The Twenty Mysteries of the Rosary?

The Apostolic Letter opens the door for a "pastoral approach" to the Rosary that is "positive, impassioned and creative - as shown by World Youth Days". In other words, a nod is given to a jazzed-up Rosary for the "youth".

"When one lives by novelty, there will always have to be a new novelty." - Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen

On October 16, 2002, Pope John Paul II marked the 24th Anniversary of his papacy with the release of the Apostolic Letter Rosarium Virginis Mariae, in which he proclaimed a "Year of the Rosary" from October 2002 to October 2003. The document also contained a major innovation from a Pope whose Pontificate has been marked by a steady stream of novelties. He announced that he would add five new mysteries to the Rosary.

Word of the new mysteries was reported first on October 14 by various news agencies claiming that information was leaked from Vatican sources.

Father Richard John Neuhaus from First Things magazine found these early reports hard to believe, and told The Chicago Tribune that the Pope was not likely to alter the Rosary. "That he would suggest," said Neuhaus "or even declare some kind of official change to the Rosary is totally atypical, totally out of character." Neuhaus then said that the Pope does not have the authority to mandate changes in such a prayer.1

Father Neuhaus is correct that a Pope cannot mandate such changes, but he is mistaken to claim that the Pope's change of the Rosary would be "out of character" for this Pontiff of post-Conciliar aggiornamento. Even the secular press recognizes John Paul II as a man with a passion for setting papal precedents.

The New York Times' Frank Bruni wrote on October 15: "Time and again, Pope John Paul II has boldly gone where other Popes have not: a synagogue, a ski slope, distant countries with tiny populations. Tomorrow, he will apparently cross another frontier, making a significant change in the Rosary, a signature method of Catholic prayer for many centuries." 2

Bruni failed to mention that John Paul is also the first Pope to kiss the Koran,3 participate in rock'n'roll liturgies,4 allow Altar Girls, permit "lay ministers" to distribute Communion at his Papal Mass,5 suggest a "common martyrology" that contains Catholics and non- Catholics, praise documents that call the need for non- Catholics to convert to the Catholic Church an "outdated ecclesiology," 6 take part in "inculturated" ceremonies that includes pagan ritual,7 and convoke pan-religious prayer meetings that include Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Snake-worshipers.8

On the same theme, Rueters said, "Changing one of Christianity's most fundamental prayers after nearly a millennium will be a typical way for the 82- year-old Pope to crown 24 years of a pontificate marked by bold initiatives sometimes taken against the advice of aides." 9

The "new mysteries" of the Rosary took everyone by surprise. Thus I have postponed publication of Part III of my World Youth Day series10 in order to comment on this latest "bold initiative".

Two weeks previously, the pontiff announced he was preparing a document to stress the value of the Rosary. He urged the faithful to recite the Rosary, including together as families. John Paul said then that he wanted people to "rediscover the beauty and depth of this prayer".

The Pope, for a good part of the Apostolic Letter was true to his word. Much of Rosarium Virginis Mariae is praiseworthy, even edifying. How can one argue with the promulgation of a "Year of the Rosary" in order to revitalize practice of this Holy devotion? How can one find fault with the Pope's call to pray the Rosary for peace? How can one complain when the Pope laments that families are fragmented, that they often get together only to watch television, and that they should set some time aside to pray the Rosary together instead?

Also of interest was the Pope's frequent references to Blessed Bartholomew Longo (1841-1926) who was baptized Catholic, left the faith to become a satanic priest, and then repented, converted back to Catholicism and became an apostle of the Rosary. This is a beautiful lesson that conversion is possible even in apparently hopeless cases.

It is probable that the Letter will do much good in revitalizing Rosary devotion. Tens-of-thousands of Catholics who do not follow the details of Vatican events, will simply learn through the press, or from parish priests, that the Pope wants a renewed devotion to the Rosary and they will comply. I have little doubt that this Letter will produce its desired goal to inspire more Catholics in this holy exercise.

