Is it okay to not say the Rosary daily?

[Laudate_Dominum]

Very well… I shall let the Dominicans themselves speak for me.

St. Dominic and the Rosary

By Paul A. Duffner

Most of us are familiar with the tradition that goes back many centuries and which has been accepted in the writings of many Popes, as to the connection of St. Dominic with the beginnings of the Rosary devotion. According to tradition, she appeared to him during the Albigensian heresy which ravaged Christendom and told him to use her Psalter in conjunction with his preaching of the mysteries of our salvation, as an instrument in combatting the great heresy of his day.

According to tradition, she appeared to St. Dominic during the Albigensian heresy which ravaged Christendom, particularly in southern France, during the latter part of the 12th and the beginning of the 13th centuries. St. Dominic was distressed at his lack of success of his preaching in countering this heresy, and in his desperation turned to the Mother of God for help. She appeared to him (according to the tradition) and told him to use her Psalter in conjunction with his preaching of the mysteries of our salvation, as an instrument in combating the great heresy of his day.
We do not have any historical documents dating from that period expressly referring to St. Dominic and the Rosary. We will endeavor to show, however, that there are a number of things that could be responsible for that silence.

The Evolution of the Rosary

We have to keep in mind that over the centuries there has been a considerable evolution in the form that this devotion called the Rosary has taken. We have to remember that in the time of St. Dominic:

1. The HAIL MARY did not exist as we pray it today. Only the first half of it was then used. The word JESUS was not added until the 14th century, and the second half of the prayer came later still.

1. The OUR FATHER and the GLORY BE TO THE FATHER were not then part of the Rosary.

1. The Mysteries of the Rosary were not fixed as they are now. Even in the 15th century in the time of ALAN DE RUPE, O.P., who was responsible for the revival of the Rosary devotion 250 years after the time of St. Dominic, the Rosary he preached was the Marian Psalter of 150 Hail Marys and 150 mysteries. These were divided into three groups of fifties dedicated to the Joyful, Sorrowful and Glorious mysteries. The fifteen mysteries in use today were officially established by Pope Pius V in 1569.

1. There was no pendant (the cross and five extra beads) as we have now.

1. The very word “Rosary” taken from the Latin word “rosarium” meaning rose garden, or bouquet of roses, was not used in the time of Dominic as applied to this devotion. So obviously there would be no reference to that term in documents of his time.

The Marian Psalter

The custom of counting repeated prayers by the use of a string of beads or knots, or pebbles in a bowl, was prevalent long before the time of St. Dominic. This was common among the Moslems, the Buddhists, and other non-Christian religions as well as among Christians.

From time immemorial the 150 psalms of the Bible comprised the most important part of the official liturgical prayers prayed by the clergy and the monks in monasteries. Since, however, many of the common folk were illiterate, there was an attempt to offer those who could not read (especially the Latin) a substitute for the 150 psalms. The practice arose of substituting 150 OUR FATHERS in place of the Latin psalms, using a string of beads to count them, dividing them into “fifties.” This chaplet, or string of beads, came to be known as “Paternoster” beads.

Little by little, the HAIL MARY took its place alongside the CREED and the OUR FATHER as a standard prayer. But still, it was only the first half that was used. In the course of time there came to be a parallel Psalter, i.e., one of 150 HAIL MARYS known as the MARIAN PSALTER.

The Albigensian heresy

The Albigensian heresy that plagued southern France in St. Dominic’s time was based on a dual view of the world similar to that of the Manicheans of the 3rd century, namely, that there are two supreme beings, a good God who created the spirit world, and an evil god who created the material world. The spiritual world is essentially good, and the material world (including the human body) is essentially evil. The evil god (Satan) imprisoned spirits in material bodies, so whatever one can do to be released from that prison (including suicide) is good. Since matter is evil, marriage and the procreation of mankind is evil. The proponents of this heresy rejected Catholic belief regarding the Trinity, the Incarnation, the sacraments, hell and purgatory, but believed in the transmigration of souls. Christ was not truly a man, nor therefore, was Mary truly the Mother of God. The crucifixion, death and resurrection of Christ were only illusions, and the whole concept of the cross in the Christian life was rejected.

