Saying the Rosary During Mass...Is it OK?

[Spiller]

Ignore it all you want. Your true intent was obvious from the post.

Not true. For you to say that suggests there is a problem with you.

If somehow the custom of praying the rosary began with the promulgation of the Pauline Mass, you can bet “traditionalists” would be ON-FIRE about how “abusive” the practice is, etc. etc.

The fact is many people prayed the rosary during Mass because they had no idea what was going on in the sanctuary. If you want to get technical about it, my sample was large enough and representative enough for me to make that statement with confidence – at least for those attending Mass in the USA.

 

[ElizabethPH]

A fair percentage used to pray the Rosary during the Tridentine Mass, and no it was not prohibited. They had no clue about what was going on in the sanctuary so they did something else.

I don’t think this is right.

I grew up before VatII and as today the rosary was said before Mass. There has always been the very few who say rosary during Mass though.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

Amazing as it may seem to you most of us did know what was going on in the sanctuary, despite what you have been told by the Traditional Mass haters who frequent these sites… We were taught what happened in our catechism classes and were expected to pay attention to what happened at the altar.

Did some people pray the Rosary? Yes some did. Not all. Not a majority. But yes some did. Some still do.,

But please don’t make an moronic statement like you just did, especially when they have a few of us who were around in those days and actually know better.

I was in high school when the mass changes were put into effect so I do remember a much larger percentage of older people saying the rosary during mass. It’s unfair to say those people ‘didn’t have a clue’ but they didn’t really follow what was going on. They knew that the consecration meant Jesus became present (hence the bells so they would know when) and they were praying as best they could. Today, if someone listens and prays along with the priest, it is easier to pray the mass. I prayed the mass before this, because I used my St. Joseph Daily Missal. So it was easy for me back then but not for everyone.

I really object to your adversarial use of the term Traditional Mass Haters. I loved the traditional mass and went daily. The change was difficult, especially with all the experimentation. But I love the new mass also. I don’t think there are traditional mass haters but there are people who get very impatient with those who idealize the tridentine mass and don’t even want to attend a non-latin mass, who think it is something less. I have even spoken with people who deny it is the same sacrifice!

My father was appalled at the change from Latin. When he was brought up in the 1920’s he was taught that the mass was the same all over the world. I guess he wasn’t aware of the other rites in communion with Rome. Latin was familiar to him and he liked what he was raised with and the sense of mystery. He used a missal so he did know what was going on. But not everyone reads easily. Today those who find that reading helps them to follow the mass can use the missalettes. I find that I focus on the prayers better by listening rather than reading. The liturgy of the word is more meaningful to me when it is proclaimed in English.

Whether someone goes to the ‘old’ or ‘new’ mass should be a matter of preference, not a condemnation of the ones who prefer the other form.

Some say the Latin mass was more reverent. I disagree. The behavior of the people was more reverent because they were taught to behave reverently. But after Vatican II there was an attempt to emphasize that mass wasn’t just a God and me experience. So more interaction between the people was encouraged. What I see as lack of reverence at mass, some of my friends and some priests see as fellowshipping. I consider this a defect in catechesis of priests at a certain time period and of the people.

 

[Jennifer_G]

I don’t think this is right.

I grew up before VatII and as today the rosary was said before Mass. There has always been the very few who say rosary during Mass though.

I still see a couple of people praying the Rosary before a Mass (our parish has a daily Rosary (plus Divine Mercy chaplet) after the last daily Mass. Now, saying the Rosary takes 20-30 minutes, so that would take up almost the first part of the Mass up to the Homily. I do recall reading somewhere that you shouldn’t pray the Rosary during Mass, though.

 

[Spiller]

I don’t think this is right.

I grew up before VatII and as today the rosary was said before Mass. There has always been the very few who say rosary during Mass though.

As a kid ( close, but post VC2) I still remember quite a few of the elders praying the Rosary during the Pauline Mass – easily in excess of 25%.

