Saying rosary during mass

[ac_claire]

I don’t think “those little old ladies” know more than the popes (Paul VI who said it was a mistake to pray the rosary during the Mass and Pope John Paul II who said that Pope Paul VI spoke very clearly on this issue) and/or the Congregation For Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments. While it may be true that the practice has not been forbidden or mandated, there is reason to listen to their guidance.

What about the guidance of Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei? Or in the Sacred Congregation for Rites instructions De Musica Sacra? Or what about the Catechism of St. Pious X (#19)?

Yall keep saying over and over that the Church discourages the practice, but you aren’t addressing these other teachings of the Church except to point out that they’re “old” lol.

Oh, and as for your last question, "So…what do you do with that information?", you do as you would do in any other discipline, you take the most current statement made regarding whatever subject and discard the others.

Given that the following came later than the documents which support the praying of the Rosary during the Mass one can conclude:

1. This document supersedes the other, earlier documents.

This concept has been repeated over and over on this thread, that if two Church teachings contradict eachother then you by default go with the more recent one. I’m just wondering why you believe this? Does the Church offer us guidance on this matter, as far as you know?

Don’t say it’s “reason” that leads you to believe that because my own reason actually leads me to believe the opposite. The Holy See can’t contradict the Holy See. As I see it, if a new teaching comes along that seems to contradict an older teaching, the contradictory teaching is the one that needs to be discarded if either of them do. Unless of course the new teaching officially abrogates the older teaching.

 

[mullenpm]

IBelive, I was indeed speaking about the very book you cite.

The prayers are magnificant for a Holy Hour and praying before the Exposed Blessed Sacrament; but I truly believe that saying the Rosary (or even a decade) as a prayer of Thanksgiving after Communion is inappropriate.

I would find it distracting both in my thanksgiving and in my prayer of the Rosary.

 

[japhy]

The Holy See can’t contradict the Holy See. As I see it, if a new teaching comes along that seems to contradict an older teaching, the contradictory teaching is the one that needs to be discarded if either of them do. Unless of course the new teaching officially abrogates the older teaching.

I think the praying of the Rosary during the Mass is a matter of discipline (which can change) rather than teaching.

 

[ac_claire]

I think the praying of the Rosary during the Mass is a matter of discipline (which can change) rather than teaching.

Yeah, I agree. I shouldn’t have said teaching, that can be misleading. So do you think as a matter of discipline it has changed then?

 

[zab]

What about the guidance of Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei? Or in the Sacred Congregation for Rites instructions De Musica Sacra? Or what about the Catechism of St. Pious X (#19)?

Yall keep saying over and over that the Church discourages the practice, but you aren’t addressing these other teachings of the Church except to point out that they’re “old” lol.

I never disagreed with the issue of praying the rosary during Mass because the practice was “old.”

 

[I_Believe]

IBelive, I was indeed speaking about the very book you cite.

The prayers are magnificant for a Holy Hour and praying before the Exposed Blessed Sacrament; but I truly believe that saying the Rosary (or even a decade) as a prayer of Thanksgiving after Communion is inappropriate.

I would find it distracting both in my thanksgiving and in my prayer of the Rosary.

Fair enough. But to state bluntly, as some have here, that it is wrong is simply misleading.

I’m not promoting it, just trying to point out that there are folks who do make it work. It’s not wrong.

And by the way, you are blessed to have that book. They are very hard to find in good condition and are expensive. I saw one, new in the box, sell for over 200.00 on eBay.

 

[zab]

Fair enough. But to state bluntly, as some have here, that it is wrong is simply misleading.
I’m not promoting it, just trying to point out that there are folks who do make it work. It’s not wrong.

And by the way, you are blessed to have that book. They are very hard to find in good condition and are expensive. I saw one, new in the box, sell for over 200.00 on eBay.

As for me, I quoted from authorities. I never attacked others for their comments or even stated “bluntly” that the practice was wrong. Neither did Pope Paul VI for that matter. He said it was “a mistake” not that it was a sin or forbidden. And that is the reason that I wrote in one of my posts, “Either you get it or you don’t. Do what you want to do.” Someone asked the question what do you do when there seem to be contradicting statements coming from different popes. If you don’t understand that it is a mistake then there is no reason for you to give up the practice. It was not my intent to offend anyone with my posts. It would be nice if people would stick to the facts without attacking other members.

 

[japhy]

Yeah, I agree. I shouldn’t have said teaching, that can be misleading. So do you think as a matter of discipline it has changed then?

It seems, from Marialis Cultus, that Pope Paul VI believed the Rosary to be a hindrance to participation in the liturgy. The Latin of paragraph 48 is:

Attamen non sine errore est, quod pro dolore?] adhuc alicubi fieri contingit, mariale Rosarium inter actionem liturgicam recitare.

