Author Topic: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.  (Read 3725 times)

Offline Daniel

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3171
  • Thanked: 841 times
Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
« Reply #30 on: November 21, 2020, 06:55:32 PM »
So, you are a sede?  No human is superior to the pope, so it has to be a future pope or a council to declare a pope an anti-pope.  When you refer to John XXIII do you mean Baldassarre Cossa (1410–1415), who was declared an antipope at the Council of Constance in 1415, or Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli (1958-1963)?  You know, think about that for a bit.

I never said we're superior to the pope. What I said was, either these men are popes or they are not popes. The Church doesn't make a pope into an anti-pope or vice versa; the Church only recognizes him as pope or anti-pope.

Not sure I understand your point about the two John XXIIIs. Obviously the first was an anti-pope, even before the Church declared it so. The second may or may not have been, and the Church to my knowledge hasn't yet made any sort of declaration. Sedevacantists claim he's an anti-pope. Non-sedevacantists claim he's a pope. And as for me, I'm not making any claim whatsoever, only that it's at least possible (or at least seems possible) that he is an anti-pope seeing as he seems to have been a heretic and seeing as it seems that no heretic can be pope.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2020, 07:14:44 PM by Daniel »
 

Offline Miriam_M

  • Mary Garden
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 7206
  • Thanked: 5377 times
  • Never have been "MiriamB"
  • Religion: Traditional Roman Catholic
Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
« Reply #31 on: November 22, 2020, 12:58:43 AM »
Saying that one has nothing in common with a belief system is qualitatively different from saying that one has nothing in common with a particular group of humanity.  Your commonality is your humanity, even aside from your baptism.  I would hope that all parents would teach that to their children.  Most Americans today have learned the opposite from Communist News Network and MSDNC:  They have learned that people who voted for Trump are lower than human beings , "of a different breed," filled with "hate," are "racists," etc. -- merely for stating a voting preference, even.  In marginalizing them, the Left has made it socially acceptable to hate people they do not know.  It's not as if they merely state, in a condescending tone, that Trump voters were/are ignorant people to be respected nevertheless.  There's no respect there at all because there's no recognition that someone who disagrees with one's own political belief system is an equal human being. 

That illustrates the parallel danger in rejecting people rather than rejecting beliefs and behavior.  I reject the behavior of 50+% of Mass-goers of the N.O.  Their behavior at Mass scandalizes me and threatens my faith.  So if there is no TLM available to me, I would no longer be interested in attending the N.O.  But "those people" have been told the N.O. is "the true Mass," actually.  They have been told that Mass is kind of an informal event (a "meal") -- which is why they behave the way they do at Mass; they are not behaving casually to annoy any traditionalists who happen to show up at that Mass. They have been catechized poorly and don't deserve to be segregated into a different segment of humanity because of their misfortune.

Can the same not be said about Protestants though? Or even many atheists for that matter. Some satanists too.

We shouldn't hate them, but we should still label them as "non-Catholics". Not just their false religious beliefs, but them as persons insofar as they subscribe to false religious beliefs. They are not Catholic.

Recognizing that someone is either by affiliation not Catholic or by practice only nominally Catholic is not the same thing, in my book, as saying I have "nothing in common" with the person.  It's just that what I have in common might pertain only peripherally to the Catholic religion and much more to factors common to all humanity.

Quote
However, I'm still wondering about the ones who don't subscribe to false religious beliefs. What about the Catholics who reject all the Vatican II errors while simultaneously believing that John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis are popes? Is it really an act of "heresy" or "apostasy" to be of the opinion that Francis is pope, or to not be sure that Francis isn't the pope? When has the Church ever taught that Francis is not the pope? (Perhaps those with faith are just supposed to somehow know that Francis is not pope? And if you don't know, it only demonstrates that you don't actually have faith?)

I have tried to avoid, since Francis's election, condemning either sedevacantists or sedeplenists, since as a lay person I know I am not qualified to judge his true intentions, or the intentions of other Popes.  Any of us can make objective judgments about the orthodoxy of a particular statement by a pope -- or by a priest, bishop, or cardinal -- but declaring one of our titular superiors to be a heretic or not a heretic is beyond our pay grade, at least in a formal sense.  I do not try to get into judging those Catholics who believe that informally and practically, any ordained man is capable of rejecting grace, rejecting correction from equals and superiors (of which I am neither).  I agree with those who say that such is always a possibility and that orthodoxy is not automatic with the office.  Before V2, it was generally not even suspected that ordained men did not believe and did not proclaim orthodox Catholicism, but because of seminary formation after V2, the fidelity or even the understanding of an ordained man can come under scrutiny if he encourages that by provocative statements.
 