 

[Spiller]

I was in high school when the mass changes were put into effect so I do remember a much larger percentage of older people saying the rosary during mass. It’s unfair to say those people ‘didn’t have a clue’ but they didn’t really follow what was going on. They knew that the consecration meant Jesus became present (hence the bells so they would know when) and they were praying as best they could. Today, if someone listens and prays along with the priest, it is easier to pray the mass. I prayed the mass before this, because I used my St. Joseph Daily Missal. So it was easy for me back then but not for everyone.

Point taken. Your description is both more accurate and tactful. The ringing of the sanctus bells should have been to create a joyous noise to God however, and not to grab peoples’ attention.

I really object to your adversarial use of the term Traditional Mass Haters. I loved the traditional mass and went daily. The change was difficult, especially with all the experimentation. But I love the new mass also. I don’t think there are traditional mass haters but there are people who get very impatient with those who idealize the tridentine mass and don’t even want to attend a non-latin mass, who think it is something less. I have even spoken with people who deny it is the same sacrifice!

I agree 100% Both Masses are gorgeous and both are prone to abuses.

My father was appalled at the change from Latin. When he was brought up in the 1920’s he was taught that the mass was the same all over the world. I guess he wasn’t aware of the other rites in communion with Rome. Latin was familiar to him and he liked what he was raised with and the sense of mystery. He used a missal so he did know what was going on. But not everyone reads easily. Today those who find that reading helps them to follow the mass can use the missalettes. I find that I focus on the prayers better by listening rather than reading. ** The liturgy of the word is more meaningful to me when it is proclaimed in English.**

This is true for me too – but I still use a missalette.

Whether someone goes to the ‘old’ or ‘new’ mass should be a matter of preference, not a condemnation of the ones who prefer the other form.

One would certainly hope!

Some say the Latin mass was more reverent. I disagree. The behavior of the people was more reverent because they were taught to behave reverently. But after Vatican II there was an attempt to emphasize that mass wasn’t just a God and me experience. So more interaction between the people was encouraged. What I see as lack of reverence at mass, some of my friends and some priests see as fellowshipping. I consider this a defect in catechesis of priests at a certain time period and of the people.

YES!! That last paragraph is extremely well said. Thank you.

 

[palmas85]

I was in high school when the mass changes were put into effect so I do remember a much larger percentage of older people saying the rosary during mass. It’s unfair to say those people ‘didn’t have a clue’ but they didn’t really follow what was going on. They knew that the consecration meant Jesus became present (hence the bells so they would know when) and they were praying as best they could. Today, if someone listens and prays along with the priest, it is easier to pray the mass. I prayed the mass before this, because I used my St. Joseph Daily Missal. So it was easy for me back then but not for everyone.

I really object to your adversarial use of the term Traditional Mass Haters. I loved the traditional mass and went daily. The change was difficult, especially with all the experimentation. But I love the new mass also. I don’t think there are traditional mass haters but there are people who get very impatient with those who idealize the tridentine mass and don’t even want to attend a non-latin mass, who think it is something less. I have even spoken with people who deny it is the same sacrifice!

My father was appalled at the change from Latin. When he was brought up in the 1920’s he was taught that the mass was the same all over the world. I guess he wasn’t aware of the other rites in communion with Rome. Latin was familiar to him and he liked what he was raised with and the sense of mystery. He used a missal so he did know what was going on. But not everyone reads easily. Today those who find that reading helps them to follow the mass can use the missalettes. I find that I focus on the prayers better by listening rather than reading. The liturgy of the word is more meaningful to me when it is proclaimed in English.

Whether someone goes to the ‘old’ or ‘new’ mass should be a matter of preference, not a condemnation of the ones who prefer the other form.

Some say the Latin mass was more reverent. I disagree. The behavior of the people was more reverent because they were taught to behave reverently. But after Vatican II there was an attempt to emphasize that mass wasn’t just a God and me experience. So more interaction between the people was encouraged. What I see as lack of reverence at mass, some of my friends and some priests see as fellowshipping. I consider this a defect in catechesis of priests at a certain time period and of the people.

