Rosary origins

[Crimson_Silence]

I read up on the history of the Rosary. Originally it was a Paternoster prayer, in which, instead of saying the Ave Maria’s repeatedly, you said the Pater Noster’s repeatedly. The parts in which are now Pater Nosters were Ave Marias and the Ave Marias were Pater Nosters. Why was this changed?

Then you have the story told by the Order of Preachers that God looked down from “heaven” and gave Saint Dominic the light of the rosary. Another version says the rosary came from a member of the Order from Prussia. So which is it?

 

[zab]

Read: The Secret of the Rosary by Louis Marie de Montfort
rosary-center.org/secret.htm

 

[Crimson_Silence]

Read: The Secret of the Rosary by Louis Marie de Montfort
rosary-center.org/secret.htm

This book was written hundreds of years after the facts. It does not connote the truth as it actually was. Where do you think I even got the idea that it was Paternosterers and not Hail Marys? It also doesn’t answer my questions.

 

[Della]

I wrote a scriptural rosary a few years ago, and in my research I found just the opposite of what you did. From what I read, from various sources, the rosary was a “grassroots” private prayer that began with lay people, who could not read or write Latin (nor their own languages) wished to follow the monastics who prayed the Divine Office at certain times of the day. The DO consists mainly of Psalms, which again, most lay people couldn’t read nor did they have access to books, which were hand copied and expensive. So, they began praying 10 Hail Marys in lieu of the Psalms for each Office of the day. Later Our Fathers were added at the beginning of the decades of Hail Marys with other prayers, such as the Glory be added yet later on.

The vision of St. Dominic was not that of Mary inspiring him to compose the rosary, which already existed, but rather to use it as a tool for evangelization because by his time mediations on the life of Jesus and Mary (the Gospels in brief) had been included in praying the rosary.

God doesn’t care how many times we recite any prayer, but rather our intentions in praying them. And Mary doesn’t keep the prayers for herself, but intercedes on our behalf when we invoke her name. So, the prayers all go to God, but purified of our selfish intentions and in line with God’s will since Mary’s will is absolutely in line with God’s will.

 

[Crimson_Silence]

I wrote a scriptural rosary a few years ago, and in my research I found just the opposite of what you did. From what I read, from various sources, the rosary was a “grassroots” private prayer that began with lay people, who could not read or write Latin (nor their own languages) wished to follow the monastics who prayed the Divine Office at certain times of the day. The DO consists mainly of Psalms, which again, most lay people couldn’t read nor did they have access to books, which were hand copied and expensive. So, they began praying 10 Hail Marys in lieu of the Psalms for each Office of the day. Later Our Fathers were added at the beginning of the decades of Hail Marys with other prayers, such as the Glory be added yet later on.

The vision of St. Dominic was not that of Mary inspiring him to compose the rosary, which already existed, but rather to use it as a tool for evangelization because by his time mediations on the life of Jesus and Mary (the Gospels in brief) had been included in praying the rosary.

God doesn’t care how many times we recite any prayer, but rather our intentions in praying them. And Mary doesn’t keep the prayers for herself, but intercedes on our behalf when we invoke her name. So, the prayers all go to God, but purified of our selfish intentions and in line with God’s will since Mary’s will is absolutely in line with God’s will.

Proof? Evidence?

 

[Della]

Proof? Evidence?

How about this for starters?

Something to remember about the rosary is that it is a private prayer, not a public prayer, which means we are not obligated to pray it. Although it is approved by the Church it is not part of the Church’s official liturgical prayer life. It’s a private devotion which people are free to pray or not because all such devotions are intended to aid our faith. If you don’t find it helpful or you aren’t attracted to it (even Saints have not felt it necessary) then you are free to leave it alone.

I find praying the Liturgy of the Hours more satisfying because it is the Prayer of the Church, along with the Liturgy of the Mass. I do pray the rosary from time to time, but usually when I can’t pray the Divine Office.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

I read up on the history of the Rosary. Originally it was a Paternoster prayer, in which, instead of saying the Ave Maria’s repeatedly, you said the Pater Noster’s repeatedly. The parts in which are now Pater Nosters were Ave Marias and the Ave Marias were Pater Nosters. Why was this changed?

Then you have the story told by the Order of Preachers that God looked down from “heaven” and gave Saint Dominic the light of the rosary. Another version says the rosary came from a member of the Order from Prussia. So which is it?

Proof? Evidence?

