RVM, 'Luminosity' and 'reform'
@compuserve.com Mark Johnson
There's been a lot of recent discussion on this. And perhaps it would
serve to put the complaints against this aspect of RVM into a brief
article.
On 16 OCT 2002, Pope John Paul II published the Apostolic Letter
Rosarium Virginis Mariae (RVM). It was an 'ecumenical' document, in a
papacy consistently offering such 'peace' with all other 'faith
communities'; these once held to be in error and in need of conversion
to The Church by all the Popes prior to the PC (post-conciliar) Popes.
If seen in that context, The Rosary is then reduced to something more
palatable to 'reform'; which is not true reform, of course. Thus,
among various pleas, he concludes to "theologians" : rooted in the
word of God and sensitive to the lived experience of the Christian
people, may you help them to discover the Biblical foundations, the
spiritual riches and the pastoral value of this traditional prayer.
The very Confraterity of The Rosary (rosary-center.org), an
organization long recommended by pius men, from Popes on down, was
early to modify their site without any notification (unlike for ex,
the notes at familyrosary.org, which has adopted the same) that The
'Rosary' of 20 Mysteries marks a significant and entirely
controversial change from that form unchanged after centuries, and
which those pius men understood as The Rosary. It is claimed in RVM
that this alteration and disfiguring of The Rosary is purely optional.
Yet what novice or new convert might be expected to know better if not
even a footnote is offered on the matter? Perhaps, optional, is in the
eyes of the beholder - a 'lived' standard, in the jargon of 'reform'?
The first objection, then, to the complaint is that one cannot
complain, essentially. It ignores the complaint, from the start. It's
the fallacy of triumphalism, of arrogance. Some might desperately
argue that the Pope, or at least the two PC Popes, have never been
wrong and never could be wrong; a virtue not shared by any Pope before
them. To such a childish and heretical suggestion, the answer must be
that this is a notion utterly foreign to Catholicism, and at odds with
God, Himself, as the only Perfection, even as we can understand it.
The corrolary that only the cleric may voice an opinion goes by the
name of, clericalism - a heresy.
Some might continue, then, and seem to find support by a pattern of
omission in RVM, that any previous Pope's opinion does not count, nor
that of 'private' visionaries, and so on, already approved and
promoted by the same line of Popes. And that is because there is
nothing particularly special about the Rosary, as they see it. It's
the 'it all don't matter' assertion - I know nothing because it's not
important to know anything about it, in other words. This is just
another of a set of marginal private devotions, that has fallen out of
favor among those with whom they associate (and don't traditionalist
Catholics know, as has been just one of their many complaints), they
will say. So there's no harm in changing it, disfiguring it from how
it was always understood, because it's not that important, to begin
with. That callous indifference, often used by scoundrels to justify
their vandalism, in any context, must literally be seen for what it
is; not an argument, but a poor excuse, at best. It's the sort of
thing that works with thugs, or in tyrannies where those who complain
are 'put away', but not with the experienced officer who is called in
and gets that excuse, and not when standing before a judge on the
bench. Because they will tell the thug - it matters. You should have
taken the time.
So, that said, "rooted in the word of God" is not explained. The
Rosary is a Marian prayer, called the Marian Psalter for the 150
repetitions of the Ave (if one looks at the Book of Psalms, one will
discover there are 150, not 200). The emphasis becomes not Marian,
then, but 'Christological', as if somehow Mary was opposed to Christ,
as if somehow God and His Church were wrong before the PC Popes to
insist that we come to God through Our Blessed Mother, more so as we
understand The Mysteries, her role, her love. In others words, it's
simply the Protestant complaint that Mary is too 'revered', now
insinuated in a document signed by His Holiness, The Pope of The
Catholic Church. It's a false choice presented by His Holiness, or at
least by the author of RVM.
And there follows "and sensitive to the lived experience of the
Christian people". But again for the gnostic and initiate, this is
code language. It appears to be meaningless double-talk, along the
lines of Sir Humphrey Appleby, the clever and fictitious keeper of the
crown in a PBS sitcom, to most others, surely. But "lived experience"
means something to the initiated. And to them it suggests only a
humanism, a relativism, a rejection of that which all can know alike,
Revelation. In rejecting the holy character of The Rosary, its Divine
origin, the grace given to promote it, repeatedly, the grace of
miracles attributed to it, repeatedly, it becomes a seemingly subtle,
and less so upon reflection, a rejection of that very Revelation, not
merely tradition, as if tradition were a mere thing in its own right.
In the same sentence, "may you help them to discover the Biblical
foundations,". And yet, again, here is the Protestant ethic and
complaint insinuated into RVM. For it is the Prot who contemns all
Catholic tradition as false because it is seen as 'extra-Biblical'.
Here tradition is omitted from RVM. To the initiate, the purpose would
be clear. Only by such omission, could luminosities be introduced, in
fact, similar in manner and technic to the very promulgation of the
Pauline 'new order'. History repeats itself.
It continues with "the spiritual riches". Yet these riches are also
miraculous, and by way of intervention in world affairs. The riches
are not merely "lived" and "experiential", which by the cant and
jargon of initiation means idiosyncratic, but common to all devoted to
Our Blessed Mother, and realized often by way of tangible and
miraculous events as a direct result of The Holy Rosary, The Marian
Psalter, and not a Psalter +50.
And concluded with "and the pastoral value". The pointed mention of
'pastoral value', is intended to convey again the step into a belief
in universal salvation, beyond the mention of "Christians". The
'People of God', mentioned in caps in RVM, are not merely Catholics to
the 'reform' sect. They are not merely Protestants, schismatics, and
Catholics. It includes all - not many - except perhaps for
traditionalist Catholics, actual Catholics, who perhaps are the rare
few consigned to hell by 'reformists'. It refers to Hindus and
Muslims. It means those who offer satanic masses, or who debunk the
same as 'atheists'. The 'pastoral value', the 'Christological'
emphasis, is seen by the initiated in light of 'ecumenism'. That is,
the Marian Psalter is no more. Mary was being too 'adored'. She 'gets
in the way' of God, in the ignorant opinion of 'reform'. The 'Rosary',
as they would now call it, becomes no hindrance to 'ecumenism',
because it no longer is The Rosary, and no longer demands conversion.
And so the final phrase "of this traditional prayer", is a crock, most
obviously. The whole point of this is to render the "traditional" an
'outmoded ecclesiology', as the 'reformist' phrase tends to go. The
traditional is to be destroyed, ignored, encumbered and changed into
something else. And if the complaint should arise that this is no
Psalter, because there are not 200 Psalms, there is only and simply
one recourse to the 'reformist'. As some, in the past, have already
considered the Sorrowful Mysteries as including the notion of
illumination, clearly these would be struck, entirely, in favor of
'luminosity'. It's the logical next step, to return the chaplet to
150.
The complaint against RVM continues, then, with the very Mysteries
selected and the reason given. These are genuine Mysteries of the
Faith. But inserted into The Holy Rosary, and phrased as they are, is
something else.
On the very insertion, from de Montfort's work, ironically posted at
the Confraternity's on web site:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[Our Blessed Mother] taught it to Blessed Alan de la Roche and said to
him in a vision: "When people say one hundred and fifty Angelic
Salutations this prayer is very helpful to them and is a very pleasing
tribute to me. But they will do better still and will please me even
more if they say these salutations while meditating on the life, death
and passion of Jesus Christ - for this meditation is the soul of the
prayer."
[And earlier in the text:] Our Lady's Psalter or Rosary is divided up
into three parts of five decades each, for the following special
reasons:
To honor the three Persons of the Most Blessed Trinity;
To honor the life, death and glory of Jesus Christ;
To imitate the Church Triumphant, to help the members of the Church
Militant and the lessen the pains of the Church Suffering;
To imitate the three groups into which the Psalms are divided: a) The
first being for the purgative life, b) the second for the illuminative
life, c) and the third for the unitive life;
And, finally, to give us graces in abundance during our lifetime,
peace at death, and glory in eternity.
[St. Louis De Montfort, The Secret of the Rosary,
http://www.rosary-center.org/secret.htm]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On the matter of selecting the Mysteries, themselves, and for the
reasons given:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"The words direct the imagination and the mind towards a particular
episode or moment in the life of Christ."
[RVM, section 29]
A particular episode or moment.
"Another mystery of light is the preaching by which Jesus proclaims
the coming of the Kingdom of God, calls to conversion (cf. Mk 1:15)
and forgives the sins of all who draw near to him in humble trust (cf.
Mk 2:3-13; Lk 7:47- 48)"
[RVM, section 21]
"13 And he was in the desert forty days and forty nights, and was
tempted by Satan; and he was with beasts, and the angels ministered to
him.
14 And after that John was delivered up, Jesus came into Galilee,
preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,
15 And saying: The time is accomplished, and the kingdom of God is at
hand: repent, and believe the gospel."
[Mark, 1:13-15]
"9 Which is easier, to say to the sick of the palsy: Thy sins are
forgiven
thee; or to say: Arise, take up thy bed, and walk?
10 But that you may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to
forgive
sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,)
11 I say to thee: Arise, take up thy bed, and go into thy house."
[Mark, 2:9-11]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And the contradiction is clear.
On the question of another Mystery, also specifically:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Baptism in the Jordan is first of all a mystery of light. Here,
as Christ descends into the waters, the innocent one who became “sin”
for our sake (cf. 2Cor 5:21), the heavens open wide and the voice of
the Father declares him the beloved Son (cf. Mt 3:17 and parallels),
while the Spirit descends on him to invest him with the mission which
he is to carry out."
[RVM, section 21]
Yet none have ever seriously suggested that The Holy Spirit,
represented in the corporeal dove, invested, added, provide more, of
something not possessed by God, Our Lord Jesus Christ. It was by way
of identification, and showing symbolism with the Ark, for example.
The idea of 'investment' smacks of heretical notions of an 'arisen
Master', learning of his 'mission' as the years went by. If one
insists on another sense of the word, invest, one might avoid such
criticism, of course.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And there's the first Mystery:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In these mysteries, apart from the miracle at Cana, the presence of
Mary remains in the background. The Gospels make only the briefest
reference to her occasional presence at one moment or other during the
preaching of Jesus (cf. Mk 3:31-5; Jn 2:12), and they give no
indication that she was present at the Last Supper and the institution
of the Eucharist.
Yet the role she assumed at Cana in some way accompanies Christ
throughout his ministry. The revelation made directly by the Father at
the Baptism in the Jordan and echoed by John the Baptist is placed
upon Mary's lips at Cana, and it becomes the great maternal counsel
which Mary addresses to the Church of every age: “Do whatever he tells
you” (Jn 2:5). This counsel is a fitting introduction to the words and
signs of Christ's public ministry and it forms the Marian foundation
of all the “mysteries of light”."