The following users thanked this post: Daniel

Offline Miriam_M

  • Mary Garden
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 7206
  • Thanked: 5377 times
  • Never have been "MiriamB"
  • Religion: Traditional Roman Catholic
Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
« Reply #32 on: November 22, 2020, 01:18:37 AM »
Daniel, I guess I could take it a step further and say this:

Jesus Christ preached to all -- first to the Jews, which was His central mission -- but not exclusively to them.  As you know, we all know, He preached to those whom the Jews of the time largely rejected or looked down upon, wanted to be separate from or have nothing to do with. The Jews considered it scandalous that He did so.  Some groups were considered pagan/polytheistic, others essentially secular. Yet the apostles accepted the mission He gave them to preach to the Gentiles and to all four corners of the earth.  If they had told Him that they had "nothing in common" with people who worshipped differently or believed differently, Christendom would never have expanded and flourished as it did within a few centuries of its birth.

I'm usually not terribly in favor of direct evangelization, or proselytizing, including from the N.O. to Tradition, but I am highly, highly in favor of being responsive when Catholics and non-Catholics express interest in tradition or mere curiosity about it, and I have been known to spontaneously evangelize in settings which include non-Catholic acquaintances of mine or even complete strangers, such as in retail stores, if the subject comes up. If I assumed I had "nothing in common" with such people, I don't think my efforts would be very successful.
 ;)
 
The following users thanked this post: Daniel

Offline Jayne

  • Mary Garden
  • Major
  • ****
  • Posts: 13786
  • Thanked: 6107 times
  • Comic Sans Frontières
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
« Reply #33 on: November 22, 2020, 08:18:59 AM »
As I see it, parents are in a tight spot. (More reason not to get married in this day and age, I suppose. Though I guess even more reason not to become a priest either.) Problem is, the Church has not yet condemned the NO counterchurch, nor has she even acknowledged the existence of a counterchurch. (And how could she? She has apparently been bound and gagged by that same counterchurch!) So the existence (and evilness) of the NO counterchurch falls under opinion. But should parents really be teaching opinion to their kids? What if the parent's opinion turns out to be wrong?

Pope Benedict did acknowledge that there is a serious problem in the Church, although he did not express it in terms of a "NO counterchurch".  He spoke of a "hermeneutic of rupture" a false way of interpreting Vatican II documents (or appealing to the mythical "spirit of Vatican II) such that they contradict Catholic teaching.  True Catholic teaching cannot contradict previous doctrine.  It is safe to say that these false interpretations are evil and to teach this to children.

It is pretty much the official SSPX position now that Vatican II is theoretically capable of orthodox interpretation, although such interpretation rarely takes place in practice.  This position gives a framework in which we can understand that some people who attend the NO very well may be very good Catholics, in spite of its serious flaws.

In my personal situation, I am virtually forced to accept this.  My husband, although willing to attend the traditional Mass to accompany me, greatly prefers the NO and attends it far more often.  He is recognized  by all as a good and wise man and there is little question that he is a better Catholic than I am.  I go to a better Mass, but he is the better person and better Catholic.

Obviously, in such a situation, I cannot teach my children to assume that there is something wrong with people who attend the NO.  I have, however, explained all the reasons why the TLM is the better Mass and even convinced some of them.

My children are all adults; even the "baby" is 19 now.  I suspect that I might need to deal with things somewhat differently if I had young children.  I could not, however, approach the matter in a way that involved any sort of disrespect to my husband.
Jesus, meek and humble of heart, make my heart like unto Thine.
 