The English translation on the Vatican web site is “However, it is a mistake to recite the Rosary during the celebration of the liturgy, though unfortunately this practice still persists here and there.”

I can’t seem to decipher the Latin properly. Here’s my attempt: “Nevertheless, it is not without error that, to [our] sorrow, it still occasionally happens that the Rosary of Mary is recited during the liturgical act.”

 

[Holly3278]

I personally feel that a person should be concentrating on the Mass rather than on the rosary when Mass is taking place. There are other times when one can pray the rosary. If you like praying the rosary in church, why not ask your parish priest for permission to pray the rosary in a group before or after Mass?

 

[Snerticus]

Yall keep saying over and over that the Church discourages the practice, but you aren’t addressing these other teachings of the Church except to point out that they’re “old” lol…
This concept has been repeated over and over on this thread, that if two Church teachings contradict eachother then you by default go with the more recent one. I’m just wondering why you believe this? Does the Church offer us guidance on this matter, as far as you know?

Don’t say it’s “reason” that leads you to believe that because my own reason actually leads me to believe the opposite. The Holy See can’t contradict the Holy See. As I see it, if a new teaching comes along that seems to contradict an older teaching, the contradictory teaching is the one that needs to be discarded if either of them do. Unless of course the new teaching officially abrogates the older teaching.

Yes, the Holy See can contradict the Holy See. Do you remember after Pope JPII died that Pope Benedict immediately changed how the election of a new Pope was to be conducted back to the original way prior to when PJPII was in office? And PJPII had to have changed (ie. contradicted) the previous way the pope was elected as well.

They can and do change things. They are soon going to change some things in the mass (like where in the mass the sign of peace is to be performed, etc…). Are you suggesting we discard these changes and continue practicing the old ways? Should we stop having mass in Churches because we should not ignore the fact that the very first Churches were in residences instead of dedicated worship buildings? Should we start to have complete meals along with the Eucharist because that’s what they used to do in the early Church and we shouldn’t ignore that?

Of course not. Succeeding Popes changed these things. I can’t believe you’re arguing to ignore the successor of an older pope.

Are you sedevacantist by any chance? If you are, you obviously don’t see the current Popes as valid, and it would be counterproductive to continue this discussion.

 

[japhy]

They are soon going to change some things in the mass (like where in the mass the sign of peace is to be performed, etc…). Are you suggesting we discard these changes and continue practicing the old ways? Should we stop having mass in Churches because we should not ignore the fact that the very first Churches were in residences instead of dedicated worship buildings? Should we start to have complete meals along with the Eucharist because that’s what they used to do in the early Church and we shouldn’t ignore that? … Are you sedevacantist by any chance?

This is becoming absurd. I have seen no evidence that ac claire is sedevacantist (and it’s utterly depressing to see that term slung around so often). And this is not an antiquarian argument or discussion, so please stop framing it has one.

Perhaps ac is operating under this principle of Benedict XVI: “What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful.”

 

[ac_claire]

Yes, the Holy See can contradict the Holy See. Do you remember after Pope JPII died that Pope Benedict immediately changed how the election of a new Pope was to be conducted back to the original way prior to when PJPII was in office? And PJPII had to have changed (ie. contradicted) the previous way the pope was elected as well.

They can and do change things. They are soon going to change some things in the mass (like where in the mass the sign of peace is to be performed, etc…). Are you suggesting we discard these changes and continue practicing the old ways? Should we stop having mass in Churches because we should not ignore the fact that the very first Churches were in residences instead of dedicated worship buildings? Should we start to have complete meals along with the Eucharist because that’s what they used to do in the early Church and we shouldn’t ignore that?

Of course not. Succeeding Popes changed these things. I can’t believe you’re arguing to ignore the successor of an older pope.

Are you sedevacantist by any chance? If you are, you obviously don’t see the current Popes as valid, and it would be counterproductive to continue this discussion.

Ok, If I can be blunt…you’re developing a habit on this forum of jumping to paranoid and ridiculous conclusions. First you (baselessly) accuse somone else who disagrees with you of deliberately manipulating your replies, and now you’re inferring that I’m a sede? In a debate, these are ad hominem attacks. If you keep it up, eventually your credibility will suffer and someone is going to report you for it.

As to the comments in your first paragraph, yes you have a good point, except that those cases aren’t really the Holy See contradicting the Holy See but rather the Holy See officially abrogating old disciplines with new ones.

Praying the Rosary during Mass is a discipline along the lines of a private devotion as it’s not in the rubrics of the Mass. (You could even say it’s sorta in the same family as holding hands during the Our Father, categorically at least.)

Several documents of the Church have affirmed or encouraged this private devotion of the laity. There is one that’s been shown here that calls it a “mistake”. If you have decided that that document overrides all the others, that’s your problem. It’s certainly not the way the Church orders itself.