[RVM, section 21]
While the mystics might suggest she was present in the preparation of
The Last Supper, though not present in the room, this presents the
confession of a departure of the Mysteries from the Marian Psalter,
the very Marian perspective, rather bluntly. The explanation, then, is
that "This counsel" "forms the Marian foundation". But that is
meaningless. Mary's words of obedience and wisdom are said to be those
at the Jordan. But then why include the Baptism of Christ? if the very
same lesson, in this particular way, is simply repeated in the next
Mystery? Or else, why include Cana? Furthermore, if "this counsel" is
irrelevant, and the sentence is just very badly written, then what is
intended is that "Christ's public ministry" "forms the" . . . etc. But
if Mary is not present, as they, or JP II, would have it, save at
Cana, how does Christ's telling parables, or the Transfiguration, and
so on, make the Mysteries specifically Marian? Of course, it doesn't.
It's a lot of double talk, which hardly conceals the confession at the
start - that these are a literal departure from a Marian devotion,
from a Marian Psalter.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of all the Popes before the 'PC two', none dared to destroy The Holy
Rosary. It was perfect. It needed no false 'improvement'. It needed
and wanted no 'ecumenism'. It was illuminating in the way God wished
us to be enlightened. There was no offense taken by its Marian nature,
as a Marian devotion, as the Marian Psalter. It was a Catholic
devotion, and Catholics, far from being embarrassed or offended,
turned to Our Blessed Mother in this devotion, and trusted her, as was
the Will of God.
Now Popes can be wrong. This Pope has been very wrong, on very many
things. The sedevacantist argues that the PC Popes have been frauds
and pretenders, not imbued with a Catholic spirit and holy fear of
God. The PC Popes are heretics, manifest or otherwise. They are
auto-excommunicated. Thus - sedevacantist, confessing the papacy, but
also that it is currently vacant. That case hasn't really been made.
But many elements seem to suggest that conclusion. And it has seemed
clear that if this Pope were to be considered a heretic, not formally
judged as such (which is beyond any one person's standing, even group
except for a council, on a narrow question), but acting in that manner
despite holy correction, stubbornly so, that it would be over his
embrace of the very 'ecumenism' long rejected by The Church, for good
reason. If he is 'past it', and no longer aware of what he signs,
remember that even in good health he promoted, zealously, this new
thing of 'ecumenism'. And so the responsibility must still be his for
laying down that road, that pathway, on which he himself traveled into
senility (if that's the case).
This RVM is literally an attack on The Holy Rosary. Let there be no
confusion about this. And it may be, ironically, the thing that brings
JP II closest to stepping over that line; this man so often
represented in the press, and his press, as particularly devoted to
Our Blessed Mother, and to the Marian Psalter, The Holy Rosary. But
can the ignorance betrayed in RVM come from a man, whoever actually
wrote it, who is devoted to and understands The Rosary? who has even
read the very work of de Montfort, mentioned only in passing in RVM?
And so the same might be asked of the Confraternity, who still post
the complete text of de Montfort's, The Secret of the Rosary, on their
site.
Peace.
------------------------------------------------------------
* When one finds nothing more to say to God,
* but just knows He is there --
* that, in itself, is the best of prayers.
[Fr. John Vianney, priest of Ars township, France, 1859]
Gerard
Mark Johnson wrote:
> Someone suggested I repost. So - here it is again, in its entirety.
>
>
> There's been a lot of recent discussion on this. And perhaps it would
> serve to put the complaints against this aspect of RVM into a brief
> article.
>
> On 16 OCT 2002, Pope John Paul II published the Apostolic Letter
> Rosarium Virginis Mariae (RVM). It was an 'ecumenical' document, in a
> papacy consistently offering such 'peace' with all other 'faith
> communities'; these once held to be in error and in need of conversion
> to The Church by all the Popes prior to the PC (post-conciliar) Popes.
>
Well, peace is peace, and heretics and schismatics require it more than
others. Should they not turn out to be worthy of it, it will return to
him who sent it, as the Lord says. BTW I believe it is more properly
"ecumenical" in the ancient sense of the word, meaning it applies to the
uniate Eastern churches as well. Most papal documents do not.
> If seen in that context, The Rosary is then reduced to something more
> palatable to 'reform'; which is not true reform, of course. Thus,
> among various pleas, he concludes to "theologians" : rooted in the
> word of God and sensitive to the lived experience of the Christian
> people, may you help them to discover the Biblical foundations, the
> spiritual riches and the pastoral value of this traditional prayer.
>
> The very Confraterity of The Rosary (rosary-center.org), an
> organization long recommended by pius men, from Popes on down, was
> early to modify their site without any notification (unlike for ex,
> the notes at familyrosary.org, which has adopted the same) that The
> 'Rosary' of 20 Mysteries marks a significant and entirely
> controversial change from that form unchanged after centuries, and
> which those pius men understood as The Rosary. It is claimed in RVM
> that this alteration and disfiguring of The Rosary is purely optional.
It is claimed, and in my diocese, it has been read into at face value
only. That is, the new devotion is (for US anyway) purely optional.
> Yet what novice or new convert might be expected to know better if not
> even a footnote is offered on the matter? Perhaps, optional, is in the
> eyes of the beholder - a 'lived' standard, in the jargon of 'reform'?
>
I agree, this is totally misleading. They really need to put some sort
of "history of the Rosary" article, or SOMETHING that doesn't give
people the false impression that this is how we always did it.
> The first objection, then, to the complaint is that one cannot
> complain, essentially. It ignores the complaint, from the start. It's
> the fallacy of triumphalism, of arrogance. Some might desperately
> argue that the Pope, or at least the two PC Popes, have never been
> wrong and never could be wrong; a virtue not shared by any Pope before
> them. To such a childish and heretical suggestion, the answer must be
> that this is a notion utterly foreign to Catholicism, and at odds with
> God, Himself, as the only Perfection, even as we can understand it.
> The corrolary that only the cleric may voice an opinion goes by the
> name of, clericalism - a heresy.
It is so ironic that the very people who would likely want to adopt a
new and innovative revision of the Rosary are the most upset about the
clarifications (and I think it's sad they needed to be explained to
people--bishops even) on the rite of Paul VI. After all, the Pope has
every right to tell bishops they are not celebrating the local rite of
his diocese properly. This is not to be offensive regarding new
devotions. I believe the spiritual intentions and theology of the new
mysteries are solidly grounded, I don't particularly like their
insertion into the Rosary But I must be honest; that too is purely
optional.
>
> Some might continue, then, and seem to find support by a pattern of
> omission in RVM, that any previous Pope's opinion does not count, nor
> that of 'private' visionaries, and so on, already approved and
> promoted by the same line of Popes. And that is because there is
> nothing particularly special about the Rosary, as they see it. It's
> the 'it all don't matter' assertion - I know nothing because it's not
> important to know anything about it, in other words.
I wish I could say those people are on the fringe with more certainty.
They sadly seem to be growing in numbers.
> This is just
> another of a set of marginal private devotions, that has fallen out of
> favor among those with whom they associate (and don't traditionalist
> Catholics know, as has been just one of their many complaints), they
> will say. So there's no harm in changing it, disfiguring it from how
> it was always understood, because it's not that important, to begin
> with. That callous indifference, often used by scoundrels to justify
> their vandalism, in any context, must literally be seen for what it
> is; not an argument, but a poor excuse, at best. It's the sort of
> thing that works with thugs, or in tyrannies where those who complain
> are 'put away', but not with the experienced officer who is called in
> and gets that excuse, and not when standing before a judge on the
> bench. Because they will tell the thug - it matters. You should have
> taken the time.
>
> So, that said, "rooted in the word of God" is not explained. The
> Rosary is a Marian prayer, called the Marian Psalter for the 150
> repetitions of the Ave (if one looks at the Book of Psalms, one will
> discover there are 150, not 200). The emphasis becomes not Marian,
> then, but 'Christological', as if somehow Mary was opposed to Christ,
I did not get this impression reading it. Just to be fair, Mary is, by
the way, not at the forefront of many of the traditional mysteries.
She's there, and very important, but not the central figure of several
traditional mysteries.
> as if somehow God and His Church were wrong before the PC Popes to
> insist that we come to God through Our Blessed Mother, more so as we
> understand The Mysteries, her role, her love. In others words, it's
> simply the Protestant complaint that Mary is too 'revered', now
> insinuated in a document signed by His Holiness, The Pope of The
> Catholic Church. It's a false choice presented by His Holiness, or at
> least by the author of RVM.
>
It is indeed a false dichotomy as you present it, but again, I did not
get that impression reading the document.
> And there follows "and sensitive to the lived experience of the
> Christian people". But again for the gnostic and initiate, this is
> code language. It appears to be meaningless double-talk, along the
> lines of Sir Humphrey Appleby, the clever and fictitious keeper of the
> crown in a PBS sitcom, to most others, surely. But "lived experience"
> means something to the initiated. And to them it suggests only a
> humanism, a relativism, a rejection of that which all can know alike,
> Revelation. In rejecting the holy character of The Rosary, its Divine
> origin, the grace given to promote it, repeatedly, the grace of
> miracles attributed to it, repeatedly, it becomes a seemingly subtle,
> and less so upon reflection, a rejection of that very Revelation, not
> merely tradition, as if tradition were a mere thing in its own right.
>
> In the same sentence, "may you help them to discover the Biblical
> foundations,". And yet, again, here is the Protestant ethic and
> complaint insinuated into RVM. For it is the Prot who contemns all
> Catholic tradition as false because it is seen as 'extra-Biblical'.
> Here tradition is omitted from RVM. To the initiate, the purpose would
> be clear. Only by such omission, could luminosities be introduced, in
> fact, similar in manner and technic to the very promulgation of the
> Pauline 'new order'. History repeats itself.
>
The Rosary is biblical at its most basic level, I think that is all that
was implied in the document. None of the new mysteries are based on the
non-Scriptural type of Tradition, though explaining that Tradition more
prominently would have given the document a stronger voice.
> It continues with "the spiritual riches". Yet these riches are also
> miraculous, and by way of intervention in world affairs. The riches
> are not merely "lived" and "experiential", which by the cant and
> jargon of initiation means idiosyncratic, but common to all devoted to
> Our Blessed Mother, and realized often by way of tangible and
> miraculous events as a direct result of The Holy Rosary, The Marian
> Psalter, and not a Psalter +50.
No one dedicated to the Rosary denies it's great spiritual riches, the
Rosary has the power to transform those who are close to it. Mentioning
private miracles and private revelation (belief in which is totally
optional) narrows it's audience though, and is thus not appropriate in
an ecumenical (in the ancient sense) document.
>
> And concluded with "and the pastoral value". The pointed mention of
> 'pastoral value', is intended to convey again the step into a belief
> in universal salvation, beyond the mention of "Christians". The
> 'People of God', mentioned in caps in RVM, are not merely Catholics to
> the 'reform' sect. They are not merely Protestants, schismatics, and
> Catholics. It includes all - not many - except perhaps for
> traditionalist Catholics, actual Catholics, who perhaps are the rare
> few consigned to hell by 'reformists'. It refers to Hindus and
> Muslims. It means those who offer satanic masses, or who debunk the
> same as 'atheists'. The 'pastoral value', the 'Christological'
> emphasis, is seen by the initiated in light of 'ecumenism'. That is,
> the Marian Psalter is no more. Mary was being too 'adored'. She 'gets
> in the way' of God, in the ignorant opinion of 'reform'. The 'Rosary',
> as they would now call it, becomes no hindrance to 'ecumenism',
> because it no longer is The Rosary, and no longer demands conversion.