The following users thanked this post: Daniel

Offline Vetus Ordo

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3635
  • Thanked: 3959 times
  • Hopeful Fatalist
Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
« Reply #34 on: November 22, 2020, 01:29:26 PM »
Not so fast. For one thing, the word you're looking for is "grew", not "evolved". And even if the Rosary "grew"--which, I'll add, might not even be the case--it nevertheless is "revealed" insofar as it was confirmed by our Lady at Fatima, an apparition which at the very least seems to have been approved of by the Church. But I'll repeat, "growth" is not "evolution". The Davidic psalter only has 150 psalms, thus the Rosary (which, in some ways, was modeled after the psalter) can have no more than 15 decades. (After all, a human infant legitimately grows into a two-legged adult; he does not legitimately grow into a three-legged monster. Even if he eats some radioactive waste and starts growing a third leg or something, such growth is clearly not in accord with his unchanging nature.)

To evolve is "to develop gradually." You can consult a dictionary if the verb troubles you.

The rosary developped gradually from the tradition of knotted prayer ropes. This fact is uncontroversial. Divine revelation ceased with the death of St. John the Evangelist, therefore pious church traditions like the rosary aren't revelation in any sense of the word. They can be altered if the Church sees fit.

Quote
Correct. But to raise a new point which I don't believe GoG brought up, it is a violation of dogma to "revise" the liturgy in such a way as to introduce heresies into the Mass. Whether or not this actually happened, I don't know. But at least the SSPX says it did, and they're not even sedevacantists.

It is impossible for the Church to promulgate and use a heretical rite as her lex orandi. If the NOM is heretical, then by definition the Church defected. There's no way around it.
DISPOSE OUR DAYS IN THY PEACE, AND COMMAND US TO BE DELIVERED FROM ETERNAL DAMNATION, AND TO BE NUMBERED IN THE FLOCK OF THINE ELECT.
 
The following users thanked this post: Fleur-de-Lys

Offline Michael Wilson

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 8320
  • Thanked: 6736 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
« Reply #35 on: November 22, 2020, 01:52:58 PM »
Daniel,
on the Rosary; St. Dominic did receive a revelation from Our Blessed Mother on the Rosary; and he did establish the Confraternity of the Holy Rosary, with the blessing of the Church. There are parish records of people being enrolled in the Confraternity dating from the time of St. Dominic. There was the addition of the "Holy Mary" part of the prayer after St. Dominic; but the Mysteries in the Dominican Rosary were always 15. Blessed Alan de la Roche also received additional revelations on the promises attached to the recitation of the Holy Rosary; and Our Blessed Mother has worked many great miracles through the recitation of the Holy Rosary; including appearing visibly above the Christian fleet at the Battle of Lepanto and the wind miraculously shifting direction in the middle of the battle, to favor the Christian fleet. The Church Herself has promoted and blessed the devotion with numerous indulgences and Popes have spoken in favor of the devotion.
Re. "Altering the Rosary"; The Catholic Church has the power to make modifications that would promote the good of souls.
[Vetus Ordo don't read any further]; However the Conciliar Church has no power over Catholic devotions and only seeks to alter them in order to pervert and destroy the Catholic faith and lead people into apostasy. So if you want to save your soul avoid anything that comes from that organization, such as the N.O.M. And the new modified "Rosary"; bad, bad stuff.
 
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord and not He to it." Rev. Dennis Fahey CSSP

"My brothers, all of you, if you are condemned to see the triumph of evil, never applaud it. Never say to evil: you are good; to decadence: you are progess; to death: you are life. Sanctify yourselves in the times wherein God has placed you; bewail the evils and the disorders which God tolerates; oppose them with the energy of your works and your efforts, your life uncontaminated by error, free from being led astray, in such a way that having lived here below, united with the Spirit of the Lord, you will be admitted to be made but one with Him forever and ever: But he who is joined to the Lord is one in spirit." Cardinal Pie of Potiers
 
The following users thanked this post: Graham, Stubborn, Lynne, Wenceslav, Miriam_M, Daniel, diaduit, Blue Violet

Offline Vetus Ordo

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3635
  • Thanked: 3959 times
  • Hopeful Fatalist
Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
« Reply #36 on: November 22, 2020, 06:03:18 PM »
on the Rosary; St. Dominic did receive a revelation from Our Blessed Mother on the Rosary; and he did establish the Confraternity of the Holy Rosary, with the blessing of the Church. There are parish records of people being enrolled in the Confraternity dating from the time of St. Dominic. There was the addition of the "Holy Mary" part of the prayer after St. Dominic; but the Mysteries in the Dominican Rosary were always 15.