 

[Laudate_Dominum]

Continued…

This heresy was deeply rooted in southern France in the first part of the 13th century. Its rapid growth was nourished, among other things, by the moral laxity and worldliness of the clergy. In addition, most of the nobility fostered the heresy because of their hope to take over the lands and goods of the Church.

This is the situation that St. Dominic encountered when he began his missionary labors in southern France. This was the situation (according to tradition) that occasioned a special intervention on the part of the Mother of God. In view of Our Lady’s apparitions at crucial times in the centuries that followed, would not the intervention of our Blessed Mother at this period in history seem most likely, when the Church in western Europe was so seriously threatened? How fruitful would be the introduction of the Marian Psalter in conjunction with preaching to those who denied the Incarnation of the Word, the motherhood of Mary and the sanctity of marriage. For mingled with the explanation of the mysteries of our salvation would be the prayerful repeating over and over: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.

Cardinal Luigi Ciappi, O.P., who for many years was the theologian of the papal household (the Pope’s personal theologian), in 1975, a few years before he was made a cardinal, published an article entitled “A Deepening of the Faith by Means of the Rosary.” In that article he referred to St. Dominic as an ardent promoter of the Marian Psalter, for he preferred a form of instruction in which he alternated his preaching on the mysteries of the life, passion and death, and resurrection of Christ—with the Psalter of HAIL MARYS.

The Bollandists

The tradition of St. Dominic and the Rosary was more or less universally accepted, especially in documents of many Popes, until the work of the Bollandists in the 17th century. This was a group of learned scholars (Belgian Jesuits) who were charged with the work of publishing the “Acta Sanctorum” covering the life of Christ and of the saints included in the liturgical calendar. These were men of undeniable scholarship who set out to rewrite the lives of the saints, so as to preserve in them all that could be established by historical sources, and to weed out legends that surround the lives of many saints.

This group concluded that there was not sufficient evidence to support the tradition of St. Dominic and the Rosary, that this tradition stemmed only from the testimony of Alan de Rupe, O.P. (d. 1475), and that his claims (written 250 years after St. Dominic) cannot be substantiated by any documents dating from the time of St. Dominic.

Yet, it appears that this argument of silence put forth by the Bollandists did not seem to outweigh (in the mind of succeeding Popes) the impact of the centuries-old tradition concerning St. Dominic and the Rosary; for Popes coming after the 17th century continued to refer to St. Dominic in connection with the beginnings of the Rosary.

Around the beginning of this present century an English Jesuit, Herbert Thurston, a prolific writer and for many years a member of the staff of the English periodical The Month, followed the lead of the Bollandists. Through the medium of that publication he published many hundreds of articles, and had more than 100 entries in the original Catholic Encyclopedia. Among the topics he wrote on, some dealt with the Rosary, its history and origin. Looking at the origin of the Rosary from the viewpoint of scientific research, the lack of documents dating from the time of St. Dominic linking him with the Rosary led him to the conclusion that this tradition had no historic foundation. His conclusions have influenced many of the writers of the present century dealing with this topic, such as Richard Gribble, C.S.C. in his recently published The History and Devotion of the Rosary.

While documents from St. Dominic’s day expressly linking him with the Rosary are lacking, there are many things pointing in that direction that taken together tend to substantiate that tradition.

The Militia of Jesus Christ

Fr. Francis Willam, in his book The Rosary, Its History and Meaning (p. 26), speaks of the “Militia of Jesus Christ” founded by St. Dominic, the members of which recited daily the Psalter of Our Lady. He refers also to the “Confraternity of Prayer” founded by the Dominicans in Piacenza in 1259 (38 years after the death of St. Dominic), the members of which also prayed the 150 HAIL MARYS daily. Fr. Benedict Ashley, O.P., in his book The Dominicans, speaks of this Militia as having been found by a Dominican Bishop of Breganza who died in 1271.