>
I believe daily personal guidance and healing are ordinarily the terms
with which our current Pope identifies when using the term "pastoral".
That's the impression I have always gotten from his use of the word.
That can be troubling if people misunderstand it, but then again, it is
scripture, and the Lord's baptism has its own meaning in regard to the
sacredness of OUR baptism to be contemplated... Eastern Churches have
icons of the Lord's baptism, they give themselves the opportunity to
contemplate it every Sunday.
She was not present to our knowledge at the agony in the garden, the
crowning with thorns, or the scourging at the pillar either, to be fair.
Reading St. Louis de Montfort is a devotion in itself. Read that, and
the Rosary takes on a special meaning.
>
> Peace.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> * When one finds nothing more to say to God,
> * but just knows He is there --
> * that, in itself, is the best of prayers.
>
> [Fr. John Vianney, priest of Ars township, France, 1859]
>
PAX
Gerard
@compuserve.com Mark Johnson
>> On 16 OCT 2002, Pope John Paul II published the Apostolic Letter
>> Rosarium Virginis Mariae (RVM). It was an 'ecumenical' document, in a
>> papacy consistently offering such 'peace' with all other 'faith
>> communities'; these once held to be in error and in need of conversion
>> to The Church by all the Popes prior to the PC (post-conciliar) Popes.
>Well, peace is peace, and heretics and schismatics require it more than
>others.
What they require is the call to conversion.
Or consider the context, here, the contradiction apart from the
document, but in the 'spirit' of these times. If heretics,
particularly the schismatic Greek, are somehow to be appeased by such
'ecumenism', by adopting their views, or otherwise seeking 'peace in
our time', then where is the study of the views and 'concerns' of the
SSPX, who are also called schismatic - excommunicated I think even JP
II, himself, said. Does the new 'rosary' appeal to . . them? Are they
one of these 'faith communities'? Maybe, it's certain types of
'faith', as such, that are of interest to 'reform' - and not Faith,
and certainly not Catholicism? It's cross-cultural, in other words.
But just like that sort of PC exercise, it's very selective, and
inconsistent.
Just as I wrote:
>> If seen in that context, The Rosary is then reduced to something more
>> palatable to 'reform'; which is not true reform, of course. Thus,
>> among various pleas, he concludes to "theologians" : rooted in the
>> word of God and sensitive to the lived experience of the Christian
>> people, may you help them to discover the Biblical foundations, the
>> spiritual riches and the pastoral value of this traditional prayer.
>> The very Confraterity of The Rosary (rosary-center.org), an
>> organization long recommended by pius men, from Popes on down, was
>> early to modify their site without any notification (unlike for ex,
>> the notes at familyrosary.org, which has adopted the same) that The
>> 'Rosary' of 20 Mysteries marks a significant and entirely
>> controversial change from that form unchanged after centuries, and
>> which those pius men understood as The Rosary. It is claimed in RVM
>> that this alteration and disfiguring of The Rosary is purely optional.
>It is claimed, and in my diocese, it has been read into at face value
>only. That is, the new devotion is (for US anyway) purely optional.
Again - you are the target of this. 'Reform' is never optional. That's
never been the way, since the late 1960s. You just haven't gotten the
word, yet. But after all the websites, soon the publications, the
journals, all the stuff the CR reads, you'll end up doing as you're
told. And you'll loose the Rosary. And it's inevitable. The Rosary is
to be suppressed by indifference in favor of an unholy substitute -
using all very holy references and citations, it's true (in the
reductionist's argument) - the product of the 'workshop', just like
your 'new order' liturgy. That's the fact.
>> Yet what novice or new convert might be expected to know better if not
>> even a footnote is offered on the matter? Perhaps, optional, is in the
>> eyes of the beholder - a 'lived' standard, in the jargon of 'reform'?
>I agree, this is totally misleading. They really need to put some sort
>of "history of the Rosary" article, or SOMETHING that doesn't give
>people the false impression that this is how we always did it.
I'm telling you. That's not only how it is, as you can see with your
own eyes, but how it will be for you. Now you could stand by the
'promises' you think have been made to you. But that's a foundation of
sand, is it not? If you're going to stand up, you have to do so on a
Marian basis, for Our Blessed Mother, for God's sake, and His Will.
The basis must be Catholicism. Opposition to such 'reform' must be
Catholic - not based on bureaucratic promises which are quickly
forgotten and withdrawn. The basis should be that of the clear,
concise, powerful words of previous Popes in praising and approving
the Rosary; that attributed, without question, first to St. Dominic -
whatever CR efforts to debunk that history.
>> The first objection, then, to the complaint is that one cannot
>> complain, essentially. It ignores the complaint, from the start. It's
>> the fallacy of triumphalism, of arrogance. Some might desperately
>> argue that the Pope, or at least the two PC Popes, have never been
>> wrong and never could be wrong; a virtue not shared by any Pope before
>> them. To such a childish and heretical suggestion, the answer must be
>> that this is a notion utterly foreign to Catholicism, and at odds with
>> God, Himself, as the only Perfection, even as we can understand it.
>> The corrolary that only the cleric may voice an opinion goes by the
>> name of, clericalism - a heresy.
>It is so ironic that the very people who would likely want to adopt a
>new and innovative revision of the Rosary are the most upset about the
>clarifications (and I think it's sad they needed to be explained to
>people--bishops even) on the rite of Paul VI. After all, the Pope has
>every right to tell bishops they are not celebrating the local rite of
>his diocese properly. This is not to be offensive regarding new
>devotions. I believe the spiritual intentions and theology of the new
>mysteries are solidly grounded, I don't particularly like their
>insertion into the Rosary But I must be honest; that too is purely
>optional.
No, it's not. Again - either they were right then, or they are, now.
But it can't be both. Either Our Blessed Mother meant the Psalter, 150
and three sections, at Fatima, or she didn't mean it at all. And so
on. Again, the very reason for that is explained by a document still
maintained, ironically, at the very website we're talking about, which
contradicts that document in its promotion of the new innovation.
>> Some might continue, then, and seem to find support by a pattern of
>> omission in RVM, that any previous Pope's opinion does not count, nor
>> that of 'private' visionaries, and so on, already approved and
>> promoted by the same line of Popes. And that is because there is
>> nothing particularly special about the Rosary, as they see it. It's
>> the 'it all don't matter' assertion - I know nothing because it's not
>> important to know anything about it, in other words.
>I wish I could say those people are on the fringe with more certainty.
>They sadly seem to be growing in numbers.
They tend to be very vocal for people who say they generally don't
care. What they don't care for is people reminding them of bad
compromises. There's reasons for heresy, for sliding or shifting or
'workshopping' tradition, and even doctrine. It's because, for some
vice, or horrible compromise, some 'unforgivable sin' (so they're
told), they don't want to be constantly reminded they're wrong. So
instead of repenting and confessing God and His Church, all of Church
history is marked by those trying to change Church teaching, and
practice, instead. Such is 'reform'.
>> So, that said, "rooted in the word of God" is not explained. The
>> Rosary is a Marian prayer, called the Marian Psalter for the 150
>> repetitions of the Ave (if one looks at the Book of Psalms, one will
>> discover there are 150, not 200). The emphasis becomes not Marian,
>> then, but 'Christological', as if somehow Mary was opposed to Christ,
>I did not get this impression reading it. Just to be fair, Mary is, by
>the way, not at the forefront of many of the traditional mysteries.
>She's there, and very important, but not the central figure of several
>traditional mysteries.
This is the principal . . Marian devotion - The Holy Rosary. And the
document is pretty clear about this 'Christological' angle. That's
taken right from RVM. They present a false choice. The Rosary is both
Marian and 'Christological' - it can't be more of one or the other, or
even less. It's both.
As I wrote:
>> as if somehow God and His Church were wrong before the PC Popes to
>> insist that we come to God through Our Blessed Mother, more so as we
>> understand The Mysteries, her role, her love. In others words, it's
>> simply the Protestant complaint that Mary is too 'revered', now
>> insinuated in a document signed by His Holiness, The Pope of The
>> Catholic Church. It's a false choice presented by His Holiness, or at
>> least by the author of RVM.
>It is indeed a false dichotomy as you present it, but again, I did not
>get that impression reading the document.
"Yet the Rosary clearly belongs to the kind of veneration of the
Mother of God described by the Council: a devotion directed to the
Christological centre of the Christian faith, in such a way that "when
the Mother is honoured, the Son ... is duly known, loved and
glorified".[8] If properly revitalized, the Rosary is an aid and
certainly not a hindrance to ecumenism!"
Seems pretty clear what's being said there.
>> In the same sentence, "may you help them to discover the Biblical
>> foundations,". And yet, again, here is the Protestant ethic and
>> complaint insinuated into RVM. For it is the Prot who contemns all
>> Catholic tradition as false because it is seen as 'extra-Biblical'.
>> Here tradition is omitted from RVM. To the initiate, the purpose would
>> be clear. Only by such omission, could luminosities be introduced, in
>> fact, similar in manner and technic to the very promulgation of the
>> Pauline 'new order'. History repeats itself.
>The Rosary is biblical at its most basic level, I think that is all that
>was implied in the document. None of the new mysteries are based on the
>non-Scriptural type of Tradition, though explaining that Tradition more
>prominently would have given the document a stronger voice.
The thing that seemed to bug Guardini was precisely that. The last two
Mysteries are not found in Scriptures. Holy Scripture is not the sum
of all Revelation, and not exclusively the basis for The Magisterium
and doctrine.
>> It continues with "the spiritual riches". Yet these riches are also
>> miraculous, and by way of intervention in world affairs. The riches
>> are not merely "lived" and "experiential", which by the cant and
>> jargon of initiation means idiosyncratic, but common to all devoted to
>> Our Blessed Mother, and realized often by way of tangible and
>> miraculous events as a direct result of The Holy Rosary, The Marian
>> Psalter, and not a Psalter +50.
>No one dedicated to the Rosary denies it's great spiritual riches, the
>Rosary has the power to transform those who are close to it. Mentioning
> private miracles and private revelation (belief in which is totally
>optional) narrows it's audience though, and is thus not appropriate in
>an ecumenical (in the ancient sense) document.
Which is the point, above. You can't be Marian - you can't truly talk
about, defend, explain The Holy Rosary - and also be 'ecumenical', as
they see it. And yet they would side with this 'ecumenism', instead.
That ought to offend EVERY . . . Catholic.
