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and non- Catholics, praise documents that call the need for non- Catholics to convert to the Catholic Church an "outdated ecclesiology," 6 take part in "inculturated" ceremonies that includes pagan ritual,7 and convoke pan-religious prayer meetings that include Catholics,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?

And your bellyaching and effrontery and attacks on the greatest pope you will likely ever see have resulted in.......????????? Other than separating yourself from those whose traditionalism is not deficient in the way of respect for Christ's Vicar on Earth, of course.

Of course, as I understand it, you don't have to move here to Rockford to find the traditional Mass, but have one in your vicinity in communion with Rome and your bishop but, that did not satisfy your rarified standards either.

Since you are so convinced that you are right and virtually everyone else must therefore be wrong, I have a suggestion. Rule #1: The Holy Ghost secures the election of our popes for divine reasons. Rule #2: The Holy Ghost is surely not wrong. Rule #3: If the Holy Ghjost seems to be wrong, refer back to Rule #2.

Suggestion: Drop whatever you are doing and get to a seminary for older vocations. Become ordained as a priest. Let the Holy Ghost take you up through the ranks of pastor, bishop, and cardinal. Leave it in His hands to see to your election as pope. When the white smoke pours up the chimney in the Vatican and a smiling or otherwise ultima ratio emerges onto the balcony with the camerlengo who announces: I announce a great joy! We have a new pope: Ultima Ratio I or whatever name you may choose (Torquemada I, Lev Trotsky of the Cross I, Lefebvre II or whatever), then we will follow you. Until then, let's follow one of our most important traditions and follow this man from a far country who was chosen by the Holy Ghost.

If you are old enough to have lived consciously during the papacies of John XXIII and Paul VI, you know that we can co-exist with the minor peccadillos of this papacy while standing on our heads especially given the extraordinary achievements of this papacy.

AND, if JPII was good enough for Cardinal Wyczinsky (sp.?), he is good enough for me. Do you remember the beatific smile on the face of 1978's Dean of the College of Cardinals, the then-95 year-old ramrod straight movie-star handsome and most importantly ultraorthodox (looked like Tom Tryon) Carlo Cardinal Confalonieri as he presided over the funeral of Pope Paul VI suggesting as someone once said "the words of the old Negro spiritual: Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we're free at last!" And so they and we were indeed free to see the election of two grand popes: John Paul I, according to Fr. Gomar DePauw (if you don't know who he is, you are not the traditionalist you claim to be) the favorite of Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani; and then John Paul II in short order thereafter as one too wilely for in-house assassination and a spiritual and intellectual powerhouse transcending even Leo XIII.

Your last paragraph is the long form of "Let George do it. I'm too lazy to do anything but whine and too little committed to meet my own responsibilities in my own family and on my own turf. "

If AmChurch parochial schools are objectionable (and most certainly are), Catholics should pull their own kids with a restrained but determined letter of explanation to pastor, principal, offending teacher and bishop, educate them at home or in cooperative arrangements woth other orthodox parents, outside the purview of diocesan bureaucrats disloyal to the magisterium and morally dangerous to kids. We don't knowingly hire physical or sexual child molestors to babysit our kids. Why would we turn our kids over to parochial schools so bad that they can be justly described as intellectual and moral child molestors? Again, it is the desire of the physically and morally lazy, to "Let George do it," and why should they have to bother about their own kids.

Things are harder than they used to be because of AmChurch and despite JPII and Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. Whining accomplishes nothing. DO something constructive. It beats the heck out of holding your breath until you turn blue while whining in internet land.

BTW, your understanding of how politics is played in Rome is as erroneous and lightweight as your other strategies. The "fine Roman hand" is a subtle weapon: "the iron fist in the velvet glove." It is not a policy of: "Shoot your mouth or keyboard off and carry a blunt toothpick."

Looking forward to the Holy Ghost's affirmation of your policies by guiding your election to the See of Peter which is about all that would change my mind, I remain

Very truly yours, BlackElk

BUT are you in communion with your diocesan bishop and with the pope? BTW, if Renew or Call to Action or Dignity or Voice of the Faithless tried to hold a meeting at St. Mary's Oratory in Rockford, they had better bring their own body bags. We will have a parish council about the same time that sun rises in the west and a good thing too. Our pastor is perfectly capable of making the decisions for the parish as is Bishop Doran for the diocese and John Paul II for the Church.

