The Luminous Mysteries ? JP2
#41
(04-23-2010, 03:45 PM)Avus Wrote: The Luminous Mysteries and the JPII Way of the Cross were devised for the same reason: ecumenism. Both contain purely Scriptural events without Mary so as to not offend our "separated brethren". If The Great could have gotten away with altering the other three mysteries I have no doubt he would have done so in a heartbeat. As it is, he ensured the Prots have at least one group they can use when they pray the Rosary. After all, Prots pray the Rosary all the time, don't they?  

With all due respect, I don't believe there is any evidence for that ascertation.  Thirteen of the fifteen mysteries of the traditional rosary are "purely scriptural events" (the two exceptions are the Assumption and the Coronation).  All five of the Sorrowful Mysteries are exclusively Christ centered, with reference to Mary, in neither the scriptures, nor the traditional meditations.  The same is true for the first two Glorious Mysteries.  The third Glorious Mystery concerns the Holy Ghost (though we presume Mary was present at Pentecost, it is not mentioned in any Rosary meditation I've ever seen).  The  Joyful Mysteries, all "purely Scriptural events", all involve both Jesus and Mary, though only the Annunciation and the Visitation really have an emphasis on Mary, and the last three could be recited with a purely Christ centered meditation.

In the second Luminous Mystery, Mary is a very intregal part of the miracle at the wedding feast at Cana, so the ascertation that these Mysteries are "without Mary" is simply untrue (though you could say that about the Sowerful Mysteries, and it would be true).

I do concur that it would have been better, in many ways, and for many reasons, for the Pope to have issued his encyclical encouraging greater devotion to the Rosary (in its traditional form), and then to also announce a new Chaplet that could be said on one's Rosary, as well as reviving an interest in the many wonderful Chaplet's that exist, and that many Catholics are unaware of.  That's not what he did, but, IMHO, it seems ludacris to think he introduced these mysteries as a way to get Protestants to say the Rosary ~ that just seems beyond the pale of reason.

In any event, he did cause a revival in the recitation of the Rosary among Ordinary Form (or, Novus Ordo, if you prefer) Catholics, which had severely deminished in the period during and after (and probable before) VII.  To their credit, devotion to the Rosary never diminished among traditional Catholics.

Edited for grammar
Reply
#42
It seems to me JPII had to put his hands on everything everything needed a change. I said them when I was NO now I never will and would not suffer others too.
Reply
#43
(04-23-2010, 08:58 PM)Gerard Wrote: He also took an anti-modernist vow and accepted the job of being Pope.  His prime duty was to protecte the deposit of faith.  By the standards expressed by St. Pius X in "Pascendi" he failed in his duty. 

Actually, if you're referring to JPII, he was the first in close to 1000 years not to take the anti-Modernist oath. So far as I know, he actually abolished it so that it is no longer taken.
Reply
#44
(04-23-2010, 10:53 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(04-23-2010, 08:58 PM)Gerard Wrote: He also took an anti-modernist vow and accepted the job of being Pope.  His prime duty was to protecte the deposit of faith.  By the standards expressed by St. Pius X in "Pascendi" he failed in his duty. 

Actually, if you're referring to JPII, he was the first in close to 1000 years not to take the anti-Modernist oath. So far as I know, he actually abolished it so that it is no longer taken.

As a point of information, there may be a confusion here between:

1) The Oath against Modernism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_Against_Modernism.  It was mandated by Pope St. Pius X in September, 1910, to be sworn to by "all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries", and rescinded by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in July 1967.  Pope John Paul would have taken this oath at his ordination on November 1, 1946.

2) The Papal Coronation Oath http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_Oath_..._Catholic), which he did not take.  There is some question as to the historic veracity of this oath, and there have been some spirited discussions on this forum about it (type Papal Coronation Oath in the forum's search function to bring them up).
Reply
#45
[quote='Avus' pid='554214' dateline='1272051913']
The Luminous Mysteries and the JPII Way of the Cross were devised for the same reason: ecumenism. Both contain purely Scriptural events without Mary so as to not offend our "separated brethren". If The Great could have gotten away with altering the other three mysteries I have no doubt he would have done so in a heartbeat. As it is, he ensured the Prots have at least one group they can use when they pray the Rosary. After all, Pro
Reply
#46
(04-23-2010, 08:58 PM)Gerard Wrote:
(04-23-2010, 08:11 PM)Magdalene Wrote: I suppose I could just as easily say that I detect a certain haughtiness on the part of people who say they would NEVER do anything that Pope John Paul II approved of; perish the thought! 

Here we run into the first problem.  Is a "complete Rosary" a traditional 15 decade rosary or a new 20 decade rosary?   The problem with JPII wasn't doing what he allowed, the problem is that he allowed virtually anything and everything. 
I simply cannot reconcile being Catholic with rejecting PRAYERS to Christ because they don't fit "YOUR" narrow definition of what is a proper and improper prayer.
Reply
#47
(04-23-2010, 11:23 PM)moneil Wrote:
(04-23-2010, 10:53 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(04-23-2010, 08:58 PM)Gerard Wrote: He also took an anti-modernist vow and accepted the job of being Pope.  His prime duty was to protecte the deposit of faith.  By the standards expressed by St. Pius X in "Pascendi" he failed in his duty. 