I am not sure if you are ever going to find any “proof” or “evidence” of anything related to the rosary. It is a personal devotion that has evolved to what we have now, and even that has seen 2 changes that I can think of in the last 100 years. The first is the “Fatima prayer”, which was added in response to the visions there and the second, the Luminous mysteries, added by JPII. It is not dogma or doctrine, just a pious tradition.

I understand intellectual curiosity, but when one starts looking for “proof” or “evidence” on matters of faith, I can’t help but to think there is a bigger issue at hand here.

 

[Crimson_Silence]

How about this for starters?

Something to remember about the rosary is that it is a private prayer, not a public prayer, which means we are not obligated to pray it. Although it is approved by the Church it is not part of the Church’s official liturgical prayer life. It’s a private devotion which people are free to pray or not because all such devotions are intended to aid our faith. If you don’t find it helpful or you aren’t attracted to it (even Saints have not felt it necessary) then you are free to leave it alone.

I find praying the Liturgy of the Hours more satisfying because it is the Prayer of the Church, along with the Liturgy of the Mass. I do pray the rosary from time to time, but usually when I can’t pray the Divine Office.

But this book says that Fr. William Saunders is not telling the historical truth. And in an effort to ascertain the truth, we need to look at the evidence of truth; id est, history. In this way, we can find out if what we’re being told is the truth. Did crusaders pray the Rosary? Is there evidence of the Rosary in history? The book I just placed states that the rosary as we know it came into most prevalence in the 16th century, not the 12th. So tradition in this case could (notice the maybe) be built on a lie. And even historians agree that the paternosterers were here first. Starting here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_rosary#Historical_development

So I’m basically wondering why this was changed. And why nobody seems to give me a clear answer.

 

[Crimson_Silence]

I am not sure if you are ever going to find any “proof” or “evidence” of anything related to the rosary. It is a personal devotion that has evolved to what we have now, and even that has seen 2 changes that I can think of in the last 100 years. The first is the “Fatima prayer”, which was added in response to the visions there and the second, the Luminous mysteries, added by JPII. It is not dogma or doctrine, just a pious tradition.

I understand intellectual curiosity, but when one starts looking for “proof” or “evidence” on matters of faith, I can’t help but to think there is a bigger issue at hand here.

You’re absolutely right, what could I be thinking coming to a forum on matters of Catholicism to look for the truth. I’m such a horrible person for asking questions on a forum built on answering questions.

 

[Della]

But this book says that Fr. William Saunders is not telling the historical truth. And in an effort to ascertain the truth, we need to look at the evidence of truth; id est, history. In this way, we can find out if what we’re being told is the truth. Did crusaders pray the Rosary? Is there evidence of the Rosary in history? The book I just placed states that the rosary as we know it came into most prevalence in the 16th century, not the 12th. So tradition in this case could (notice the maybe) be built on a lie. And even historians agree that the paternosterers were here first. Starting here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_rosary#Historical_development

So I’m basically wondering why this was changed. And why nobody seems to give me a clear answer.

I don’t see any contradictions in what Fr. Saunders wrote and Wikipedia. The rosary’s origins are lost in history. No doubt some people prayed Our Fathers and others Hail Marys and at some point they became combined into the rosary we have today.

Having said that, since the rosary is a private devotion, we can pray whatever prayers we want on the beads when we pray it alone (in groups that could be confusing).

Many pray the Divine Mercy Chaplet using the rosary beads. And others pray the “Jesus, Son of the Living God, have mercy on us” using the beads. It doesn’t matter.

It might help us if you were to explain why this is such an issue with you, especially since the rosary is not an obligation nor even part of the Church’s official liturgies. What difference does it make when it started or what prayers were first prayed on it? We are free to pray it or not and the beliefs of our faith do not hinge upon it. So why are you demanding “proofs” and worried about who is right about its origins and who isn’t when it isn’t important to how we live out our faith? That is if answering these questions will help you.

 

[pianistclare]

But this book says that Fr. William Saunders is not telling the historical truth. And in an effort to ascertain the truth, we need to look at the evidence of truth; id est, history. In this way, we can find out if what we’re being told is the truth. Did crusaders pray the Rosary? Is there evidence of the Rosary in history? The book I just placed states that the rosary as we know it came into most prevalence in the 16th century, not the 12th. So tradition in this case could (notice the maybe) be built on a lie. And even historians agree that the paternosterers were here first. Starting here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_rosary#Historical_development

So I’m basically wondering why this was changed. And why nobody seems to give me a clear answer.

