The Rosary and the promises of Our Lady

[GaryTaylor]

Perhaps your post crossed with that of Hesychios. No one is saying that the Rosary is not true (whatever you mean by that).

Read about the history carefully, Gary. Don’t you trust the Catholic Encyclopedia? The pious story about St. Dominic is what’s not historically true.

As a matter of interest, what do you mean by the Rosary being true, anyway? Presumably you are not accusing fellow-Catholics of not accepting the events described in the Gospels, or of saying that Mary’s prayers are not powerful, or of not accepting that many people find saying the Rosary in its present form very helpful in their spiritual lives.

What exactly is bothering you? That a legend about St. Dominic doesn’t pass any historical test? How is that so important?

What are you talking about? Your all over the map. That is the Catholic History link I posted above.

Never said the Rosary was untrue. Another false conclusion you reached. Matter of Fact its a part of my life, how about you? You certainly seem to think it has pious historically NOT TRUE history in St Dominic. So then you expain. How did it reach its actual form its in today and has been since St Dominic. There is no other History showing this. Did you actually read the link above?

Do you believe the Blessed Mother could appear to YOU if she so desired?

Their is NO other History to dispute St Dominic. No history to prove this did not happen. As a matter of fact, because and my belief and experiences in this faith I’m positive it did happen. No-one anywhere can show us the Rosary being Prayed exactly as it is, but at this time?? So doesn’t that sort of confirm the History.

But it seems your lack of faith won’t let you reach that point? Why is that?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Read this carefully. Right here at this point, then tell me how you conclude St Dominic its a “Pious” historically untrue event. Wow, I see the existing problems now in society with our Faith.

These positive reasons for distrusting the current tradition might in a measure be ignored as archaeological refinements, if there were any satisfactory evidence to show that St. Dominic had identified himself with the pre-existing Rosary and become its apostle. But here we are met with absolute silence. Of the eight or nine early Lives of the saint, not one makes the faintest allusion to the Rosary. The witnesses who gave evidence in the cause of his canonization are equally reticent. In the great collection of documents accumulated by Fathers Balme and Lelaidier, O.P., in their “Cartulaire de St. Dominique” the question is studiously ignored. The early constitutions of the different provinces of the order have been examined, and many of them printed, but no one has found any reference to this devotion. We possess hundreds, even thousands, of manuscripts containing devotional treatises, sermons, chronicles, Saints’ lives, etc., written by the Friars Preachers between 1220 and 1450; but no single verifiable passage has yet been produced which speaks of the Rosary as instituted by St. Dominic or which even makes much of the devotion as one specially dear to his children. The charters and other deeds of the Dominican convents for men and women, as M. Jean Guiraud points out with emphasis in his edition of the Cartulaire of La Prouille (I, cccxxviii), are equally silent. Neither do we find any suggestion of a connection between St. Dominic and the Rosary in the paintings and sculptures of these two and a half centuries. Even the tomb of St. Dominic at Bologna and the numberless frescoes by Fra Angelico representing the brethren of his order ignore the Rosary completely.

Impressed by this conspiracy of silence, the Bollandists, on trying to trace to its source the origin of the current tradition, found that all the clues converged upon one point, the preaching of the Dominican Alan de Rupe about the years 1470-75. He it undoubtedly was who first suggested the idea that the devotion of “Our Lady’s Psalter” (a hundred and fifty Hail Marys) was instituted or revived by St. Dominic. Alan was a very earnest and devout man, but, as the highest authorities admit, he was full of delusions, and based his revelations on the imaginary testimony of writers that never existed (see Quétif and Echard, “Scriptores O.P.”, 1, 849). His preaching, however, was attended with much success. The Rosary Confraternities, organized by him and his colleagues at Douai, Cologne, and elsewhere had great vogue, and led to the printing of many books, all more or less impregnated with the ideas of Alan. Indulgences were granted for the good work that was thus being done and the documents conceding these indulgences accepted and repeated, as was natural in that uncritical age, the historical data which had been inspired by Alan’s writings and which were submitted according to the usual practice by the promoters of the confraternities themselves. It was in this way that the tradition of Dominican authorship grew up. The first Bulls speak of this authorship with some reserve: “Prout in historiis legitur” says Leo X in the earliest of all. “Pastoris aeterni” 1520; but many of the later popes were less guarded.