In truth, there's nothing that links historically St. Dominic to the rosary. The first one to claim such connection was the Dominican Alan de Rupe in the 15th century, a man afflicted with delusions. As the Catholic Encyclopedia conclusively states:

In any case it is certain that in the course of the twelfth century and before the birth of St. Dominic, the practice of reciting 50 or 150 Ave Marias had become generally familiar. The most conclusive evidence of this is furnished by the "Mary-legends", or stories of Our Lady, which obtained wide circulation at this epoch. The story of Eulalia, in particular, according to which a client of the Blessed Virgin who had been wont to say a hundred and fifty Aves was bidden by her to say only fifty, but more slowly, has been shown by Mussafia (Marien-legenden, Pts I, ii) to be unquestionably of early date. Not less conclusive is the account given of St. Albert (d. 1140) by his contemporary biographer, who tells us: "A hundred times a day he bent his knees, and fifty times he prostrated himself raising his body again by his fingers and toes, while he repeated at every genuflexion: 'Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee, blessed art thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb'." This was the whole of the Hail Mary as then said, and the fact of all the words being set down rather implies that the formula had not yet become universally familiar. Not less remarkable is the account of a similar devotional exercise occurring in the Corpus Christi manuscripts of the Ancren Riwle. This text, declared by Kölbing to have been written in the middle of the twelfth century (Englische Studien, 1885, P. 116), can in any case be hardly later than 1200. The passage in question gives directions how fifty Aves are to be said divided into sets of ten, with prostrations and other marks of reverence. (See The Month, July, 1903.) When we find such an exercise recommended to a little group of anchorites in a corner of England, twenty years before any Dominican foundation was made in this country, it seems difficult to resist the conclusion that the custom of reciting fifty or a hundred and fifty Aves had grown familiar, independently of, and earlier than, the preaching of St. Dominic. On the other hand, the practice of meditating on certain definite mysteries, which has been rightly described as the very essence of the Rosary devotion, seems to have only arisen long after the date of St. Dominic's death. It is difficult to prove a negative, but Father T. Esser, O.P., has shown (in the periodical "Der Katholik", of Mainz, Oct., Nov., Dec., 1897) that the introduction of this meditation during the recitation of the Aves was rightly attributed to a certain Carthusian, Dominic the Prussian. It is in any case certain that at the close of the fifteenth century the utmost possible variety of methods of meditating prevailed, and that the fifteen mysteries now generally accepted were not uniformly adhered to even by the Dominicans themselves. (See Schmitz, "Rosenkranzgebet", p. 74; Esser in "Der Katholik for 1904-6.) To sum up, we have positive evidence that both the invention of the beads as a counting apparatus and also the practice of repeating a hundred and fifty Aves cannot be due to St. Dominic, because they are both notably older than his time. Further, we are assured that the meditating upon the mysteries was not introduced until two hundred years after his death. What then, we are compelled to ask, is there left of which St. Dominic may be called the author?

These positive reasons for distrusting the current tradition might in a measure be ignored as archaeological refinements, if there were any satisfactory evidence to show that St. Dominic had identified himself with the pre-existing Rosary and become its apostle. But here we are met with absolute silence. Of the eight or nine early Lives of the saint, not one makes the faintest allusion to the Rosary. The witnesses who gave evidence in the cause of his canonization are equally reticent. In the great collection of documents accumulated by Fathers Balme and Lelaidier, O.P., in their "Cartulaire de St. Dominique" the question is studiously ignored. The early constitutions of the different provinces of the order have been examined, and many of them printed, but no one has found any reference to this devotion. We possess hundreds, even thousands, of manuscripts containing devotional treatises, sermons, chronicles, Saints' lives, etc., written by the Friars Preachers between 1220 and 1450; but no single verifiable passage has yet been produced which speaks of the Rosary as instituted by St. Dominic or which even makes much of the devotion as one specially dear to his children. The charters and other deeds of the Dominican convents for men and women, as M. Jean Guiraud points out with emphasis in his edition of the Cartulaire of La Prouille (I, cccxxviii), are equally silent. Neither do we find any suggestion of a connection between St. Dominic and the Rosary in the paintings and sculptures of these two and a half centuries. Even the tomb of St. Dominic at Bologna and the numberless frescoes by Fra Angelico representing the brethren of his order ignore the Rosary completely.