I agree with Della’s post. As for proof, I guess there are few responders thus far because for people who pray the rosary, the prayers themselves have merit on their own. The history of the rosary really doesn’t factor in for me. It’s a good practice, a lovely devotion, and way for me to meditate on the life of Christ while praying with Our Lady.
That’s the long and short of it for me. History buffs will know more and seek more, but at the end of the day.,it’s all about private prayer. Many people say “I don’t know how to pray” and then they find the rosary beneficial to kick-start their prayer life. For me, it will be part of my prayer life forever. I trust that it’s pleasing to Our Lord.
I hope you get the answers you seek. It will be interesting to read.
(FYI: I don’t think there is anything political involved in the development or practices of the rosary. I think maybe you think there’s some misrepresentation along the line…it’s not that complicated.)
Peace!
pianist

 

[JamesTheJust]

You’re absolutely right, what could I be thinking coming to a forum on matters of Catholicism to look for the truth. I’m such a horrible person for asking questions on a forum built on answering questions.

That’s a straw man, if I’ve ever seen one. Oneofthewomen was simply saying that matters of faith and matters of reason are sometimes separate.

 

[Della]

You’re absolutely right, what could I be thinking coming to a forum on matters of Catholicism to look for the truth. I’m such a horrible person for asking questions on a forum built on answering questions.

In matters of devotions, though, it’s not so cut and dried as doctrine. Devotions are driven by what draws people through mystical experience and the senses rather than through doctrine and dogma.

It’s the difference between taking marriage vows, which are matters of liturgical/sacramental/legal importance and necessity as opposed to telling one’s spouse, “I love you,” which is a matter of affection rather than necessity. Does that help you see the difference?

 

[Crimson_Silence]

I don’t see any contradictions in what Fr. Saunders wrote and Wikipedia. The rosary’s origins are lost in history. No doubt some people prayed Our Fathers and others Hail Marys and at some point they became combined into the rosary we have today.

Having said that, since the rosary is a private devotion, we can pray whatever prayers we want on the beads when we pray it alone (in groups that could be confusing).

Many pray the Divine Mercy Chaplet using the rosary beads. And others pray the “Jesus, Son of the Living God, have mercy on us” using the beads. It doesn’t matter.

It might help us if you were to explain why this is such an issue with you, especially since the rosary is not an obligation nor even part of the Church’s official liturgies. What difference does it make when it started or what prayers were first prayed on it? We are free to pray it or not and the beliefs of our faith do not hinge upon it. So why are you demanding “proofs” and worried about who is right about its origins and who isn’t when it isn’t important to how we live out our faith? That is if answering these questions will help you.

I live my life according to the history of things as they are. If it’s a lie, then it’s a lie and there’s no point in doing something that isn’t true. But if something is true, then we have to aggressively protect it. Other wise we could end up with children believing apples taste like pears, Jesus has green skin color and Alexander the Great never left Macedon. Reason supports faith. Ergo, we have to reasonably come to the conclusions of faith based on reason. Unless it becomes reasonable to believe that faith itself is not reasonable; but that would mean that it’s not the truth. Reason is always motivated by truth and when it’s not, then it’s being unreasonable. So it is imperative to know what’s what; and why things are how they are.

How can you say what difference does it make? I couldn’t imagine living a life doing something and not knowing why I’m doing it; other than the answer being “it’s just faith.” We ask questions, that’s why it’s important to know. And judging by how…hostile people get when questions are asked, it seems like there’s more than just ‘faith’ motivating people. Just now I went to look at the Catholic Answers article on the rosary and it’s not even there. The link set up by one of the apologists is missing. I find it very curious.

 

[paperwight66]

But this book says that Fr. William Saunders is not telling the historical truth. And in an effort to ascertain the truth, we need to look at the evidence of truth; id est, history. In this way, we can find out if what we’re being told is the truth. Did crusaders pray the Rosary? Is there evidence of the Rosary in history? The book I just placed states that the rosary as we know it came into most prevalence in the 16th century, not the 12th. So tradition in this case could (notice the maybe) be built on a lie. And even historians agree that the paternosterers were here first. Starting here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_rosary#Historical_development

So I’m basically wondering why this was changed. And why nobody seems to give me a clear answer.

I believe I’m right in saying that the clauses ‘Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners…etc’. were added by the Council of Trent, which would be one of the factors bringing it to more importance in the 16th century, the century of the Council of Trent.

Up until then, the Hail Mary was just the words taken from Scripture - the Angel’s greeting and the words of St. Elizabeth at the Visitation.

In other words, it must have almost seen as a new devotion - certainly much longer than before. Perhaps it was preached about more, to explain the new extended Hail Mary, and so people became more aware of its existence.