At any rate, we have the Marian Psalter actively employed during the life of St. Dominic and shortly after. In this we have the 150 HAIL MARYS which constitute the “body” of the Rosary, i.e., the vocal prayer. What is wanting is the “soul” of the Rosary, i.e., the praying of these Hail Marys joined with reflection on the mysteries of our salvation. And yet, as Fr. Ciappi pointed out, a common method of preaching of St. Dominic was to preach on the life of Christ, interspersing his reflections with the Marian Psalter.

So it seems that the heart of what the Rosary is (the combination of vocal and mental prayer) was practiced by St. Dominic, not as we have the Rosary today, but in such a way that what he did then in time evolved into what we have now; i.e., that his form of preaching interspersed with prayer eventually evolved into what the Rosary is today.

 

[Laudate_Dominum]

And continued some more…

We know from his biographers that St. Dominic had a great devotion to the Mother of God. And it could well be that the inspiration to preach as he did came from her, as tradition says it did, i.e., the combining of her prayer (the Hail Mary as it existed then) with the reflection on the mysteries of our salvation. Pope Pius XII, in his encyclical on the Rosary, seems to imply this when he states that this devotion in its origin and the wisdom of its constitution is “more divine than human.”

Alan de Rupe

History well documents the fact that Alan de Rupe (also known as Alain de la Roche) (1428-1475) was a great apostle of the Rosary. There must be some basis for his claims that St. Dominic’s connection with the Rosary is proved “both from tradition and from the testimony of writers.” I find it hard to believe that he just made it up. He was not a dreamer. He was a Master of Sacred Theology, wrote a commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard, lectured in Paris, was visitator of his Order in central Europe, wrote his APOLOGIA for the Rosary, and preached in widely spread places. He founded the Rosary Confraternity in 1470 in Douai, and did much to popularize the Rosary.

It could well be that sources to which Alan de Rupe had access did not exist in later centuries. Even if documents did originally exist connecting St. Dominic and the Rosary, countless religious houses and convents were destroyed (with their libraries) in the wars of religious persecution that ravaged Europe over the centuries.

We find this thought clearly expressed by John S. Johnson in his book The Rosary in Action (ch. 3):

The critics relied mainly on the argument of silence to question the ancient tradition that the Blessed Virgin gave the Rosary to St. Dominic. They should have known that many documents referred to by Alan de Rupe may have existed, but did not survive the burning scourge of the Huegenots, who destroyed convents, monasteries, libraries among the countless institutions they committed to the flames. The critics went so far as to say that Alan had invented the Rosary devotion . . . and had attributed it to St. Dominic to tie it in with a famous name. But the two persons Alan relies on for his story of the origin of the Rosary had their “Mariales” preserved at the Convent of Gand: which library was burnt during the wars on religion. There are other documents which have been discovered in later years which were from before Alan de Rupe’s time. The long poem “Rosarius” antedates him by 100 years or so, and clearly refers to St. Dominic and the battle of Muret. This removes Alan from all suspicion of inventing his sources. The elements were all in place at the time of St. Dominic; how did they get together in the Rosary? (p. 26)

We might put this question in another way: Were these elements brought together by the preaching of St. Dominic? We cannot prove with certainty that they were; but neither does the lack of documents prove that they were not.

Masie Ward further undermines the “argument of silence” when she writes in her book The Splendor of the Rosary: “Discussions of what happened in the middle ages are apt to be obscured by the fact that so many documents have been lost, especially during the ravages of the Black Plague” (p. 34).

Fr. Guy Bedouelle, O.P., in his book St. Dominic, the Grace and the Word, includes this important comment about a contemporary of St. Dominic:

Blessed Romee of Livia, one of St. Dominic’s companions, Prior of the Convent of Lyons, France in 1223, and later Provincial of Provence, was said to have died, according to the medieval chronicler Bernard Gui, holding tightly in his fingers the little knotted cord on which he counted his AVES. Historians regard this as one of the earliest texts describing our present Rosary in its embryonic form” (p. 254).

Fr. Ludovicus Fanfani, O.P. states in his book De Rosario B. M. Virginis that some years after the death of St. Dominic, the devotion of the Rosary (as he promoted it) began to decline. Among the causes of the decline were the great plague of the Black Death which swept through Europe wiping out great portions of the population, and the great Western Schism—which split Europe into various factions. The devotion did not completely disappear, however, as traces of it remained among the people; and, says Fr. Fanfani, documents are not wanting to establish that the devotion was kept alive in England during the 13th and 14th centuries (p. 27).

