Posted on 03/11/2005 9:32:13 AM PST by sinkspur
The rosary's origins are a subject for fine, if esoteric controversy. That's not the way this conversation is headed. Nonetheless, possibilities are that the rosary was adapted from the worry beads of wandering desert tribes, or imaginatively.
Perhaps someone strung together stones for Paul the hermit. Sozomen tells of this 4th century ascetic who threw away a pebble each time he recited one of his 300 daily prayers. There's a possibility, judging from an edict from a 9th century synod in England, that the first rosary -- by whatever other name -- may have been entirely Pater Nosters.
During the Second World War, G.I.s on the frontlines often had rosaries that were made of knotted string. Silent, the enemy couldn't hear the rosaries jangling in a pocket, and they were darned near indestructible.
The modern rosary is arguably heading for it's one thousandth birthday, give a couple of centuries this way or that. It has become eminently adaptable. So adaptable is it that a quarter-century ago I wrote a booklet that was a "social action" rosary, each bead counted for something: shoes, electric light, laughter.
In County Clare, Ireland, there's a rosary museum. My recollection is there was once one in the United States, too.
But the tale here is more practical that these bits of information.
As visitors to this spot may already know, I once a week say the rosary over the phone -- a truncated and adapted version -- with my 96 year-old mother-in-law, Beatrice. She of the Irish accent. We do but one decade, but what a decade. And whenever I mention this fact in conversation, which occasionally happens, people say, "Wow, that's great. But what do you actually do?"
Well, what we do is begin at the beginning. With the cross.
Then the first bead is always the Our Father bead for whichever member of the family is suffering, whether from sickness or bereavement or whatever. Given that the good Mrs. O'B has nine children, a gadzillion grandchildren and almost an equal number of great-grandchildren, there's usually a minimum three names for the Our Father. Beatrice remains very current on who is ailing.
The first Hail Mary of the three is always for the youngest members of the family. The second Hail Mary is for the extended family, and their extended families. And that's probably two-thirds of the Western hemisphere with strong representation in Latin America and Asia.
The third Hail Mary is for the oldest members we know of that extended brood. Given that Bea's two sisters are 94 and 90, they have pride of place. My contribution is my 86-year-old uncle. And this bead's also for those feeling secret hurts or sorrows, or feeling isolated.
Straight through the Glory Be and then we hit the medallion for the first Our Father of the decade. That's the warm up. Off we go with the 10 swinging Hail Marys (swinging in the sense that a good spiritual is rousing). We're a class act. Under other circumstances we could hire ourselves out for poorly attended wakes to provide the oomph! There were indeed professional "beadsmen" a few centuries back, hired to stand saying the rosary in chill castles while the lords feasted and did whatever else lords do.
One significant thing about Bea's and my rosary saying, I note, is that we never say one for me and never say one for Bea.
So I'll leave Bea to you. She's in hospital as I write getting over pneumonia. Send along a Hail Mary -- I know she'll hear it. She may be 96 but she misses nothing.
Matthew VI:5.--And when you pray, be not like the hypocrites, who affect to pray standing in the assemblies, and at the corners of the streets, that men may observe them. Indeed, I say to you, they have received their reward. But you, when you would pray, retire to your closet; and having shut the door, pray to your Father; and your Father, to whom, though he is unseen himself, nothing is secret, will recompense you.
Obviously nothing is wrong with praying. We just shouldn't be doing it on a public forum. I have no problem with posting this story either. Nor with any discussion about the efficacy of the Rosary. But neither should we exclude subjects more controversial.
I seriously doubt that the World War Two American G.I.'s, who carried rosaries made out of string into battle so that the enemy would not hear any noise, prayed standing or at the corners of the streets so that men could observe them.
That was not why I posted that quote.
Then what was the reason? You posted it without any comment.
I took it to mean that you considered the rosary as an ostentatious manner in which to pray.
While the rosary is a visible object, it can be made as discreet or as indiscreet as the person carrying wants it to be. The same can be said about praying without holding any object at all.
Maybe I posted it for the same reason you posted the image of a wild-eyed lady. Think about it.
Just for the record, we say the Rosary after supper daily at my house. I have nothing against the Rosary.
That's no lady. That's Tammy Faye Baker.
"What is not wanted are the flame wars - personal insults, denigration and demeaning of others and their faith traditions, name calling, and the like - which is what most of your "discussion" threads lately have degenerated into. If that is, to you, a "reduction" then you need to find another place to "vent".
Back in the bad old days before FR, when almost every forum was moderated by liberals, a conservative post always brought down flames on the head of the conservative poster.
The liberal moderators would then blame the conservative posters for "starting flamewars," or "posting flamebait," no matter how civil and courteous he had been.
Ultima ratio has been unfailingly civil and courteous here.
I believe sinkspur was also courtesous!
Um, not to be a pain about this, but NCR could have done a little more homework on the origin of the Rosary.
