Pope To Add New Mysteries to the Rosary

Catholic World News (Via Diocese Report) ^ | October 14, 2002 | Staff

[Loyalist]

POPE TO ADD NEW MYSTERIES TO THE ROSARY

VATICAN, Oct 16, 02 (CWNews.com) -- Pope John Paul II will release an apostolic letter on devotion to the Virgin Mary on October 16-- the anniversary of his election to the pontificate-- according to informed Vatican sources.

Leaks from the Vatican, in anticipation of the document's release, suggest that the Pope will introduce five new mysteries to the Rosary. The five new mysteries, the "luminous mysteries," will focus on the public life of Jesus Christ, Vatican sources say. They will be: the Baptism in the Jordan, the temptation in the desert, the proclamation of the Kingdom, the Transfigurations, and the entry into Jerusalem.

The Rosary is a traditional Marian devotion, popularized at first by St. Bernard, later by the Dominican order, and still later by St. Louis Marie Grignon de Montfort. The Rosary is composed of five joyful mysteries (which are recited on Mondays and Thursdays), five sorrowful mysteries (recited on Tuesdays and Saturdays), and five glorious mysteries (Wednesdays, Saturdays, and Sundays.) The five new mysteries would reportedly be used on Saturdays.

posted by Brian Barcaro 10/14/2002 08:31:16 AM

[Polycarp]

Proud2bRC. If I brag, I brag of Christ and Christ crucified and Risen, and Christ's Church. Very appropriate.

[newgeezer]

Yeah, right. Twist the Word to your heart's content, dude. That, too, is appropriate.

[Polycarp]

Twist the Word to your heart's content, dude. That, too, is appropriate.

Twisting the Word is the realm of the "reformers," not us Catholics.

The biggest twist? Sola Scriptura.

What a pathetic joke, an unscriptural and demonic deception.

[Palladin]

At least this announcement has put the Rosary back in the spotlight. So many Catholic schools and CCD classes have just stopped teaching it to our young ones. It' a shame. Such a powerful and effective prayer, torn from the hands of the next generation of Catholics.

[MarthaB]

Someone just sent me a link to an article that goes into the history of the rosary. During one early period, the Our Father was repeated rather than the Hail Mary, and then there was a period in which only the first half of the Hail Mary was recited, just the portion that is from the Bible. The article also talks about St. Dominic's use of preaching and meditation alternating with the prayers of the Rosary.

In the time of St. Dominic in the 13th century the Aligensian heresy was taking hold, really in many ways a repackaging of the 3rd century heresy that taught that Jesus was not really a man, did not really die, and Mary of course was not his mother. Also during this period in which St. Dominic was teaching, there was a great deal of immorality and misuse of the body. Dominic, in preaching against heretical teaching and against sinful lifestyles would repeat the Scripture verse, "Blessed art thou among women and Blessed is the fruit of Thy womb," which does make the point that Jesus was indeed a real man, born of a woman, and perhaps also reminding us that the physical body is not outside of God's plan... Anyway, it's interesting historical background. I didn't know that the rosary started out as repititions of the Our Father, or the use of that Marian verse in Dominic's preaching.
MarthaB



http://www.cin.org/histros.html

[RochesterFan]

Did you even read the Scriptures posted that dealt with this concept? Deal with the exegesis, not ad-hominem attacks.

[KennyV]

I just checked an on-line site www.christianity.com, where there are many versions but didn't find this on any.
ASV
KJV
NASB
NKJV
NLT
RSV
YLT
I don't even know what some of these stand for. At home in either my NIV or NLT study Bible there is a footnote that says that this was on some manuscripts. I don't remember the wording but it gave me the impression that it was the lesser quantity rather than in the majority.

[MarthaB]

>>In Catholicism Jesus seems only to exist to exalt Mary. The greater we make Jesus, the greater Mary must be. She is the object of some huge percentage of the focus. That percentage differs from one RC to the next but in many cases it is probably 80 percent.

I think, just the opposite. The whole reason that Mary is important is that she is the Mother of Jesus, and the Mother of God title historically developed because of its bearing on our understanding of the nature of Christ as "true God and true Man." When the Docetists claimed he only "seemed to die," that he wasn't a man, only a god who could NOT die... the Church had to reiterate that he had a mother, he was a man, true God and true man... and Mary was declared the "Mother of God," in that context. She is important as an example of what we are called to be, humble and obedient to God, but especially important because she, through her obedience, gave us Jesus. Even back then, she could have had an abortion... she cooperated with what God wanted and through her, Jesus was able to born and so to die to save us. It's all about Jesus.