 

[Laudate_Dominum]

And lastly…

Testimony of the Popes

Pope Benedict XIV (1740-58) was a renowned scholar and a promoter of historical studies and research. When he was an official of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, he was asked about the tradition of St. Dominic and the Rosary. The following is his response, a century after the work of the Bollandists:

You ask whether St. Dominic was the first institutor of the Rosary, and show that you yourselves are bewildered and entangled in doubts on the matter. Now, what value do you attach to the testimony of so many Popes, such as Leo X (1521), Pius V (1572), Gregory XIII (1585), Sixtus V (1590), Clement VIII (1605), Alexander VII (1667), Bl. Innocent XI (1689), Clement XI (1721), Innocent XIII (1724) and others who unanimously attribute the institution of the Rosary to St. Dominic, the founder of the Dominican Order, an apostolic man who might be compared to the apostles themselves and who, undoubtedly due to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, became the designer, the author, promoter, and most illustrious preacher of this admirable and truly heavenly instrument, the Rosary?

After quoting the above, Fr. Anthony N. Fuerst, in his well-documented book, This Rosary, states: “To reject this tradition in its entirety, without strong arguments would be very rash” (p. 20).

To the above list of Popes accepting the tradition of St. Dominic and the Rosary could be added many more coming after the time of Benedict XIV. But this is not the main argument supporting the tradition. It is the coming together of many pieces of a puzzle pertaining to the essentials of the tradition as handed down. For example:

1. given the fact that the members of the Militia of Jesus Christ founded by St. Dominic, or by a Dominican of his day, prayed the 150 Hail Marys daily . . . .

1. given the fact of St. Dominic’s devotion to Mary and his ardent prayer in combating the great heresy of his day . . . along with the testimony of ALAN DE RUPE that St. Dominic did receive some communication from the Mother of God as to how to combat the errors of his time . . . .

(If Our Lady at Fatima gave us a remedy in this century for overcoming Communism and attaining peace—which remedy included the Rosary—does it not seem probable that she would have intervened in the 13th century offering a means of combating the devastating heresy of Albigensianism—as tradition assures us she did?)

1. given the fact that, as some of his biographers explain, a common manner of preaching of Dominic was the frequent alternating of his instruction on the mysteries of our faith with prayer . . . .

1. given the fact that the first beginning of this devotion in the time of Dominic was vastly different from its present structure, that then there was no set sequence of the mysteries, and that even the name “Rosary” had not yet been established . . . .

1. given the fact that many convents with their libraries were destroyed in the religious persecutions that followed the 13th century . . . .

In the light of the above, it would seem that the negative argument (the absence of documents) is outweighed by the presence of the essential components that constitute the heart of what the Rosary is. It seems, not merely possible, but very probable, that the Mother of God (as Alan de Rupe testified) did use St. Dominic in some way to give this devotion to the Church. One source of misconception in this regard is religious art, which portrays St. Dominic receiving from Our Lady the Rosary such as we use today. This would not have been. But then, if artists are to portray this tradition, how else would they do it?

And too, what Dominic did could have been done in such a way that it did not stand out as an innovation, as something new; for it was simply taking the Psalter of Our Lady—already in existence—and using it as a means of making his preaching fruitful. It could be that for this reason it was not commented on by the chroniclers of his day. And yet, the combining of the HAIL MARY with reflection on the life of Christ is the essence of the Rosary devotion.

Reverend Paul A. Duffner, O.P., was ordained in 1940, having completed his studies at St. Albert’s College in Oakland, Calif. He has labored in parish and retreat work, and as a missionary in Central America. He served as Master of Novices for the Western Dominican Province for fifteen years, and since 1983 has been director of the Rosary Center, the western headquarters for the Rosary Confraternity. In that capacity he publishes bi-monthly The Rosary, Light and Life, the voice of the Rosary Confraternity.

There we have the words of a Dominican, the director of the Western Province’s Rosary Confraternity no less.