Yet at the same time, countless Catholics are baffled at the unnecessary addition of five new mysteries. What is this strange post-conciliar belief among today's Church leaders that Catholics will not find a traditional devotion interesting unless John Paul updates it? Why is it thought necessary to disfigure our devotions in order to capture a Catholic's attention? Why was it requisite for the Pope to put his personal stamp on the Rosary, rather than simply promote it as is: as did all the Popes before him, as did countless saints, and as did the Mother of God at Fatima?

The addition proposed by the Pope, called the Five Luminous Mysteries, also called the "Mysteries of Light," center on the public life of Christ. They are:

the Baptism of Christ in Jordan, the Wedding Feast at Cana, the Announcement of the Kingdom, the Transfiguration, the Institution of the Eucharist as the sacramental expression of the Paschal Mystery. These new mysteries, according to John Paul, are to be placed between the Joyful and Sorrowful Mysteries.

The Pope says that these additions are not mandatory, and explains his reason for the change. "I believe" he writes, "that to bring out fully the Christological depth of the Rosary, it would be suitable to make an addition to the traditional pattern which, while left to the freedom of individuals and communities, could broaden it to include the mysteries of Christ's public ministry between His Baptism and His Passion." 11

Do you know of any Catholic, any saint, any Pope who ever considered the Rosary "lacking" in Christological depth? Did not the saints and the Popes constantly speak of the excellence of the Rosary? Did they ever suggest a radical addition to alter the structure of the Rosary in order to "improve" what was already excellent?

Reaction to the new mysteries has been predictable: everything from traditional Catholics who call it an "outrage," to Medjugorje followers who claim it "bears all the hallmarks of Divine inspiration". Once again, the much-vaunted "Pope of unity" has launched a novelty that divides Catholics.

A constant characteristic of the pre-Vatican II Popes was to abhor novelty and to safeguard tradition, including traditional devotions.

Thus, if one could go back in time and ask any of the pre-Vatican II Popes why they never added "new mysteries" to the Rosary, the answer is easy to presume. "Because," the pre-conciliar Pope would say, "if I add 5 new mysteries, I will have to add 5 new decades. If I add five new decades, then the Rosary can no longer be called 'Our Lady's Psalter'. Now Catholic tradition, my holy predecessors and Our Blessed Mother referred to the Rosary as Her 'Psalter', because the 150 Hail Mary's of the 15-decade Rosary correspond to the 150 Psalms of David. It would be audacious of me to add 5 decades. This would be the decimation of the entire concept of Mary's 'Psalter', a term hallowed by centuries of usage, a term that explains the origin and essence of the Rosary, a term used by the Queen of Heaven Herself. Further, if I make this radical change to the Rosary, then what is to prevent more radical changes in the future?"

The entire history of the Rosary is bound up with the 150 Psalms of the Old Testament, otherwise known as the Psalter of David. From the dawn of Catholic history, monks and hermits prayed these Psalms as part of their daily liturgical life.

Saint Benedict, in his Holy Rule, explains that the monks of the desert recited the 150 Psalms every day. Saint Benedict arranged the Psalms for his monks so that all 150 would be recited in one week.12 This became the Divine Office (Breviary) that priests and religious recited every day until the post-conciliar aggiornamento revolutionized both Breviary and Mass.

The story of "Mary's Psalter" reportedly begins with the Irish monks in the 7th Century. These monks divided the 150 Psalms of David into a Na tri coicat format of three groups of fifty. Arranged in such a way, the "fifties" served both as reflective and corporal/penitential prayer.13

The people of the Middle Ages in their great love of Our Lady set to fashioning "Rosariums" in Her honor. They composed Psalms in praise of Mary to match the 150 Psalms of David. St. Anselm of Canterbury (1109) made such a Rosary. In the 13th Century, St. Bonaventure divided his 150 Marian Psalms into three groups. The first group commenced with the word Ave, the next with Salve, and the final fifty Psalms each commented with the word Gaude. Such Rosaries of praise took the name of Our Lady's Psalter.14

