A
anon10271182
Guest
Sometimes I pray the Luminous Mysteries, sometimes I don’t. I might pray the Sarum Rosary instead. Or the St. Michael Chaplet.
Last edited:
- Status
S
semper_catholicus
Guest
I didn’t know a Sarum Rosary existed!
S
semper_catholicus
Guest
That’s interesting how you pray the “Domine labia mea aperies,” because from what I’ve read, that’s what is done in Rome.
E
edward_george1
Guest
For all this talk of what’s required and what’s necessary and whatever, bear in mind one very important fact:
The rosary is a private devotion.
However you’d like to do it, do it. If you like the Luminous Mysteries, pray them. If not, don’t. It isn’t really that big of a deal. As a priest, I like them because they include the Last Supper and the Proclamation of the Kingdom and are a good reminder to me of the nature of my life as a priest. I also like the Transfiguration, since I was baptized on that feast. I should also note that I regularly offer the Extraordinary Form of the Mass.
Catholicism is a buffet, not a cafeteria. Eat as much as you want from whatever part of the bar. If I like this or that new thing and this or that old thing, great. It all contributes to the tapestry of things that make up my spiritual life and help me get to heaven.
-Fr ACEGC
The rosary is a private devotion.
However you’d like to do it, do it. If you like the Luminous Mysteries, pray them. If not, don’t. It isn’t really that big of a deal. As a priest, I like them because they include the Last Supper and the Proclamation of the Kingdom and are a good reminder to me of the nature of my life as a priest. I also like the Transfiguration, since I was baptized on that feast. I should also note that I regularly offer the Extraordinary Form of the Mass.
Catholicism is a buffet, not a cafeteria. Eat as much as you want from whatever part of the bar. If I like this or that new thing and this or that old thing, great. It all contributes to the tapestry of things that make up my spiritual life and help me get to heaven.
-Fr ACEGC
A
anon10271182
Guest
http://www.preces-latinae.org/thesaurus/BVM/HortulusRosarium.html
It references all the narratives underlying the Joyful, Glorious, and Sorrowful Mysteries, and all but #3 of the Luminous Mysteries.
It references all the narratives underlying the Joyful, Glorious, and Sorrowful Mysteries, and all but #3 of the Luminous Mysteries.
A
Aulef
Guest
To be traditional is to remain unchanged in a group of people or society for a long time. At least this is what a few dictionaries says (Oxford and Cambridge).
First we need to establish what “long time” is. Well, it depends on what it is being compared with.
The Catholic Church has around 1,985 years. This is the society we are looking at, so this is our reference. Our denominator.
The luminous misteries have been around since 2002? This makes 16 years over 1,985, which is equal to 0.8% of Church’ s history.
On the other hand, the other three , has been around for 800 years (St. Dominic). This makes 800 over 1,985, which is equal to 40.5 % of Church’s history.
Well, I don’t know about you guys, but I consider something that has been 40% of 1,985 years a period long enough to be considered traditional. I can’t say the same about something that represents only 1% of those almost two millennia, though.
First we need to establish what “long time” is. Well, it depends on what it is being compared with.
The Catholic Church has around 1,985 years. This is the society we are looking at, so this is our reference. Our denominator.
The luminous misteries have been around since 2002? This makes 16 years over 1,985, which is equal to 0.8% of Church’ s history.
On the other hand, the other three , has been around for 800 years (St. Dominic). This makes 800 over 1,985, which is equal to 40.5 % of Church’s history.
Well, I don’t know about you guys, but I consider something that has been 40% of 1,985 years a period long enough to be considered traditional. I can’t say the same about something that represents only 1% of those almost two millennia, though.
E
edward_george1
Guest
By that logic, we shouldn’t pray the rosary at all, since it wasn’t around for the first 1200 years of Christianity. Devotions develop over time. Nothing wrong with that.
-Fr ACEGC
-Fr ACEGC
Tis_Bearself
Patron
The only caveat I’d add here is, if you are saying the Rosary in order to get the indulgence for it, follow the rules in the Manual of Indulgences for what you must say and the conditions under which you must say it.
God is going to hear your prayers though, whether you’re attempting to get an indulgence or not.
C
commenter
Guest
The rosary is not “Traditional” in the sense of Sacred Tradition. It is not apostolic. It was an innovation, a response to changing needs for devotion. It is a private devotion, influenced by private revelations over time, and also influenced by popes and bishops who promoted it, and modified it over time to meet changing needs. The popes and bishops, not private revelations, are the proper guide here. We say the rosary, because the Church leaders recommend it, and we find it fulfilling to our personal spiritual need. There are countless other prayer requests, attributed in private revelations of Jesus and Mary, and saints, that we do not say, because the Church leaders do not approve them.
It will likely be modified in the future, as future needs develop.
It will likely be modified in the future, as future needs develop.
Last edited:
E
edward_george1
Guest
I think we have to get past this idea of “traditional”=“frozen in time.” Just consider the meaning of the word itself–“tradere” is Latin for “to hand on.” This is a process of motion, of dynamism. Even the things we call “traditional” would have gone through many developments. The sacred liturgy itself is a great example of this–the Mass after Trent was not the same as the Mass of the 6th century, though there were key, core similarities. Change doesn’t mean throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and any change which means a complete rupture with the past is obviously going to have some problems. But tradition doesn’t mean a total absence of change, it means letting things grow and develop in a living, organic way. To be a “traditionalist” shouldn’t mean being a worshiper of museum pieces, it should rather mean appreciating that the Church is alive in every age and speaks to every age in the best possible way.
