Posted on 10/14/2002 9:50:58 AM PDT by 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
I honestly don't know. So you need to ask yourself, why did He inspire the Psalms and make them Holy Scripture if He wasn't interested in hearing chants?
Here's a reading comprehension question: is there a difference between a repetition and a vain repetition?
When Christ prayed to His Heavenly Father, repeating the same words three times, was He making a repetition, or a vain repetition?
Would you consider the 119th Psalm a long prayer?
Why do the Psalms repeat the same phrases, sentiments and tropes again and again? Are the Psalms repetitive?
<> WRONG. The Bible does NOT say "anyone who repeats John 3:16 X numbers of time is engaged in vain repitition."
That is just ANOTHER example of a protestant reading into the Bible the oral traditions of the 16th Century heretics<>
When did the Gloria Patri come in?If memory serves, I think it comes from de Montfort.
Did the Orthodox Church wink out of existence last night or something?
Huh? Maybe you missed it. Jesus Christ is the author and finisher of our faith. He also is the head of the church. The early "church" was nothing like the institution that was set up in the mid 4th century and grown to it's present condition. Wouldn't you agree that the closer you are to the original event the more accurate in interpreting the original intent?
Fascinating. Of what then, does prayer consist? What are words? Are they merely sounds, or do they stand for thoughts? If they stand for thoughts, should those thoughts be enunciated only once, or is it permissible to enunciate a thought more than once? If prayer cannot consist of repeated words, or of words at all, as you imply - then what does prayer consist of? Actions, perhaps, or emotions? Or maybe, all three?
On the issue of repetition - how long a time has to elapse between each time you say something in order for it not to be a repetition?
Should one read every scriptural text just one time, for fear that if they repeat it later that day, or ever, they are engaging in vain repetition?
Why does the heavenly host of Revelation continually praise the Lord by repeating the same words? Is God displeased with that particular instance of repetition?
Can one pray for something, like a parent's health for example, only once? If one has a sick parent, would it be immoral to pray for that parent's recovery every day? Or would it be permissible as long as someone took care to change their prayer for their parent's recovery slightly each day, so as not to exactly repeat it?
If God knows everything in our hearts before we even think to pray (which He surely does), is it immoral to pray?
Wow, I'm really surprised you find God so weak. Keep your Roman Catholicism.
There is one more interesting thing to know about the Bible.
In Islam only the original of Koran in Arabic is considered inspired. One may translate it to any language, but the translations are not the Koran for a Muslim.
All Christians, on the other hand, believe Bible can be translated to any language in the world and still retain its sacred and inspired character. Both the original and the translation are inspired.
The question is, Are ALL translations -- including the "modern," "genderless," "politically correct," "racially sensitive" -- inspired?
The Scriptures don't allow for either "additions" or "subtractions" (Revelation 22:18-19) from the sacred text -- and so the answer is NO, not all possible translations are inspired. Which means some translations ARE inspired and some AREN’T.
Following question is, Who decides what specific translation is inspired and what isn't?
Answer, Only the Author decides that.
The Church is the Author (and the only legitimate Guardian) of the Bible through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Or, one could say, the Holy Spirit is the Author through the Church.
The Church and only the Church wrote the Bible and rightfully decides about the contents of the Sacred Scriptures -- what Books are the Bible and what are not.
The Church and only the Church decides what particular translations are inspired, and the Church and only the Church rightfully decides about interpretation (Peter 1:20) of the Sacred Scriptures.
Since the 4th century Latin translation by St. Jerome (the Vulgate) is one of the legitimate (inspired) translations of THE BIBLE.
St. Jerome, one of the Fathers of the Church, was author of these famous words: Ignorance of the Scripture is ignorance of Christ.
No such verse exists. (Hint: check a good Koine Greek dictionary before you respond. It's a mistranslation in the KJV.)
That's a pretty strong, and incorrect, claim.
First of all, there's no need to enclose the Church in quotation marks when referring to its early history. Christians of that time referred to the Church as the Church and counted themselves mebers of the Church. It's not a later, interpolated term which needs to be somehow sanitized by quotation marks.
The bishops of the 350s were consecrated as bishops by the bishops of the preceding generation and they in turn were consecrated by the generation preceding them. There was no radical break in leadership. There was no radical break in liturgy in the 350s either. There was no radical break in doctrine. There was no radical break in organization.
The only thing that happened to the Church in the middle of the IVth century was that it was again legal to be a Christian. It had been legal to be a Christian before that time as well, in the days before Diocletian.
The Church of the IVth century would have been unthinkable without the the Church of the IIIrd, IInd and Ist centuries and its undeniable continuity with them.
A bump for the most Holy Rosary of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
"Never will anyone who says his rosary every day be led astray. This is a statement that I would gladly sign with my blood."-St. Louis De Montfort
For example, for awhile one woman protestant minister was just finding out about contemplative prayer and it was becoming all the rage at her church and in her circles.
Maybe we'll have you all saying the Rosary soon enough, but just call it something different.
"And they cried one to another, and said: "Holy, holy, holy, the Lord God of hosts all the earth is full of his glory." Is. 6
"And the four living creatures had each of them six wings; and round about and within they are full of eyes. And they rested not day and night, saying: Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, who was, and who is, and who is to come."-Apoc. 4
Appears to me that God may rather enjoy that repetition.
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.