If you and zab and OhMally have decided that the way other people pray the Mass is somehow your business…well then that’s a personal problem for yall and I hope for your sake you can find some peace about it.

I never disagreed with the issue of praying the rosary during Mass because the practice was “old.”

Why do you disagree with it at all? You’ve chosen not to do it for yourself, but why have you made the way other people pray at Mass your concern?

Let me borrow OhMalley’s strawman for a sec. If I started a thread criticising those who hold hands for the Our Father or raise their arms in prayer at Mass, many of yall here would be jumping down my throat telling me to stop judging the way other people pray, stop being so critical, just focus on the Mass and my own prayers, etc., etc. So…why don’t you do the same?

 

[I_Believe]

This is becoming absurd. I have seen no evidence that ac claire is sedevacantist (and it’s utterly depressing to see that term slung around so often). And this is not an antiquarian argument or discussion, so please stop framing it has one.

Perhaps ac is operating under this principle of Benedict XVI: “What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful.”

+1 ac did not deserve that.

 

[I_Believe]

As for me, I quoted from authorities. I never attacked others for their comments or even stated “bluntly” that the practice was wrong. Neither did Pope Paul VI for that matter. He said it was “a mistake” not that it was a sin or forbidden. And that is the reason that I wrote in one of my posts, “Either you get it or you don’t. Do what you want to do.” Someone asked the question what do you do when there seem to be contradicting statements coming from different popes. If you don’t understand that it is a mistake then there is no reason for you to give up the practice. It was not my intent to offend anyone with my posts. It would be nice if people would stick to the facts without attacking other members.

I agree, we should not attack each other.

 

[I_Believe]

Here is something on the Vatican site…

**We therefore decree and make order that from the 1st of October to the 2nd of November following in all the parish churches [curialibus templis], in all public churches dedicated to the Mother of God, or in such as are appointed by the Ordinary, five decades at least of the Rosary be recited, together with the Litany. If in the morning, the Holy Sacrifice will take place during these prayers; **
vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_30081884_superiore-anno_en.html

There is an example of a Pope ordering that the Rosary be prayed during Mass !

Or, ordering the Mass be prayed during the Rosary, if you want to read it that way

 

[Snerticus]

Ok, If I can be blunt…you’re developing a habit on this forum of jumping to paranoid and ridiculous conclusions. First you (baselessly) accuse somone else who disagrees with you of deliberately manipulating your replies, and now you’re inferring that I’m a sede? In a debate, these are ad hominem attacks. If you keep it up, eventually your credibility will suffer and someone is going to report you for it.

Now who’s being paranoid. When has being a sedevacantist been evil? I just asked a simple question to which if you answered yes to I would have discontinued this conversation. I have a friend here is sedevacantist, will readily admit it and is proud of it, so to put your own words into this equation - if you have a problem with a simple question I asked becuase of evidence pointing to it, then that’s your own problem. I was not attacking anyone here. Paranoia must be contagious.

Praying the Rosary during Mass is a discipline along the lines of a private devotion as it’s not in the rubrics of the Mass. (You could even say it’s sorta in the same family as holding hands during the Our Father, categorically at least.)

Don’t even bring what you put into your parenthises up with me, I have much more strong feelings about that than I do the rosary, which is at least holy and a sacramental.

Several documents of the Church have affirmed or encouraged this private devotion of the laity. There is one that’s been shown here that calls it a “mistake”. If you have decided that that document overrides all the others, that’s your problem. It’s certainly not the way the Church orders itself.

Or is it? If you don’t agree with something it mustn’t be correct, eh?

If you and zab and OhMally have decided that the way other people pray the Mass is somehow your business…well then that’s a personal problem for yall and I hope for your sake you can find some peace about it.

I don’t need to have peace, I have already spoken mine. And it was an opinion. Someone else pressed the issue and saw I was getting upset yet still pressed it. Then you came into it seeing that I was upset and still pressed it. I had no problem with the people who were doing it if they felt at peace, I just didn’t (and don’t) believe it is right. That’s my opinion. I don’t see many people here praying the rosary in mass anyway, they do it either before or after.

Why do you disagree with it at all? You’ve chosen not to do it for yourself, but why have you made the way other people pray at Mass your concern?

I’ll give you a hint: re-read the title and OP of this thread. Why do you disagree with it all? Why have you made the way other people pray - or not pray - at Mass your concern?

Let me borrow OhMalley’s strawman for a sec. If I started a thread criticising those who hold hands for the Our Father or raise their arms in prayer at Mass, many of yall here would be jumping down my throat telling me to stop judging the way other people pray, stop being so critical, just focus on the Mass and my own prayers, etc., etc. So…why don’t you do the same?