Also, in the majority of Catholic churches today, for better or for worse, you rarely hear the name of Mary. At every Mass, we have three or four Scripture passages that are read (four on Sundays, something from the Old Testament, an Epistle or something from Acts, a psalm, and a reading from one of the Gospels... the same readings in the same three year cycle that many Protestant churches now use). Then a homily related to those readings, and a Communion service which recalls and helps us to connect with Jesus' last supper and death on the Cross. If you listen closely, you may hear Mary's name mentioned in passing, but the Mass is the central form of prayer for all Catholics, what we celebrate every Sunday, and for many, every day... and it's not about Mary. If someone were so fixated on Mary that they didn't have room in their lives for Jesus, that would certainly be an abuse, though Mary herself, I believe, would be pointing us back to Jesus, just as she did at Cana when she said, "Do whatever he tells you..." If a Catholic didn't understand that, they've quite misunderstood.

[MarthaB]

Another reply to you posted today by someone else provided some of the references to the earliest teachings on abortion, so I won't repeat those. Without checking your references right now, since I don't have time, I do know that during the Middle Ages, there were some discussions as to when the soul entered the infant. I'll assume that your facts may be correct as to what was said in the Middle Ages, though I have not checked and don't know for certain.... but IF abortions were prohibited after 40 days, that is still a prohibition on all other abortions, and would prohibit most abortions which are done today. My point was that the Pope could not, and did not, arrive at an entirely new teaching in the 1990's. Rather, on looking at both Scriptures and a very long tradition of some clear prohibitions on abortion, he could definitively articulate a teaching that makes sense for the 1990's and beyond... For new situations and new pastoral needs, we look back to what Scripture says, and to Tradition. Evangelium Vitae was not a brand new out of the blue teaching, but very much in keeping with Scripture and Tradition.

Since those very earliest references in the Didache and other early sources are clearly against all abortion, I find that quite compelling, and IF later Popes with current understanding at the time shifted slightly, I don't think that negates anything. Today, with current medical knowledge, it is clear that biologigal human life does begin at conception and this is where the church has settled. You refer to a period in the middle ages in which, "They held the view of Aristotle on this that babies go in stages from vegatable to animal to spiritual." Now we know better.

In grad school I was taught in a semester course about what is called "development of doctrine," and some doctrines, such as Catholic moral teaching on abortion, cloning, etc. can legitimately develop over time based on new understanding, and new language to more clearly and fully express old teachings for a new time. But we Catholics don't accept new teaching that comes without ties to the Scriptures and Tradition, it should have roots in both to be authentic.

I used the issue of abortion merely as an example to show the interplay of Tradition and Scripture, and you are right to point up that we may find in places where doctrine does undergo development. Based on bad science, some within the church perhaps thought the line could be drawn at a slightly different place, but there was never a time when unrestricted abortion was considered morally licit within the Catholic Church. In reality, almost all surgical abortions today are done after 6 weeks, generally after 8 weeks, as the baby so small early on that you would have a hard time being able to tell if you "got it all." Likewise, until quite recently the usual pregnancy tests couldn't detect pregnancy till 6 weeks or later. I would think back in the middle ages this would have been mostly a moot point, since I wonder how medieval woman would have been sure enough about a pregnancy to have attempted an abortion prior to day 40. So it doesn't seem to me a huge deviation on the central teaching against abortion.

Even today, we have issues, and I don't really want to go there, but is it licit to use vaccines made from fetal tissue decades ago, or... can you do research on these stem cells but not those? In many cases, we already have very clear teaching on many of these issues, but some will take time to sort out, a process of understanding the science which is continuing to develop, and returning to Scripture and Tradition to develop clear guidelines for the complex new questions that continue to arise... embryo adooption and so on. In some cases, the answers are already quite clear, and in others... it will take some time to sort out.

Martha B

[Siobhan]

Did you even read the Scriptures posted that dealt with this concept? Deal with the exegesis, not ad-hominem attacks.

Deal with this: stringing together 3 scriptures and tacking on your personal opinion at the end is not exegesis. I believe your opinion is wrong, and I find your use of the Scriptures in this way to be misuse. This is no ad hominem attack. I simply object to the way you used the 3 Scripture citations, and I reject your view of their meaning as well as your opinion on its own merits.

[Siobhan]

Dear sandyeggo, you'd be surprised at the ability of some to argue against us simply because we exist.