It was not long before the custom of reciting Hail Mary's became the substitute of reciting the Psalms in praise of Our Lady. "By the 13th Century" writes the Redemptorist Father James Galvin, "the number of Aves was set at one hundred and fifty to equal the number of the Psalms of David." 15

Saint Thomas Aquinas explains that the Psalter of David, composed as it is of one hundred and fifty Psalms, is divided into three equal parts of fifty Psalms each. These three equal parts represent figuratively the three stages in which the faithful find themselves: the state of penance, the state of justice, the state of glory. Likewise, explains Father Anthony Fuerst, "the Rosary of Mary is divided into three parts of fifty Hail Mary's each in order to express fully the phrases of the life of the faithful: penance, justice and glory." 16

Heaven itself declared the immeasurable value of this Psalter. In 1214, Our Blessed Mother told Saint Dominic to "preach My Psalter" in order to rekindle faith, to convert sinners and to crush stubborn heresy. Saint Louis de Montfort tells the story in his magnificent work, The Secret of the Rosary.

"Saint Dominic," writes Saint Louis, "seeing that the gravity of the peoples' sin was hindering the conversion of the Albigensians, withdrew to a forest near Toulouse where he prayed unceasingly for three days and three nights. During this time he did nothing but weep and do harsh penances in order to appease the anger of Almighty God. He used his discipline so much that his body was lacerated, and finally he fell into a coma."

Our Lady then appeared to him, accompanied by three angels. She said, "Dear Dominic, do you know which weapon the Blessed Trinity wants to use to reform the world?"

"I want you to know that, in this kind of warfare, the battering ram has always been the Angelic Psalter which is the foundation stone of the New Testament. Therefore if you want to reach these hardened souls and win them over to God, preach My Psalter." 17

She uses the language of the Church militant. She does not speak of the Rosary in a sentimental manner in order to achieve good feelings or pan-religious unity. No, She refers to it as battering ram against heresy.

She twice uses the term "Psalter", which is the Rosary designated as 150 Aves that link it to the Psalms of David. Regarding the Rosary's traditional structure, Msgr. George Shea writes, "Because its 150 Hail Mary's correspond to the 150 Psalms of the Psalter, the complete Rosary is sometimes called Our Lady's Psalter. In fact, the latter was its common designation down to the end of the 15th Century, while 'Rosary' was reserved for a part, i.e., a third, of Our Lady's Psalter." 18

As late as the last quarter of the 15th Century, Blessed Alaus de Rupe protested vigorously against the use of the terms "Rosario," "Chapelet" or "Corono," and insisted that the title of Our Lady's Psalter be retained.19 Msgr. Shea points out that the first indication from a Pope that the Psalter of Mary is commonly called "Rosary" is found in the Apostolic Constitution of Pope Leo X, Pastor Aeterni dated October 6, 1520, over three hundred years after Our Lady spoke to Saint Dominic.

The term "Psalter" of Mary, as a link to the 150 Psalms of David, is what we find consistently from the Popes throughout the centuries.

The Apostolic Constitution of Pope Leo X, Pastor Aeterni October 6, 1520, uses the term "Psalter of Mary" in connection to the Rosary.20

Pope Saint Pius V wrote in Consueverunt Romani of September 17, 1569, "And so Dominic looked to that simple way of praying and beseeching God, accessible to all and wholly pious, which is called the Rosary, or Psalter of the Blessed Virgin Mary, in which the same most Blessed Virgin is venerated by the angelic greeting repeated one hundred and fifty times, that is, according to the number of the Davidic Psalter, and by the Lord's Prayer with each decade." 21

Pope Leo XIII wrote "Just as by the recitation of the Divine Office, priests offer a public, constant, and most efficacious supplication; so the supplication offered by the members of this Sodality in the recitation of the Rosary, or 'Psalter of Our Lady' ..." 22