Two considerations strongly support the view of the Rosary tradition just expounded. The first is the gradual surrender of almost every notable piece that has at one time or another been relied upon to vindicate the supposed claims of St. Dominic. Touron and Alban Butler appealed to the Memoirs of a certain Luminosi de Aposa who professed to have heard St. Dominic preach at Bologna, but these Memoirs have long ago been proved to a forgery. Danzas, Von Löe and others attached much importance to a fresco at Muret; but the fresco is not now in existence, and there is good reason for believing that the rosary once seen in that fresco was painted in at a later date (“The Month” Feb. 1901, p. 179). Mamachi, Esser, Walsh, and Von Löe and others quote some alleged contemporary verses about Dominic in connection with a crown of roses; the original manuscript has disappeared, and it is certain that the writers named have printed Dominicus where Benoist, the only person who has seen the manuscript, read Dominus. The famous will of Anthony Sers, which professed to leave a bequest to the Confraternity of the Rosary at Palencia in 1221, was put forward as a conclusive piece of testimony by Mamachi; but it is now admitted by Dominican authorities to be a forgery ("The Irish Rosary, Jan., 1901, p. 92). Similarly, a supposed reference to the subject by Thomas à Kempis in the “Chronicle of Mount St. Agnes” is a pure blunder (“The Month”, Feb., 1901, p. 187). With this may be noted the change in tone observable of late in authoritative works of reference. In the “Kirchliches Handlexikon” of Munich and in the last edition of Herder’s “Konversationslexikon” no attempt is made to defend the tradition which connects St. Dominic personally with the origin of the Rosary. Another consideration which cannot be developed is the multitude of conflicting legends concerning the origin of this devotion of “Our Lady’s Psalter” which prevailed down to the end of the fifteenth century, as well as the early diversity of practice in the manner of its recitation. These facts agree ill with the supposition that it took its rise in a definite revelation and was jealously watched over from the beginning by one of the most learned and influential of the religious orders. No doubt can exist.

 

[paperwight]

What are you talking about? Your all over the map. That is the Catholic History link I posted above.

Never said the Rosary was untrue. Another false conclusion you reached.

WHAT!!! This discussion is surreal.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Pious historically untrue event? Read the link then you tell me?

Do you believe th BLESSED MOTHER could appear to you if she so desired?? You never answered me???

 

[paperwight]

Read this carefully. . These facts agree ill with the supposition that it took its rise in a definite revelation and was jealously watched over from the beginning by one of the most learned and influential of the religious orders. No doubt can exist.

Gary, did you actually READ any of the great slab of history you have just copied and pasted?

Especially the bit I’ve highlighted? ’

The facts agree ill’ - in other words, the facts don’t support or agree with -

‘the supposition that it took its rise in a definite revelation’ - in other words, a vision -

‘and was jealously watched over from the beginning by one of the most learned and influential of the religioos orders’ - in other words, the Dominicans.

‘No doubt can exist’. - perhaps you only had time to read that sentence and jumped to the conclusion that the evidence you presented was proving the opposite to what it actually does?

 

[GaryTaylor]

We’ve reached the end here I believe. I clearly understand whats posted. I read it all a few times. And I understand you.

Apparently you don’t believe Mary could appear if she so desires?

 

[paperwight]

We’ve reached the end here I believe. I clearly understand whats posted. I read it all a few times. And I understand you.

Apparently you don’t believe Mary could appear if she so desires?

I’m glad you understand now. I take it that you admit you read the history wrongly?

As to your last sentence, you’ll have to explain how you reach that conclusion.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I

As to your last sentence, you’ll have to explain how you reach that conclusion.

