I’m glad you didn’t save your keystrokes… yours was a good post. I find it hard to believe that some are still pushing the idea that Catholics pre-VII did not understand the Mass because it was in latin.Thank you ! If I had read your post before I replied to Ed’s post, I could have saved my keystrokes.
I don’t consider either Holy Mass or the Eucharist Rosary to be “tasks.”
For the record, I am not what can be considered a newcomer to the TLM. I first became acquainted with it more than 10 years ago. Now I attend the TLM daily, and have done so on a regular basis for over two years. I would not recommend the Eucharistic Rosary to someone who only attends Mass once a week, on Sunday. I also would not recommend it until one has a pretty thorough understanding and appreciation of all of the elements of the Mass, from Introit to the Leonine Prayers.
There you have it. 'nuff said
Just curious, did some of those folks not receive Communion ?
Good points made.This issue always shows up, No matter how many times it has been explained it never seems to sink in. So once again, I will repeat for the umpteenth time what I know about it.
Yes there were those who prayed the Rosary during Mass. There still are.
Yes it was allowed and in certain situations encouraged
**
NOT DURING THE ENTIRE MASS**
There are certain parts of the Mass in which the prayers being said are those principally those of the Priest. It was during those times that praying the Rosary was seen as a valid alternative to praying along with the Priest.
**
NOT DURING THE WHOLE MASS**
Not mandatory in the least, not the best way, but one way to pray along with the Priest. At all other times, you were to pary along with him whatever he was praying. As was written in many missals of the day
** Pray the Mass.**
Now I know that flies smack in the face of the misconception that many have that everyone, especially old women, sat there oblivious to the Mass and prayed rosary after rosary as they had no idea what was going on. Now while it is undoubtedly true that some people did that and others did other private devotions, stations of the cross etc, **it was not **everyone or even a majority. Nothing could be further from the truth. My mom and her oldest sister were prime examples of this. Both would pray parts of the rosary during certain parts of the Mass. The rest of the time they were right there with the Priest. And remember these were two woman who only went to about 3rd grade and yet they both knew the Mass backward and forward and knew it in Latin as well as the vernacular.
Amazing huh?
So, you truly believe praying the Rosary during Mass isn’t active participation, despite what members of the Church hierarchy have said ?
**To promote praying a personal devotion DURING Mass takes away from participation in the Mass.
Yes, because posting your opinion in bold makes it worth more than the advice of Pope St. Pius X.
It would be interesting to know why he would promote a private devotional practice OVER the Mass.
No, I don’t believe that. What I meant when referring to active participation was that people are taking part in the responses, etc. And when I said that the people attending Mass now really want to be there was picking up from an earlier poster who said that their were lukewarm Catholics before Vatican II and what they did was say the Rosary (and just so there is no misconception this time, I’m obviously not referring to EVERYBODY who said the Rosary then, but SOME!) Ok, next time I’ll use quotation marks…
You don’t seem to understand. He did not promote the Rosary OVER the Mass, but IN ADDITION to the Mass. If you do not feel that you receive any spiritual benefits from such a practice, then don’t do it. Some people do benefit greatly from such meditation during the Mass, and it is a perfectly acceptable thing to do.
Fair enough, I apologize for being harsh.
If it was promoted for use DURING rather than encouraging reading along or just plain keeping focused on what was happening then it was over or in place of what was parts of the Mass.
All you are doing is repeatedly stating an opinion contrary to that of a canonized pope. He is extremely likely to be superior to you in knowledge about matters theological, philosophical, and liturgical.