>> And concluded with "and the pastoral value". The pointed mention of
>> 'pastoral value', is intended to convey again the step into a belief
>> in universal salvation, beyond the mention of "Christians". The
>> 'People of God', mentioned in caps in RVM, are not merely Catholics to
>> the 'reform' sect. They are not merely Protestants, schismatics, and
>> Catholics. It includes all - not many - except perhaps for
>> traditionalist Catholics, actual Catholics, who perhaps are the rare
>> few consigned to hell by 'reformists'. It refers to Hindus and
>> Muslims. It means those who offer satanic masses, or who debunk the
>> same as 'atheists'. The 'pastoral value', the 'Christological'
>> emphasis, is seen by the initiated in light of 'ecumenism'. That is,
>> the Marian Psalter is no more. Mary was being too 'adored'. She 'gets
>> in the way' of God, in the ignorant opinion of 'reform'. The 'Rosary',
>> as they would now call it, becomes no hindrance to 'ecumenism',
>> because it no longer is The Rosary, and no longer demands conversion.
>I believe daily personal guidance and healing are ordinarily the terms
>with which our current Pope identifies when using the term "pastoral".
>That's the impression I have always gotten from his use of the word.
He means 'ecumenism'. Again, even if he's too presently addled to know
what he's signing, which is currently popular explanation for his
recent behavior, I've mentioned that even when of sound mind,
'ecumenism', seemed the most important thing to him. He knowingly and
arrogantly set himself on that path. That's the fact. And it's ironic
that he might cross the line, by way of 'ecumenism', at a point in his
life where he no longer has the presence of mind to realize it, or
obviously then the same to voluntarily step down.
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, both the Psalter and the triune division, in answer to various
questions on these ngs of the 'so what' variety - if anyone besides
yourself is reading this.
I notice you didn't comment. I take it you agree?
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> [RVM, section 29]
>> [RVM, section 21]
>> [Mark, 1:13-15]
>> [Mark, 2:9-11]
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
In fact, the document literally says one thing, and then proceeds to
present exactly the opposite.
You didn't comment. But at least you'd say - it's odd, isn't it? It's
an odd sort of thing presented there.
>> On the question of another Mystery, also specifically:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> "The Baptism in the Jordan is first of all a mystery of light. Here,
>> as Christ descends into the waters, the innocent one who became "sin"
>> for our sake (cf. 2Cor 5:21), the heavens open wide and the voice of
>> the Father declares him the beloved Son (cf. Mt 3:17 and parallels),
>> while the Spirit descends on him to invest him with the mission which
>> he is to carry out."
>> [RVM, section 21]
>> Yet none have ever seriously suggested that The Holy Spirit,
>> represented in the corporeal dove, invested, added, provide more, of
>> something not possessed by God, Our Lord Jesus Christ. It was by way
>> of identification, and showing symbolism with the Ark, for example.
>> The idea of 'investment' smacks of heretical notions of an 'arisen
>> Master', learning of his 'mission' as the years went by. If one
>> insists on another sense of the word, invest, one might avoid such
>> criticism, of course.
>That can be troubling if people misunderstand it, but then again, it is
>scripture, and the Lord's baptism has its own meaning in regard to the
>sacredness of OUR baptism to be contemplated... Eastern Churches have
>icons of the Lord's baptism, they give themselves the opportunity to
>contemplate it every Sunday.
In the context of 'reform', and following on similar efforts at
'revitalization' as it may have even been termed, Bugnini was known to
be an opponest of The Rosary, and later revealed to be a freemason.
These RVM 'reforms' smack of Bugnini, and the like. And they believe
that Our Lord was only at best the Muslim's prophet, an 'enlightened
master', who learned of his mission as he matured - that he was
"invested" with understanding and powers are he came to understand
them - not that He was the God-Man.
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> [RVM, section 21]
And she was at the foot of The Cross, and the Scourging. The Third
Sorrowful Mystery includes the 'auction'. And she could have been
there as the mob voted for Barrabas. One could argue a mystical
connection in the other cases, even for the 'luminous'. Etc. But, it's
beside the point. That's not what they say. That's what you and I are
saying. My point went to RVM. Because this is about RVM. What they say
is:
>> In these mysteries, apart from the miracle at Cana, the presence of
>> Mary remains in the background. The Gospels make only the briefest
>> reference to her occasional presence at one moment or other during the
>> preaching of Jesus (cf. Mk 3:31-5; Jn 2:12), and they give no
>> indication that she was present at the Last Supper and the institution
>> of the Eucharist.
And what I'm saying about that is:
if "this counsel" is irrelevant, and the sentence is just very badly
written, then what is intended is that "Christ's public ministry"
"forms the" . . . etc. But if Mary is not present, as they, or JP II,
would have it, save at Cana, how does Christ's telling parables, or
the Transfiguration, and so on, make the Mysteries specifically
Marian? Of course, it doesn't.
And I suggested, just before that, the odd redundancy, which you seem
to have missed, and on which you didn't comment, either:
Mary's words of obedience and wisdom are said to be those
at the Jordan. But then why include the Baptism of Christ? if the very
same lesson, in this particular way, is simply repeated in the next
Mystery? Or else, why include Cana?
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Would that those at the Confraternity website had done just that. They
could stand to learn a thing or two about The Holy Rosary, and all the
various meanings, special or otherwise.
After all - the document is hosted on their . . . own site.
Gerard
Mark Johnson wrote:
Yes, I agree. The triune division of the one Rosary and the Marian
psalter are how the symbolism of the Rosary has always been explained.
The Saints repeatedly stress this. The Triniratian implication is
somewhat obscured on a four-decade Rosary, as is the connection to the
Liturgy of the Hours.
It does seem odd they way they are presenting it, but perhaps there is
an element of mystery there.
I hope not, because that is total ante-nicene heresy, adoptionism.
Though in a spiritual, mystical sense, she was at the Eucharist, as are
we each time it is celebrated. Whatever anyone says, that's the reality.
>
> And what I'm saying about that is:
>
> if "this counsel" is irrelevant, and the sentence is just very badly
> written, then what is intended is that "Christ's public ministry"
> "forms the" . . . etc. But if Mary is not present, as they, or JP II,
> would have it, save at Cana, how does Christ's telling parables, or
> the Transfiguration, and so on, make the Mysteries specifically
> Marian? Of course, it doesn't.
>
>
> And I suggested, just before that, the odd redundancy, which you seem
> to have missed, and on which you didn't comment, either:
>
> Mary's words of obedience and wisdom are said to be those
> at the Jordan. But then why include the Baptism of Christ? if the very
> same lesson, in this particular way, is simply repeated in the next
> Mystery? Or else, why include Cana?
>
>
I think the Miracle at Cana has a special mystical teaching of its own
about the importance and sacredness of our normal lives, our
celebrations, caring for others in small ways, etc. I meditate on it
frequently. Of course, the document did not seem to stress that
aspect... I suppose my personal interpretation of the miracle might keep
me from seeing a glaring redundancy...
PAX
Gerard
@compuserve.com Mark Johnson
I see you didn't comment. Don't believe that's inevitable? You
disagree?
>>>>Yet what novice or new convert might be expected to know better if not
>>>>even a footnote is offered on the matter? Perhaps, optional, is in the
>>>>eyes of the beholder - a 'lived' standard, in the jargon of 'reform'?
>>>I agree, this is totally misleading. They really need to put some sort
>>>of "history of the Rosary" article, or SOMETHING that doesn't give
>>>people the false impression that this is how we always did it.
>> I'm telling you. That's not only how it is, as you can see with your
>> own eyes, but how it will be for you. Now you could stand by the
>> 'promises' you think have been made to you. But that's a foundation of
>> sand, is it not? If you're going to stand up, you have to do so on a
>> Marian basis, for Our Blessed Mother, for God's sake, and His Will.
>> The basis must be Catholicism. Opposition to such 'reform' must be
>> Catholic - not based on bureaucratic promises which are quickly
>> forgotten and withdrawn. The basis should be that of the clear,
>> concise, powerful words of previous Popes in praising and approving
>> the Rosary; that attributed, without question, first to St. Dominic -
>> whatever CR efforts to debunk that history.
Again - that must be any basis for a holy defense of The Rosary among
those to whom it still matters. The bureaucracy, the 'reform'
bureaucracy, will betray you. If you were to bet . . . well - dead
cert.
>>>It is so ironic that the very people who would likely want to adopt a
>>>new and innovative revision of the Rosary are the most upset about the
>>>clarifications (and I think it's sad they needed to be explained to
>>>people--bishops even) on the rite of Paul VI. After all, the Pope has
>>>every right to tell bishops they are not celebrating the local rite of
>>>his diocese properly. This is not to be offensive regarding new
>>>devotions. I believe the spiritual intentions and theology of the new
>>>mysteries are solidly grounded, I don't particularly like their
>>>insertion into the Rosary But I must be honest; that too is purely
>>>optional.
>> No, it's not. Again - either they were right then, or they are, now.
>> But it can't be both. Either Our Blessed Mother meant the Psalter, 150
>> and three sections, at Fatima, or she didn't mean it at all. And so
>> on. Again, the very reason for that is explained by a document still
>> maintained, ironically, at the very website we're talking about, which
>> contradicts that document in its promotion of the new innovation.
It's still amazing - such a bold faced contradiction.
>>>The Rosary is biblical at its most basic level, I think that is all that
>>>was implied in the document. None of the new mysteries are based on the
>>>non-Scriptural type of Tradition, though explaining that Tradition more
>>>prominently would have given the document a stronger voice.
>> The thing that seemed to bug Guardini was precisely that. The last two
>> Mysteries are not found in Scriptures. Holy Scripture is not the sum
>> of all Revelation, and not exclusively the basis for The Magisterium
>> and doctrine.
>>>No one dedicated to the Rosary denies it's great spiritual riches, the
>>>Rosary has the power to transform those who are close to it. Mentioning
>>> private miracles and private revelation (belief in which is totally
>>>optional) narrows it's audience though, and is thus not appropriate in
>>>an ecumenical (in the ancient sense) document.
>> Which is the point, above. You can't be Marian - you can't truly talk
>> about, defend, explain The Holy Rosary - and also be 'ecumenical', as
>> they see it. And yet they would side with this 'ecumenism', instead.
>> That ought to offend EVERY . . . Catholic.
In fact, the repeat myself, here, it seems a crucial point of RVM. You
can't have 'ecumenism', without this sort of dialectical 'revitalism'.
It couldn't be more obvious.
>>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's destroyed, is what it is. The only out is to explain it away as
an 'interlude' - a foreign accretion - a 'time out'. But that's not
how The Holy Rosary is prayed, day by day. So it would be a weak
excuse, if it were tried. If it's now part of the devotion, if it
defines the structure of the prayer - then it's just not the same.
Thus another of the very obvious contradictions of RVM: supposed
devotion and encouragement of The Rosary - but by the method of
suppressing The Rosary in favor of a substitute, because The Rosary
wasn't up to the job, or something.
>>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>[RVM, section 29]
>>>>[RVM, section 21]
>>>>[Mark, 1:13-15]
>>>>[Mark, 2:9-11]
>>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. The mystery of human pride to even attempt such - and do so in
such a clumsy fashion. They do like to talk about the 'mysteries of
man', after all.
