The Luminous Mysteries

[bubbaman]

Isn’t ironic how we went from, Do you include the Luminus Mysteries when you recite the rosary to weather Pope John Paul II was perfect or not. Well I do! Makes me wonder why the Church is in such a sorry state. If you don’t believe that popes are inspired by the Holy Spirit, both during the election period and than as they serve for the rest of their lives, than our faith, our catholic faith is in great jeopardy. Fact is no one is perfect, no pope, no man. The only human to obtain such a perfect record was Mary, born with no stain of sin, and no desire to sin. I doubt very much Pope John Paul II after all that he has accomblished decided one day to lead all of down the road to perdition by offering another set of mysteries to the rosary.

By the way, today being Thursday, how many of you’s said the rosary today and how many said the Luminus mysteries?

 

[Sherry_G]

I said the Luminous Mysteries today and love meditating on them, especially the 3rd and the 5th mysteries! The experience is so enriching and has expanded my understanding and deepened my faith even more each time I pray these mysteries. JP II, thank you!

 

[bubbaman]

I said the Luminous Mysteries today and love meditating on them, especially the 3rd and the 5th mysteries! The experience is so enriching and has expanded my understanding and deepened my faith even more each time I pray these mysteries. JP II, thank you!

Me to and I couldn’t agree with you more!

 

[dusza]

Man, I sure find it interesting how people think they’re respecting Our Lady’s wishes in regards to the rosary by second guessing the pope. I’m sure JPII really made Her mad by adding those luminous mysteries. Don’t even get them started on the Divine Mercy chaplet.

 

[WFS5801]

Isn’t ironic how we went from, Do you include the Luminus Mysteries when you recite the rosary to weather Pope John Paul II was perfect or not. Well I do! Makes me wonder why the Church is in such a sorry state. If you don’t believe that popes are inspired by the Holy Spirit, both during the election period and than as they serve for the rest of their lives, than our faith, our catholic faith is in great jeopardy. Fact is no one is perfect, no pope, no man. The only human to obtain such a perfect record was Mary, born with no stain of sin, and no desire to sin. I doubt very much Pope John Paul II after all that he has accomblished decided one day to lead all of down the road to perdition by offering another set of mysteries to the rosary.

By the way, today being Thursday, how many of you’s said the rosary today and how many said the Luminus mysteries?

Do you really think that every decision the Pope makes is inspired by the Holy Ghost? Are you aware of the required conditions for Papal Infallibility? Pope John Paul II’s proposed Luminous Mysteries don’t meet any of these requirements. His proposal was just that, a “proposal.” Not binding on all the Faithful – he never intended it to be. And, since we’re talking about a private devotion, this is obviously not a dogmatic decree on faith or morals.

I realize that even non-dogmatic Papal pronouncements should be taken seriously, but the Faithful have the right to reserve judgment on these. Which is what I’ve done for the reasons I’ve given repeatedly. What I don’t understand is why everyone is fixated on conformity to Pope John Paull II’s proposal. I don’t know of anyone, who prefers praying the traditional Rosary, getting upset about folks praying the Luminous Mysteries. (They’re probably somewhere, but I haven’t met anyone.)

As for tonight, at Mass we prayed the Glorious Mysteries because it was the Mass of the Feast of the Ascension. It was kind of sad to see the Easter Candle put out after the reading of the Gospel.

 

[WFS5801]

Man, I sure find it interesting how people think they’re respecting Our Lady’s wishes in regards to the rosary by second guessing the pope. I’m sure JPII really made Her mad by adding those luminous mysteries. Don’t even get them started on the Divine Mercy chaplet.

Ridicule. Why do so many Catholics so often ridicule traditional Catholics for wanting to stick with their traditional devotions, while bending over to accept Buddhists, Protestants or Muslims into the “fold?” Why the tolerance for those who despise Catholics, and the contrasting pharisaical zealotry against fellow Catholics who merely want to worship as the Church has worshiped for hundreds of years? Something is badly out of balance here.

 

[Dancelittleewok]

Do you really think that every decision the Pope makes is inspired by the Holy Ghost? Are you aware of the required conditions for Papal Infallibility? Pope John Paul II’s proposed Luminous Mysteries don’t meet any of these requirements. His proposal was just that, a “proposal.” Not binding on all the Faithful – he never intended it to be. And, since we’re talking about a private devotion, this is obviously not a dogmatic decree on faith or morals.