 

[Sirach2]

Laudate:

In the light of the above, it would seem that the negative argument (the absence of documents) is outweighed by the presence of the essential components that constitute the heart of what the Rosary is.** It seems**, not merely possible, but very probable,

Seems? Probable? This is one person’s opinion, and does not provide any conclusive evidence. I ask, Laudate, why it is so important for you to contradict a very scholarly member in this manner. What did it prove, other than personal arrogance and a lack of humility based on the other accusations you have made in this thread.

As Brother Jr mentioned in his post, there are other threads on this topic in CAF, some of which JR authored himself. I’m betting on his research, rather than your speculation.

 

[Laudate_Dominum]

We are well aware of JR education’s background, training and long track record of good accurate council given on these boards.

I fully respect that Brother JR is an educated man, a religious in service to Church and God. I actually like him. He’s humble and always willing to offer his advice and comments which I am truly thankful for.

However… as Gennadios Scholarios, an Archbishop of Constantinople, once said regarding Saint Thomas and the Immaculate Conception (and he was himself a “Thomist”) Aquinas was simply wrong.

 

[Sirach2]

The quote from the Archbishop does not prove your case whatsoever. It is a lame display again of arrogance and a desire to be right.

 

[JRKH]

Laudate,
Thank you for the quote…
I will now wait to see if Brother JR has anything to offer on the matter.

Peace
James

 

[Laudate_Dominum]

Seems? Probable? This is one person’s opinion, and does not provide any conclusive evidence.

Brother stated that the Dominicans rejected the tradition that Our Lady gave her Psalter to the Holy Father Saint Dominic… that in and of its self was wrong because I just quoted an article by a Dominican of no undue importance that says otherwise.

And furthermore, argument against the tradition of Saint Dominic and the rosary essentially comes down to lack of textual evidence. This is dealt with by the fact that textual evidence can easily be destroyed due to the various conflicts with the enemies of Holy Mother Church throughout the centuries.

If we were to reject this tradition based solely on the fact that there is a lack of contemporary records we would need do the same with the historical reality of Jesus Christ Himself due to a lack of contemporary recordings outside of the Holy Scriptures.

I ask, Laudate, why it is so important for you to contradict a very scholarly member in this manner.

Because he’s simply wrong. About a the Dominicans refusing the argument and about the historical reality of Our Lady giving Saint Dominic her Psalter.

If a man with a doctorate in mathematics told you 2 + 2 = 5 would his educational background stop you from saying that he’s simply wrong, even if he is more educated that you? And by the way I don’t doubt for a minute that Brother JR is more educated than my self. I don’t relish confronting him in debate at all. He’s going to run rings around me.

It doesn’t change that he’s wrong.

What did it prove, other than you are rather arrogant and lacking in humility based on the other accusations you have made in this thread.

Oh please, grow up.

 

[Laudate_Dominum]

It is a lame display again of arrogance and a desire to be right.

Are you that upset that I challenged you regarding Saint Teresa of Avila?

 

[Hesychios]

Yes it was.

No it wasn’t.

That is a myth.

 

[Laudate_Dominum]

No it wasn’t.

That is a myth.

You don’t even have a horse in the race, Greek.

Edit: This may be construed as rude. If you take it as rudeness I apologise. That was not the intention… how to say this… imagine you’re sitting in the pub with a group of friends, and there’s an Englishman with you. You say “It’s your rounds next, Englishman”. I would remove it completely but I would rather my intentions were known rather than deleting it completely and leaving the wrong impression in people’s minds.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

You don’t even have a horse in the race, Greek.

Edit: This may be construed as rude. If you take it as rudeness I apologise. That was not the intention… how to say this… imagine you’re sitting in the pub with a group of friends, and there’s an Englishman with you. You say “It’s your rounds next, Englishman”. I would remove it completely but I would rather my intentions were known rather than deleting it completely and leaving the wrong impression in people’s minds.

Whether or not your intention was to rude and dissmisive is irrelevent, you are being rude, and it should not be tolerated.

You’re mixing up two things.

One thing is the origin of the rosary and the other is the power of the rosary.