As I wrote:
In fact, the document literally says one thing, and then proceeds to
present exactly the opposite.
>>>>On the question of another Mystery, also specifically:
>>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>[RVM, section 21]
Bugnini, the author and great defender of 'reform' and 'new order' -
was a freemason who didn't seem to have one bit of respect for
Catholic teaching, or leading souls to salvation. Part of his efforts
involved trying to overturn The Rosary by way of 'revitalization',
confusion, 'reform'. Those efforts were rejected, in his day, by - of
all people - Paul VI. In that time, these were surely not proposed as
mere 'alternatives'. Just as you see on websites, now, it's not some
alternative chaplet, not another of various alternate Rosaries (and
there are some), but changes proposed to The Rosary; that of St.
Dominic, the Dominican Rosary of popular devotion, and public
ceremony.
I mention, again, that you're the target of RVM. It's not the history
of 'reform' to keep such things, truly optional. 'Reform' could never
survive if they had to confess any serious criticism or opposition.
They have to rule by fantasy, and total submission. They have to
suggest that any opposition is fruitless (when it's discovered, after
the fall of tyrannies - such as Reformed Catholicism - that it was all
smoke and mirrors and that the leadership all scurry back to the
shadows as cowards, that the 'iron fist' was real, but still more show
than anything, people scratch their heads wondering why more men of
goodwill didn't rise up in opposition). There is no criticism because
- there are no critics (it's similar to the recent Dem effort to
characterize any opposition to what even they call 'the establishment
media' as a 'fifth column' - when we all know who the real fifth
column, is, namely, the very Dem and their socialist press who project
in that way, and by that particular wording).
>>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>[RVM, section 21]
Again, the mystics could argue for that. I'm taking the document as
written - in their words - in their view - as they see it. Their own
'declaration'.
As I wrote:
>> And what I'm saying about that is:
>> if "this counsel" is irrelevant, and the sentence is just very badly
>> written, then what is intended is that "Christ's public ministry"
>> "forms the" . . . etc. But if Mary is not present, as they, or JP II,
>> would have it, save at Cana, how does Christ's telling parables, or
>> the Transfiguration, and so on, make the Mysteries specifically
>> Marian? Of course, it doesn't.
>> And I suggested, just before that, the odd redundancy, which you seem
>> to have missed, and on which you didn't comment, either:
>> Mary's words of obedience and wisdom are said to be those
>> at the Jordan. But then why include the Baptism of Christ? if the very
>> same lesson, in this particular way, is simply repeated in the next
>> Mystery? Or else, why include Cana?
>I think the Miracle at Cana has a special mystical teaching of its own
>about the importance and sacredness of our normal lives, our
>celebrations, caring for others in small ways, etc. I meditate on it
>frequently.
All of these are Mysteries, and Scriptural. They are profound. One
ought to meditate on them, even as part of The Rosary. I agree. It all
ties together. But not this 'rosary' - which is not The Rosary, as
they explain. Again, by their reasoning, as such, it doesn't make
sense.
>Of course, the document did not seem to stress that
>aspect... I suppose my personal interpretation of the miracle might keep
>me from seeing a glaring redundancy...
At this point, then, do you see it, though? Yes, one can apply a
cliched view to anything. One can ignore what's written and say it
means only something to themselves. Kind of a secret knowledge. But
even at that . . why not both? What about - what's written? What about
the intent, as stated? in their own words.
>>>Reading St. Louis de Montfort is a devotion in itself. Read that, and
>>>the Rosary takes on a special meaning.
>> Would that those at the Confraternity website had done just that. They
>> could stand to learn a thing or two about The Holy Rosary, and all the
>> various meanings, special or otherwise.
>> After all - the document is hosted on their . . . own site.
Gerard
Mark Johnson wrote:
My arm of the Church is used to this, fashions come and go. We keep our
customs while remaining obedient to Rome, we (or at least I) will keep
the traditional Rosary as well.
>
>
>>>>>Yet what novice or new convert might be expected to know better if not
>>>>>even a footnote is offered on the matter? Perhaps, optional, is in the
>>>>>eyes of the beholder - a 'lived' standard, in the jargon of 'reform'?
>>>>>
>
>>>>I agree, this is totally misleading. They really need to put some sort
>>>>of "history of the Rosary" article, or SOMETHING that doesn't give
>>>>people the false impression that this is how we always did it.
>>>>
>
>>>I'm telling you. That's not only how it is, as you can see with your
>>>own eyes, but how it will be for you. Now you could stand by the
>>>'promises' you think have been made to you. But that's a foundation of
>>>sand, is it not? If you're going to stand up, you have to do so on a
>>>Marian basis, for Our Blessed Mother, for God's sake, and His Will.
>>>The basis must be Catholicism. Opposition to such 'reform' must be
>>>Catholic - not based on bureaucratic promises which are quickly
>>>forgotten and withdrawn. The basis should be that of the clear,
>>>concise, powerful words of previous Popes in praising and approving
>>>the Rosary; that attributed, without question, first to St. Dominic -
>>>whatever CR efforts to debunk that history.
>>>
>
> Again - that must be any basis for a holy defense of The Rosary among
> those to whom it still matters. The bureaucracy, the 'reform'
> bureaucracy, will betray you. If you were to bet . . . well - dead
> cert.
>
I don't trust them, but I also know that they are not the sole voice in
Rome or in the local church, our voice is still quite strong. Many
bishops (including my own, for now) are strong (though perhaps quiet)
voices for a balanced and solid appreciation of liturgy and communal prayer.
Ecumenical documents address the entire Church in union with Rome. Most
papal documents do not address the Eastern Churches, only the Latin
ones. I believe that was the sense in which this is an ecumenical
document. Though there is definitely the other use of the word in it,
which confuses things.
That hasn't happened yet, it may, and there are no doubt many who would
like for that to happen. At this point though, there seems to be an
open door.
I wish I could flatly refute this, but I have to concede that there is
some element of truth to it.
I am not even sure why they try to explain them, after all, the Rosary
(and all Scriptural Mysteries) reveal themselves at God's hand.
>
>
>>Of course, the document did not seem to stress that
>>aspect... I suppose my personal interpretation of the miracle might keep
>>me from seeing a glaring redundancy...
>>
>
> At this point, then, do you see it, though? Yes, one can apply a
> cliched view to anything. One can ignore what's written and say it
> means only something to themselves. Kind of a secret knowledge. But
> even at that . . why not both? What about - what's written? What about
> the intent, as stated? in their own words.
>
>
Redundancy isn't necessarily a bad thing, but its presence here does
make me wonder just why THIS particular point needs that kind of
reinforcement... I'd rather not do the math, hopefully they are
demanding obedience of the new-agers instead... Meditating on the
mysteries should reveal the correct answer though, the Spirit doesn't lie...
>
>
>>>>Reading St. Louis de Montfort is a devotion in itself. Read that, and
>>>>the Rosary takes on a special meaning.
>>>>
>
>>>Would that those at the Confraternity website had done just that. They
>>>could stand to learn a thing or two about The Holy Rosary, and all the
>>>various meanings, special or otherwise.
>>>
>
>>>After all - the document is hosted on their . . . own site.
>>>
>
>
PAX
Gerard
@compuserve.com Mark Johnson
>Mark Johnson wrote:
>> Gerard <ab...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>>>Mark Johnson wrote:
>>>>Gerard <ab...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>>>>Again - you are the target of this. 'Reform' is never optional. That's
>>>>never been the way, since the late 1960s. You just haven't gotten the
>>>>word, yet. But after all the websites, soon the publications, the
>>>>journals, all the stuff the CR reads, you'll end up doing as you're
>>>>told. And you'll loose the Rosary. And it's inevitable. The Rosary is
>>>>to be suppressed by indifference in favor of an unholy substitute -
>>>>using all very holy references and citations, it's true (in the
>>>>reductionist's argument) - the product of the 'workshop', just like
>>>>your 'new order' liturgy. That's the fact.
>> I see you didn't comment. Don't believe that's inevitable? You
>> disagree?
>My arm of the Church is used to this, fashions come and go. We keep our
>customs while remaining obedient to Rome, we (or at least I) will keep
>the traditional Rosary as well.
I'm sorry. I thought you went to the trendy parish on the corner.
You're Eastern Catholic, instead? So that CR 'mass' I recently
described to someone else would have seemed just as bizarre to you as
it did to me.
>> Again - that must be any basis for a holy defense of The Rosary among
>> those to whom it still matters. The bureaucracy, the 'reform'
>> bureaucracy, will betray you. If you were to bet . . . well - dead
>> cert.
>I don't trust them, but I also know that they are not the sole voice in
>Rome or in the local church, our voice is still quite strong. Many
>bishops (including my own, for now) are strong (though perhaps quiet)
>voices for a balanced and solid appreciation of liturgy and communal prayer.
I'm not going to say that, to varying degrees, this bishop or that
haven't tried to halt some 'reforms', again to some degree. The
smallest minority have vocally stood for Catholicism, however. So
there is a difference. Again, when all the 'prayer books', and
liturgical houses, and pamphlets, and websites uniformly present the
'rosary' as consisting of 20 decades, it might be increasingly
difficult to say, it's only 15. If you had to prove your case - you
know they'd just humor you and point you back to the 'guidelines'.
I'm just reminding you of the arrogant and blind history of 'reform'.
'Ecumenism' is geared toward a 'new religion' - Bugnini's last word,
kind of thing. The only ones not included are traditionalist
Catholics, orthodox bishops (the few), great Popes and Saints (who
were too 'holy', you see), and to the 'reformer's even the Adoremans
and the like who do the 'reformer's job for them.
RVM is very clear on this point.
"Yet the Rosary clearly belongs to the kind of veneration of the
Mother of God described by the Council: a devotion directed to the
Christological centre of the Christian faith, in such a way that "when
the Mother is honoured, the Son ... is duly known, loved and
glorified".[8] If properly revitalized, the Rosary is an aid and
certainly not a hindrance to ecumenism!"
Seems pretty clear what's being said there.
>>>>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
But just the document, itself - as is. The Psalter against a 20 decade
'rosary'. Just that alone.
It makes no sense. As I just wrote there - encouragement of The Rosary
- but by the method of suppressing The Rosary in favor of a
substitute, because The Rosary wasn't up to the job, or something.
>>>>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>[RVM, section 29]
>>>>>>[RVM, section 21]
>>>>>>[Mark, 1:13-15]
>>>>>>[Mark, 2:9-11]
>>>>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> As I wrote:
>>>>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>[RVM, section 21]
>>>I think the Miracle at Cana has a special mystical teaching of its own
>>>about the importance and sacredness of our normal lives, our
>>>celebrations, caring for others in small ways, etc. I meditate on it
>>>frequently.
>> All of these are Mysteries, and Scriptural. They are profound. One
>> ought to meditate on them, even as part of The Rosary. I agree. It all
>> ties together. But not this 'rosary' - which is not The Rosary, as
>> they explain. Again, by their reasoning, as such, it doesn't make
>> sense.