I conclude that I’m right and since you refuse to respond to the question I asked…

I guess you just don’t believe the Blessed Mother can actually appear RIGHT NOW if she desired to. You don’t believe that do you. Just admit it. Whats the big deal? Thus your non belief in St Dominic and the Rosary. Which has NEVER been disproven.

Thats the only truth I’ve concluded…You don’t believe. When you ANSWER that, you and I can Continue. Till then we reached an empasse?

Can the Blessed Mother appear if she chose to do so? Thats the question? Start another thread just about that if you don’t believe?

I get you, your not a Mystery to me. You don’t believe the Blessed Mother Mary can appear in an apparition… AND THE ANSWER IS???

 

[Hesychios]

Do you believe th BLESSED MOTHER could appear to you if she so desired?

I believe the Holy Theotokos can be seen, on occasion, if she should so desire and God should consent. I consider it also possible that other saints and even our close dearly departed relatives and friends can potentially be seen (with the same caveats), although instances like that would be as rare as hen’s teeth.

However that is not the same as saying that any of these apparitions, even of the Holy Theotokos, definitely did appear at such and such a date and time, and I am convinced that it did not happen in the case of Saint Dominic as recounted by Blessed Alan de la Roche.

Another thing that bothers me specifically, but which probably would not bother most others reading this, is the fact that apparitions are requesting believers adopt certain new practices. In the tradition of eastern Catholicism I find such apparitions which speak to be untrustworthy. So for me … visual images yes, verbal messages no.

Michael

 

[paperwight]

I conclude that I’m right and since you refuse to respond to the question I asked… QUOTE

Your conclusion is wrong and hasty. Of course I believe that Our Lady can appear to whomever she wants, subject to God’s will.

This is irrelevant to the question under discussion, which is why I didn’t see the need to rush to answer.

The discussion is whether an account of an apparition, written some time later by someone other than the one who received it, can be accepted as historical evidence.

You have been presented with the article from the Catholic Encyclopedia, which throws doubt on the legend, and bizarrely, you have copied and pasted material that you seem to believe proves your case, but in fact, states the opposite.

You are now reacting with blustering and the equivalent of shouting.

 

[GaryTaylor]

You really need to Stop the Constant attack entwined in your thread, is that needed. If you can’t communicate as an adult. Simply leave it alone. Personal attacks which you manage so slip in on every single post don’t go unnoticed.

The only point I have continued to make, is the Rosary is dated to Dominics time. That can’t be disputed. Was “he” the actual one that had an apparition? Did he carry the word of the Rosary forward to the next generation?
Personally I believe so, you are entitled to you opinion, Can I Please have mine? Is that OK with you? Do you mind?
The brothers of the Dominican monestary are dated to this practice. Yes, its exact specific date is being research. I read the article several times as I mentioned several times. Yet it can’t be disputed, its right here in that time period, where the actual practice of TODAY…TODAY…came from. I know many of the artifacts are missing, fake etc. I can read, trust me. But thats not the point. This happens with every single archaeological and geographic reseach. They just de-coded the Exodus.in the last two decades. This is not uncommon.

The jury is still out, do you get that? You understand that the reality of this will be known for fact right? Thats gonna happen. It will be proven one way or another. Yes its been disappointing to this point. But the effort to search in this area continues, because it makes the MOST sense?

You are entitled to opinion, you lifestyle, the freedom thats part of our existing society, to pray to any God you chose, and believe what you believe, even if that is nothing.

As far as Mary needing Gods permission} you presume to “KNOW” the realitity of her secret. Maybe you can let the rest of world in on your secret?

The appearences of the Blessed Mother happen, she doesn’t report her behavior to anyone on Earth “as far as I know”. And we don’t know if she needs GODS permission as YOU BOTH mention above. Do you know something different?

Now should we as adults continue to pick small parts of a post like I just did} To invalidate the entire content of whats said? Of course not, I understand your points as YOU understand mine. So, should we now enter adulthood?

Have a great day, let peace guide your wisdom. Much love.