The rosary was not given by Our Lady to St. Dominic. The Dominican Order has already refuted this. They have evidence that it never happened and they have evidence of how the rosary came to be and how they promulgated it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1:

Br. JR has stated, catagorically that the Dominican Order, refutes this myth. Whatever any one says, Dominican or not, is simply their opinion!

Your comments, Laudate Dominum, on this thread do a great disservice to the Chruch!

 

[JReducation]

There are a number of things that today’s Dominicans look at when studying their Holy Father. They look at this phrase very carefully.

According to tradition, she appeared to him during the Albigensian heresy which ravaged Christendom and told him to use her Psalter in conjunction with his preaching of the mysteries of our salvation, as an instrument in combatting the great heresy of his day.

This was a tradition that was handed down of which the Dominican Friars cannot find any proof that it ever happened, but they find more proof that it’s a pious story that probably emerges out of the great love that the people had for St. Dominic and the fact that it was true that the Dominican Order made the rosary popular.

The friars also look at what Duffner says when he speaks about the Evolution of the Rosary, up above, the rosary that he is describing is not the rosary as we know it. Everyone, Dominicans and others agree that this form of the rosary existed as Duffner describes it.

Duffner also explains how the Dominican tradition combined the meditation on the mysteries of the Gospel with their preaching as a form of evagelization. I said that before as well. I was genus to do this, because people did not know how to read the bible or the breviary. Son one argues that either. Those are historical facts.

He also says

The practice arose of substituting 150 OUR FATHERS in place of the Latin psalms, using a string of beads to count them, dividing them into “fifties.” This chaplet, or string of beads, came to be known as “Paternoster” beads.

I mentioned this in a previous thread. There was the string of Paters, which was often referred to as the Office of the Paters, because it was used by those who could not read the breviary.

Then he goes on to explain the connection between Dominic and the rosary, which no one denies. This is where our friend is getting very confused. There has never been a denial of Dominic’s devotion to our Lady. No one has ever denied that the Rosary is an inspiration of grace. No one has denied that the rosary was made popular by the Dominican Order and how the Dominicans used it so wisely to evangelize and help people pray.

So what’s left? What’s left is the question, “Did Our Lady give St. Dominic the rosary?”

Here is what the article posted by our friend says.

In the light of the above, it would seem that the negative argument (the absence of documents) is outweighed by the presence of the essential components that constitute the heart of what the Rosary is. It seems, not merely possible, but very probable, that the Mother of God (as Alan de Rupe testified) did use St. Dominic in some way to give this devotion to the Church. One source of misconception in this regard is religious art, which portrays St. Dominic receiving from Our Lady the Rosary such as we use today. This would not have been. But then, if artists are to portray this tradition, how else would they do it?

This is the part that the Dominican Friars are refuting. They are saying that there was no recorded evidence of such an apparition where Mary hands Dominic a rosary; but in reality what happened was that Dominic took something that existed and developed it to use in preaching. That the Blessed Mother was behind the inspiration, no one can deny or confirm it. It is certainly very believeable, since she always points to her son and supports anything or anyone who points to her son, which is what Dominic and his friars were trying to do.

The contention that our friend has is that he insists that Our Lady physically gave St. Dominic the rosary. However, his own sources say that this is an artist’s conception, because they did not know how else to represent the relationship between Dominic, the rosary and Our Lady in any other way.

That’s like believing that our Lady always wore blue and white, because most artistic conceptions present her in those colors.

That she used him to bring this devotion to the Church, I’m not the only person who has said this. Everyone has said, the Dominicans made the rosary popular.

The Dominicans are trying to fight the myth that there was an apparition and place the focus where it should be, that there was an intense life of faith, prayer and a desire to preach the Gospel and grace moved Dominic and his sons to develop the rosary and use it. As St. John Newman tells us in the Development of Christian Doctrine, as time passed, the Rosary became better organized and even the Hail Mary was appended. It is to this great work of mystery and grace that we should pay special attention, not to the legend that she actually appeared to Dominic and gave him the rosary. If it ever happened, neither Dominic nor the early Dominicans ever mention it. Yet they do speak of the devotion toe Our Lady and the use of the beads to pray the rosary as a means of evangelizing and catechizing.

