The Twenty Mysteries of the Rosary?

Seattle Catholic ^ | November 8, 2002 | John Vennari

[malakhi]

Re: your #130. This non-Catholic says bravo! What a terrific attitude you evince. I particularly liked this passage:

We have raised our children Catholic by homeschooling them for years and then working with other Catholic homeschoolers in the development of our own schools. This is also not unique. They don't watch network TV or sitcoms. They don't hang out at malls. They don't have unaccounted for free time to do what they please or what others please. We take a very serious interest in their friends and associates. They have plenty of "socialization," plenty of classical education, languages ancient and modern, good literature, Saxon Math. It costs us luxuries that others may take for granted but our kids are more important than material goods.

[ultima ratio]

What, pray tell, is a "schismatic mentality"? Who has defined it? What encyclical has denounced it? What is this strange malady that you catch while attending a traditional Mass at an SSPX chapel? Do you catch it from listening to a homily on the Gospel? Do you catch it from listening to Gregorian chant? Maybe you catch it from having coffee with other families comparing notes on homeschooling. It must be a terrible malady--so many of you Novus Ordo types keep worrying about it.

[Desdemona]

If the parents have an indifferentist outlook, how can the children be expected to know, care or believe in their family's nominal religion?

OTOH, if a parent's grip is too tight, kids may reject religion as form of rebellion. I've seen a lot of that. Mostly due to outside influences, particularly public school.

[Catholicguy]

<> So, what was the name of that wine again? I'd like to check it out. I remember you were fairly high in your recomendating it.

BTW, to hang-out with you, black elk, tom fleming and scott reichert would be such a blast that I'd pick-up the wine tab:)<>

[sitetest]

Dear ultima ratio,

"What, pray tell, is a 'schismatic mentality'?"

Glad you asked! Didn't know you were laboring in ignorance. Here is a link to EWTN with a letter from the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CEDSSPX2.HTM

I will quote a bit from the letter:

"While it is true that participation in the Mass at the chapels of the Society of St. Pius X does not of itself constitute 'formal adherence to the schism', such adherence can come about over a period of time as one slowly imbibes a schismatic mentality which separates itself from the teaching of the Supreme Pontiff and the entire Catholic Church classically exemplified in A Rome and Econe Handbook which states in response to question 14 that the SSPX defends the traditional catechisms and therefore the Old Mass, and so attacks the Novus Ordo, the Second Vatican Council and the New Catechism, all of which more or less undermine our unchangeable Catholic faith."

And of course, we have these comments from our Holy Father himself, from the actual letter, Ecclesia Dei:

"5. Faced with the situation that has arisen, I deem it my duty to inform all the Catholic faithful of some aspects which this sad event has highlighted....

"c) In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfill the grave duty of remaining united to the vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offense against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the church's law.[8]"

I know, I know. It's just the word of the Supreme Pontiff of the Holy Catholic Church, the word of the Vicar of Christ, against the high and mighty ultima ratio, but it will do for me.


sitetest

[malakhi]

OTOH, if a parent's grip is too tight, kids may reject religion as form of rebellion. I've seen a lot of that. Mostly due to outside influences, particularly public school.

Yes, it is a balancing act. There is the risk that children might reject their parent's beliefs. But hopefully at minimum they have some foundation, and something to return to later in life. Those who raise their children secularly are denying their children a whole dimension of life. Many of these children end up being victims of religious or political demogogues, because they seek something they are lacking inside.

[sitetest]

Dear Catholicguy,

The winery is Ingleside in Oak Grove, Virginia.

The URL is: www.ipwine.com .

You can order their stuff by phone, or on-line pretty soon, if your state permits. Maryland, where I live, doesn't permit it. I have to drive there.

The '99 vintage, being from a year of severe drought in this area, is turning out very, very nicely. I have a couple of cases of the Cabernet Sauvignon and the Merlot, both from '99.