God Bless,
Gary

 

[Hesychios]

The only point I have continued to make, is the Rosary is dated to Dominics time.

Gary,

Please slow down and think about this a minute.

The rosary predates saint Dominic, the rosary was used in saint Dominic’s time, the rosary was used after his death, even in the ‘period’ when some people claim it wasn’t used.

It was used before Alan de la Roche was born, it was used in his lifetime. He (Alan de la Roche) popularized it with his fictional book, which misrepresented saint Dominic’s life.

This has all been spelled out very clearly by the snippet you posted from the Catholic Encyclopedia, although you do not seem to have recognized it. Saint Dominic did not have a revelation from Mary about the rosary, Alan de la Roche wrote a fiction.

We don’t need to believe lies to pray this ancient chaplet. It is a good and holy thing with or without the fiction. Another poster asked 'I don’t comprehend why someone who does not believe the Rosary came from our blessed Mother Mary and was given to St. Dominic in an apparition, would be praying it.’ This is entirely the wrong approach. If one needs to believe in this story to even bother praying the rosary, then the rosary does not have any intrinsic value of it’s own, and one may be using the wrong reason to pray altogether.

You are entitled to opinion, you lifestyle, the freedom thats part of our existing society, to pray to any God you chose, and believe what you believe, even if that is nothing.

This is uncalled for. We have tried to keep this discussion at a higher level, you are suggesting that someone who does not agree with you believes in a different God. :tsktsk:

As far as Mary needing Gods [permission} you presume to “KNOW” the realitity of her secret. Maybe you can let the rest of world in on your secret?

Are you suggesting that the BVM does not need permission from our Lord to engage in supernatural acts? This power resides in her by right? I don’t know how we can assume that.

Ultimately everything is from God, everything.

GaryTaylor:

… And we don’t know if she needs GODS permission as YOU BOTH mention above. Do you know something different?

What exactly are you suggesting, and what would be the authority behind this contention of yours?

… I understand your points as YOU understand mine. So, should we now enter adulthood?

Now are you contending that people, even devout Catholics, who do not agree with the points you have laid out here, are not adults?

… let peace guide your wisdom.

I suggest that you try and to the same.

In the first place you need to learn to read more scholarly materials and comprehend them.

You also need to support your contention that the Holy Theotokos does not need the acquiescence (or consent) of God to make her presence known to us. Unless you know of some specific teaching which addresses this specific power, I think we should probably assume that God reserves this to Himself.

You also need to apologize to your fellow Catholics, many of whom do not agree with your contentions on this subject. You have suggested in this post that they not only do not believe in the same God as you do, but that they are not even adults.

It is clear there is a contrast in world-views here, but I would like to think that all Catholics worship the same God at least
[/QUOTE]

 

[Hesychios]

The only point I have continued to make, is the Rosary is dated to Dominics time.

Gary,

Please slow down and think about this a minute.

The rosary predates saint Dominic, the rosary was used in saint Dominic’s time, the rosary was used after his death, even in the ‘period’ when some people claim it wasn’t used.

It was used before Alan de la Roche was born, it was used in his lifetime. He (Alan de la Roche) popularized it with his fictional book, which misrepresented saint Dominic’s life.

This has all been spelled out very clearly by the snippet you posted from the Catholic Encyclopedia, although you do not seem to have recognized it. Saint Dominic did not have a revelation from Mary about the rosary, Alan de la Roche wrote a fiction.

We don’t need to believe lies to pray this ancient chaplet. It is a good and holy thing with or without the fiction. Another poster stated 'I don’t comprehend why someone who does not believe the Rosary came from our blessed Mother Mary and was given to St. Dominic in an apparition, would be praying it.’ This is entirely the wrong approach. If one needs to believe in this story to even bother praying the rosary, then the rosary does not have any intrinsic value of it’s own, and one may be using the wrong reason to pray altogether.

You are entitled to opinion, you lifestyle, the freedom thats part of our existing society, to pray to any God you chose, and believe what you believe, even if that is nothing.