Every history I've read begins with the Rosary being "the poor man's psalter", since the peasants couldn't afford their own books. So they said one Hail Mary for each psalm. One history I read, says that a group of Irish monks used Our Fathers rather than Hail Marys and that was in the 800s. The chain, like it is now, was a placeholder. The divisions into decades came later as did the addition of the other prayers and the Chaplet. Tradition has it that it was St. Dominic in the 13th century he finalized the divisions after an apparition.
It doesn't really matter when it happened or that the Rosary was a true organic growth. What counts is that worry beads really weren't the origin. The psalms were. And that's why so many people were upset with the Luminous Mysteries. They're good things to reflect about, but they do take away from the idea of the Rosary being Our Lady's.
Anyone who has a problem with the Luminous Mysteries is not under any duress to say them.
I realize that. So does just about everyone else. It was a comment I heard from a friend who left the Dominicans a couple years ago and is working on an advanced degree in liturgical music. He didn't have a problem with them per se, just made them comment that some do.
I heard that the rosary was given by Our Lady to St. Dominic to help defeat the Albigensian heresy.
Is there any truth to that?
Excellent remarks!
In case you haven't heard, name calling is no longer allowed on FR. That is, if the rules apply to the Novus Ordos as well.
And Dominick, just because something is "old" doesn't mean it is irrelevant or no longer Catholic. Ultima's post was a Michael Davies article. Davies was a moderate, tempered voice of the Traditional Catholic movement who was widely respected on all sides. Let's just call this what it is - intellectual debate is no longer welcome on FR.
There are none so blind as those who will not see. Intellectual debate does not include ad hominum attacks, purposeful misinterpretations of another's comments, etc, etc.
If you are that unhappy with the rules of the Religion Forum, go elsewhere.
That's part of the tradition.
"Schismatic" is what John Paul II, who, after all, IS pope, has adjudged the SSPX to be (Ecclesia Dei/1988). "Intellectual debate" against the pope and his rulings is NOT welcome within Roman Catholic circles due to the nature of our Church and its governance. Catholicism is a disciplined religion (and may it be even MORE disciplined from within) and not a debating society in defiance of its own papal leadership.
Of course, the schismatics themselves disagree because they wish to advertise their schism to the uncatechized or insufficiently catechized or the unwary.
What is "old" may well be Catholic and relevant. However, defiance and denial of papal authority by those excluded from the Church by our popes is old but is not relevant to any genuinely Catholic discussion nor is such misbehavior "Catholic."
Intellectual debate seems quite alive and well at Free Republic. Though seemingly founded as a conservative (political) forum where conservatives may meet, talk and cooperate on matters political, the proprietor and moderators have always allowed a great deal of religious debate since religion tends to be far more important to conservatives than to liberals.
There are kinds of debate that are not conducive to effective relations among conservatives. For example, for Catholics to initiate attacks on the reformation as such or for reformed Christians to initiate attacks upon Catholicism will likely not improve the relations between the Catholic and the reformed. Likewise, the initiation of attacks upon Catholicism by the SSPX schism or (gasp) the initiation of attacks by Catholics against the SSPX schism will ordinarily not improve relations among those respective groups.
There are and ought to be exceptions. If Lutherans claim to be the real Catholics or Catholics claim to be the real Lutherans, corections in the fashion of requiring truth in advertising are in order. Likewise, if SSPX schismatics claim to be the real Catholics or (how very unlikely) Catholics claim to be the real SSPX schismatics, restraint in the name of truth in advertising is in order.
The situation of SSPX schismatics claiming Catholicism in spite of the ruling of the pope would seem likely to be an unfair burden for moderators here who are or may well be non-Catholic. This is somewhat akin to asking secular courts to decide matters of religious doctrine of any Church. Members of a church have a right to their good name and that of their Church and to defend both when attacked by outsiders.
Those who own and operate a website obviously have a right to their property and to establish rules governing the use thereof. If people outside my family want to use my living room for reasons which I do not approve and have actually forbidden, they are expected to obey or leave and not to presume to debate my decisions as to the use of my own living room. Likewise webmasters and popes have the right to establish ground rules.
I have suggested in the past that these religious flamewars not be allowed although I have certainly participated in them. I now voluntarily refrain almost entirely from wars with those outside Catholicism who do not claim Catholicism. Episcopalians, for example, have the right to discuss the internal governance of their Church without having to tolerate my Catholic two cents worth so long as they are not attacking Catholicism in the process. SSPXers who do not claim to be other than schismatic are entitled to be ignored by Catholics as much as Episcopalians are so entitled. The goings on of the internal governance of SSPX are none of my business until SSPXers make it so by claiming to be Catholic. The realities of Catholicism require an acknowledgment that the pope is in charge of our Catholic Church of more than one billion members.
The status quo of endless bickering between SSPXers and Catholics does nothing to enhance conservative principles, conservative cooperation on the very many matters (thank you sinkspur) on which we do agree, or the coherence of our POLITICAL movement. We suggest far too much to the enemies of conservatism by this intramural bickering as to how they may divide us by the use of wedge issues against us.
That having been said, the website belongs to its owner(s) and they, not we, make the rules. We can comply or move on. I value FR too much to move on unless required to do so by ownership.
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.