"BTW, to hang-out with you, black elk, tom fleming and scott reichert would be such a blast that I'd pick-up the wine tab:)<>"

Hey, I tend to go anywhere there is free wine. ;-)


sitetest

[Desdemona]

Those who raise their children secularly are denying their children a whole dimension of life. Many of these children end up being victims of religious or political demogogues, because they seek something they are lacking inside.

At this point, I know people in every posible combination. I honestly believe that the biggest part of where the belief system ends up is influences in the mid-late teen years, unless there is a strong conversion experience somewhere in there, and whether or not people are happy or miserable in their life. Seriously, if people believe they are miserable, they will avoid what they believe is causing the misery. It's sad, but....

And, yes, some point most people look for fulfillment when their lives seem empty.

[sitetest]

Dear ultima ratio,

It bears repeating:

"c) In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfill the grave duty of remaining united to the vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offense against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the church's law.[8]"

sitetest

[sitetest]

Dear Bud,

"Your conclusions don't mean squat for me come judgement day."

I don't think that I've asserted otherwise.

Are you trying to change the subject?

;-)


sitetest

[ultima ratio]

You must be joking. Criticizing the Novus Ordo and the Council and the Catechism leads to a schismatic mentality? LOL. Is Cardinal Ratzinger schimatic? Does he have a schismatic mentality because he criticizes the Novus Ordo openly and frequently? Is Atila Sinke Guimaraes schismatic for criticizing the Council for its many ambiguities and contradictions? Is it schismatic to point out the New Catechism teaches novelties differing on many points from past catechisms? None of these acts of criticism have ever been considered wrong or in any way improper. To use such an argument to suggest such criticism leads to a schismatic mentality, therefore, is not only obviously false, it is totally unreasonable.

For one thing, the SSPX does not question the validity of the New Mass, only its doctrinal deficiencies--something it has every right to do. For another, the SSPX does not question the authenticity of the Council, only its wisdom--something it has again the right to do. And since when is it schismatic to question a mere catechism? Criticism of the Novus Ordo especially is not only NOT tantamount to undermining the "unchangeable Catholic faith," it is absolutely necessary to do so if we are to extract the Church from its present crisis. The Novus Ordo has been criticized since the moment of its inception by eminent theologians, including those of the SSPX. Cardinal Ratzinger has himself made the claim that it is actually the Novus Ordo which has endangered the faith, not the other way around:
___________________________________________________________
Cardinal Ratzinger . . .
Blames Church Crisis On Liturgical Collapse

by Paul Likoudis

The unprecedented manner in which Pope Paul VI imposed the Novus Ordo of the Mass created tragic consequences for the Roman Catholic Church, says Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in his new autobiography.

Not only did the banning of the old Mass represent a severe departure from tradition, but the revolutionary manner in which the new Mass was imposed has created the impression that liturgy is something each community creates on its own, not something which "is given."

Rather than being a force for unity in the Church, the new Mass has been the source of liturgical anarchy, dividing Catholics "into opposing party positions" and creating a situation in which the Church is "lacerating herself."

Formally imposed after a six-month period of "liturgical experimentation" in which anything —and everything—did go, the Roman Catholic Mass has never attained a universality, stability—or even an element of predictably—for most Catholics around the world; but instead has been a stimulus for never-ending innovations—from altar girls to dancing girls to women priests.

While the Missal of Paul VI "brought with it some authentic improvements and a real enrichment," the banning of the old Mass caused some "extremely serious damages for us," he wrote in La Mia Vita, released in mid-April in its Italian translation.

"I was dismayed by the banning of the old Missal," he wrote, "seeing that a similar thing had never happened in the entire history of the liturgy....

"The promulgation of the banning of the Missal that had been developed in the course of centuries. starting from the time of the sacramentaries of the ancient Church, has brought with it a break in the history of the liturgy whose consequences could be tragic.... The old structure was broken to pieces and another was constructed admittedly with material of which the old structure had been made and using also the preceding models....

"But the fact that [the liturgy] was presented as a new structure, set up against what had been formed in the course of history and was now prohibited, and that the liturgy was made to appear in some ways no longer as a living process but as a product of specialized knowledge and juridical competence, has brought with it some extremely serious damages for us.

