Rosary origins

[tabycat]

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.

 

[Crimson_Silence]

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…

Sure, point the way.

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.

I think it plays some part since even the Virgin Mary knows about it. Why would the Mother of God tell children at Fatima to pray the Rosary if the Rosary did not play a role theologically in the Church? Either the Rosary and Fatima are fake or someone is hiding something; and I really feel something is not right here.

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

Looking at its bibliography, it doesn’t even say where it got its information. It’s a nice reference, but a bibliography is important. And The Catholic Encyclopedia is not a source; especially on a Catholic website. It’s like Muhammad’s Koran. IT is it’s own Bibliography.

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.

That wasn’t working when I was accessing it. But I just noticed that it also doesn’t have a Bibliography. You would think this information would be worth looking into. Newadvent.org article at least gives a readable story as to how Countess Godiva of Conventry left “by will to the statue of Our Lady in a certain monastery” a circlet of precious stones threaded on a cord in order that by fingering them one after another she could count her prayers. :compcoff:

 

[Crimson_Silence]

“Religion: Thinking of being Former Catholic”

Sometimes, though not always, 1 + 1 = 2

Why don’t I solidify my decision by joining Dawkins? I’m sure they have some respect.

 

[agnes_therese]

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.

So if something goes so far back that there are no longer any original documents (if there ever were, considering the literacy rate at the time), you’re just going to decide it’s a lie.

Interesting concept.

 

[Della]

I think it plays some part since even the Virgin Mary knows about it. Why would the Mother of God tell children at Fatima to pray the Rosary if the Rosary did not play a role theologically in the Church? Either the Rosary and Fatima are fake or someone is hiding something; and I really feel something is not right here.

Yes, something is not right–and it’s your interpretation of these things and their importance, dear friend. First of all, the apparitions at Fatima (and all approved apparitions) are private revelations not public revelations. This means that the Church ruled (through the local bishop) that they are “worthy of belief” not that we must believe in them nor follow anything that anyone is reported to have said, be it the Virgin Mary or the seer involved, since we only have the seers word for anything any heavenly person is reported to have said/asked anyone to do. So, it proves nothing to say that Mary asked the children of Fatima to pray the rosary.

The Church encourages the rosary because it is a prayer that in no way contradicts Church teaching and has proved beneficial to many people, not because it was mandated by heaven or because its origins are certain. You have a skewed understanding of what needs to be believed and what doesn’t. We need to believe in the Creeds not in private revelations or private prayers no matter how much they inspire us.

 

[Crimson_Silence]

So if something goes so far back that there are no longer any original documents (if there ever were, considering the literacy rate at the time), you’re just going to decide it’s a lie.

Interesting concept.

It is reasonable to believe only according to evidence. If it has no evidence, then it is a lie, until proven otherwise.

Yes, something is not right–and it’s your interpretation of these things and their importance, dear friend. First of all, the apparitions at Fatima (and all approved apparitions) are private revelations not public revelations. This means that the Church ruled (through the local bishop) that they are “worthy of belief” not that we must believe in them nor follow anything that anyone is reported to have said, be it the Virgin Mary or the seer involved, since we only have the seers word for anything any heavenly person is reported to have said/asked anyone to do. So, it proves nothing to say that Mary asked the children of Fatima to pray the rosary.

The Church encourages the rosary because it is a prayer that in no way contradicts Church teaching and has proved beneficial to many people, not because it was mandated by heaven or because its origins are certain. You have a skewed understanding of what needs to be believed and what doesn’t. We need to believe in the Creeds not in private revelations or private prayers no matter how much they inspire us.

I really do love how people here commit to their half-insults on a person struggling in faith. Maybe you’re right. Maybe you’re all right. And it’s a complete waste of time. You know what? It is. Problem solved.

 

[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

Why don’t I solidify my decision by joining Dawkins? I’m sure they have some respect.

I apologize that I offended you. I was trying to point out that by describing oneself as “Thinking of being Former Catholic” on a forum such as “Catholic Answers” could give the impression “that there was a bigger issue on hand.” Note that I say “could” which is why I said “though not always.”

Now if I might add, do you suppose your response dispels or reinforces such an impression?

Regardless, I apologize to all for further derailling this thread and will let it be. I sincerely hope you have gotten or will get the information you were seeking in your original post.

 

[detoutcoeur]

It is reasonable to believe only according to evidence. If it has no evidence, then it is a lie, until proven otherwise.

I really do love how people here commit to their half-insults on a person struggling in faith. Maybe you’re right. Maybe you’re all right. And it’s a complete waste of time. You know what? It is. Problem solved.

+

*Our Father, Who art in heaven
Hallowed be Thy Name.
Thy Kingdom come
Thy Will be done
On earth as it is in Heaven
Give us this day our daily bread
And forgive us our trespasses
As we forgive those who trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation
But deliver us from evil. Amen

Hail Mary, full of grace
The Lord is with thee
Blessed are you among women
And blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God,
Pray for us sinners now
And at the hour of our death. Amen

Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit.
As it was in the beginning, is now, and will be forever. Amen

 

[paseo]

Crimson_Silence,

I hope you don’t feel upset about the responses. I can see how they can come off to be a bit rough, but I do believe that they are trying to answer your question as best as they can. I think it’s in the difference of how each of us come to understand or accept things. I really hope didn’t step on anyone’s toes by saying all this.
I actually don’t have an answer for you, but here are a few links I found on the Rosary, the first one in particular talks about the origins of the Rosary:
olrl.org/sacramental/rosary.shtml, It has a bibliography albeit a bit sparse.
campus.udayton.edu/mary/resources/rosary.html, has a long list of references, so that might be another good place to start.

