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and non- Catholics, praise documents that call the need for non- Catholics to convert to the Catholic Church an "outdated ecclesiology," 6 take part in "inculturated" ceremonies that includes pagan ritual,7 and convoke pan-religious prayer meetings that include Catholics,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

Again, you miss the point. It was not that Jesus made a mistake in picking Judas, it was that his selection didn't suspend Judas' freedom to do evil. You may have passed the bar, but you don't pass basic catachesis. As for the SSPX, get used to it. It's all that's left of the old faith and it's growing as fast as the new religion is dissolving in its own sorry corruptions. And while you may fancy yourself a Catholic and delude yourself that I am not, you should know I believe and practice exactly what Catholics have believed and practiced for the past two thousand years. If I'm out of line, so is the entire history of the Church until the new religion was unjustly imposed. After all, the Society doesn't go around praying with animists and excusing Jews from a need for redemption. Nor does it routinely violate the Council of Trent. All that's strictly a post-conciliar thing, concocted by geniuses who happen to like pedophiles, out of line with anything that remotely resembles Christian revelation. And by the way--none of you have bothered to answer the question I posed earlier, to wit: if I am wrong to hear the ancient Mass in an SSPX chapel, what does that make the Pope who prays with witchdoctors? I mean PRAYS with them, placing their fantasies on a par with the Catholic faith, not just schmooze with them. Or doesn't the First Commandment apply to popes?

The pope is, ummmm, the pope. He is the pope when he reads newspapers. He is the pope when he is having lunch. He is the pope when he is sleeping and when he is awake. He is the pope while enjoying music and he is the pope when praying and saying Mass or the rosary. He is the pope when he signs encyclicals and the pope when he writes thank-you notes to his grocer. You are not. Neither was Lefebvre. Nor is Fellay. Nor is Williamson.

You are right. Why? Because you say so, of course. You regard yourself as the ultimate authority. Why can't everyone else? The pope is wrong because he does not obey ultima ratio. Why? Because ultima ratio says so. Hey, what higher autrhority can there be? UR disobeys and disrespects and is therefore the ultimate authority. All the SSPXers say so. The drop out of the bucket that cannot be wrong, right?

[Rolls back calendar by 485 years.] Fr. Luther posts his theses (disrespectful disobedience) on cathedral door on Witches' Sabbath. Fr. Luther is right and the pope is wrong. After all, Fr. Luther says so and he must be the highest authority because he is disresepectful and disobedient. all the Lutherans and later reformationists agree. Can they be wrong? You bet they are and so are you. [Hint: Disrespectful, disobedient and disreputable are NOT the touchstones of orthodoxy. Antiquity, universality and consensus are. This is not good news for SSPX.]

It bears repeating that your SSPX schism always begins with the notion that the gates of Hell have prevailed which they have not and will not. We have that on the Highest Authority, even higher than Lefebvre.

I don't miss the point at all. I simply do not share your fantasy any more than any other Catholic does. That numbers game of yours does not work well either. How many SSPX schismatics? How many CAtholics? The answer to the second is more than a billion as we speak. How many SSPXers?

Can this or any pope sin? Of course. Is he infallible as were they? Yes. That is due to the ongoing protection of the Paraclete. Can I or UR or Williamson or Fellay sin? Could Lefebvre sin before having to face the eternal music? Yes in all cases Other than the popes, were any of us infallible? Nope. These concepts are reasonably simple unless one's temporarily invincible pride makes submission to such aspects of the Magisterium contradictory to self-worship.

Dear Bud,

"Using your figure of a billion Catholics, then there must be 970 million 'catholics' using artificial bith control."

Sloppy, sloppy, Bud.

It's likely that several hundred million of these Catholics are children. Probably another hundred or two million are old folks. Several hundred million live in poor countries, many, many without access to contraceptives. The proof is in the still-large families in Third World nations.

Of the remaining few hundred million who live in developed Western countries, we regularly see figures that 10% - 15% of these do NOT practice artificial contraception.

Thus, your judgement of the faith "of the vast majority of [BlackElk's] brethren", that their faith "is as shallow as a bird bath", is nothing but arrogance and rash judgement.

Of course, the saddest part of your post is the implication given by your words, "the vast majority of your brethren", that the world's billion Catholics are not YOUR brethren.

sitetest

Dear Bud,

"...when it is YOU and not the Pope, who has declared the faithful who attend SSPX Masses as schismatic."

I've never said that assisting at SSPX Masses automatically makes one a schismatic. I have noted that the Church teaches that regularly assisting at these Masses leads to a schismatic mentality. The conclusion of this is that some who assist at such Masses have become schismatics. And once in a while, one can clearly see that manifest in a particular individual.

I have also noted that those who regularly assist at schismatic Masses are in danger of becoming schismatics, themselves, and that the Holy Father has told us not to assist at these Masses.

However, unlike you, I have not generalized that 97% of Catholics have a faith that is "as shallow as a bird bath".