Pope Leo XIII later said, "The formula of the Rosary, too, is excellently adapted to prayer in common, so that it has been styled, not without reason, the 'Psalter of Mary'." 23

Pope Pius XI wrote in his Encyclical Ingravescentibus Malis. "Among the various supplications with which we successfully appeal to the Virgin Mother of God, the Holy Rosary without doubt occupies a special and distinct place. This prayer, which some call the Psalter of the Virgin or Breviary of the Gospel and of Christian life, was described and recommended by Our Predecessor of happy memory, Leo XIII ..." 24

Sadly, Pope John Paul II has made the term "Psalter of Mary" with its rightful connection to the Psalter of David, as obsolete as fund drives for Pagan Babies. Anyone who accepts the twenty-decade Rosary, and still refers to the Rosary as Mary's Psalter, will use the term divested of meaning. Why introduce this destabilization? Would not Pope John Paul show more respect to the pious sentiments of Catholics worldwide, to his predecessors and to the Mother of God by leaving Her Psalter at peace?

You are wrong on so many levels it's difficult to know where to begin.

1. Evolution does not begin with a revolt as you suggest. The old Mass evolved under divine guidance, according to the teachings of the Church itself. There were minor changes in rubrics, a slight alteration of some prayers over the centuries, but the Canon of the old Mass of the Roman Rite was fixed by the fifth century. Changes were minor and never radical. What has happened since the Council is radical change which has always been antithetical to Catholicism and from which the Church has always instinctively recoiled. Why should this be so? Because it is the duty of the Church above all else to protect its deposit of faith. That is why the Church herself exists--to protect the faith and administer the sacraments. That is what the Pope takes a solemn oath to defend under pain of excommunication: he must guard and protect the traditions which have been handed-down to him. That is his major function.

2. The rosary is not the question. That it has already been changed in minor ways is true. What alarms traditionalists is not the change itself but the clear intention by modernists to leave nothing of the old Church untouched and free from reformulation. The addition of a decade of aves is not in itself a big deal. But it goes along with radical changes in the Mass and reformulated sacraments, along with the new interpretations of essential Catholic doctrines--all of which directly threaten the deposit of faith. As novelties they need to be viewed with suspicion as extraneous and alien to the innately conservative spirit of the Catholicism. That they are not, but are dismissed as inconsequential by masses of Catholics who blindly follow this Pope in his headlong revolution, is troubling. Vatican I warned: "For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the Successors of Peter that they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth." It is the papacy's primary function to be conservative of tradition, not to invent new beliefs or to participate in the suppression of the old ones.

3. It is nonsense we can't do anything about the corruption. The first requirement for reform is to recognize the problem, to be honest about it, which people on this site who defend the Pope have a hard time doing. It must be said frankly: he has known for decades the seminaries were corrupt and has ignored their corruption. Yet they were not always so. Just fifty years ago the seminaries and novitiates were bursting with chaste and orthodox and straight young men. Within ten years of the Council the theology of formation changed accompanied by a liberalized moral theology that encouraged sexual acting-out, even by seminarians. This was when the gay culture made its inroads in diocese after diocese. It is well-known there simultaneously sprang up a homosexual network of bishops who promoted their own and groomed as their successors the priests they had affairs with. The result has been an entrenched gay culture which has led to scandal after scandal, blighting the lives of many children. All of this is recent, i.e., since the close of the Council. But this Pope--who is Supreme Pontiff--has done nothing about it.

What actual traditionalists are NOT in the business of doing is pope-bashing. What pseudo-traditionalists want is their little backsides smooched and a general recognition that they and not JPII are the TRUE DEFENDERS OF THE FAITH!!!!

The Roman Catholic Church is a religion and not a mere museum. The Truth will always be the Truth. The window-dressing may change frrom time to time.