>I am not even sure why they try to explain them, after all, the Rosary
>(and all Scriptural Mysteries) reveal themselves at God's hand.
Because they have to give a reason for doing something so ridiculous
as adding five 'luminous mysteries' to The Holy Rosary. And this is
the best they could come up with. In all fairness, it strikes one in
much the same way as the Ratzinger explanation of the Third Secret,
supposedly, where his bizarre explanation is juxtaposed with the very
document they include along with the commentary - as if they didn't
realize that was going to be done.
>>>Of course, the document did not seem to stress that
>>>aspect... I suppose my personal interpretation of the miracle might keep
>>>me from seeing a glaring redundancy...
>> At this point, then, do you see it, though? Yes, one can apply a
>> cliched view to anything. One can ignore what's written and say it
>> means only something to themselves. Kind of a secret knowledge. But
>> even at that . . why not both? What about - what's written? What about
>> the intent, as stated? in their own words.
>Redundancy isn't necessarily a bad thing, but its presence here does
>make me wonder just why THIS particular point needs that kind of
>reinforcement... I'd rather not do the math, hopefully they are
>demanding obedience of the new-agers instead... Meditating on the
>mysteries should reveal the correct answer though, the Spirit doesn't lie.
What makes you believe, in any way, to any degree, that God, The Holy
Spirit, inspired or wished the addition of the 'luminous mysteries' -
if I read you right? The correct answer is . . . this is 'reform'.
This is an attack on The Holy Rosary. They're not doing what God
wants. They're telling God how it's gonna be.
>>>>>Reading St. Louis de Montfort is a devotion in itself. Read that, and
>>>>>the Rosary takes on a special meaning.
>>>>Would that those at the Confraternity website had done just that. They
>>>>could stand to learn a thing or two about The Holy Rosary, and all the
>>>>various meanings, special or otherwise.
>>>>After all - the document is hosted on their . . . own site.
Peace.
---------------------------------------
One mark of a deteriorating society is when its people cannot
discern truth from lies. Another is when they don't even bother
to try and will believe whatever their itching ears want to hear.
[Cal Thomas, 4 SEP 2000]
Cunneen
I think you meant "lose", but it's a Freudian slip, since what you say is
exactly JP's purpose: to "loose" the Rosary from old straitjackets and spring
it fresh upon the world with new life and fervor.
It's amazing to me. The pope's document is a VERY traditional description of
the Rosary, it's benefits and it's nature. There is one SMALL section where
the pope suggest these new mysteries of light, and the Trads have come unglued!
That shows that it is not Tradition that they defend but Change that they
oppose, even change in line with and enhancing traditions. Any change is a
"reform" and any reform is to be opposed automatically. The only "change" they
will accept are those that return the 1950s status quo before the council.
(The "wonderful" racist cigarette-puffing smog-creating commie-hating Bomb
building 50s; anyone want to sign up to go back???)
Gerard
Mark Johnson wrote:
> Gerard <ab...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Mark Johnson wrote:
>>
>>>Gerard <ab...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Mark Johnson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Gerard <ab...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>
>
>>>>>Again - you are the target of this. 'Reform' is never optional. That's
>>>>>never been the way, since the late 1960s. You just haven't gotten the
>>>>>word, yet. But after all the websites, soon the publications, the
>>>>>journals, all the stuff the CR reads, you'll end up doing as you're
>>>>>told. And you'll loose the Rosary. And it's inevitable. The Rosary is
>>>>>to be suppressed by indifference in favor of an unholy substitute -
>>>>>using all very holy references and citations, it's true (in the
>>>>>reductionist's argument) - the product of the 'workshop', just like
>>>>>your 'new order' liturgy. That's the fact.
>>>>>
>
>>>I see you didn't comment. Don't believe that's inevitable? You
>>>disagree?
>>>
>
>>My arm of the Church is used to this, fashions come and go. We keep our
>>customs while remaining obedient to Rome, we (or at least I) will keep
>>the traditional Rosary as well.
>>
>
> I'm sorry. I thought you went to the trendy parish on the corner.
> You're Eastern Catholic, instead? So that CR 'mass' I recently
> described to someone else would have seemed just as bizarre to you as
> it did to me.
>
Almost, but not quite. I am a Roman Catholic of the Rite of Paul VI,
but also a French Canadian living in the U.S. That group has been the
focus of a lot of revisionist and assimilationist demands from the rest
of the laity, the government, even the local bishops for the last few
hundred years. Rome has usually sided with us however, we are allowed
our own parishes, priests, and customs. The liturgical abuse which the
recent liturgical revision is still quite bizarre to me. Paul VI Mass
said properly (and in Latin of course) is not too terribly different
from Pius V Mass, as we had always had our Masses prayed aloud "dialogue
style", with music, something which was innovative and new to
English-speaking Catholics.
>
>
>>>Again - that must be any basis for a holy defense of The Rosary among
>>>those to whom it still matters. The bureaucracy, the 'reform'
>>>bureaucracy, will betray you. If you were to bet . . . well - dead
>>>cert.
>>>
>
>>I don't trust them, but I also know that they are not the sole voice in
>>Rome or in the local church, our voice is still quite strong. Many
>>bishops (including my own, for now) are strong (though perhaps quiet)
>>voices for a balanced and solid appreciation of liturgy and communal prayer.
>>
>
> I'm not going to say that, to varying degrees, this bishop or that
> haven't tried to halt some 'reforms', again to some degree. The
> smallest minority have vocally stood for Catholicism, however. So
> there is a difference. Again, when all the 'prayer books', and
> liturgical houses, and pamphlets, and websites uniformly present the
> 'rosary' as consisting of 20 decades, it might be increasingly
> difficult to say, it's only 15. If you had to prove your case - you
> know they'd just humor you and point you back to the 'guidelines'.
>
> I'm just reminding you of the arrogant and blind history of 'reform'.
>
It's true, reform can be and has sometimes been blind and belligerent.
You read me wrong, I do not believe that, personally. There is indeed a
message in the redundancy though, I have to wonder just why it is there.
>
>
>>>>>>Reading St. Louis de Montfort is a devotion in itself. Read that, and
>>>>>>the Rosary takes on a special meaning.
>>>>>>
>
>>>>>Would that those at the Confraternity website had done just that. They
>>>>>could stand to learn a thing or two about The Holy Rosary, and all the
>>>>>various meanings, special or otherwise.
>>>>>
>
>>>>>After all - the document is hosted on their . . . own site.
>>>>>
>
>
>
PAX
Gerard
Cunneen
No, it is the fifteen meditations (now 20) on Jesus and His mission. The
prayers are just counters to measure a sufficiently long meditation.
Even the old Rosary was not JUST 150 Hail Marys. There were also 15 Our
Fathers and 15 Doxologies, plus various miscellaneous prayers for each decade
or each group of five.
The Rosary isn't some additional form of Revelation, but a custom that grew up
to aid the simple in meditating on the mysteries of Christ's ministry. Customs
change with time; the pope is entirely justified in suggesting a new direction
for change.
Nothing stays the same. The Spirit says, "Behold, I make ALL THINGS new!"
Gerard
Mark Johnson wrote:
> Gerard <ab...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Mark Johnson wrote:
>>
>>>Gerard <ab...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Mark Johnson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Gerard <ab...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Mark Johnson wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Gerard <ab...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>
>
>>>>My arm of the Church is used to this, fashions come and go. We keep our
>>>>customs while remaining obedient to Rome, we (or at least I) will keep
>>>>the traditional Rosary as well.
>>>>
>
>>>I'm sorry. I thought you went to the trendy parish on the corner.
>>>You're Eastern Catholic, instead? So that CR 'mass' I recently
>>>described to someone else would have seemed just as bizarre to you as
>>>it did to me.
>>>
>
>>Almost, but not quite. I am a Roman Catholic of the Rite of Paul VI,
>>but also a French Canadian living in the U.S. That group has been the
>>focus of a lot of revisionist and assimilationist demands from the rest
>>of the laity, the government, even the local bishops for the last few
>>hundred years.
>>
>
> Well, the Eastern Catholic have made their own compromises, or some
> prefer to tilt schismatic, from what I read, and in any case have been
> put upon by 'reform'. They haven't been left out.
>
>
>
>>Rome has usually sided with us however, we are allowed
>>our own parishes, priests, and customs. The liturgical abuse which the
>>recent liturgical revision is still quite bizarre to me. Paul VI Mass
>>said properly (and in Latin of course) is not too terribly different
>>
>>from Pius V Mass, as we had always had our Masses prayed aloud "dialogue
>
>>style", with music, something which was innovative and new to
>>English-speaking Catholics.
>>
>
> The dialogue style, itself, is nothing new. It was proposed early in
> the century, and as part of the 'good side' of 'liturgical reform',
> not the modernism which was condemned.
>
> But the 'new order' is not The Mass. The whole point of the Ottaviani
> Intervention, of the complaint, the desire of the English for the
> first 'indult' (if you don't count Padre Pio's), the warning of
> Dietrich von Hildebrand, and so many others, Lefebvre and the whole
> supposed 'schism', and so on was that 'new order', valid or not as
> they saw it, was so dangerously different from The Holy Mass as to
> pose a threat to sanctity and even salvation.
It can and does happen, I acknowledge that. I am not so naïve as to
think the liturgical deconstructionists who want some loose "story and
snack time" to serve as liturgy aren't trying to run with the reform
movement as far as they can. But it's not like those people weren't
experimenting with things under the "old order" either, there was a lot
of abuse then too. For me though (IMHO), the old order/new order debate
hinges on about questions of authority and obedience. I feel compelled
to bow to the orthodox leadership of the council, and their wishes
expressed in Sacrosanctum Concilium. I do not bow to the later reforms
(the whitewashing) which were politically motivated, not council (and
thus Spirit) motivated.
> One of the reformists,
> himself, later boasted that - The Mass as we knew it is dead, was
> destroyed. To him, that was a good thing. But it is "terribly
> different", by design, from The Mass.
The problem I always run into when going down that road is that the
other Latin liturgies in use (before Vatican I successfully suppressed
almost all of them) were also different by design. And I must ask: If
Vatican I had the authority to impose the Roman Liturgy revised and
standardized at Trent, why did Vatican II not have that same authority
to impose another liturgy on the Latin Church? As much as I love the
Tridentine Rite, I am not convinced that the Church doesn't have the
authority to revise it, or to replace it where it benefits the faithful.
That last phrase is the debatable part....
> The 'reformists' didn't like The
> Mass. They wanted to be rid of it. And they saw their chance. Again,
> I'm not even mentioned all the books, all the complaints, which were
> of course all ignored - not even just many of them. Speaking of which,
> and while ICELism is a closely related but different matter, did you
> see the article in the Remnant from a man once involved with ICEL who
> now regrets what they did?
>
No, feel free to post it. I have never liked the current English
translation of the liturgy. The French translation is much more
accurate (and honest).