Actually, if you're referring to JPII, he was the first in close to 1000 years not to take the anti-Modernist oath. So far as I know, he actually abolished it so that it is no longer taken.

As a point of information, there may be a confusion here between:

1) The Oath against Modernism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_Against_Modernism.  It was mandated by Pope St. Pius X in September, 1910, to be sworn to by "all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries", and rescinded by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in July 1967.  Pope John Paul would have taken this oath at his ordination on November 1, 1946.

2) The Papal Coronation Oath http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_Oath_..._Catholic), which he did not take.  There is some question as to the historic veracity of this oath, and there have been some spirited discussions on this forum about it (type Papal Coronation Oath in the forum's search function to bring them up).

Yes, that is a very good point you make. I know the content of the oath, but I confused its name. 

Quote:I vow to change nothing of the received Tradition, and nothing thereof I have found before me guarded by my God-pleasing predecessors, to encroach upon, to alter, or to permit any innovation therein;

To the contrary: with glowing affection as her truly faithful student and successor, to safeguard reverently the passed-on good, with my whole strength and utmost effort;

To cleanse all that is in contradiction to the canonical order that may surface;

To guard the Holy Canons and Decrees of our Popes as if they were the Divine ordinances of Heaven, because I am conscious of Thee, Whose place I take through the grace of God, Whose Vicarship I possess with Thy support, being subject to the severest accounting before Thy Divine Tribunal over all that I shall confess;

I swear to God Almighty and the Saviour Jesus Christ that I will keep whatever has been revealed through Christ and His Successors and whatever the first councils and my predecessors have defined and declared.

I will keep without sacrifice to itself the discipline and the rite of the Church. I will put outside the Church whoever dares to go against this oath, may it be somebody else or I.

If I should undertake to act in anything of contrary sense, or should permit that it will be executed, Thou willst not be merciful to me on the dreadful Day of Divine Justice.

Accordingly, without exclusion, We subject to severest excommunication anyone – be it ourselves or be it another – who would dare to undertake anything new in contradiction to this constituted evangelic Tradition and the purity of the Orthodox Faith and the Christian Religion, or would seek to change anything by his opposing efforts, or would agree with those who undertake such a blasphemous venture.

So yes, you are correct.

But I see why I wouldn't take it. If I were going to promote the Novus Ordo Missae and the other various novelties, I wouldn't take it either.
Reply
#48
(04-22-2010, 11:57 PM)Gerard Wrote: Hopefully, we'll only have one abberration of a "showboating" Pontiff in the history of the Church.  Would anybody with any real sense of the sacred want a repeat of  THAT?

I think showboating popes are okay, as long as they're orthodox. Who doesn't like Leo X's pet elephant, for example?

John Paul II seems to have dedicated himself to going overboard with innovation of things for no real reason. That's the difference. I don't mind his background as an actor, though, or his propensity for the theatrical. There is room in the Church for a few eccentric popes.
Reply
#49
Since world is world people people want to change it. This is also commandment from God:

Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth.

The popes constantly added thing to the Holy Liturgy too, the Kalendar constantly changed.

John Paul II wanted to put your attention to the actions of Jesus:

- Jesus subdued himself to a new rite, the baptism of John the Baptist

- Jesus made miracles out of pity for people, even in unnecessary subject, like the wine on a wedding

- Jesus preferred the poor against the elite

- Jesus revealed his glory to his inner circle only, before the Passion, from the rest like us He requires the faith

- Jesus wanted to stay among us through The Eucharist, and by this mystery He wants to reach everybody

We all should meditate on this mysteries.
Reply
#50
(04-23-2010, 11:48 PM)sueb Wrote:
(04-23-2010, 08:58 PM)Gerard Wrote:
(04-23-2010, 08:11 PM)Magdalene Wrote: I suppose I could just as easily say that I detect a certain haughtiness on the part of people who say they would NEVER do anything that Pope John Paul II approved of; perish the thought! 

Here we run into the first problem.  Is a "complete Rosary" a traditional 15 decade rosary or a new 20 decade rosary?   The problem with JPII wasn't doing what he allowed, the problem is that he allowed virtually anything and everything. 
I simply cannot reconcile being Catholic with rejecting PRAYERS to Christ because they don't fit "YOUR" narrow definition of what is a proper and improper prayer.

I simply cannot reconcile rejecting the form and beauty of the rosary because it didn't fit with JPII's narrow definition and understanding of the rosary.  Paul VI even disagreed with him on the addition of more mysteries. 

Your position is like the vegetarian that thinks vegetarianism is about having choices, including meat.  One of the classic liberal tactics is to bury something when they can't get rid of it.  The "seamless garment" strategy of Card. Bernardin was designed to bury the pro-life movement by drowning it in social work  programs and only paying lip service to pro-life causes. 

For years we had tabernacles hidden from view in Churches in order to destroy reverent behavior,  now we have multiple expositions of the Blessed Sacrament in round Churches that make it impossible to navigate through the Church without either odd and sudden stops to genuflect or a gradual eroding of the willingness to genuflect.  It works either way, through deprivation or excess. 



http://www.christianorder.com/features/f...may03.html


Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)