AND we oppose your arguments only occasionally because we have lives to live not obsessions to indulge. When you say that we cannot effectively oppose your arguments, you mean that we cannot convince you. Perhaps not but it is a sure thing that you won't convince us either and you have not Peter whom you deride.

Your arguments are not sound. First, they are based partially on faulty premises: "Our theologies (why the plural?) have been scrapped.", "Our Catholic literature has been scrapped. (Balderdash!)." You claim the Mass has been Protestantized to which they and we would take offense. That you claim that you are right and the rest of the world is wrong does not make it so. Second, your logic may or may not be sound, but in the absence of correct premises: Third, your conclusions are hilarious. Fess up now, the REAL STENCH is that your tastes have been offended and, you are so miserable over the offense given to your tastes that you wish to share your misery whether Catholics wish to share yours or not.

As I have previously posted to you some advice, let me expand on it. If you catechize your own children which is not only your right but your duty, your children's innocence will not be threatened unless you infect them with hatred of our pope and the institution of the papacy. Our faith is intact, sorry about yours! Our Catholic doctrines are intact as they always have been and always will be, sorry about yours! Our tabernacle is where it belongs on the center on top of the altar which our priest faces as his back is turned to us as befits the leader of our congregation as we worship God, sorry about yours! Our priest is celibate. No institution can be celibate since no institution can be otherwise. There are priests elsewhere who have violated their vows of celibacy. Always have been, always will be. We call them sinners. We are sinners too! So was Peter. So was Marcel Lefebvre. This is not news. I don't know what particular ancient customs, rites and pious practices you ae missing but I bet they are to be found at St. Mary's Oratory in Rockford (fully approved by Bishop Doran who has offered the Tridentine Mass there himself). Our priest is holy. Again, individuals and not institutions may be holy or otherwise. If your priest is not holy, I am sorry about that. Our truly Roman Catholic identity is quite intact, thank you, and yours could be too. Move here or to some other location enjoying one of the proliferating Trisentine communities under JPII's indult, leave this holy pontiff alone, stifle your pride and yourself as to the constant and unwarranted and unseemly carping and complaining about JPII.

If your hatred of the pope transcends your love for things Catholic, that is too bad. It does not justify schism or the sin of scandalizing others with your impudent and impertinent and invidious opinions of John Paul II. Every man his own pope is not Catholicism. You can submit to authority and enjoy all of what you claim to want as a Catholic in the pews of many parishes, shrines and oratories, if that is what you REALLY want. It may be inconvenient to your current state of life, but what are a job or a circle of friends or other comfortable old social or economic shoes compared to your salvation which is jeopardized apparently where you are?

Will we be seeing you at St. Mary's in Rockford next Sunday? Mass is at 9:00 AM Central time.

Sit down, darn it and breathe. You generalize WAYYYYYY too much. I say tomato, you say pea soup.

Evolution, in ANY kind of thought, begins with a revolution and people who make waves. St. Thomas Aquinas, Angela Merici, the entire Renaissance...just three examples, but come on, they represented complete changes in the way things were considered and done.

Why must the church not follow the examples of our past and remain so much the same (the conditions that brought on some of these changes and revolutions)? Changing at least keeps things fresh. Otherwise we risk turning the faith into a big museum. The biggest problem is that the threshold for excellence has dropped.

And just out of curiosity - what new beliefs have been invented? And I thought this thread was about changes in the Rosary.

And corruption - have you ever actually read Machiavelli? Corruption exists where power of any any sort is concentrated. It's always been that way and always will be. The temptation is there, it happens. We fight against it, but ultimately, it is a choice of free will.

The seminaries are being pulled out of the morass. It's just going to take time to do it correctly - and I'd rather see it done right than a rush job which will inevitably fall apart. The one in my archdiocese (Kenrick-Glennon) is well on its way, considering who's now in charge and teaching there. Some of the most orthodox men in the archdiocese. There was just recently a change in leadership and Monsignor Delany is now a pastor downtown at St. John the Evangelist.

