteries and the legends behind the rosary do not affect the theology that St. Louie is trying to teach. There are deeper layers to his writings than the mysteries of the Rosary.

The mysteries of the Rosary are the framework out of which he writes. But spiritual masters can present the truth using different frames. His entire message is about the role of Mary in Salvation History. That role did not come into existence with the Rosary, nor will it change as the Rosary evolves. That role is an eternal truth grounded in Revelation.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[newyorkcatholic]

Additionally, the Master of the Dominican Order is the successor of Holy Father Dominic. If whomever is/was in that position says that the story of Dominic getting the Rosary is legend/myth, then that’s the bottom line.

This really confuses me.

You think that in matters of Dominican history the Master is infallible? Really?

I know and respect many Dominican friars (one of my good friends is a novice). But none of them are infallible!

I’m not saying St. Dominic received the rosary directly, but the answer is in historical scholarship and the Church’s teachings, not in “the Master of the Order has spoken, that’s the bottom line.”

 

[cothrige]

And if he didn’t, he would have assented anyway. You know, the whole promise of obedience to the Pope and the successor of St. Dominic thing.

I agree with all of your points, but on this last one you lose me. How can you speak of “assent” and “obedience” to an optional addition to an already optional prayer which is part of private devotion and which is not itself limited to one specific form in the first place? That would be like finding out the Holy Father prefers his scrambled eggs with Tabasco and then suggesting that even if a particular saint didn’t like such a dish he would assent and be obedient in regards to it. Obedient to what? Somebody’s personal preference for spicy eggs?

The basic fact is that the Rosary is a traditional prayer which matters to many, many people, but it is not a part of revelation nor is it defined by dogmatic pronouncements. Nobody is bound by obedience in how they prefer to say the Rosary, and neither would St. Louis de Montfort be if he were alive today. He could promote and say the Rosary in exactly the way he thought most beneficial, whatever that would be. If he liked and preferred the new way he would certainly be free to both say it and promote it. Likewise, if he preferred the old there would be no impediment to his equally vigorous promotion of that form. In this matter the pope did not bind us to either like his form, use it or promote it. However we might think St. Louis would feel, it seems unreasonable to insert ideas like assent and obedience into the discussion. This implies that the Luminous Mysteries are now dogma even though the Rosary they are a part of is not.

 

[Melchior_1]

This really confuses me.

You think that in matters of Dominican history the Master is infallible? Really?

I know and respect many Dominican friars (one of my good friends is a novice). But none of them are infallible!

I’m not saying St. Dominic received the rosary directly, but the answer is in historical scholarship and the Church’s teachings, not in “the Master of the Order has spoken, that’s the bottom line.”

Those who belong to the Order of Preachers swear obedience to the successor of Holy Father Dominic and the Pope. This is exactly the same as how Brother JR has sworn obedience to the successor of Holy Father Francis and the Pope, and how Benedictines take a vow as well. All consecrated religious take these solemn vows. The Master of the Order essentially is St. Dominic, just like how the Pope is essentially St. Peter.

Third Order (ie; Lay) Dominicans do not make vows, but we make promises, culminating with final promises, which last our entire life. It takes some doing to get dispensed from them, and you need a very good reason. Among these promises is that so long as the Master of the Order does not lead us to sin or cause us to do something which will damage our marriage, we are to obey.

If the Master of the Order says that the story is not true, then the story is not true. I trust that as the successor to Holy Father Dominic he has done his homework, he has vetted the information. He has access to information I do not. He is not leading me or ordering me to sin, nor is he doing anything to destroy my marriage.

Thus, I obey. As do all members of the Dominican family. You don’t join up as a member of an Order and not obey whose in charge, it doesn’t work that way.

 

[JReducation]

This really confuses me.

You think that in matters of Dominican history the Master is infallible? Really?

I know and respect many Dominican friars (one of my good friends is a novice). But none of them are infallible!

I’m not saying St. Dominic received the rosary directly, but the answer is in historical scholarship and the Church’s teachings, not in “the Master of the Order has spoken, that’s the bottom line.”

I can see where the wording is confusing, especially for one who is not a mendicant or a monk.

In the Benedictine and the Mendicant tradition, the rule of thumb is that the founder must be obeyed without question and that those who are canonically elected as his successors are obeyed as if they were the founder, for Christ speaks through the founder and his successors. Monks and mendicants can dissent only when the abbot (monks) or the general (mendicants) allows you to dissent. If he does not give you permission to have a different opinion, you may not have it.

It has nothing to do with infallibility. It has to do with obedience to the founder and the belief that the founder never dies, but continues to govern through his successors. In this case, our Holy Father Dominic speaks through the Master General. No matter what any other Dominican says about this subject, if the Master General states that these are the facts, Dominicans may not disagree with him or call his statement into question unless he gives them permission to do so.

Whether the Master General has left this open for discussion or not, I have no idea, because I have not read the statement. I have read what others have commented on the statement. The common conclusion is that there is no proof to the stories about Dominic and Our Lady giving him the Rosary. There is ample proof that he had a great devotion to Our Lady and that he spread that devotion. There is also ample proof that the 15 decade Rosary comes to us through the Dominican Friars.

I hope this clarifies what our friend means when he says “That’s that.”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF