The Luminous Mysteries

  • Thread starter Thread starter CatholicLife
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
WFS5801 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Actually, I find the whole passive-aggressive, “wink-wink” style of attack to be a tactic more often used by traditionalists than otherwise. But please be comforted in knowing that - with the exception of stupid radicals who have knee-jerk reactions against anything older than the '60s - those who argue with traditionalists most often have no problem with the beautiful, time-honored traditions of the Roman rite of the Catholic Church. It’s the intellectually confused, emotionally over-the-top reactions and arguments of many “traditionalists” which are the intended objects of criticism - for which the reply is all too often, “That was uncharitable!” In other words, “Your arguments hurt my feelings.” Well, sorry, but they’re true!

Now that said, please let me say that I do not think that you’re guilty of this in this thread, WFS5801. I’m speaking generally, which is perfectly valid, because you also are (perfectly validly) speaking generally. I’m just responding to your general perceptions with general ones of my own.
 
WFS5801 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Curious to know why you were praying the rosary as part of Mass? I assume you mean that a group prayed the rosary together before Mass?
 
Fone_Bone_2001 said:
Oh, really? Tricked by Vatican II? Show me where the Second Vatican Council asserted that all religions are equally acceptable. Show me – quote a line from a document. You won’t be able to do it. You know why? Because it never said that.

See, traditionalists – and not all of them are guilty of this, not by a long shot! - really shouldn’t whine the way some of them do that people are uncharitable toward their positions, because this is the kind of drivel that sometimes comes out of the mouths of self-proclaimed “traditionalists.”

That’s not uncharitable of me, it’s just true. “Vatican II threw Tradition out the window”? It’s mind-numbingly simplistic, nonsensical rhetoric. It’s embarrassing. I’m honestly embarrassed. There’s no credibility to such claims at all.

Fortunately, I know enough not to judge all traditionalists by the rhetoric of some, nor to judge the great traditions of our church by those who claim to be their steadfast defenders.

But not everyone knows enough not to do so. And that, frankly, disturbs me.
Click to expand...
You are correct, Vatican II never SAID that, although you have just proven one of my points. The reason Vatican II fooled so many people is because they never gave a description of what they were doing. John XXIII’s remark about “opening the windows and letting in a little fresh air” does not indicate exactly what he meant, it only shows how ridiculous his comment was. What was wrong with the Church before Vatican II? Not that it was free of problems, but why did he need to “let in a little fresh air”? The documents do not go into any deep detail what-so-ever. They knew that if they revealed what they were really doing people would not accept it, so they covered it up.

Vatican II basically did throw Tradition out the window. If you don’t think they did, try explaining why they tried to do away with the Traditional Latin Mass (notice I have the word “Traditional” underlined here).
 
SpiritusSanctus said:
The documents do not go into any deep detail what-so-ever. They knew that if they revealed what they were really doing people would not accept it, so they covered it up.
Click to expand...
Wow, and here you go with your baseless claims again that are totally unsupported by either the documents, the historians who were there, and the fact that even Archbishop Lefevbre voted for the documents. The amount of detail the documents go into and the breadth of the references cited in them to previous tradition, scripture and Tradition is extensive.

You have openly admitted on more than one occasion that you have never read the documents (and don’t need to!) so you would be best off discontinuing your practice of telling people what is in them and what they really (wink, wink) mean since you don’t have a clue as compared to those who have read and studied them, along with the history leading up to them and the commentaries.

People who were “tricked” into thinking all religions are equal are on the same page as you in having not read the documents as the documents specifically say the opposite. Like you, they just listen to people with agendas that are outside the Church’s teaching or rely on what they read on the internet.

It isn’t the council that is the problem. It is ignorance of what the council really said and did that is the problem. The “spirit” of Vatican II, as compared to the reality, is alive and well on BOTH ends of the spectrum. 😦
 
gospel_life said:
Wow, and here you go with your baseless claims again that are totally unsupported by either the documents, the historians who were there, and the fact that even Archbishop Lefevbre voted for the documents. The amount of detail the documents go into and the breadth of the references cited in them to previous tradition, scripture and Tradition is extensive.

You have openly admitted on more than one occasion that you have never read the documents (and don’t need to!) so you would be best off discontinuing your practice of telling people what is in them and what they really (wink, wink) mean since you don’t have a clue as compared to those who have read and studied them, along with the history leading up to them and the commentaries.

People who were “tricked” into thinking all religions are equal are on the same page as you in having not read the documents as the documents specifically say the opposite. Like you, they just listen to people with agendas that are outside the Church’s teaching or rely on what they read on the internet.

It isn’t the council that is the problem. It is ignorance of what the council really said and did that is the problem. The “spirit” of Vatican II, as compared to the reality, is alive and well on BOTH ends of the spectrum. 😦
Click to expand...
First of all, I have read a few lines of the documents. I have actually been considering reading the full documents just to see what the fuss is about, even though I anticipate in advance that my stance on the matter will not change after reading the documents. Even the few lines I have read indicate that no detail about what occured at the Council was added to the documents at all. Not to mention interent sources about what happened at the Council already tell me that they would never have revealed what went on. Just like why they didn’t reveal the Third Secret of Fatima, they knew if they did they’d let the cat out of the bag and un-do everything Vatican II managed to change, so they released a false Third Secret instead.

As for Archbishop LeFebvre, he later admitted accepting the documents was a mistake. Most of it was not his fault anyway. If the documents did not reveal what was really going on, how could he have known NOT to accept them? He tried to be more obedient at the time but eventually realized Vatican II was not upholding Tradition so he opposed the Council and the new Mass.
 
SpiritusSanctus said:
First of all, I have read a few lines of the documents. I have actually been considering reading the full documents just to see what the fuss is about, even though I anticipate in advance that my stance on the matter will not change after reading the documents. Even the few lines I have read indicate that no detail about what occured at the Council was added to the documents at all. Not to mention interent sources about what happened at the Council already tell me that they would never have revealed what went on. Just like why they didn’t reveal the Third Secret of Fatima, they knew if they did they’d let the cat out of the bag and un-do everything Vatican II managed to change, so they released a false Third Secret instead.

As for Archbishop LeFebvre, he later admitted accepting the documents was a mistake. Most of it was not his fault anyway. If the documents did not reveal what was really going on, how could he have known NOT to accept them? He tried to be more obedient at the time but eventually realized Vatican II was not upholding Tradition so he opposed the Council and the new Mass.
Click to expand...
Wise beyond your years, I’m sure! Never allow the facts to influence a personal opinion!
 
palmas85 said:
My retort would be that just because a Pope does something does not automatically make it right.
Click to expand...
That may be true, but when it comes from a Pope who was obviously as holy as JPII was, it sure can’t hurt. I definitely pray the Luminous Mysteries and encourage all of you who have been avoiding them to pray them.
 
SpiritusSanctus said:
First of all, I have read a few lines of the documents. I have actually been considering reading the full documents just to see what the fuss is about, even though I anticipate in advance that my stance on the matter will not change after reading the documents. Even the few lines I have read indicate that no detail about what occured at the Council was added to the documents at all. Not to mention interent sources about what happened at the Council already tell me that they would never have revealed what went on. Just like why they didn’t reveal the Third Secret of Fatima, they knew if they did they’d let the cat out of the bag and un-do everything Vatican II managed to change, so they released a false Third Secret instead.

As for Archbishop LeFebvre, he later admitted accepting the documents was a mistake. Most of it was not his fault anyway. If the documents did not reveal what was really going on, how could he have known NOT to accept them? He tried to be more obedient at the time but eventually realized Vatican II was not upholding Tradition so he opposed the Council and the new Mass.
Click to expand...
I really can’t do much more than shake my head in amazement. There are volumes written on every aspect of what went on at Vatican II by reliable sources who were there. The documents are the documents and they say what they say. What “occurred” at the council, whatever that is supposed to mean, is irrelevant anyway as the documents are there for one and all to read. You keep making claims about what they say and what detail isn’t there but you pure and simply don’t know. There are 16 documents composing hundreds of pages and you don’t get any sense of them from “reading a few lines”. But as you say, you’ve already got your mind made up from your internet sources that are out of communion with the Church so even a complete study would be unlikely to change anything for you.

As the saying goes, never let the facts get in the way of a good story. You can continue to spout all that drivel about what the documents say and what “really” went on, and you can continue to just make yourself look more and more foolish with each time you repeat it. No amount of repeating it will make it true though.
 