Impressed by this conspiracy of silence, the Bollandists, on trying to trace to its source the origin of the current tradition, found that all the clues converged upon one point, the preaching of the Dominican Alan de Rupe about the years 1470-75. He it undoubtedly was who first suggested the idea that the devotion of "Our Lady's Psalter" (a hundred and fifty Hail Marys) was instituted or revived by St. Dominic. Alan was a very earnest and devout man, but, as the highest authorities admit, he was full of delusions, and based his revelations on the imaginary testimony of writers that never existed (see Quétif and Echard, "Scriptores O.P.", 1, 849). His preaching, however, was attended with much success. The Rosary Confraternities, organized by him and his colleagues at Douai, Cologne, and elsewhere had great vogue, and led to the printing of many books, all more or less impregnated with the ideas of Alan. Indulgences were granted for the good work that was thus being done and the documents conceding these indulgences accepted and repeated, as was natural in that uncritical age, the historical data which had been inspired by Alan's writings and which were submitted according to the usual practice by the promoters of the confraternities themselves. It was in this way that the tradition of Dominican authorship grew up. The first Bulls speak of this authorship with some reserve: "Prout in historiis legitur" says Leo X in the earliest of all. "Pastoris aeterni" 1520; but many of the later popes were less guarded.

Two considerations strongly support the view of the Rosary tradition just expounded. The first is the gradual surrender of almost every notable piece that has at one time or another been relied upon to vindicate the supposed claims of St. Dominic. Touron and Alban Butler appealed to the Memoirs of a certain Luminosi de Aposa who professed to have heard St. Dominic preach at Bologna, but these Memoirs have long ago been proved to be a forgery. Danzas, Von Löe and others attached much importance to a fresco at Muret; but the fresco is not now in existence, and there is good reason for believing that the rosary once seen in that fresco was painted in at a later date ("The Month" Feb. 1901, p. 179). Mamachi, Esser, Walsh, and Von Löe and others quote some alleged contemporary verses about Dominic in connection with a crown of roses; the original manuscript has disappeared, and it is certain that the writers named have printed Dominicus where Benoist, the only person who has seen the manuscript, read Dominus. The famous will of Anthony Sers, which professed to leave a bequest to the Confraternity of the Rosary at Palencia in 1221, was put forward as a conclusive piece of testimony by Mamachi; but it is now admitted by Dominican authorities to be a forgery ("The Irish Rosary, Jan., 1901, p. 92). Similarly, a supposed reference to the subject by Thomas à Kempis in the "Chronicle of Mount St. Agnes" is a pure blunder ("The Month", Feb., 1901, p. 187). With this may be noted the change in tone observable of late in authoritative works of reference. In the "Kirchliches Handlexikon" of Munich and in the last edition of Herder's "Konversationslexikon" no attempt is made to defend the tradition which connects St. Dominic personally with the origin of the Rosary. Another consideration which cannot be developed is the multitude of conflicting legends concerning the origin of this devotion of "Our Lady's Psalter" which prevailed down to the end of the fifteenth century, as well as the early diversity of practice in the manner of its recitation. These facts agree ill with the supposition that it took its rise in a definite revelation and was jealously watched over from the beginning by one of the most learned and influential of the religious orders. No doubt can exist that the immense diffusion of the Rosary and its confraternities in modern times and the vast influence it has exercised for good are mainly due to the labours and the prayers of the sons of St. Dominic, but the historical evidence serves plainly to show that their interest in the subject was only awakened in the last years of the fifteenth century.

Quote
Re. "Altering the Rosary"; The Catholic Church has the power to make modifications that would promote the good of souls.

Indeed. Causa finita.
DISPOSE OUR DAYS IN THY PEACE, AND COMMAND US TO BE DELIVERED FROM ETERNAL DAMNATION, AND TO BE NUMBERED IN THE FLOCK OF THINE ELECT.
 