This is uncalled for. We have tried to keep this discussion at a higher level, you are suggesting that someone who does not agree with you believes in a different God. :tsktsk:

As far as Mary needing Gods [permission} you presume to “KNOW” the realitity of her secret. Maybe you can let the rest of world in on your secret?

Are you suggesting that the BVM does not need permission from our Lord to engage in supernatural acts? This power resides in her by right? I don’t know how we can assume that.

Ultimately everything is from God, everything.

GaryTaylor:

… And we don’t know if she needs GODS permission as YOU BOTH mention above. Do you know something different?

What exactly are you suggesting, and what would be the authority behind this contention of yours?

… I understand your points as YOU understand mine. So, should we now enter adulthood?

Now are you contending that people, even devout Catholics, who do not agree with the points you have laid out here, are not adults?

… let peace guide your wisdom.

I suggest that you try and to the same.

In the first place you need to learn to read more scholarly materials and comprehend them.

You also need to support your contention that the Holy Theotokos does not need the acquiescence (or consent) of God to make her presence known to us. Unless you know of some specific teaching which addresses this specific power, I think we should probably assume that God reserves this to Himself.

You also need to apologize to your fellow Catholics, many of whom do not agree with your contentions on this subject. You have suggested in this post that they not only do not believe in the same God as you do, but that they are not even adults.

It is clear there is a contrast in world-views here, but I would like to think that all Catholics worship the same God at least
[/QUOTE]

 

[GaryTaylor]

My dear friend, how can any simple human being begin to know how our great God would begin to distribute his authority in Heaven.

I do not assume anything about the powers of the Blessed Mother or God. I pray for there guidance daily through the Rosary.

The secret of this Prayer which I find so effective is that the Rosary is both prayer and meditation. It is addressed to the Father, to the Blessed Mother, and the Holy Trinity, and is a meditation centered on Christ.

My only intention in any regards to the Holy Rosary in any post at the bottom line, is exactly what I just mentioned and to remind anyone of the Catholic Faith to place this combination of Prayer’s in the highest regard in their Catholic Faith.

Now that said, you and I as followers of the same God have a greater calling than to squable over specifics. There is War of Evil and Good existing that will take the effort of each and every one of us as followers of the same God to overcome. My intention is never to place barriers beween any christian faith. But to make this very purpose known and kept in mind foremost.

At the end of the day I would hope that is also your intention.

God Bless,
GT

 

[thetruth0flife]

Gary,

Please slow down and think about this a minute.

The rosary predates saint Dominic, the rosary was used in saint Dominic’s time, the rosary was used after his death, even in the ‘period’ when some people claim it wasn’t used.

It was used before Alan de la Roche was born, it was used in his lifetime. He (Alan de la Roche) popularized it with his fictional book, which misrepresented saint Dominic’s life.

This has all been spelled out very clearly by the snippet you posted from the Catholic Encyclopedia, although you do not seem to have recognized it. Saint Dominic did not have a revelation from Mary about the rosary, Alan de la Roche wrote a fiction.

We don’t need to believe lies to pray this ancient chaplet. It is a good and holy thing with or without the fiction. Another poster stated 'I don’t comprehend why someone who does not believe the Rosary came from our blessed Mother Mary and was given to St. Dominic in an apparition, would be praying it.’ This is entirely the wrong approach. If one needs to believe in this story to even bother praying the rosary, then the rosary does not have any intrinsic value of it’s own, and one may be using the wrong reason to pray altogether.
This is uncalled for. We have tried to keep this discussion at a higher level, you are suggesting that someone who does not agree with you believes in a different God. :tsktsk:
Are you suggesting that the BVM does not need permission from our Lord to engage in supernatural acts? This power resides in her by right? I don’t know how we can assume that.

Ultimately everything is from God, everything.
What exactly are you suggesting, and what would be the authority behind this contention of yours?
Now are you contending that people, even devout Catholics, who do not agree with the points you have laid out here, are not adults?

I suggest that you try and to the same.