No one here said any of what you claim: it’s quite a leap to presume that one doesn’t know the conditions for infallibility or all of JP II’s decisions were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Just because one believes Luminous Mysteries decision is inspired, it doesn’t follow that one believes all JP II’s decisions are: some is not all. From what I’ve read, you’re the only person to bring up infallibility, not the opposition. Please address the arguments as is.

I realize that even non-dogmatic Papal pronouncements should be taken seriously, but the Faithful have the right to reserve judgment on these. Which is what I’ve done for the reasons I’ve given repeatedly. What I don’t understand is why everyone is fixated on conformity to Pope John Paull II’s proposal. I don’t know of anyone, who prefers praying the traditional Rosary, getting upset about folks praying the Luminous Mysteries. (They’re probably somewhere, but I haven’t met anyone.)

I don’t see anyone here “fixated on conformity to Pope John Paul II’s proposal.” The Rosary, while a great pious prayer, isn’t a requirement for the faithful nor are the Mysteries prayed. Since prayer is primarily pastoral, then the faithful can either pray the traditional or added Luminous Mysteries, don’t you agree?

As for tonight, at Mass we prayed the Glorious Mysteries because it was the Mass of the Feast of the Ascension. It was kind of sad to see the Easter Candle put out after the reading of the Gospel.

 

[Dancelittleewok]

Ridicule. Why do so many Catholics so often ridicule traditional Catholics for wanting to stick with their traditional devotions, while bending over to accept Buddhists, Protestants or Muslims into the “fold?” Why the tolerance for those who despise Catholics, and the contrasting pharisaical zealotry against fellow Catholics who merely want to worship as the Church has worshiped for hundreds of years? Something is badly out of balance here.

Red herring. If you want to pray the Rosary minus the Luminous Mysteries, all power to you.

 

[WFS5801]

Red herring. If you want to pray the Rosary minus the Luminous Mysteries, all power to you.

No, it’s not a red herring. I see these smarmy, small-minded, “wink-wink” attacks against traditional Catholics all the time. Absolutely no charity in it.

And if you want a “red herring” look into who started using supposed disrespect for John Paul II when I (and others) stated clearly other reasons why we didn’t start saying the Luminous Mysteries.

 

[Like]

No, it’s not a red herring. I see these smarmy, small-minded, “wink-wink” attacks against traditional Catholics all the time. Absolutely no charity in it.

And if you want a “red herring” look into who started using supposed disrespect for John Paul II when I (and others) stated clearly other reasons why we didn’t start saying the Luminous Mysteries.

I am a 70 YO Cradle Traditional Catholic and I prefer to say the Luminous Mysteries and do understand them to be only a proposal & non binding. But then again, I am not a anti-John Paul II Rad. Traditionalist!

 

[Holly3278]

Yep, I certainly do pray the Luminous Mysteries. If Pope John Paul II liked them (which he apparently did) then they’re good enough for me too!

 

[JimMc]

I’ve really enjoyed reading all the responses to this topic.
I learn quite a bit from all of them.

As I’m reading them two thoughts came to my mind:
1 - People who say the rosary love God, our Lady, and the Church. It is a completely voluntary prayer – and those who pray it are really good people.
2 - To put things in perspective – I just recently had conversations with an ex-Catholic, and a self proclaimed “pagan” – both were really hurting & I believe reaching out for the truth we have in the Catholic Church.

We need to pray the rosary now more than ever. If you want to include the luminous mysteries - you can! If you don’t - you don’t have to. It is a beautiful part of our faith - and keep in mind that you are on the front lines in bringing the gospel to the world. Sometimes we get caught up in our own little world and we forget the true graces God gives us through our prayers – & that we are the light of the world / salt of the earth…

 

[Dancelittleewok]

No, it’s not a red herring. I see these smarmy, small-minded, “wink-wink” attacks against traditional Catholics all the time. Absolutely no charity in it.

And if you want a “red herring” look into who started using supposed disrespect for John Paul II when I (and others) stated clearly other reasons why we didn’t start saying the Luminous Mysteries.

I have no desire to go down on another red herring about which side is more charitable than the other. I trust the lurkers and fellow posters to judge for themselves.

Are you in agreement with us that the Rosary, while a great pious prayer, and its Mysteries are not a requirement for the faithful since this is a primary pastoral matter?