-Fr ACEGC
-Fr ACEGC
C
CilladeRoma
Guest
I love it! Thank you Father. May God bless you and your ministry abundantly.
Last edited:
A
Aulef
Guest
Father, please, explain to me how NOT DOING something can be considered tradition.
This is philosophically hard to understand.
Thank you in advance.
This is philosophically hard to understand.
Thank you in advance.
A
AndrewAxland
Guest
Nicely said. Our Faith is not a dead faith!
A
Aulef
Guest
Does Truth and good traditional acts have expiration date? 
B
Brandon_Cal
Guest
It’s how I learned from the Dominicans. They begin with “Lord open Thou my lips. ✠ And my mouth shall declare thy praise.” (just as with the opening of the Liturgy of the Hours), then a Glory Be, then the Apostle’s Creed. The rest as normal with or without the Fatima prayers (and with or without the addition of the Luminous mysteries). Finally they conclude the Rosary with the Divinum Auxilium and Fidelium ☩ Animae (“May the Divine Assistance remain always with us. And may the souls of the faithful ☩ departed through the mercy of God rest in peace”)
✠ = Small sign of the cross over the lips using your thumb as you would do before the Gospel reading at mass.
☩ = Standard sign of the cross.
✠ = Small sign of the cross over the lips using your thumb as you would do before the Gospel reading at mass.
☩ = Standard sign of the cross.
E
edward_george1
Guest
Well, here’s how it works, philosophically:
What I have done here is called a reductio ad absurdum. I took faulty logic and carried it to its furthest conclusion and showed that it doesn’t hold water when carried that far.
In other words, when someone says “To pray the Luminous Mysteries is not traditional because they’re from such a late period in the Church’s history,” I then make the point that, if we applied that logic consistently, i.e. something newer than X years is “not traditional,” and “not traditional” equates to “bad” or “must be avoided” or some other such thing, then we can’t even pray the rosary at all, since the rosary is a more recent development. It’s only 800 years old, after all, and the Church is much older, so anything earlier than that would have to be good. Which then raises the question of where to draw the line–before what era or epoch or year or date is something considered “traditional,” and thus to be held as good and noble, and when is it considered “not traditional” and thus to be considered bad and worthy of rejection.
All of this is by of deconstructing the idea that “traditional” and “untraditional” are not static categories, still less ought they to be value judgments. I didn’t say anything like “not doing something is considered tradition;” by invoking the reductio ad absurdum I was merely showing that using language in that way (i.e. what is and isn’t “tradition” or “traditional”) was faulty. I said “by that logic,” which should indicate that I do not subscribe to that logic, i.e. that logic which says “the Luminous Mysteries are not traditional because they come from such and such a date and therefore must be avoided.”
I hope this helps.
-Fr ACEGC
What I have done here is called a reductio ad absurdum. I took faulty logic and carried it to its furthest conclusion and showed that it doesn’t hold water when carried that far.
In other words, when someone says “To pray the Luminous Mysteries is not traditional because they’re from such a late period in the Church’s history,” I then make the point that, if we applied that logic consistently, i.e. something newer than X years is “not traditional,” and “not traditional” equates to “bad” or “must be avoided” or some other such thing, then we can’t even pray the rosary at all, since the rosary is a more recent development. It’s only 800 years old, after all, and the Church is much older, so anything earlier than that would have to be good. Which then raises the question of where to draw the line–before what era or epoch or year or date is something considered “traditional,” and thus to be held as good and noble, and when is it considered “not traditional” and thus to be considered bad and worthy of rejection.
All of this is by of deconstructing the idea that “traditional” and “untraditional” are not static categories, still less ought they to be value judgments. I didn’t say anything like “not doing something is considered tradition;” by invoking the reductio ad absurdum I was merely showing that using language in that way (i.e. what is and isn’t “tradition” or “traditional”) was faulty. I said “by that logic,” which should indicate that I do not subscribe to that logic, i.e. that logic which says “the Luminous Mysteries are not traditional because they come from such and such a date and therefore must be avoided.”
I hope this helps.
-Fr ACEGC
A
Aulef
Guest
You did not answer my question.
I asked about not doing something being some sort of tradition. If you prove this is possible, then your whole explanation will make sense.
Edit: Besides, I didn’t reject the luminous misteries; I only said they haven’t been long enough in order to be considered traditional, whereas the other misteries have been around enough to be so
Edit 2: I I’m beginning to believe that you are the kind of person that accepts the idea of nothingness being something…
I asked about not doing something being some sort of tradition. If you prove this is possible, then your whole explanation will make sense.
Edit: Besides, I didn’t reject the luminous misteries; I only said they haven’t been long enough in order to be considered traditional, whereas the other misteries have been around enough to be so
Edit 2: I I’m beginning to believe that you are the kind of person that accepts the idea of nothingness being something…
Last edited:
E
edward_george1
Guest
I never said that not praying the rosary is some kind of tradition. If you can show me where I said that, I will happily continue this line of discussion. Reread what I said in response. I was using a reductio ad absurdum.
A
Aulef
Guest
Yes, you did.
You used the quantity of years not praying the Rosary as we know it (1200 years) and implied it as more traditional than the time we have been praying it (800) years.
You used the quantity of years not praying the Rosary as we know it (1200 years) and implied it as more traditional than the time we have been praying it (800) years.
E
edward_george1
Guest
That is simply not what I did. As I explained in some detail, I was using a philosophical and argumentative technique called reductio ad absurdum. I do not agree with the notion that “before such and such quantity of years something is traditional,” and I was using this technique to deconstruct that line of reasoning. I do not think “traditional” and “non-traditional” are static categories, and still less do I believe they equal “good” and “bad.”
- Status