In the first place you need to learn to read more scholarly materials and comprehend them.

You also need to support your contention that the Holy Theotokos does not need the acquiescence (or consent) of God to make her presence known to us. Unless you know of some specific teaching which addresses this specific power, I think we should probably assume that God reserves this to Himself.

You also need to apologize to your fellow Catholics, many of whom do not agree with your contentions on this subject. You have suggested in this post that they not only do not believe in the same God as you do, but that they are not even adults.

It is clear there is a contrast in world-views here, but I would like to think that all Catholics worship the same God at least

Again you do not have the evidence or any proof that Alan de la Roche wrote a fictional book. That is according to your opinion. I think everyone reading us can conclude what your true intentions towards the Rosary are. Your lies are becoming more evident as you speak and you’re even contradicting yourself.

Again, what you post is false. If you don’t believe that the Rosary came from our blessed mother directly from heaven, then you wouldn’t have as much devotional faith compared to someone who does believe that the Rosary came from our blessed mother. We would fall under your ‘trap’ of, “this ancient tablet came from ordinary people and was made up.” That is what I conclude from reading your posts. You don’t need a high level of reading skills to determine it. Also, you don’t make sense anymore when you post. Your lies have now come back at you and are binding you therefore, they don’t allow you to reason well or make sense. You’re limited in your speech. That’s what I’m trying to say.

The Rosary has its instrinsic value from it coming from Heaven through the Virgin Mary and given to St. Dominic. That’s where its value comes from. If you don’t believe in the story, then what do you believe in? It was made by man and therefore it’s not that credible or effective? It’s origins are out of this world and that is why the Rosary is capable of performing miracles and has helped many people to maintain faith. I will now investigate further on your posts and see what else I can find and reveal more truths. God bless you.

 

[Hesychios]

Again …

You are sounding like a broken record.

It is about time for you to pack it in.

 

[thetruth0flife]

I believe the Holy Theotokos can be seen, on occasion, if she should so desire and God should consent. I consider it also possible that other saints and even our close dearly departed relatives and friends can potentially be seen (with the same caveats), although instances like that would be as rare as hen’s teeth.

However that is not the same as saying that any of these apparitions, even of the Holy Theotokos, definitely did appear at such and such a date and time, and I am convinced that it did not happen in the case of Saint Dominic as recounted by Blessed Alan de la Roche.

Another thing that bothers me specifically, but which probably would not bother most others reading this, is the fact that apparitions are requesting believers adopt certain new practices. In the tradition of eastern Catholicism I find such apparitions which speak to be untrustworthy. So for me … visual images yes, verbal messages no.

Michael

HI! Guess what? I have bad news for you or should I say good news for the catholics of this forum.

I do believe that the Rosary that we have today isn’t the same as it used to be but there is evidence that the Holy Virgin mary did appear to St. Dominic. The third order of St. Dominic reveals that kind of activities that they had. You have stated that St. Dominic never claimed to have an apparition of our blessed mother.

That is incorrect because I have found proof that they had an office of our Lady that they recited:

The Preachers, however, did not take these observances directly from the monastic orders but from the regular canons, especially the reformed canons, who had already adopted monastic rules The Preachers received from the regular canons the choral Office for morning and evening, but chanted quickly. They added, on certain days, the Office of the Holy Virgin, and once a week the Office of the Dead.

The office of our Lady was where they prayed the Rosary and said the Hail Mary’s. They prayed on beads just like we do today except that is was in a diferent style. The third order of St. Dominic was where they spent their time with the Virgin Mary:

DUTIES OF MEMBERS

*All are expected to recite the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin, **according to the Dominican rite**, once a day, and the Office of the Dead  once a week. These may be found in the Dominican Tertiary guide. The regular hours for saying the Office of our Lady are the following: Matins and Lauds may be commenced about four o'clock in the afternoon or at any time later for the next day; the little hours or Prime, Tierce, Sext and None, are said at any time from sunrise to noon of the day; Vespers and Compline during the afternoon or evening.*

But should a member be so occupied that there is no opportunity to recite any part of the Office until the afternoon or evening of the day . the whole may be said at one time. Matins and lauds for the next day may be said, if time permit. The Office of the Dead may be said on any day during the week (except on Sunday); or it may be divided, Vespers being said on one day, the first vespers being said on one day, the first Nocturn on another and thus continued until finished.