The resource that seems most complete (since I haven’t actually gotten around to read through all of these) is this book titled Beads&Prayers - The Rosary and History and Devotion, by JD Miller, which the abridged version of it can be found here:
christendom-awake.org/pages/dmiller/beads&prayers.htm
It even has a chart of the evolution of the Marian Rosary:
christendom-awake.org/pages/dmiller/evolutionofrosary.htm

Now, just to note, I haven’t read the book yet but it seems very thorough, so maybe it’s another resource you can check out?

Hope this helps,
Theresia

 

[Oneofthewomen]

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.

I am sorry that is what you took from my response.

I gave you the only answer I have. You are looking for “proof” and “evidence” of how the rosary came into being, yet it has evolved over the centuries, as a personal devotion. I’m sorry, I just don’t think your going to find something that gives you these answers.

Sometimes, I just have to let go of my need to “know” and have faith that what I am doing is pleasing to God. Maybe that is a way you could look at the rosary.

I saw a very interesting quote today from the Sufi mystic Rumi,
“The art of knowing is knowing what to ignore.”

I have learned, the hard way, that this is very wise advise, and it is very difficult to practice.

Peace be with you on your journey

 

[jtexas]

Boy just finished reading all these comments…may need a nap.

I’ve heard similar responses when it comes to the origines of the Rosary. No doubt it has changed over the centuries in some ways or others, but like some of the others have stated its a Personal devotion, and I’m sure some people change it up still today.

Im drawn to the rosary sometimes for reasons I cant explain. I make them, I pray with them and other times I just look at them and think about the beautiful message contained in them. Messages and mysteries added down through history by great men and women of our faith.

Again a Personal devotion, you don’t have to be into it if you choose not to be, but dont let it be a thorn in your side concerning your faith.

 

[otjm]

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 are rather quick to use the word “lie”. Lying is a an intentional misstatement of the truth. The book you cited is written by a retired English physician. The other source was written by a priest. There is no showing that I can find as to which of them is better trained in historical research, nor necessarily a showing of what documents they investigated in their research.

Anyone who has been through college and taken history courses, if they were paying any attention, would know that history - whether it is recent history or old - is subject to a number of issues.

The first is the issue of the availability of documents. When researching matters which are centuries old, the availability of documentation is not the same for all researchers; documents available to one may not have even have been known to another researcher. So accusing one researcher of a lie is a bit over the top; they simply reported on what they found.

The second issue in research is the weight and importance given to the documents found. Two researchers, both accessing the same documents, can come to honest disagreement over the information; in all historical research there is a necessity of selecting what statements and facts are going to be reported and with what emphasis. Neither is lying; both have opinions on the merits of the statements and alleged facts in the documents. The fact that they reach different conclusions doe snot mean in the least that they lied; it only means that from documents which they accessed, they reached different conclusions.

And often the documents themselves are problematic; it is the folly of freshmen to presume that one writing in say 1200 or 1600 would report matters in the same way that someone does in 2000. Too often statement which appear to be factual are simply statements of opinions and not actual facts.

I am not going to buy the doctor’s book, as his writing about the origins of the Rosary are totally irrelevant to me. I say the Rosary because I choose to use that form of prayer at times; I choose to say the Liturgy of the Hours because I choose to pray in that format at times. The history of either form of prayer is absolutely irrelevant to me in terms of praying them.

That does not mean that intellectual curiosity about either is wrong; but intellectual curiosity about them should be just that - curiosity. The choice between the two should not be based on ancient history of either; but rather on a prayer format which is most fitting to your spiritual life. I seriously doubt God is going to give a fig about the history of either format, should you pray using one or the other; He is going to be far more concerned that you pray them from the heart.

And calling one author a liar, or seeking to show that one lied and the other didn’t, not only is a misstatement as to what actually constitutes a lie, but is also soundly lacking in any understanding of historical research. Further, it has no rational foundation as to the use of either prayer format, as both are approved by the Church - and one of them can be an official liturgical function, and the other one will not. If one of the researchers reaches one conclusion, and another reaches a different one, what difference does that make in choosing a prayer format? Logically, absolutely none. You don’t choose to say the Rosary because one person stated it was popular in the 1200s, or because another one said it became popular in the 1600s. You choose it because it fits your spirituality.

 

[Della]

It is reasonable to believe only according to evidence. If it has no evidence, then it is a lie, until proven otherwise.

Lying means deliberate intention to deceive. That is not the case here. We simply don’t know just when or how the rosary started. How is that a lie?

I really do love how people here commit to their half-insults on a person struggling in faith.

No one has insulted you. Let go of your suspicions and simply accept what everyone is telling you. It’s up to you to change how you want to see things, you know.

Maybe you’re right. Maybe you’re all right. And it’s a complete waste of time. You know what? It is. Problem solved.

I know you are being sarcastic here, but we are right. And yes, since we are right, the problem is solved. The rosary is merely a private devotion. It doesn’t have to be “right or wrong” in any historical context. It only has to be approved by the Church, which it is. You are making a huge issue out of nothing and driving yourself crazy for no reason. We’re trying to get you to see that.

 

[agnes_therese]

If it has no evidence, then it is a lie, until proven otherwise.

A lie is a deliberate untruth. Not having documented proof is in no way the same thing as deliberately lying. You seem to have a very skewed idea of truth.