>
>
>
>>>'Ecumenism' is geared toward a 'new religion' - Bugnini's last word,
>>>kind of thing. The only ones not included are traditionalist
>>>Catholics, orthodox bishops (the few), great Popes and Saints (who
>>>were too 'holy', you see), and to the 'reformer's even the Adoremans
>>>and the like who do the 'reformer's job for them.
>>>
>
>>>RVM is very clear on this point.
>>>
>
>>>"Yet the Rosary clearly belongs to the kind of veneration of the
>>>Mother of God described by the Council: a devotion directed to the
>>>Christological centre of the Christian faith, in such a way that "when
>>>the Mother is honoured, the Son ... is duly known, loved and
>>>glorified".[8] If properly revitalized, the Rosary is an aid and
>>>certainly not a hindrance to ecumenism!"
>>>
>
>>>Seems pretty clear what's being said there.
>>>
>
>
>
>>>>Redundancy isn't necessarily a bad thing, but its presence here does
>>>>make me wonder just why THIS particular point needs that kind of
>>>>reinforcement... I'd rather not do the math, hopefully they are
>>>>demanding obedience of the new-agers instead... Meditating on the
>>>>mysteries should reveal the correct answer though, the Spirit doesn't lie.
>>>>
>
>>>What makes you believe, in any way, to any degree, that God, The Holy
>>>Spirit, inspired or wished the addition of the 'luminous mysteries' -
>>>if I read you right? The correct answer is . . . this is 'reform'.
>>>This is an attack on The Holy Rosary. They're not doing what God
>>>wants. They're telling God how it's gonna be.
>>>
>
>>You read me wrong, I do not believe that, personally. There is indeed a
>>message in the redundancy though, I have to wonder just why it is there.
>>
>
> I've suggested what the answer is. I don't think there's much to
> wonder - except to shake one's head at how bold and foolish the face
> of 'reform' is.
>
PAX
Gerard
@compuserve.com Mark Johnson
>It can and does happen, I acknowledge that. I am not so naïve as to
>think the liturgical deconstructionists who want some loose "story and
>snack time" to serve as liturgy aren't trying to run with the reform
>movement as far as they can. But it's not like those people weren't
>experimenting with things under the "old order" either, there was a lot
>of abuse then too. For me though (IMHO), the old order/new order debate
>hinges on about questions of authority and obedience. I feel compelled
>to bow to the orthodox leadership of the council, and their wishes
>expressed in Sacrosanctum Concilium. I do not bow to the later reforms
>(the whitewashing) which were politically motivated, not council (and
>thus Spirit) motivated.
But if your standard, while not entirely the Catholic standard, is
still something apart from the mere authority of bishop's councils,
then other will say you are disobedient, for not obeying everything
from such a council - such as the recent remark on conversion of
Jewish people, saying it just wasn't needed, it wasn't anything that
one should do.
I would suggest that the Vatican 'constitutions' are no more than what
von Hildebrand said. If they don't conform with previous doctrine, if
they lead to that even which contradicts or subverts, then the
documents have to be considered an erroneous opinion, and not binding.
But I also believe he thought he could find an orthodox reading in all
the council documents. I'm still not sure how. I may be misreading
him. That was my understanding. He didn't a problem with Vatican II.
And while my problem, like his, is with the unholy 'spirit of', which
was even found in the liberal bishops and periti even during the
council, I also confess there are serious problems with the council
documents, themselves. They could use some encyclopedia clarification.
>> One of the reformists,
>> himself, later boasted that - The Mass as we knew it is dead, was
>> destroyed. To him, that was a good thing. But it is "terribly
>> different", by design, from The Mass.
>The problem I always run into when going down that road is that the
>other Latin liturgies in use (before Vatican I successfully suppressed
>almost all of them) were also different by design. And I must ask: If
>Vatican I had the authority to impose the Roman Liturgy revised and
>standardized at Trent, why did Vatican II not have that same authority
>to impose another liturgy on the Latin Church?
For the reason Ottaviani, Bacci, et al . . . . gave - just for start?
And there is the broader question, as well. You don't phrase your
complaint quite accurately. From the point of view of The Church, The
Mass has always been The Mass. Trent, or The Vatican Council, have
only considered the same Mass, from the time of the Apostles. But this
'new order' is entirely different. You know what I quoted, above. And
this was from a man boasting, and who knew the nature of this
'reform'. This just isn't the same kind of thing. They weren't
standardizing The Holy Mass, and with regard to the Eastern Catholic,
say, or whoever else. Bugnini and Paul VI literally threw that all
out, in favor of 'new order'. And that goes back to the Intervention,
and so much else, pointing out contemporaneously how this was not the
same thing. So as you phrase things, it's not comparable.
>As much as I love the
>Tridentine Rite, I am not convinced that the Church doesn't have the
>authority to revise it, or to replace it where it benefits the faithful.
>That last phrase is the debatable part.
So is the first part. Again, it's the same Mass. 'Reformists' will
tell you otherwise. But it's a self-serving excuse in their case. They
have a vested interest in denegrating The Mass and the historical
continuity of The Mass. In light of their 'new order', that's
something they could never openly confess.
>> The 'reformists' didn't like The
>> Mass. They wanted to be rid of it. And they saw their chance. Again,
>> I'm not even mentioned all the books, all the complaints, which were
>> of course all ignored - not even just many of them. Speaking of which,
>> and while ICELism is a closely related but different matter, did you
>> see the article in the Remnant from a man once involved with ICEL who
>> now regrets what they did?
>No, feel free to post it. I have never liked the current English
>translation of the liturgy. The French translation is much more
>accurate (and honest).
Apparently so. The only vernacular translations that depart from the
putatively normative Latin are the Spanish, the Italian (which I
assume JP II uses), and obviously the ICEList English, based I believe
in the US and with the US bishops.
Gerard
Mark Johnson wrote:
> Gerard <ab...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>
>
>>It can and does happen, I acknowledge that. I am not so naïve as to
>>think the liturgical deconstructionists who want some loose "story and
>>snack time" to serve as liturgy aren't trying to run with the reform
>>movement as far as they can. But it's not like those people weren't
>>experimenting with things under the "old order" either, there was a lot
>>of abuse then too. For me though (IMHO), the old order/new order debate
>>hinges on about questions of authority and obedience. I feel compelled
>>to bow to the orthodox leadership of the council, and their wishes
>>expressed in Sacrosanctum Concilium. I do not bow to the later reforms
>>(the whitewashing) which were politically motivated, not council (and
>>thus Spirit) motivated.
>>
>
> But if your standard, while not entirely the Catholic standard, is
> still something apart from the mere authority of bishop's councils,
> then other will say you are disobedient, for not obeying everything
> from such a council
It was an Ecumenical Council, as was Vatican I, Trent, and the rest.
The teaching produced while the bishops are assembled in council is
protected by the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit. If I believe
that the teachings were not protected, I have to either believe the
council was not a valid one, perhaps only a local housekeeping council,
(and by whose authority do I find that to be true), or go the route of
the Eastern (non-uniate) Churches and accept only the first seven (less
for some Coptic and Syriac groups) as doctrinally binding. It's not a
road I feel prepared to take.
> - such as the recent remark on conversion of
> Jewish people, saying it just wasn't needed, it wasn't anything that
> one should do.
>
> I would suggest that the Vatican 'constitutions' are no more than what
> von Hildebrand said. If they don't conform with previous doctrine, if
> they lead to that even which contradicts or subverts, then the
> documents have to be considered an erroneous opinion, and not binding.
> But I also believe he thought he could find an orthodox reading in all
> the council documents.
That is my understanding of him, and it is also how I view the
documents. The post-Council interpretation of the documents has been
shoddy. Most of the people singing the praises of the Council have not
read the documents, only the comments others have made. I have read
them, and we are not doing what they asked in many instances.
Just for fun, I wonder what the reaction would have been had they chosen
to universally impose the Gallican or Ambrosian Rite instead of the
Roman Rite at Vatican I. I believe there was talk about that at Vatican
II, some wanted to see a widened usage of Eastern Rites. There'd still
be complaints to be sure, but the questions about continuity would have
been moot...
>
>
>
>>>The 'reformists' didn't like The
>>>Mass. They wanted to be rid of it. And they saw their chance. Again,
>>>I'm not even mentioned all the books, all the complaints, which were
>>>of course all ignored - not even just many of them. Speaking of which,
>>>and while ICELism is a closely related but different matter, did you
>>>see the article in the Remnant from a man once involved with ICEL who
>>>now regrets what they did?
>>>
>
>>No, feel free to post it. I have never liked the current English
>>translation of the liturgy. The French translation is much more
>>accurate (and honest).
>>
>
> Apparently so. The only vernacular translations that depart from the
> putatively normative Latin are the Spanish, the Italian (which I
> assume JP II uses), and obviously the ICEList English, based I believe
> in the US and with the US bishops.
>
>
>
PAX
Gerard
Cunneen
>protected by the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit.
But again - what "teaching"? That was von Hildebrand's point, and the
complaint of so many when it was called, as Amerio points out, in Iota
Unum, a purely 'pastoral council'. There is no new doctrine. >>
The church can speak authoritatively on both faith and morals. Just because we
don't have any new doctrines of faith (what we believe) doesn't mean there
weren't major developments in moral teaching (how we should act). The whole
approach of the church to the world changed. Ecumenism replaced polemics.
Dialog replace diatribe. The "doctrine" of the dignity of EVERY human person
and the consequent teachings about religious freedom and the demands of
economic justice are significant developments that are reflected in canon law
and in the catechism.
How can you say it was "merely" a pastoral council, when it forced major
revisions to how we worship (liturgy), how we describe what we believe
(catechism), and how we are organized for action (canon law)? That's basically
the whole gamut: cult, creed and code.
If you deny the council's authority, then you have to do the same for ALL these
major developments that came from the council, in effect denying that the
magisterium continues intact today. To do that is to stop being a Catholic.
Gerard
Mark Johnson wrote:
> cun...@aol.com (Cunneen) wrote:
>
>
>>The church can speak authoritatively on both faith and morals. Just because we
>>don't have any new doctrines of faith (what we believe) doesn't mean there
>>weren't major developments in moral teaching (how we should act). The whole
>>approach of the church to the world changed. Ecumenism replaced polemics.
>>Dialog replace diatribe. The "doctrine" of the dignity of EVERY human person
>>and the consequent teachings about religious freedom and the demands of
>>economic justice are significant developments that are reflected in canon law
>>and in the catechism.
>>
>
> But then you don't mean doctrine, in quotes. You believe that Church
> teaching has changed - or even that morality has changed, as you
> phrase it.
>
> Ecumenism replaced evangelism. Dialog replaced common sense. There's
> always been the call to conversion, and dialog in any meaningful
> sense. You refer to some code language, where dialog means some sort
> of 'reformist' activism.
>
>
>
>>How can you say it was "merely" a pastoral council,
>>
>
> Read Amerio. It was literally called a 'pastoral council'.
>
>
>
>>when it forced major
>>revisions to how we worship (liturgy), how we describe what we believe
>>(catechism),
>>
>
> See - there you go.