Many of me? I already gave you a hint of what I think about the hand-holding, and you can bet I wouldn’t be down your throat about it. Besides, you wouldn’t get past the mods because there’s a moratorium on lay gestures during the mass, and that includes hand-holding at the our father. I will not bring this up again because this thread will be closed. I suggest you do the same.

Basically, the points you brought up here are interesting, however, you seem to be violating some if not all, and at least one I pointed out. They should apply to me but not to thee?

In a nutshell:

The OP asked if it the practice was okay. They also gave their opinion on it. I gave mine. Japhy gave theirs. You gave yours. Zab and ohMally gave theirs. We don’t agree. I see your point, but I still don’t agree that the general congregation should be able to say the rosary during mass. You don’t see my point, fine. Deal with it. You refuse to accept that I don’t agree. I feel this is your problem. I don’t see any problem with you continuing to say your rosary at mass. I’m pretty sure I alluded to the fact at the beginning of the thread by saying it’s no use getting upset about it because that would be even more distracting. (Of course, if pressed on a forum somewhere on the internet you know darn well someone will get upset if they already have an inclination. That was done here.) Just be aware that I’m not the only one who thinks it’s not correct.

I suggest you deal with people of opposite opinions in the same way you suggest I do. After all, it’s only fair.

 

[Snerticus]

This is becoming absurd. I have seen no evidence that ac claire is sedevacantist (and it’s utterly depressing to see that term slung around so often). And this is not an antiquarian argument or discussion, so please stop framing it has one.

Perhaps ac is operating under this principle of Benedict XVI: “What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful.”

Are you kidding? It was basically said that older documents are correct and new ones dealing with the same issue are not. The old document you quoted was from Pope Pius I believe. I said that was too old and I would like to see post-Vatican documents. ac claire said sarcastically that of course we should ignore the old documents (and don’t tell me I’m paranoid here, that was sarcastic with the “lol” after it.) I explained that we must take the newer documents as correct, unless overturned again. She didn’t like that. With the only evidence being non acceptance of post-Vatican documents and acceptance of pre-Vatican documents, I deduced something. It was just a question. I didn’t realize sede’s were hated with a passion. I know they are not respected, but thinking they are just this side of Satan? It was just a question, and an honest one. The only other time I mentioned it was to prove a point, that evidently no one got. It was **not **slanderous or meant to be disrespectful. It was a fact. The second time it was an honest question. Why is there so much hate for sede’s? And why is it that when I asked the question I was treated like I cussed or something?

Those people obviously believe in something with a passion. Whether we believe it’s wrong or not is besides the point. And people here are complaining of intolerance?

That just blows my mind.

 

[Newbie2]

Interesting discussion.

I have a follow-up for my OP. If a person started saying the Rosary at the beginning of mass, I wonder how far they’d get (through mass) until they reached the end (of the Rosary).

Seems to me that some are suggesting that privately reciting parts of the rosary during mass is helpful for focusing, rather than the whole thing. Seems also that if one were to recite the entire Rosary, they’d have to be interrupted during “more important” parts of the mass.

This, I guess, is the thrust of my original OP; since the Rosary is a meditative/complitative prayer, I myself would find it very difficult to multitask with mass and get anything out of it. However, if someone recites parts of it during the lull in mass, for lack of a better term, or to focus specifically on a certain part of mass, I understand how that could be helpful.

Again, personally, I only see that either the mass or the Rosary gets diluted from the other when both are completely attempted together if that makes sense. Awkward sentence, I realize.

 

[ac_claire]

Are you kidding? It was basically said that older documents are correct and new ones dealing with the same issue are not.

Was it? Where did I say that Snert?

The old document you quoted was from Pope Pius I believe. I said that was too old and I would like to see post-Vatican documents. ac claire said sarcastically that of course we should ignore the old documents (and don’t tell me I’m paranoid here, that was sarcastic with the “lol” after it.) I explained that we must take the newer documents as correct, unless overturned again. She didn’t like that.

Nothing was overturned, that’s my point. Nothing was abrogated. We have two conflicting opinions in official Church documents re: a private devotion. You’ve come out and said that in this case, the *more recent *documents cancel out the older. That’s what I challenge.

If you want to ditch the older/newer argument entirely, let’s look at the number of opinions either way. There’s been at least three three official Church documents affirming the practice, one of them written by a saint and one (that I know of) that’s more recent which calls it a mistake.

 

[japhy]

When has being a sedevacantist been evil?

I didn’t realize sede’s were hated with a passion. I know they are not respected, but thinking they are just this side of Satan?

No one in this thread has made such claims, that sedevacantists are “evil” or “just this side of Satan”. Who here said they hate sedevacantists with a passion?

Catholics who accept the validity of Popes since and including Pius XII take offense at being called a sedevacantist, plain and simple. No hate involved.