The more vitriol that appears the more I think you people are crazy.

We are all in the habit of calling the Anglicans, Anglo-Catholics, Episcopalians or whatever they call themselves this week "Protestants" but they are more like schismatics without Apostolic succession (as determined by Pope Leo XIII). They are not reformation types. It may well be that they are utterly confused, having entered the darkness without Rome long before some of our pseudo-Trads who are sooooooo offended by Pope John Paul II.

Let us allow to the reformed at least the dignity of the consistency of their errors as to the Mass. Lutherans do not believe, whatever their service may look like, that they are making the sacrifice of Jesus Christ upon the cross immanent upon their table (which is therefore not an altar). Nor do other "reformed" churches believe that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ upon the Cross is being made immanent upon their tables if they even have tables. The Anglicans or whatever are not Catholics whatever they may pretend. They have no priests because they have no apostolic succession. On the other hand, they are not fully Protestant either. They can imitate Tridentine Masses, if they like, but it won't make them Masses since they have no priests. I stand by my claim.

So your priest and parish is doing as well it can (which can be quite well, like the Toronto Oratory) with second-best.

<> My Parish is thriving and expanding."... second best?<>

But your pastor won't live forever, and presumably he will be transferred at some point to another parish. Your new bishop has only so many priests to work with. What's to prevent him from replacing him with a liberal dud who will undo all his good work

<> Our new Bishop is a youthful, orthodox,Franciscan. I have no doubt our Diocese will thrive and generate sufficient, if not overabundant, vocations.

What will prevent my Bishop from replacing our Pastor with a liberal dud will be the influence of the Holy Spirit. I believe this orthodox, highly intelligent and prayerful Bishop is marked-out for higher things. I expect the Holy Spirit has plans for him on a national, if not international, stage and that before he leaves us, Bishop O'Malley will have us in wonderful shape.<>

You make some interesting points. But surely you realize that TAN and Ignatius Press sprang up in response to the scrapping of Catholic literature everywhere. Go to any Catholic college library: the shelves are bare of anything published before Vatican II.

As to the protestantizing of the Mass--it is beyond dispute. The altar is now a table facing the people; the text and rubrics suppress acknowledgement of the Real Presence as well as the sacrificial nature of the Mass. The old sacrificial structure has been eliminated. Instead of the oblation (Offertory), immolation (Consecration) and consummation (Communion), we have a Paschal Meal, exactly as with the Lutheran or Methodist Lord's Supper worship service--despite the fact that this had been precisely condemned by Trent. The condemnation, by the way, explains the liturgical animus against the old Mass and against the Council of Trent itself. In fact, the modern liturgists don't even bother with making the language of the text other than Protestant. Open any text for the Lutheran Lord's Supper and it will correspond in great part to the new Catholic Mass. Protestant hymns have been incorporated by Catholics, Protestant vestments are worn by priests, and the Protestant focus on the assembly is identical.

No, I don't believe John Paul II is a heretic, though he most probably has performed materially heretical acts. But these were not deliberately committed in my estimate: hence he is not in a formally heretical condition. But I will admit that more and more it seems a close call. He is, after all, a smart man, a philosopher. He must realize the scandalous nature of his acts when he prays with rabbis and mullahs and animists and places their beliefs on the same level as our own revelation.

As for my "bellyachin", that's not liable to cease as long as this website is available. It's a way for me to get the message out. Too many Catholics are totally unaware of what's actually happening. They, like you, think everything's fine where they're at, so it must be that way everywhere else. Your I'm-okay-Jack attitude doesn't cut it when other Catholics find their kids in parochial schools are being introduced to texts on sado-masochism and oral sex because some bishop wants to justify his "sexual preference". This is happening in many dioceses all over the country despite parental protests and despite the outrageous scandals. So I'm glad you're fine. But unless somebody like me complains, those problems might be on your own doorstep some day. Then I'm willing to bet you will be as outraged and angry about what's happening as I am.