I use the term Traditional Mass haters because that is exactly what some posters on this forum are. They will always bring up things like 5 minute speed masses, nobody understanding what was going on in the Sanctuary, priests mouthing nonsense or saying nothing at all, everybody or a large majority saying rosaries because they felt completely disconnected from the Mass etc. ad nauseum.

If they are not, then why constantly post and re-post these things that lend nothing to the discussion and serve only to denigrate the Traditional Mass? Especially when a large number of the ones making these statements weren’t even there but have gotten all of their information second or third hand?

I never said the poster was a Traditional Mass hater nor identified anyone else for that matter. But if the shoe fits…

 

[Spiller]

I use the term Traditional Mass haters because that is exactly what some posters on this forum are. They will always bring up things like 5 minute speed masses, nobody understanding what was going on in the Sanctuary, priests mouthing nonsense or saying nothing at all, everybody or a large majority saying rosaries because they felt completely disconnected from the Mass etc. ad nauseum.

Said people must be analogous to the “Pauline Mass Haters” who believe the Tridentine Mass is somehow superior (it’s not) and that all the ills of the Church derive from the “NO Mass.”

If they are not, then why constantly post and re-post these things that lend nothing to the discussion and serve only to denigrate the Traditional Mass? Especially when a large number of the ones making these statements weren’t even there but have gotten all of their information second or third hand?

Because in this case it’s true. The question you should be asking yourself is the genesis of the huge chip on your shoulder. If you immediately blame others then you probably haven’t found the real reason for it.

I never said the poster was a Traditional Mass hater nor identified anyone else for that matter. But if the shoe fits…

Your inferences speak out loud and clear.

 

[palmas85]

Said people must be analogous to the “Pauline Mass Haters” who believe the Tridentine Mass is somehow superior (it’s not) and that all the ills of the Church derive from the “NO Mass.”

Because in this case it’s true. The question you should be asking yourself is the genesis of the huge chip on your shoulder. If you immediately blame others then you probably haven’t found the real reason for it.

Your inferences speak out loud and clear.

Well, I’ve never denigrated the Pauline Mass in any way. I have never reported an abuse that I did not see first hand as being factual, and as a side note I’ve seen a lot that I haven’t put on here because there is really no need to.

The ills in the Church must certainly derive from many things. A lack of reverence is certainly among them. All too often the attitude in the Pauline Mass is one that is totally carefree and lacks any reverence whatsoever. I don’t blame the Mass for that. Heck i attend a very reverent and orthodox Pauline Rite Mass myself at St Patricks Church in New Orleans. If all Pauline Masses were done that way, there would be no problem.

But they aren’t and, I blame the self styled innovators who feel they can do whatever they want with it, change whatever they want and make it their own personal.plaything. I will give a perfect example. I was an RCIA instructor at a Parish in San Diego. The Director of the program had the Catechumans and Candidates pick which readings they wanted to have for a special Mass after their Baptism. OK. They picked as a Gospel reading something from the Book of Revelation that they found attractive. The other instructor and I told them the Gospel reading had to come from the Gospels, Matthew Mark Luke or John. They got upset and went to the Director. The director said it didn’t matter and presented it to the Liturgical Committee. They OK’d it, no problem and sent it to the Pastor… The Pastor said it did matter, in fact it mattered a lot, and refused use it.

The director then asked a friend of hers, a Priest very active in the women for priest movement in California by the way ,to celebrate the Mass, He did so at another Church, and used as a Gospel reading the passage from Revelation. He said it was more important that the newly baptized FEEL that they were making a contribution than to stand on the GIRM.

I believe the Holy Father sees the same thing and is hoping that by making the Traditional Mass more readily available, that people will once again gain a sense of appreciation for what the Mass is and exhibit more reverence in the Mass.

I don’t really understand the inference to the huge chip on my shoulder. If people constantly post things that aren’t true or at a minimum are blatant exagerrations then what is their purpose if not to denigrate or destroy something that they hate? As I see it their intentions very very clear.

Yes I suppose the inference does:thumbsup: . It is also pretty clear. If someone wants to put a shoe on and cry out that it fits them thats on them, not me.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

This thread is closed. Thank you all.