Catholic Caucus: Rosary Meditations - Joyful, Sorrowful, Glorious, and Luminous

The Gregorian Institute at Benedictine College ^ | June 24th through 27th, 2016 | by Tom Hoopes

[Salvation]

I think St. John Paul II did this in Good Faith.

[dsc]

“I think St. John Paul II did this in Good Faith.”

If he believed that the Blessed Virgin gave us the Rosary, how could he just decide to change it?

[Salvation]

He didn’t change it. He added a missing part — Christ’s adult life before the Passion.

[dsc]

Maybe I’m not seeing it correctly.

[Mad Dawg]

FWIW, though aware of the breaking of the numerical association of the Rosary with the Psalter and of the lessened Marian connotations or emphasis, I find the luminous mysteries very fruitful.

I also, throughout my allegedly adult life (with its alleged thought) have been very much taken with the kind of “enlightenment” that is proclaimed in the Feast and the idea of “Epiphany.” I find the later Heidegger and the “phenomenological personalism” (Dawg, wash your mouth out with soap!) of St. JP Magnus really congenial. It's where my though and my “askesis” (such as it is) were taking me anyway.

So I'm always happy when Thursday rolls around and I get to meditate on these mysteries.

[dsc]

“I find the later Heidegger and the “phenomenological personalism” (Dawg, wash your mouth out with soap!) of St. JP Magnus really congenial.”

Can you direct me to some passages that further illustrate your meaning?

[Salvation]

Joyful — Christ’s childhood

——————Christ’s adult life -————missing

Sorrowful — Christ’s Passion

Glorious — Christ’s Resurrection and the two mysteries that refer to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

——————Christ’s adult life -————missing
That is where the Luminous mysteries come in.

[dsc]

I do not wish to offend you, but if it was missing, does that not mean that the Blessed Virgin made a mistake, that the Rosary as given was flawed?

[ebb tide]

The “New” Rosary: It’s Time to Say Goodbye

"[T]he faithful would conclude that ‘the Pope has changed the Rosary, and the psychological effect would be disastrous. Any change in it cannot but lessen the confidence of the simple and the poor."…Pope Paul VI

[Mad Dawg]

Srsly,
I'd tangle with “Fides et Ratio” the best you can. I think also the talks called “The Theology of the Body” also show this theology of disclosure, of “Epiphany,” and of encounter.

Martin Buber is controversial but useful. I recommend “I and Thou.”

The fifth chapter of Hegel's “Phenomenology of Mind” is gold. His early Xtian writings are worth a skim.

Anything by the later Heidegger. “What is Called Thinking” is good

I don't want to sound like this stuff is easy for me or that I'm good at it. I'm a struggling and bumbling amateur.

Anyway, After those comparatively modern people, if you pray the Office of Readings you will encounter the Fathers. Follow the ones that get your attention. I hope to spend more time with Gregory of Nazianzus myself.

..

Here's a secular idea which plays into one of the Luminous mysteries.

Every encounter with a thing, with something that stands out from the general flow of sensoria, is twofold. There is the thing, the washer or bolt, the bit of slime in the drain of the kitchen sink, the wilting marigold. And there is “that it is.” Each thing sings of Being all the time. And if we stop to ask, “Why is this thing here, or anywhere?” we begin the approach to Being itself. In, so to speak, declaring itself, to a theist, to a Xtian, each thing says, in the words of the hymn, “The hand that made me is divine.” Being itself peeks out from behind every particular being and, to those who stop to look, it beckons.

Now here's a particular thing: A dusty footed preacher in the midst of a small band. He has an arresting glance. He preaches the coming of the Kingdom. He is neither the first nor the last to do so. But there is something about him. His preaching is quirky but compelling. And his personal encounters are life changing. “He told me everything I ever did!” says the woman at the well in Samaria, and soon the village is converted!

In him, in encountering him, some see that the Being which peeks out from behind other things shines and dazzles in him. And this is more than a metaphysical perception. In his appearing we ourselves are brought into the light ... everything we ever did!

Seated at Capernaum or on a hilltop, standing in the plain, He is the Kingdom he proclaims, the Word he speaks. The seam or difference between Being and being evanesces in his presence. His words are thrilling, but he himself is the thrill of his words.

So the third Luminous Mystery, which may at first seem to be the dullest and most vague, calls out the self-disclosure, the self-gift of our Lord's preaching ministry. It may not have the obvious drama of the other mysteries, but it is essentially tied to them. The Word by its nature must shine forth in discourses and encounters. He and his preaching are one.
...

So, that's how I see the Mysteries of Light as carrying the theme of Epiphany, of disclosure and encounter. The first two pertain directly to the events traditionally associated with the feast of the Epiphany. The rest show how that feast, in addition to being about events, declares the heart of the Incarnation in the “particularization” of God.

[Mad Dawg]

Today's Mass readings are ... apposite.

Our Lord refers to two gradual but spectacular things, a little seed making a great shrub, a teaspoon of yeast making a swelling lump of dough.

Then the watercourses of the Negev of psalm 126: These are like the washes of the southwest which are either dry or containing no more than a trickle. But when the snows melt in the hills, the water comes down in flash floods. I read that people go out from the cities just to watch this happen, and now and then the rash are swept away.

So it is with Being. It may seem like a still, small voice, but he who hears it is born up to great heights.

Oh sweet Jesus, make me rash in my approach to your mercies that I too may be swept away, and all my verbosity with me!

[DumbestOx]

Does the pope have the authority to change Scripture (or Tradition?) “For the [H]oly Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by [H]is revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by [H]is assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith” (from the First Vatican Council definition of Papal infallibility - everybody should read the documents of that Council - they are few, brief, and dogmatic - not “pastoral”.) The Rosary is a mirror of the 150 Psalms, part of Scripture, so if the Pope could change Scripture he could change the Rosary - but he cannot.

[dsc]

Wow, those were some thorough replies. Lots of thought needed. Thanks.