But, I see that your argument, in any event, is nothing more than the ad hominem fallacy tu quoque - "you, also". Unable to respond to the fact that you have falsely denigrated the faith of 97% of the Catholics in the world, your response is "Well, you do it, too!"

sitetest

You have this odd idea about popes. You think they are divine beings. Did you know that Dante believed the See of Peter during his own day had been made a tomb of "blood and filth"? In one of his cantos for Paradiso he has St. Peter declare that Boniface VIII was an abomination and his chair was therefore vacant. That was in 1300 and Dante has been praised for his Catholic orthodoxy ever since. So this idea of yours that the Pope is beyond reproach is another novelty, a totally unCatholic idea. We not only have the right to resist the Pope when he violates orthodoxy, we have the positive duty. I think the contrary idea--that the pope is right even when he's wrong, has taken hold with Neo-Catholics like yourself because the papacy is all that's left that separates the New Church from outright Protestantism. It's the single Church institution remaining that is still distinctly Catholic. Everything else has been changed or suppressed or protestantized outright.

Still another peculiar idea of yours is that the Paraclete protects the pope continually. That is not a Catholic doctrine. The protection, in any case, is negative: the Holy Spirit protects the pope from error when he speaks ex cathedra on faith or morals, something he very seldom does. This is not a gift that protects the pope from sin or that protects the pope from doing a lot of stupid things in the name of the Church he governs. History is full of popes doing stupid things, including the excommunication of at least one saint.

Another idea of yours that is strange is that obedience is somehow always good. But clearly it is not. There is such a thing as false obedience and Thomas Aquinas explains why. He says we must always obey God before man, even when that man is the Pope himself. This is because no pope may command us to do what is evil, especially when it would harm the Church. He may not set up his own novel doctrines and supercede the traditions and teachings of the Church and then compel us to give these our interior assent. Nor may a pope be passively indifferent when his subordinates suppress or contradict the deposit of faith. Yet this Pope does precisely this by creating a climate whereby every traditional truth is questioned and routinely undermined. And by doing so, he violates his own papal oath:

I VOW TO CHANGE NOTHING OF THE RECEIVED TRADITION AND NOTHING THEREOF I HAVE FOUND BEFORE ME GUARDED BY MY GOD-PLEASING PREDECESSORS, TO ENCROACH UPON, TO ALTER, OR TO PERMIT ANY INNOVATION THEREIN;

TO THE CONTRARY; WITH GLOWING AFFECTION AS HER TRULY FAITHFUL STUDENT AND SUCCESSOR, TO SAFEGUARD REVERENTLY THE PASSED-ON GOOD, WITH MY WHOLE STRENGTH AND UTMOST EFFORT...

I WILL KEEP WITHOUT SACRIFICE TO ITSELF THE DISCIPLINE AND THE RITE OF THE CHURCH. I WILL PUT OUTSIDE THE RITE ANYONE WHO DARES TO GO AGAINST THIS OATH, MAY IT BE SOMEBODY ELSE OR I...

ACCORDINGLY, WITHOUT EXCLUSION, WE SUBJECT TO SEVEREST EXCOMMUNICATION ANYONE--BE IT OURSELVES OR BE IT ANOTHER--WHO WOULD DARE TO UNDERTAKE ANYTHING NEW IN CONTRADICTION TO THIS EVANGELICAL TRADITION AND THE PURITY OF THE ORTHODOX FAITH AND THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, OR WOULD SEEK TO CHANGE ANYTHING BY HIS OPPOSING EFFORTS, OR WOULD AGREE WITH THOSE WHO UNDERTAKE SUCH A BLASPHEMOUS VENTURE.

You say I set myself up as the ultimate authority. But this is patently false. In fact, traditionalists like myself are quite strictly bound--to the teachings of the ancient faith as taught by the popes and councils of the Catholic Church right up to Vatican II. It is you, and others like you, who reject the Church's own past, who freely choose to follow something new, something untested, something never before seen or heard in the Church, new doctrines and ideas and practices, new standards for morality, new attitudes and practices in worship. So we have been forced to choose: between this Pope and his many novelties concocted out of the ambiguities of a minor non-dogmatic council--and all the popes and councils of preceding millenia. I believe I have chosen wisely.

By the way, in the numbers game you lose. The SSPX aligns itself with all the Catholics that have gone before since apostolic times. We are Catholic in exactly the same way they were Catholic and are faithful to all the councils exactly as they were. This is the Cmmunion of Saints, remember? How many of those who have lived before would recognize this New Church thing you think is Catholic? How many would not think, could they return, that they had stumbled instead into a new religion, something as alien as Buddhism? You New Church Catholics, on the other hand, share little in common with them, dating back as you do only to the late sixties. Do you think they cared primarily about world peace or social justice or the environment and gay rights? They were passionate about Christ's Redemption and the Holy Trinity and the Real Presence. As I say, you lose. Where numbers are concerned, it's no contest.

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.