[Siobhan]

Thanks for that post, sandyeggo. Our family is all abuzz with the Luminous Mysteries, and juding from Mass this morning many folks are at least thinking about the Rosary. I believe the Holy Father will have succeeded in accomplishing a world wide re-direction to praying the Rosary, to contemplating more fully the life and ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ, and to enter more deeply into prayer. I believe some for whom the Rosary is not their cup of tea will make use of the Luminous Mysteries as a source of prayer, contemplation, and encouragement.

[Siobhan]

At least this announcement has put the Rosary back in the spotlight. So many Catholic schools and CCD classes have just stopped teaching it to our young ones. It' a shame. Such a powerful and effective prayer, torn from the hands of the next generation of Catholics.

EXACTLY!

And may God pour out blessing, consolation, and grace on all of those who take up the Rosary perhaps for the first time or those who return to praying the Rosary.

[Joshua]

I've been told on these forums that the RC has the truth.They are the only church guided by the Holy Spirit. Since they are guided by the HS the truth can't change. It can grow, but never change. This is what separates them from all the Prot denominations.
Your quotes from the early Fathers seems to suggest that the long line of Popes didn't always agree with the teachings of the early church. Thanks for the info.

BTW I apologize for the grammar. 20 years of dictating to secretaries can make you rusty. I've often thought of going back for a refresher course, but it always interferes with my tee times. You seem to be very knowledgable. If you ever need a job look me up. With your grasp of the english language I'm sure I can find you something entry level in our secretarial pool. ;)

[Joshua]

Listening to a spirit without checking it with the Bible is dangerous. That's how Joseph Smith got started. Beware of that "burning in the belly"

[Joshua]

" Posted by Catholicguy to Joshua On Religion Oct 15 8:56 AM #172 of 294 Your post #114 is very well written.I just have one little problem with it. The Catholic church did allow abortion of babies up to 40 days. PROVE IT They held the view of Aristotle on this that babies go in stages from vegatable to animal to spiritual. Gregory VI (1045-1046) and Gregory XIII (1572-85) both said that He is not a murderer who brings about abortion before the 40th day since the embryo is not yet human. Sixtus V did not agree and his Bull of 1588 made all abortion murder. His successor,Gregory XIV reversed that decree. In 1621 the Vatican issued another pastoral directive permitting abortion up to 40 days. It wasn't until 1869 that Pius IX made all abortion murder. I had all of these references on my old hard drive before it crashed. "THE DOG ATE MY HOMEWORK"I never had the need to look it up again since I do not follow the Catholic teachings. "I don't have to prove anything. My oposition is sufficient. N'Yeah, N'Yeah, N'Yeah, N'Yeah, N'Yeah" There will be some on here that will flame me on this and never bother checking it out. YOU MADE THE FALSE CHARGE> YOU PROVE ITThey will scream for me to prove it. I don't need to it is not my faith. I have given you the names of the Popes, their dates and the dates of the directives. With all the knowledgable Catholics on here and the resources they have on the web it should be easy to prove my statements false. YOU HAVE THE OBLIGATION TO TRY AND PROVE YOUR LIES. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A BURDEN TO PROVE YOUR LIES FALSEI admit it took some digging but it is out there for anyone who wants to know the truth. "Digging" is the correct word to describe this contemptible, unproven, unsourced, dirt. "

Cute.My point was that I don't need to prove it because I'm not defending the faith. I gave you names and dates. Why should I spend the time cut/paste all the information. It's all there easy to find. Do a Google search of Pope Gregory XIV. Read every link that has the word abortion in it. Look up Sedes Apostolica and read it for yourself.
Digging is a great word since tha RC has tried to bury this. Contemptible,unproven,unsourced? Only if you refuse to look.

[BenR2]

The five new mysteries would reportedly be used on Saturdays.

Question: If these new mysteries are worth praying at all, then they ought to be worth praying seven days a week, no?

[BenR2]

If you prayed the mysteries of the rosary without the actual repetitions of the "Hail Mary's" you might still have a better understanding of how Catholics really pray the rosary, and by leaving out the Hail Mary itself, I would not think this would be in any way "against" your own beliefs on prayer? To ponder the Scriptures for a few minutes...

Except that, if you were intellectually honest, you would admit that that is exactly NOT how the rosary is taught (or, at least, was taught, some 45 years ago, when I was taught by Catholic nuns to THOUGHTFULLY pray the Hail Marys and the Our Fathers while SIMULTANEOUSLY meditation on the Mysteries -- a tall order for a child of six!).