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

I agree that Pope John Paul II was a human person who had flaws just as any human person does. I’m sure he struggled with sin and stubbed his toe now and then just as all of us do. I agree he was far from perfect. I agree he was a human being. I agree he was not an angel and certainly not God. Nevertheless, I think he was a saint. As you said, he was a good and holy man and perhaps that holiness should be recognized more than his flaws. Indeed, perhaps that should be true for all of us.

Well, I don’t think he was a walking talking saint before his death. I have to agree with palmas85. I mean this in a kind way, as I’m only giving my opinion, but I don’t think JPII should be made a saint. Sanctification is for the holiest of people, and I mean the holiest. I don’t think he should be made a saint just because people say he was the subject of the Third Secret of Fatima when in reality that secret was not the real Third Secret.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

Do you really think that every decision the Pope makes is inspired by the Holy Ghost? Are you aware of the required conditions for Papal Infallibility? Pope John Paul II’s proposed Luminous Mysteries don’t meet any of these requirements. His proposal was just that, a “proposal.” Not binding on all the Faithful – he never intended it to be. And, since we’re talking about a private devotion, this is obviously not a dogmatic decree on faith or morals.

I realize that even non-dogmatic Papal pronouncements should be taken seriously, but the Faithful have the right to reserve judgment on these. Which is what I’ve done for the reasons I’ve given repeatedly. What I don’t understand is why everyone is fixated on conformity to Pope John Paull II’s proposal. I don’t know of anyone, who prefers praying the traditional Rosary, getting upset about folks praying the Luminous Mysteries. (They’re probably somewhere, but I haven’t met anyone.)

As for tonight, at Mass we prayed the Glorious Mysteries because it was the Mass of the Feast of the Ascension. It was kind of sad to see the Easter Candle put out after the reading of the Gospel.

True.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

Ridicule. Why do so many Catholics so often ridicule traditional Catholics for wanting to stick with their traditional devotions, while bending over to accept Buddhists, Protestants or Muslims into the “fold?” Why the tolerance for those who despise Catholics, and the contrasting pharisaical zealotry against fellow Catholics who merely want to worship as the Church has worshiped for hundreds of years? Something is badly out of balance here.

Good question. It’s not an easy question for me to answer, but the best way I can put it is that many Catholic have been tricked by Vatican II into believing that all religions are equally acceptable and that it does not matter whether you are Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, etc. This is a belief that originates from freemasonry. This belief somehow managed to find its way into Vatican II and here we are today with Popes accepting other religions and apparently offering sacrifices to false gods. We must remember that Vatican II threw Tradition out the window and so now anyone that follows it is persecuted. However, you and I both know what we believe in is right.

 

[Sherry_G]

May I humbly suggest that you study Vatican II in earnest? I am a traditional Catholic myself and have heard all the negatives about Vatican II so made a decision to study it carefully for myself. What generalities people throw around and disparage our faith really is a true shame. I pray for Catholics everywhere who are weak in their faith and unable to speak out for correct Catholic Doctrine and sometimes even disparage our Popes, Cardinals, Bishops and Priests. Father Mitch Pacwa has a series about Vatican II if you are not a reader and prefer to listen and learn.

 

[dusza]

Ridicule. Why do so many Catholics so often ridicule traditional Catholics for wanting to stick with their traditional devotions, while bending over to accept Buddhists, Protestants or Muslims into the “fold?” Why the tolerance for those who despise Catholics, and the contrasting pharisaical zealotry against fellow Catholics who merely want to worship as the Church has worshiped for hundreds of years? Something is badly out of balance here.

Now, that there is a very charitable response (wink, wink). The ONLY reason I don’t officially proclaim myself “traditionalist” (but note the link to traditionalist sermons in my signature) is because I’m seeing a whole lot of “holier than thou” attitudes by the likes proudly displaying Latin aliases. That’s very unfortunate, because I believe their minds are in the right place (only God knows their hearts). Unfortunately, arguing that the pope is somehow disrespecting Our Lady’s wishes is precisely what’s out of balance. We’re talking about the most virtuous human being that ever lived or will live being “disrespected” by the vicar of Christ on earth. Uh-huh… Remember, every tradition was once new including the rosary. The bottom line is, say the luminous mysteries or not, it’s not anyone’s place here to second guess the pope and imply that he somehow screwed up. It’s not about the rosary or tradition. It’s about humility, piety, obedience, etc. Let’s not lose sight of the forest for the trees.