All, however, may use the Office Beads instead of reading the office of Our Lady. These beads are divided as follows: for Matins and Lauds, twenty-eight Our Fathers and Hail Marys are said; for each of the little hours seven Our Fathers and Hail Marys; for Vespers, fourteen Our Fathers and Hail Marys; and for Compline, seven Our Fathers and Hail Marys. The Apostles’ Creed is said before matins and Prime, and after Compline.

All this proof and evidence that I have shown gives evidence that the blessed mother did appear to St. Dominic because he developed the office of our Lady as a form to combat heresy and where he prayed for the conversion of sinners. That is why he later added that to his Dominican Order or the Third Order of St. Dominic. Some sort of apparition did occur which influenced St. Dominic to establish the office of our Lady. It makes sense that he would recieve help from our blessed mother in order to combat hersey and convert sinners. Please read all the information of these websites before discussing on the matter. Thank you and God bless you.

Bibliography:

newadvent.org/cathen/12354c.htm

willingshepherds.net/Dominican%20Confraternities.html

 

[thetruth0flife]

You are sounding like a broken record.

It is about time for you to pack it in.

What are you talking about? I want peace and hapiness for you. That’s all. If anything I’m just simply reseraching and disproving you incase you had the wrong information. There is no need to get angry…

 

[Hesychios]

What are you talking about? I want peace and hapiness for you. That’s all. If anything I’m just simply reseraching and disproving you incase you had the wrong information. There is no need to get angry…

But you haven’t proven anything one way or another, you just keep repeating yourself. :juggle:

I am not angry, I am slightly amused.

 

[Hesychios]

… I have found proof that they had an office of our Lady that they recited:

You have just now ‘discovered’ this?

For your information, a lot of religious orders do the Little Office, or many did until recent decades at least. I am surprised that you are unaware of that, but it is not traced back to saint Dominic. You have to date the Little Office, and show a link between the two, you never seem to get that. :doh2:

As for the rosary and Saint Dominic, the issue was already addressed in post #55

To wit:
… if there were any satisfactory evidence to show that St. Dominic had identified himself with the pre-existing Rosary and become its apostle. But here we are met with absolute silence. Of the eight or nine early Lives of the saint, not one makes the faintest allusion to the Rosary. [This would indicate that Alan de la Roche himself had no primary sources for his work of fiction] The witnesses who gave evidence in the cause of his canonization are equally reticent. In the great collection of documents accumulated by Fathers Balme and Lelaidier, O.P., in their “Cartulaire de St. Dominique” the question is studiously ignored. The early constitutions of the different provinces of the order have been examined, and many of them printed, but no one has found any reference to this devotion. We possess hundreds, even thousands, of manuscripts containing devotional treatises, sermons, chronicles, Saints’ lives, etc., written by the Friars Preachers between 1220 and 1450; but no single verifiable passage has yet been produced which speaks of the Rosary as instituted by St. Dominic or which even makes much of the devotion as one specially dear to his children. The charters and other deeds of the Dominican convents for men and women, as M. Jean Guiraud points out with emphasis in his edition of the Cartulaire of La Prouille (I, cccxxviii), are equally silent.

This is from the** Catholic Encyclopedia**. This is sold scholarship, with references right in the text, from unbiased Catholic theologians and historians from the pre-Vatican II church reporting the facts as they have found them after (presumably) years of serious (and also presumably eager) searching in a reference work with the Nihil Obstat attached. This information can not be compared with unfounded opinions from some random website anybody can start with a few bucks to toot their own horn.

You have to hit the books, to find out when and where the Little Office started, and who besides the Dominicans might be using it today.