 

[Della]

I live my life according to the history of things as they are. If it’s a lie, then it’s a lie and there’s no point in doing something that isn’t true. But if something is true, then we have to aggressively protect it. Other wise we could end up with children believing apples taste like pears, Jesus has green skin color and Alexander the Great never left Macedon. Reason supports faith. Ergo, we have to reasonably come to the conclusions of faith based on reason. Unless it becomes reasonable to believe that faith itself is not reasonable; but that would mean that it’s not the truth. Reason is always motivated by truth and when it’s not, then it’s being unreasonable. So it is imperative to know what’s what; and why things are how they are.

How can you say what difference does it make? I couldn’t imagine living a life doing something and not knowing why I’m doing it; other than the answer being “it’s just faith.” We ask questions, that’s why it’s important to know. And judging by how…hostile people get when questions are asked, it seems like there’s more than just ‘faith’ motivating people. Just now I went to look at the Catholic Answers article on the rosary and it’s not even there. The link set up by one of the apologists is missing. I find it very curious.

But the rosary isn’t a matter of what is true and what is false. It’s a devotion not doctrine or dogma.

The Church defines doctrines and dogmas based on what is true. That is what we hold to in our Creeds. Devotions are matters of the heart. It doesn’t matter just how the rosary started because it’s only a devotion not doctrine or dogma.

The two things that can change in the Church are devotions and disciplines. For example, pilgrimages were once quite popular, but most people don’t go on them now. Not because we don’t know just how they started, we may know how a particular pilgrimage site became popular and we may not, but if it’s no longer popular, it doesn’t matter because it’s only a devotion.

As to disciplines, the celibate priesthood is merely a discipline which the pope might abolish at any time. We know how and why the celibate priesthood came about in the West, but since it’s only a discipline, it can be changed.

Only doctrine/dogma cannot be changed, and so only they are of real importance to us. No Catholic is bound to know the origins of the rosary unless he’s curious about it. Why? Because it’s merely a devotion. If you are puzzled about the differences between these four terms, you might want to have a talk with a priest or theologian about it.

 

[ServantPD]

You’re absolutely right, what could I be thinking coming to a forum on matters of Catholicism to look for the truth. I’m such a horrible person for asking questions on a forum built on answering questions.

Well, not anyone has the time to go to the Vatican Archives or whatever and look for sources such as those. Save your time from writing here and go ask a scholar…

 

[JB_Dugan]

But this book says that Fr. William Saunders is not telling the historical truth. And in an effort to ascertain the truth, we need to look at the evidence of truth; id est, history. In this way, we can find out if what we’re being told is the truth. Did crusaders pray the Rosary? Is there evidence of the Rosary in history? The book I just placed states that the rosary as we know it came into most prevalence in the 16th century, not the 12th. So tradition in this case could (notice the maybe) be built on a lie. And even historians agree that the paternosterers were here first. Starting here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_rosary#Historical_development

So I’m basically wondering why this was changed. And why nobody seems to give me a clear answer.

I think you will find more (and historically authentic) answers here: newadvent.org/cathen/13184b.htm

 

[JamesTheJust]

I live my life according to the history of things as they are. If it’s a lie, then it’s a lie and there’s no point in doing something that isn’t true. But if something is true, then we have to aggressively protect it. Other wise we could end up with children believing apples taste like pears, Jesus has green skin color and Alexander the Great never left Macedon. Reason supports faith. Ergo, we have to reasonably come to the conclusions of faith based on reason. Unless it becomes reasonable to believe that faith itself is not reasonable; but that would mean that it’s not the truth. Reason is always motivated by truth and when it’s not, then it’s being unreasonable. So it is imperative to know what’s what; and why things are how they are.

How can you say what difference does it make? I couldn’t imagine living a life doing something and not knowing why I’m doing it; other than the answer being “it’s just faith.” We ask questions, that’s why it’s important to know. And judging by how…hostile people get when questions are asked, it seems like there’s more than just ‘faith’ motivating people. Just now I went to look at the Catholic Answers article on the rosary and it’s not even there. The link set up by one of the apologists is missing. I find it very curious.

You mean this one?:
catholic.com/tracts/the-rosary

That tract can be found with a simple Google of “Catholic Answers rosary”. There’s no conspiracy going on.

 

[felsguy]

I understand intellectual curiosity, but when one starts looking for “proof” or “evidence” on matters of faith, I can’t help but to think there is a bigger issue at hand here.

You’re absolutely right, what could I be thinking coming to a forum on matters of Catholicism to look for the truth. I’m such a horrible person for asking questions on a forum built on answering questions.

“Religion: Thinking of being Former Catholic”

Sometimes, though not always, 1 + 1 = 2