“It’s all about the fruits, stupid” Dusza

 

[Dancelittleewok]

Good question. It’s not an easy question for me to answer, but the best way I can put it is that many Catholic have been tricked by Vatican II into believing that all religions are equally acceptable and that it does not matter whether you are Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, etc. This is a belief that originates from freemasonry. This belief somehow managed to find its way into Vatican II and here we are today with Popes accepting other religions and apparently offering sacrifices to false gods. We must remember that Vatican II threw Tradition out the window and so now anyone that follows it is persecuted. However, you and I both know what we believe in is right.

Another red herring: we are talking about Luminous Mysteries…

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I am Catholic. Are you? I can even read and comprehend things. Can you?
Apparently not. Please show me where I said anything remotely disrespectful about the late Holy father.

I don’t pretend I can speak for others here, but suffice it to say I don’t think your arguments were uncharitable in any way. Just logically tortured.

What is it with you guys, you don’t know how to read or what?.

Please show me where I even mentioned the Luminous Mysteries.

This thread is about the Luminous Mysteries. Let’s review the discussion in order to stamp out all obfuscation:

JMJ_coder implied that traditionalist objections against the Luminous Mysteries - and I acknowledge that you yourself did not pose any, palmas - are unlikely to be valid, because it was JPII who added them. You responded:

So what you are saying is that every action taken by every Pope was and is good and proper. Is that about right?

Now, JMJ_coder’s argument was, admittedly, an argument from authority, which is the weakest type of argument. But that doesn’t change the fact that the above reply is a total straw man. Thus, palmas, I believe you are guilty of twisting your interlocutor’s words far more than he is.

JMJ_coder went on to point out that he made no such assumption, nor is it necessary to do so in order to make his argument valid - not every action by every pope is good, but JPII was a very holy man, and an action undertaken by him is unlikely to be guilty of the kinds of things some have been accusing the Luminous Mysteries of - i.e. throwing tradition out the window, damaging the structure of the Rosary, etc.

Then, palmas, you shamelessly put forward another straw man: namely, accusing JMJ_coder’s argument of needing to assume that JPII was perfect.

You then ended your reply by implying that anyone who would use JPII’s personal holiness as a way of inductively defending the validity of the Luminous Mysteries is probably guilty of worshipping John Paul II. It wasn’t uncharitable - just over-the-top and logically tortured.

Sometimes I think some of you ardent John Paul II supporters actually worship him instead of God…

Well done.

Go ahead show me. Show me where I denigrated the Luminous mysteries and those that pray them. Go ahead, do it.

You did no such thing; I admit it.

You as well as the previous poster that I responded to cannot do so because I didn’t. I said that there are those who seem to believe that the late Holy Father was perfect in every way and could not err no matter what he did. Those people DO seem as if they worship him and have for a long time.

Untrue. To make the argument JMJ_coder did - and it was a weak, inductive argument, I admit - in no way presumes or implies that John Paul II could not err. It’s based on probability and inductive reasoning, not necessity.

Ridicule.

Bombast.

In all seriousness, let’s get real, here. Just as nothing palmas85 said was in any way uncharitable, so too was nothing dusza said guilty of ridicule.

I find it strange that many on this thread - on both “sides” - are choosing to accuse each other of being mean rather than engaging each other’s arguments. I thought we cared about truth, and that it’s this world that belittles it in favor of holding up politically correct niceness…

Why do so many Catholics so often ridicule traditional Catholics for wanting to stick with their traditional devotions, while bending over to accept Buddhists, Protestants or Muslims into the “fold?” Why the tolerance for those who despise Catholics, and the contrasting pharisaical zealotry against fellow Catholics who merely want to worship as the Church has worshiped for hundreds of years? Something is badly out of balance here.

Well, perhaps some are guilty of such hypocrisy. And I’m sorry for it.

But too often traditionalists fail to distinguish between two very different things: (1) sticking to traditional practices, and (2) implying - often in passive-aggressive ways - that the alternatives to these traditional practices are unacceptable or inferior.

Honestly, sometimes I think traditionalists and modernistic pluralists have a lot in common: they both expect their arguments to be handled with kid gloves, out of either a false sense of charity (trads) or out of a shallow, secular ideal of relativistic kindness (pluralists). As I said above, I thought we cared about truth, and that it’s this world that belittles it in favor of holding up politically correct niceness… “that’s not nice” is not a good response to an argument.