SpiritusSanctus said:
First of all, I have read a few lines of the documents. I have actually been considering reading the full documents just to see what the fuss is about, even though I anticipate in advance that my stance on the matter will not change after reading the documents. Even the few lines I have read indicate that no detail about what occured at the Council was added to the documents at all. Not to mention interent sources about what happened at the Council already tell me that they would never have revealed what went on. Just like why they didn’t reveal the Third Secret of Fatima, they knew if they did they’d let the cat out of the bag and un-do everything Vatican II managed to change, so they released a false Third Secret instead.

As for Archbishop LeFebvre, he later admitted accepting the documents was a mistake. Most of it was not his fault anyway. If the documents did not reveal what was really going on, how could he have known NOT to accept them? He tried to be more obedient at the time but eventually realized Vatican II was not upholding Tradition so he opposed the Council and the new Mass.
Click to expand...
…

:ouch:
 
dusza said:
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
Click to expand...
Nice straw man argument. Where did I say I “disrespected the Pope” or that he “disrespected Our Lady?” I said I prefer the old way of saying the Rosary, and listed three or four reasons for that preference. I also made the point that the Luminous Mysteries were not legislated, they were proposed – and that I am not under any obligation to pray them. For me it is about Tradition here, that is the reason I chose – not in opposition the Church’s teachings – to continue praying the traditional Rosary. It’s really that simple.
 
No. I never heard about the Luminous Mysteries until I came to this forum several years ago, and I was Catholic-school educated, as well as what I believed to be well-informed about Fatima. It seems so many posters here are acquainted with them. But I’ve grown up knowing the Joyful, Sorrowful and Glorious mysteries.

On an aside, OP’s icon of Our Lady is beautiful !
 
ConservativeOne, The Luminous Mysteries came into existence in the year 2002; which is why you did not grow up learning about them. But, now that you do know about them think about including these beautiful Mysteries in your daily Rosary. They are generally said on a Thursday and they include important parts of the life of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

:highprayer:
 
JustinKofC said:
That may be true, but when it comes from a Pope who was obviously as holy as JPII was, it sure can’t hurt. I definitely pray the Luminous Mysteries and encourage all of you who have been avoiding them to pray them.
Click to expand...
Why? Do you believe as do some posters here have intimated that the Rosary itself was incomplete prior to these mysteries being introduced?
 
I pray the Luminous Mysteries every Thursday. They are a great favourite with me because they bring up the other great events in the life of Christ as described in the Gospels.

I regard these Mysteries as a great gift from God.
 
palmas85 said:
Why? Do you believe as do some posters here have intimated that the Rosary itself was incomplete prior to these mysteries being introduced?
Click to expand...
All human prayer is incomplete in that it is God’s grace which first calls us to prayer and completes our prayer.
 
Not part of the Rosary given to us by the Mother of God. So no, I do not have anything to do with the Luminous Mysteries. Adding more mysteries would be saying Mary didn’t get it right the first time. People have enough trouble making time for the Rosary we were given by Mary. Adding more mysteries makes it all the more discouraging to keep up. This would be a trick of the devil, not to mention the name luminous is a word associated with the Masonic Order, as they consider themselves illuminated beings that worhship a higher power that is not God. Adding mysteries is another part of the destructive changes that have taken place since the Vatican 2 council that have caused so many to lose their faith.
 
Keith_B said:
Not part of the Rosary given to us by the Mother of God. So no, I do not have anything to do with the Luminous Mysteries. Adding more mysteries would be saying Mary didn’t get it right the first time. People have enough trouble making time for the Rosary we were given by Mary. Adding more mysteries makes it all the more discouraging to keep up. This would be a trick of the devil, not to mention the name luminous is a word associated with the Masonic Order, as they consider themselves illuminated beings that worhship a higher power that is not God. Adding mysteries is another part of the destructive changes that have taken place since the Vatican 2 council that have caused so many to lose their faith.
Click to expand...
OY!! 😃

I can hear JPII roll in his grave from here!!!

What is the big deal people?!?
Pray them, don’t pray them, does it really matter?!:confused:
It’s this kind of talk that, IMHO, makes so-called "traditional catholics’ look ridiculous!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top