"In this way, in fact, the impression has arisen that the liturgy is 'made,' that it is not something that exists before us, something 'given,' but that it depends on our decisions. It follows as a consequence that this decision-making capacity is not recognized only in specialists or in a central authority, but that, in the final analysis, each 'community' wants to give itself its own liturgy. But when the liturgy is something each one makes by himself, then it no longer gives us what is its true quality: encounter with the mystery which is not our product but our origin and the wellspring of our life....

"I am convinced that the ecclesial crisis in which we find ourselves today depends in great part upon the collapse of the liturgy, which at times is actually being conceived of etsi Deus non daretur: as though in the liturgy it did not matter any more whether God exists and whether He speaks to us and listens to us.

"But if in the liturgy the communion of faith no longer appears, nor the universal unity of the Church and of her history, nor the mystery of the living Christ, where is it that the Church still appears in her spiritual substance?," he asked.

Too often, Ratzinger lamented, "the community is only celebrating itself without its being worthwhile to do so."

The book's German title translates to: From My Life: Remembrances 1927-1977.

On at least two other occasions, Cardinal Ratzinger has criticized specific liturgical abuses, while on other highly publicized events, such as the Ordinations of seminarians into the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, he has praised the beauty of the old Mass.

But his newly released autobiography is the first prolonged lament over the wholesale replacement of one liturgy with another.

In 1969, Pope Paul VI issued his General Instruction of the Roman Missal, revising the Order of the Mass and related prayers. The old Mass rite was to be banned, with few exceptions, after a transition period of several months.

Although the Mass had undergone evolutionary changes through the history of the Church, there was always a sense of "continuity," Ratzinger wrote. Even Pope Pius V, who reworked the Roman Missal. in 1570 following the Council of Trent, allowed for the continued use of some liturgies with centuries-long traditions.

Cardinal Ratzinger said there "is need for a new liturgical. movement to call back to life the true heritage of Vatican Council II.

"For the life of the Church, it is dramatically urgent to have a renewal of liturgical. awareness, a liturgical reconciliation, which goes back to recognizing the unity in the history of the liturgy and understands Vatican II not as a break, but as a developing moment."

Pope Paul VI's new Mass has been a contentious issue in the Church since its introduction in 1969, not only fueling a bitter Church dispute involving the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who was excommunicated by Pope John Paul II in 1988, but prompting millions of Catholics to question the legitimacy—not only of the Mass, but of the Pope who approved it.

Even after Pope John Paul in his 1988 apostolic letter Ecclesia Dei called on his bishops to be "generous" in giving Catholics access to the Tridentine rite, in a compassionate gesture aimed at healing some of the divisions and discontent over the Novus Ordo, many bishops, and even cardinals, notably Detroit's Adam Cardinal Maida, have refused to accommodate the desires of Catholics for the old Mass.

[ultima ratio]

Do you know what "formal adherence to schism" means? It is a legal term. It does not apply to me or anybody else who attends an SSPX Mass. It may make you feel better when you post such slanders, but it doesn't make them any less stupid.

[sitetest]

Dear ultima ratio,

"You must be joking."

No, just quoting the Vatican.

Now you're just trying to change the subject. You laughed at the term "schismatic mentality". I didn't make it up. I showed that it is a term used by the Church herself to describe what is happening over time to those who try to attach themselves to the SSPX. Now you are quibbling with the definition.

You want to argue about the definition citing this one and that. Those of us who have been conversing with you for any length of time are familiar with your inability to quote correctly, or correctly understand what folks are actually saying, as well as your sometime failure to actually quote a real quote.

Thus, wise people ignore your quotes and citations, having learned that they aren't what they seem to be. You use these citations like a drunk uses a lamppost, not for illumination, but for support.

I know that you think that your judgement is superior to that of the Catholic Church. I just don't agree with you.


sitetest

[sitetest]

Dear ultima ratio,

"Do you know what "formal adherence to schism" means? It is a legal term. It does not apply to me or anybody else who attends an SSPX Mass."