If you go the catholic.com and search Dominic and the rosary, there is an article written by the Dominicans that explains this better than I do.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Hesychios]

You don’t even have a horse in the race, Greek.
.

I am not Greek.

 

[Sirach2]

Are you that upset that I challenged you regarding Saint Teresa of Avila?

I am not aware that your post was a ‘challenge’ to me. To be honest, it was an uneducated reply when you responded, “And furthermore this is such a superficial reading of Saint Teresa.” Let’s review my initial post to TrueLight, since you brought it up again, shall we?
Laudate Dominum:

Sirach2:

You may not have read Way of Perfection yet, TL,** but she has put vocal prayers**

(which includes the rosary) as the lowest manner of praying, without demeaning those who have no ability for mental prayer. But yes, mental prayer is the door to contemplation, wherefrom God’s most efficacious help comes in advancing toward Union with God.

And furthermore this is such a superficial reading of Saint Teresa.

It was not a superficial comment, but a truthful reality solemnly taught by Teresa and many authors who expounded her teachings. Here’s a quick summary by one of today’s well known authors on prayer, Fr. Jordan Aumann.

12
Grades of Prayer
We are indebted to St. Teresa of Avila for the clearest and best classification of the grades of prayer. Her concept that the intensity of one’s life of prayer coincides with the intensity of one’s charity is based on solid theology and was confirmed by St. Pius X, who stated that the grades of prayer taught by St. Teresa represent so many grades of elevation and ascent toward Christian perfection.

These grades are (1) vocal prayer, (2) meditation, (3) affective prayer, (4) prayer of simplicity, (5) infused contemplation, (6) prayer of quiet, (7) prayer of union, (8) prayer of conforming union, and (9) prayer of transforming union. The first four grades of prayer belong to the predominantly ascetical stage of the spiritual life; the remaining five grades are infused prayer and belong to the mystical phase of the spiritual life.
domcentral.org/study/aumann/st/st12.htm

The only part of your post that was true is that St. Teresa does urge us, when using “vocal prayer,” to unite our mental faculties as much as possible to the words we speak. But in fact, these are still in the lowest grade as I correctly stated - vocal prayer.

I thought it was a bit amusing that you took issue over this, because when you look in the index of her Collected Works consisting of three of her books, there is only one single reference to the rosary, together with the LoTH, (both vocal prayers); but she asks us to be mindful to unite our mental faculties in the process. No other reference is made that she either prayed it personally, or spread devotion to it with her sisters. Yet we know that as a Carmelite, she must have certainly prayed it - whether daily or not, is unknown. As I said, it is not part of Carmelite Rule.

 

[TrueLight]

I thought it was a bit amusing that you took issue over this, because when you look in the index of her Collected Works consisting of three of her books, there is only one single reference to the rosary, together with the LoTH, (both vocal prayers); but she asks us to be mindful to unite our mental faculties in the process.

This is the way I understood her words as well.

In other words, don’t say the Pater Noster, without actually thinking about what you’re praying. There should be some level of meditation.

Way of Perfection
Well, what I now want to counsel you about (I can even say teach you, because as a Mother, having the office of prioress, I am allowed to teach) is how you must prayer vocally, for it’s only right that you should understand what you’re saying. And because it can happen that those who are unable to think about God may also find long prayers tiring, I don’t want to concern myself with these. But I will speak of those prayers we are obliged as Christians to recite (such as the Our Father and the Hail Mary) so that people won’t be able to say of us that we speak and don’t understand what we’re speaking about – unless we think it is enough for us to follow the practice in which merely pronouncing the words is sufficient. What I would like us to do, daughters, is refuse to be satisfied with merely pronouncing the words. For when I say, “I believe,” it seems to me right that I should know and understand what I believe. And when I say, “Our Father,” it will be an act of love to understand who this Father of ours is and who the Master is who taught us this prayer.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

This is the way I understood her words as well.

In other words, don’t say the Pater Noster, without actually thinking about what you’re praying. There should be some level of meditation.

I experienced this on a very profound level recently.