I left the Indult Mass because it was captive to a false religion which was putting the squeeze on FSSP and the priests of my parish were folding under pressure. I have no qualms of any kind, but am convinced more than ever the SSPX has been the conservator of the Church's tradition--Catholicism's true memory of itself--and hence is blessed by the Holy Spirit and prospers despite adversity.

I am also convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that the SSPX is not in schism. I believe Rome realizes this as well and has therefore made an effort to regularize relations. I also think it does so out of fear that eventually Catholics will realize the oddity of the Vatican's own fierce opposition to those who affirm nothing other than what the Church has always affirmed and practiced for two thousand years.

But since you keep using the word, you obviously don't have the foggiest idea of what you're talking about. I don't think there has ever been a single post mentioning me that has not included the term "schism" or "schismatic". So tell me, if I am a schismatic for attending Mass at an SSPX chapel, what does that make the Pope who prays with witchdoctors? --Or doesn't the First Commandment apply to the Pope?

Dear ultima,

Most or all of this has been the fodder of many threads. You are wrong, and it has been established quite clearly that you are wrong. If you wish to re-argue all of these things with yourself again, you may refer to the threads bookmarked on my profile page.

It only feeds your ego to engage you over and over and re-argue what has been argued over and over before. Since you think that your interpretation of Sacred Tradition is superior to that of the Holy Father, it's clear that your ego really needs to go on a diet a lot more than it needs another good feeding.

For those who are in doubt that ultima's assertions are false, please refer to the threads bookmarked on my profile page. They are a start to see the falsity of ultima's new religion, which deceives by making use of many of the trappings of the True Religion.

I will continue to pray for you.

sitetest

They live Catholic lives and raise Catholic families without all the hysteria exhibited in other quarters. If you cannot find such a facility near you, you are welcome here if you can restrain yourself from the pope-bashing which is NOT welcome here. If Rockford is not your cup of tea, there are many other "faith communities" like it in many parts of the country and the number increases regularly.

1. Simply living Catholic lives has been one of the worst casualties of the post-Vatican II revolution. Of course this is what we should all be doing. Do our jobs, raise our families, create souls to populate heaven. No need for every layman to be an amateur theologian. But I'm sure you're aware that raising Catholic children today is like walking through a minefield. And if you only listen to official church sources, it's like walking through that minefield blindfolded.

2. It is simply false to claim that there are MANY communities like yours. Out of the tens of thousands of parishes in the US, there are perhaps half a dozen. Even among the FSSP parishes, only a few are canonically established, meaning the indult could be withdrawn from the others at a moment's notice. Your parish sounds like heaven. But only a tiny fraction of US Catholics have access to a comparable situation. You seem remarkably unfeeling towards the rest.

3. Not only is your community practically unique in the United States, half the dioceses in the US have never implemented the indult at all. A woman who works for The Latin Mass magazine cannot herself attend the Latin Mass because in the well-populated part of California where she lives, the closest Latin Mass is 3 hours away. Are you telling these people to "quit your bellyaching"? Is every Catholic in the US required to move to Rockford, IL?

Lutherans do not believe, whatever their service may look like, that they are making the sacrifice of Jesus Christ upon the cross immanent upon their table (which is therefore not an altar).

Msgr. Klaus Gamber in his book "The Reform of the Roman Liturgy" says that the changes made to the Mass to make it into the Novus Ordo were more drastic than those made by Luther or Cranmer.

The Anglicans or whatever are not Catholics whatever they may pretend. They have no priests because they have no apostolic succession.

This was defined by Pope Leo XIII. But so many other teachings of Pope Leo were overturned by Vatican II, why not this one also? If Anglican orders are invalid, then why did Pope John Paul II invite the Archbishop of Canterbury to join him in opening the Holy Door to inaugurate the Jubilee Year? According to Catholic teaching, he's just another English layman, only more deluded than the rest.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.