What I had in mind as to the hard work is the proper upbringing of the children of those in your church, the recruitment of those who are faithless, the ongoing education not only of the children but also of the adults in the Truth and in the methods by which the Truth may be translated into reality not necessarily by magic wand all at once but step by step and no turning back. How do you reach out to the surrounding community to teach and convert? When the children of your Church come of age will they know IN YOUR CHURCH potential spouses who can be trusted to contract lifetime marriages and to be good parents to their kids? Even if you are politically conservative, how do you bring the love of Christ to the poor without being doormats and in such a way as to induce the poor to adhere to God's desires in their lives? And many more: that's what I mean by hard work. If your Church is not only sound on Catholic principles, theology, catechesis, liturgy, but also an effective witness for Christ and His Church in your community while the worst of the Kumbaya churches are what we alll know they are, people will notice the difference including those in Church power.

Do I remember correctly that Charleston produced the execrable Bernardin? You have real enemies in such a diocese but you must not abandon the Church itself to them in your disappointment and disgust over the sins of others and you must not allow those enemies, however well-entrenched, to lead you into the sin of schism.

Effrontery? The effrontery is on the part of a hierarchy that scorns the Church Christ founded. Slavish minions like yourself participate in their unprecedented arrogance, by helping to tear down the edifice. Your argument concerning the Holy Spirit's election of the Pope is a case it point. Were you not blinded by your own smugness, you might have remembered Judas was chosen by Christ as well, showing divine election is no guarantee of anything. As for entering a seminary--I am a married man with kids at this point. Nor would I join this New Religion in any capacity whatsoever if given a chance. It's not only corrupt, but I am convinced it is corrupt precisely because it is no longer fully Catholic.

I'd also suggest you read a few books on how Vatican politics work before you pontificate on the subject. You should have known Cardinal Wyczinski was at loggerheads with Wojtyla's liberalism before the younger man became pontiff. They reconciled formally, but were not in accord theologically. So you've got that history wrong to begin with. Who is the lightweight here? As for the iron fist in a velvet glove--baloney. That is even more ludicrous. There is no fist. There is no glove. There is no discipline. Liberace might have done more to curb the rampant gay subculture the last twenty-four years than this pope has done.

Finally, you are more of a pompous ass than you realize. You need to rein in your arrogance and unbridled self-congratuation. Tone down your bombast a little and you might begin to make a little more sense.

It is in any case certain that at the close of the fifteenth century the utmost possible variety of methods of meditating prevailed, and that the fifteen mysteries now generally accepted were not uniformly adhered to even by the Dominicans themselves.
17 posted on 11/10/2002 9:37 AM PST by sandyeggo

According to this, the Rosary has undergone more than a few changes over these many years. What do you make of this?
73 posted on 11/11/2002 7:48 AM PST by sandyeggo

I thought you were just chiding that if the BVM had wanted to complain that there was a "huge gaping hole" in her rosary, she ought to have spoken to Dominic the Prussian, not Saint Dominic de Guzman.

But if you meant that the rosary changed over time, please note that the changes stopped with Pope St. Pius V in the 16th century; so I would characterize it not as evolutionary change but as the change of growth and coming to maturity.

The rosary is not ... even an important part of Catholicism.
18 posted on 11/10/2002 10:04 AM PST by LadyDoc

I believe that it is important, albeit not essential. Worldwide the “picture” of a Catholic is somebody holding a rosary. Mystics have said that as a prayer pleasing to God, it is second only to the Holy Mass.

Seems like John Vennari wants to be more Catholic than the Pope.
21 posted on 11/10/2002 10:37 AM PST by Dusty Rose

My oldest son, 10 yrs., thinks these mysteries help him recall the entire Gospel and salvation story, and has stated he always thought something was missing to the Rosary till now.
27 posted on 11/10/2002 11:56 AM PST by Polycarp

I would rather try to engage in a dialogue with the living Pontiff and try to convince him of my point of view, than nurture the conceit that Pope Saint Pius V, innumerable saints, innumerable ordinary Catholics, and the children of Fatima had been praying a rosary that was “missing something.”

We need to stop treating devotions ... like they were written on the stone tablets brought down by Moses. Devotions have changed over the years, and will continue to do so.
31 posted on 11/10/2002 12:58 PM PST by SuziQ

Well, you know, the Fifteen Mysteries actually are etched in stone on the walls of many a church and cathedral, as well as depicted in many, many stain glass windows and paintings. I think it a shame that all of these holy objects have been rendered obsolete, as if the new fashion line for next spring had just come in from Paris (and you wouldn’t want to be caught wearing last year’s style). Mary’s Psalter should not be treated like that.