I had noticed that much of my participation in the responses was becoming rote.
I am between parishes right now, and because of my busy schedule have not really had time to find a community.
I attend Mass at 3 different churches, our Cathedral, the large suburban parish I grew up in, and an inner-city parish that is around the corner from my house. In all three, I had noticed that many of the responses by the people were very rushed, and at times almost indisecernable.
It made me think about my own responses, and I made a conscious effort to pray the words slowly & deliberately.

Then one day, during the Our Father, it hit me!! Like a brick wall!! :blackeye:
***“Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those that trespass against us…” ***
what did I just ask God to do, forgive me as I forgive others?!
Did I really want Him to do that??!

Talk about getting "God-smacked!!

Edited to add:
this all happened before we started using the new translation. If I am grateful for the new traslation for one reason, it because it has caused everyone to slow down!!

 

[Mike30]

There are a number of things that today’s Dominicans look at when studying their Holy Father. They look at this phrase very carefully.

This was a tradition that was handed down of which the Dominican Friars cannot find any proof that it ever happened, but they find more proof that it’s a pious story that probably emerges out of the great love that the people had for St. Dominic and the fact that it was true that the Dominican Order made the rosary popular.

The friars also look at what Duffner says when he speaks about the Evolution of the Rosary, up above, the rosary that he is describing is not the rosary as we know it. Everyone, Dominicans and others agree that this form of the rosary existed as Duffner describes it.

Duffner also explains how the Dominican tradition combined the meditation on the mysteries of the Gospel with their preaching as a form of evagelization. I said that before as well. I was genus to do this, because people did not know how to read the bible or the breviary. Son one argues that either. Those are historical facts.

He also says

I mentioned this in a previous thread. There was the string of Paters, which was often referred to as the Office of the Paters, because it was used by those who could not read the breviary.

Then he goes on to explain the connection between Dominic and the rosary, which no one denies. This is where our friend is getting very confused. There has never been a denial of Dominic’s devotion to our Lady. No one has ever denied that the Rosary is an inspiration of grace. No one has denied that the rosary was made popular by the Dominican Order and how the Dominicans used it so wisely to evangelize and help people pray.

So what’s left? What’s left is the question, “Did Our Lady give St. Dominic the rosary?”

Here is what the article posted by our friend says.

This is the part that the Dominican Friars are refuting. They are saying that there was no recorded evidence of such an apparition where Mary hands Dominic a rosary; but in reality what happened was that Dominic took something that existed and developed it to use in preaching. That the Blessed Mother was behind the inspiration, no one can deny or confirm it. It is certainly very believeable, since she always points to her son and supports anything or anyone who points to her son, which is what Dominic and his friars were trying to do.

The contention that our friend has is that he insists that Our Lady physically gave St. Dominic the rosary. However, his own sources say that this is an artist’s conception, because they did not know how else to represent the relationship between Dominic, the rosary and Our Lady in any other way.

That’s like believing that our Lady always wore blue and white, because most artistic conceptions present her in those colors.

That she used him to bring this devotion to the Church, I’m not the only person who has said this. Everyone has said, the Dominicans made the rosary popular.

The Dominicans are trying to fight the myth that there was an apparition and place the focus where it should be, that there was an intense life of faith, prayer and a desire to preach the Gospel and grace moved Dominic and his sons to develop the rosary and use it. As St. John Newman tells us in the Development of Christian Doctrine, as time passed, the Rosary became better organized and even the Hail Mary was appended. It is to this great work of mystery and grace that we should pay special attention, not to the legend that she actually appeared to Dominic and gave him the rosary. If it ever happened, neither Dominic nor the early Dominicans ever mention it. Yet they do speak of the devotion toe Our Lady and the use of the beads to pray the rosary as a means of evangelizing and catechizing.

If you go the catholic.com and search Dominic and the rosary, there is an article written by the Dominicans that explains this better than I do.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Hi Brother. As usual a well reasoned and thoughtful response. May I ask a question? What would you say about the Sabbatine Privilege ?

 

[TrueLight]

I experienced this on a very profound level recently.

I had noticed that much of my participation in the responses was becoming rote.

Oh yes. We all can fall easily into rote recital if we’re not careful.