>
> You confess that Vatican II changed doctrine - what Catholics believe.
>
>
>>and how we are organized for action (canon law)? That's basically
>>the whole gamut: cult, creed and code.
>>
>
> See - "creed".
>
>
>
>>If you deny the council's authority,
>>
>
> Remember von Hildebrand's complaint. It was that you 'reformists' took
> the name of the council to pursue your own agenda, essentially
> nullifying the council. You talk about the "council's authority", and
> ignore what they actually said.
>
Like I said, everyone praises and loudly proclaims the "spirit of the
council" (whatever that may mean for any given person) but hardly anyone
reads the words of the Council. If they read the actual documents, and
studied the history of the Council's Vatican I roots (it was an
unfinished council), the spirit they find may well lead them in another
direction.
Notions of the "Dignity of Humanity" are absolutely central to Christian
theology, and spring from the very earliest teachings regarding the
nature of Christ in the ante-Nicene period. Vatican II produced new
writings on that subject, but no new major teachings. If you believe in
the Incarnation, human dignity is a matter of simple logic, really.
And regarding the nature of Vatican II, no one among people actually
educated on its substance and history) has ever claimed otherwise, the
Council itself certainly did not.
PAX
Gerard
Gerard
Mark Johnson wrote:
> Gerard <ab...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>
>
>>It was an Ecumenical Council, as was Vatican I, Trent, and the rest.
>>The teaching produced while the bishops are assembled in council is
>>protected by the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit.
>>
>
> But again - what "teaching"? That was von Hildebrand's point, and the
> complaint of so many when it was called, as Amerio points out, in Iota
> Unum, a purely 'pastoral council'. There is no new doctrine. If you
> want to argue that decrees on disciplinary matters are protected, like
> how many hours to pray a particular set of prayers, and so on, then I
> don't think The Church has ever taught such was infalliby decreed.
>
> There are an increasing number that seem to argue it wasn't a general
> council. But I haven't seen the specifics of their argument, yet. It
> appears to have been intended, at least at the beginning, to be a
> general council. I've always suspected it because of that purely
> 'pastoral' basis, and have said so over the years on UseNet.
>
>
>
>
>>>I would suggest that the Vatican 'constitutions' are no more than what
>>>von Hildebrand said. If they don't conform with previous doctrine, if
>>>they lead to that even which contradicts or subverts, then the
>>>documents have to be considered an erroneous opinion, and not binding.
>>>But I also believe he thought he could find an orthodox reading in all
>>>the council documents.
>>>
>
>>That is my understanding of him, and it is also how I view the
>>documents. The post-Council interpretation of the documents has been
>>shoddy. Most of the people singing the praises of the Council have not
>>read the documents, only the comments others have made. I have read
>>them, and we are not doing what they asked in many instances.
>>
>
> Von Hildebrand's complaint was specifically that such 'praises' came
> from those who took the name of the council, and essentially nullified
> the documents, what actual and flawed spirit and letter of the
> council, in favor of their 'reform'. The 'council demands', regardless
> of what the council proscribed or prescribed. That's really the
> Adoreman case. But, I think the documents themselves were flawed, even
> if they were subsequently ignored by the 'reform' apparatchiks.
> Wouldn't have made any sense.
No, it wouldn't, but then again, many in the French Church feel the same
way even today about they term a foreign Roman Liturgy (though it's
really not even celebrated anymore, replaced as it was by Paul VI
liturgy). The Gallican Rite was the primary rite in France until
Vatican I, and was the Latin Church's second most used rite.
Suppressing it leaves as bad a taste in my mouth as does suppressing the
Roman Rite. There is talk now about restoring it, as France now
threatens to go Islamic.
> At Trent, specifically, it wasn't a new
> liturgy they had crafted by some 'Consilium'. They sanctioned what had
> always been The Mass. And the promulgation of 'new order' was utterly
> and entirely different.
>
True, but most who support the Paul VI rite hold that it is only
accidentally (philosophical sense) and not essentially different.
>
>>I believe there was talk about that at Vatican
>>II, some wanted to see a widened usage of Eastern Rites.
>>
>
> Only selectively, and dishonestly. That was part of the complaint of
> the Ottaviani Intervention.
>
True again. I still wonder why their use is not broader, it seems as
though they are viewed as the Latin Church's grudgingly accepted (though
frequently not acknowledged) step-sisters.
PAX
Gerard
Gerard
Gerard wrote:
I accidentally left out the following phrase which belongs here: "it was
a Pastoral Council."
> no one among people actually
> educated on its substance and history has ever claimed otherwise, the
@compuserve.com Mark Johnson
>No, it wouldn't, but then again, many in the French Church feel the same
>way even today about they term a foreign Roman Liturgy (though it's
>really not even celebrated anymore, replaced as it was by Paul VI
>liturgy). The Gallican Rite was the primary rite in France until
>Vatican I, and was the Latin Church's second most used rite.
>Suppressing it leaves as bad a taste in my mouth as does suppressing the
>Roman Rite. There is talk now about restoring it, as France now
>threatens to go Islamic.
Don't know why the opposition to The Mass. But if Gallican as opposed
to the Pauline, it would have to be of benefit, assuming you have
properly ordained priests who don't keep one foot in heterodox
'reform' (you have this sort on the 'indult' side, in places - and
it's annoying).
>> At Trent, specifically, it wasn't a new
>> liturgy they had crafted by some 'Consilium'. They sanctioned what had
>> always been The Mass. And the promulgation of 'new order' was utterly
>> and entirely different.
>True, but most who support the Paul VI rite hold that it is only
>accidentally (philosophical sense) and not essentially different.
They 'hold' a lot of things, none of which are true. Just like the PC
in the secular side, it's all smoke and mirrors. Let a real voice
oppose them, and their house of cards falls. Thus, their desire to
demonize any criticism.
>>>I believe there was talk about that at Vatican
>>>II, some wanted to see a widened usage of Eastern Rites.
>> Only selectively, and dishonestly. That was part of the complaint of
>> the Ottaviani Intervention.
>True again. I still wonder why their use is not broader, it seems as
>though they are viewed as the Latin Church's grudgingly accepted (though
>frequently not acknowledged) step-sisters.
They were trying to maintain the tradition, the continuity, from
Petrine times.
Gerard
Mark Johnson wrote:
> Gerard <ab...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>
>
>>No, it wouldn't, but then again, many in the French Church feel the same
>>way even today about they term a foreign Roman Liturgy (though it's
>>really not even celebrated anymore, replaced as it was by Paul VI
>>liturgy). The Gallican Rite was the primary rite in France until
>>Vatican I, and was the Latin Church's second most used rite.
>>Suppressing it leaves as bad a taste in my mouth as does suppressing the
>>Roman Rite. There is talk now about restoring it, as France now
>>threatens to go Islamic.
>>
>
> Don't know why the opposition to The Mass. But if Gallican as opposed
> to the Pauline, it would have to be of benefit, assuming you have
> properly ordained priests who don't keep one foot in heterodox
> 'reform' (you have this sort on the 'indult' side, in places - and
> it's annoying).
>
They oppose it only in the sense that the Eastern Catholics, the
Ambrosians, etc. opposed attempts to "Romanize" them. At least the ones
with solid grounds oppose Roman Liturgy for that reason, others have a
more worldly, nationalistic agenda at heart.
>
>
>>>At Trent, specifically, it wasn't a new
>>>liturgy they had crafted by some 'Consilium'. They sanctioned what had
>>>always been The Mass. And the promulgation of 'new order' was utterly
>>>and entirely different.
>>>
>
>>True, but most who support the Paul VI rite hold that it is only
>>accidentally (philosophical sense) and not essentially different.
>>
>
> They 'hold' a lot of things, none of which are true. Just like the PC
> in the secular side, it's all smoke and mirrors. Let a real voice
> oppose them, and their house of cards falls. Thus, their desire to
> demonize any criticism.
>
>
>
>>>>I believe there was talk about that at Vatican
>>>>II, some wanted to see a widened usage of Eastern Rites.
>>>>
>
>>>Only selectively, and dishonestly. That was part of the complaint of
>>>the Ottaviani Intervention.
>>>
>
>>True again. I still wonder why their use is not broader, it seems as
>>though they are viewed as the Latin Church's grudgingly accepted (though
>>frequently not acknowledged) step-sisters.
>>
>
> They were trying to maintain the tradition, the continuity, from
> Petrine times.
>
Ironically, had they gone Greek instead of N.O. at Vatican II, no one
could say they hadn't maintained the continuity, perhaps even more so.
But then, THOSE people weren't all that interested in maintaining a
historical cohesiveness anyway, and continue to complain about the
alleged restrictiveness and clericalism of the current Rite. Give them
an inch, they want a mile...sigh...
PAX
Gerard
Gerard
Mark Johnson wrote:
> I see what you're saying. If they had done it right, if Ottaviani had
> no complaint in this section of the Intervention. But again, it would
> still have been a rejection of the Mass of The Church of the Latin
> Rite, which is all Trent was saying,
True, they were very worried that new liturgies had been in some places
replacing the older pre-Reformation ones, and of some of the dangerous
wording they contained. I wonder if the Gallican rite was the victim of
historical ignorance (it really was older than 200 years at Trent,
dating to Charlemagne) or if it's suppression was more of an implicit
tightening of Roman temporal authority. Either way, it's hard for me
not to sympathize with the people's resistance to giving it up. Another
point of irony, they didn't lose it entirely. The rest of the Church
even ended up adopting a few of its customs (like genuflection). The
oldest copies of Roman Missals known when Trent did it's tidying up of
the Roman liturgy were in Paris. They were the ones Charlemagne had
sent from the Pope after his conversion, and they had Gallican usage
notes penned in the margins.
> not creating a new liturgy -
> though if they'd done that, and partly or entirely adopted one of the
> eastern liturgies, and done so in the way properly understood by them,
> I wonder if there would have been any real opposition, or if all these
> books would have been written, if Lefebvre would have consecrated the
> bishops, etc. I don't know. Maybe. But they might have gotten away
> with 'reform' - but, as you say, that's not what they were after. And
> I suspect the best they could do, and still try to destroy The Church,
> was what they did, which did raise a lot of opposition, then, and even
> moreso, today. But they can't hide it, now. With RVM, and a literal
> attack on The Holy Rosary, you've got a Pope, or a least a Pope's
> signature, skirting real close to a rejection of Catholicism itself.
> You don't mess with the very devotion requested by Our Blessed Mother
> herself, in various visions. You know that request is directly from
> God, Himself. That's why public Rosaries are faithfully attended, and
> why so many people pray The Rosary, because of those requests, and the
> promises made if we do as asked. It may be people don't have to
> confess approved apparitions as dogma. But if they really occurred -
> and they are actually approved - as it was Our Blessed Mother, when
> she says - pray The Rosary - you don't just rewrite The Rosary because
> you think you can. You do what she asks. You don't get up in her face
> and tell her that what she asked of us was wrong, and was some sort of
> horribly flawed devotion.
>
I feel that I must agree, personally.
PAX
Gerard