He commended to the Church the Luminous Mysteries as a suggestion not a command.
34 posted on 11/10/2002 2:40 PM PST by Siobhan

I LOVE the new Mysteries of Light.I say them everyday.
50 posted on 11/10/2002 8:47 PM PST by Lady In Blue

This is why I use the word obsolescence. The pope suggests five “new” mysteries, and suddenly someone stops even saying the “dusty, old” fifteen mysteries any more.

A “suggestion” from the pope is more than a “suggestion” from your next-door neighbor. In fact, there have been many proposals over the years to alter or add to the mysteries of the rosary, and many good Catholics have been saying their own versions of mysteries as private devotions. This is fine.

But a “suggestion to add” five mysteries from Pope John Paul II is, de facto a “fait accompli addition” of those five mysteries. I may be free to say them or not, but "The Rosary" is no longer fifteen mysteries long, it is now twenty mysteries long, and all of the wealth of devotional art and literature containing only the fifteen is henceforth obsolete and unusable.

Hand in hand with obsolescence is planned obsolescence. We see it not only in the design of toasters, but since 1969 we have been seeing it in the way the Novus Ordo changes from year to year to year.

When one innovation has been made, expect another one soon, and then another one after that.

After all, why isn’t there a mystery for the Sermon on the Mount? The Cleansing of the Temple? The Woman at the Well? The Raising of Lazarus?

Well, I expect that there will be soon.

Why decades? We could fit in 25 mysteries for 200 beads if we said only 8 Hail Marys in between. (A great planned obsolescence scheme for some rosary manufacturer.)

As I said above, IMHO the Luminous Mysteries ought to have been “suggested” as a new chaplet.

Since "static" seems to be that quality you most value, you ought to IMMEDIATELY move to suppress the writings of ... John Newman--remember that fellow, who thought "development" was a natural thing...
92 posted on 11/11/2002 9:20 AM PST by ninenot

Actually, the proper model here is not Newman but Yves Congar, who taught that the Catholic Church has no capital-T Tradition, but only many small-t traditions, all of which evolve over time. Cardinal Avery Dulles has said that the Second Vatican Council was the vindication of Yves Congar.

I think the demonstration that even with "decrees" such as Rosarium Virginis Mariae (which was more of a suggestion than anything else), that "old ways" still find a way to continue shows that even though we have a one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church, God has given us free will (checked by dogma) to worship and praise Him in our favorite ways.
118 posted on 11/11/2002 12:29 PM PST by Pyro7480

Our religion unites man, who lives in a Hereclitian world of flux, with the immutable, unchanging God, Who has no beginning or end: I Am Who Am (Ex.3:14). It is appropriate for there to be some mimesis between the unchanging object of our contemplation, and the method of our contemplation. Granted, it will be imperfect; our world is a world of historical change. But must we live in a Congarian sect where change is the only constant?

Slavish? I mostly identify as Irish. [sarcasm}

Oh, you mean like being a slave of Christ and of the Vicar of Christ on Earth??? Well, if one is going to be a slave, it makes sense to be a slave of Christ. Oh, that's right, that may not seem as obvious when you have rejected His Church for a taste factory of your own preference. If you think I am arrogant now, you should have known me when I was a teenager or a young lawyer. I've mellowed quite a bit.

I do not congratulate myself. I merely streetfight as every good elk should on behalf of Jesus Christ and His own Church. Sorry you are no longer up to being among us.

I also see that you think Jesus Christ made a mistake of some sort in choosing Judas. Didn't He tell Judas at the Last Supper to do what he had to do? My Savior does not, did not and never will make mistakes.

Cardinal Wyczinski was not fond of Fr. Wojtlywa (JPII) in his earliest priesthood but they became quite close thereafter. It is understood that Wyczinski was JPII's kingmaker at the conclave. It is also quite well understood that, after the assassination attempt by Muhammed Ali Agca, as the pope lay recovering from his grievous wounds and Wyczinski lay dying of cancer in Poland, they spent gobs of time in mutual conversations that were their last due to Wyczinski's death. Your history is as deficient as your humility and submission to the pope.

As to your status as married man with kids, the Holy Ghost is wonderful. He can do anything including making a married man like you or someone like you pope. Williamson isn't married, is he? Fellay? Don't hold your breath waiting for the election of such as you or them, however.

Oh, and Jesus Christ did not found SSPX or any other schismatic group.

AND, I didn't think you would get around to the substantive arguments.

My sedan chair and my slaves, please. Ther is nothing new here and work to be done with others.

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.