You keep telling yourself that.

Everyone can read for themselves that you are in disobedience to the direct instructions of the Supreme Pontiff, and that it is the Supreme Pontiff who warns you about the consequences of schism.

But I'm not going to get further into this. You have had your metaphorical brains beaten on this and many other points concerning your rejection of the Catholic Church. Those who wish to replay it, or play it for the first time, can read through the threads bookmarked on my profile page.

If you, ultima, wish to re-argue this for the umpteenth time, you, too, can go read through the threads again, and shadow-box with them.

By the way, I'll continue to keep you in my prayers.


sitetest

[ultima ratio]

Wrong again. There are no direct instructions. Most canonists now admit the charge of schism is mistaken. But think what you want to think, it in no way affects the reality that Archbishop Lefebvre was completely right and the Pope completely wrong. That is to say, the Archbishop saw the corruption and apostasy and refused to contribute to this by destroying his Society; the Pope, on the other hand, was blind to what was really going on and issued an improper command. JnPII has yet to institute a single necessary ecclesiastical reform in response to the almost universal corruption, by the way, showing how much he is still completely mistaken. To him, it's business as usual--and that business is to dismantle the pre-conciliar Church as expeditiously as possible and to establish his novel doctrines.

[sitetest]

Dear ultima ratio,

"Blah blah blah..." "Wrong again. There are no direct instructions."

"Most canonists..."

LOL. According to YOU. We all know your record in quoting and characterizing what others say.

In the meanwhile, I'll repeat the words of the Supreme Pontiff of the Holy Catholic Church one more time:

"to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfill the grave duty of remaining united to the vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement."

If you wish to remain united to the Vicar of Christ, you must cease your support for the SSPX. The choice is yours.

For the gory details, re-read the threads where other posters worthier than I defeated every argument you made.

sitetest

[Dajjal]

"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."
If you only say the 15 mysteries, then all of your devotional literature exactly fits your preferences, and therefore is not obsolete.

Do you phenomenologists believe there is an objective world at all? Is there anything beyond the subjective?

I'm not talking about "my" rosary or "your" rosary, which are voluntary and can have whatever mysteries we like.

I'm talking about capital-T, capital-R "The Rosary."

Do you understand the difference? I'm not sure how to make it any clearer to you.

As soon as JPII "suggests" that five new mysteries be added to "The Rosary," it is done, finished, accomplished.

New, 20-mystery books will have to be churned out. New 20-mystery art will have to be churned out. The old ones are no longer sufficient.

Forget about reading Saint Louis de Montefort. Even Freepers think that his rosary had a "huge gaping hole" in it and was "missing something" -- it's obsolete and unusable.

And before you tell me that the pope praises de Montefort in his encyclical -- that strikes me as the sort of praise a boss gives a retiree as he hands him a gold watch and walks him to the door and puts him out to pasture. "You did wonderful work, but we don't need you anymore."

I suspect this encyclical was also a ploy to create a whole new slew of rosary books that do not mention Our Lady of Fatima. After all, Cardinal Ratzinger has "explained" to us that "Fatima is entirely in the past." So why should the new phenomenological 20-mystery books dwell on the "entirely fullfilled" Fatima, except maybe in passing?

Now "my" private rosary of 15 mysteries may still find solace in de Montefort -- but I recognize that "my" rosary is an obsolete model. Just as much as Jay Leno's car may have a running board or tail fins; he happily drives it, but it is an obsolete model.

For "The Rosary" now has 20 mysteries, and all previous literature and artwork is henceforth obsolete and unusable.

[Dajjal]

OBSOLETE ROSARY ART

The Fifteen Mysteries and the Virgin of the Rosary
Netherlandish Painter (possibly Goswijn van der Weyden, active by 1491, died after 1538), ca. 1515–20

[Dajjal]

"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."
I disagree - I don't think anyone will "suddenly stop" saying the other mysteries - I certainly haven't.

>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
>

I read Lady In Blue as saying that she no longer says the other fifteen.