The following users thanked this post: Fleur-de-Lys

Offline Michael Wilson

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 8320
  • Thanked: 6736 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
« Reply #37 on: November 22, 2020, 06:44:21 PM »
re. "No evidence linking the Rosary to St. Dominic"; I gave the evidence of the records of the confraternity of the Holy Rosary from the time of St. Dominic; also there was a Church dedicated to  "the Virgin of the Most Holy Rosary" also from the time of St. Dominic. True, there were other "Rosaries" before and after the Dominican Rosary. But Heaven has shown that it is the Dominican Rosary with 15 decades (not 20) that has its approval. If the recitation of the "Illuminati" mysteries obtains a similar victory as Lepanto or is approved by a Pope then we can stop arguing. 
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord and not He to it." Rev. Dennis Fahey CSSP

"My brothers, all of you, if you are condemned to see the triumph of evil, never applaud it. Never say to evil: you are good; to decadence: you are progess; to death: you are life. Sanctify yourselves in the times wherein God has placed you; bewail the evils and the disorders which God tolerates; oppose them with the energy of your works and your efforts, your life uncontaminated by error, free from being led astray, in such a way that having lived here below, united with the Spirit of the Lord, you will be admitted to be made but one with Him forever and ever: But he who is joined to the Lord is one in spirit." Cardinal Pie of Potiers
 
The following users thanked this post: Lynne, Wenceslav, Miriam_M, Blue Violet

Offline Daniel

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3171
  • Thanked: 841 times
Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
« Reply #38 on: November 22, 2020, 07:02:36 PM »
To evolve is "to develop gradually." You can consult a dictionary if the verb troubles you.

If that's how you're using the word, fine. But that word is loaded with all sorts of connotations. As most people use the word, there's an implication that, given enough changes, anything can evolve into pretty much anything else. We would then have to admit that the Rosary, in theory, could "evolve" into a full-blown liturgy, which is absurd. It can only grow within its nature, and, considering its connection with the Davidic psalter, the number of mysteries could very well be built into its nature, meaning that there must be exactly 15, no more and no less.

Quote
The rosary developped gradually from the tradition of knotted prayer ropes. This fact is uncontroversial.

It is controversial, because knotted prayer ropes are not the same thing as rosaries. It raises the question of the causal link: did the later practice (the rosary) develop from the earlier practice (the knotted prayer rope), or were these merely two separate practices that developed independently of one another? Considering the fact that there exists a tradition which ascribes the Rosary's origin to an apparition of our Lady to St. Dominic, it isn't clear that the rosary wasn't revealed. It's even possible that maybe it was revealed in response to the prior devotion. Perhaps many people were getting carried away with the knotted prayer ropes, making up new mysteries hand over fist (or were otherwise praying it wrong), so maybe God sent our Lady to instruct St. Dominic on what the Rosary's proper form should be, in order to sort of standardize things or keep the devotion more uniform i.e. to prevent people from changing it or adding new mysteries and stuff. Only a guess. But regardless of this particular revelation, our Lady is said again to have appeared at Fatima many centuries later where she requested this same 15-mystery rosary to be prayed, without any suggestion that new mysteries ought to be added. So either both of these apparitions are bogus, or the rosary is in some way a "revealed" devotion whereas the new mysteries are not in any way revealed. (Though I am not 100% certain one way or the other. I suppose maybe it's of human origin, as you say, but this just sounds to me like an impious attempt by scholars to "naturalize" it and to sow disbelief into the hearts of the faithful. I'd personally rather believe it was revealed, as many saints and Catholics have piously believed since at least the time of Alan de La Roche and perhaps earlier.)

Quote
Divine revelation ceased with the death of St. John the Evangelist, therefore pious church traditions like the rosary aren't revelation in any sense of the word. They can be altered if the Church sees fit.

Public revelation ceased, but there is still such a thing as private revelation. If the rosary did in fact come through private revelation, I'd think it would take another private revelation before it could be significantly altered.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2020, 07:29:02 PM by Daniel »
 
The following users thanked this post: mikemac, Michael Wilson, Miriam_M

Offline Kaesekopf

  • Enkindle in us the virtues of humility and patience So we too may obediently do your will faithfully.
  • Oberst
  • Major
  • *****
  • Posts: 20778
  • Thanked: 6710 times
    • Suscipe Domine
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
« Reply #39 on: November 22, 2020, 09:29:56 PM »
As to a defense of St Dominic and the rosary, I offer these two documents:

From the Rosary Center:
Quote
To the above list of Popes accepting the tradition of St. Dominic and the Rosary could be added many more coming after the time of Benedict XIV. But this is not the main argument supporting the tradition. It is the coming together of many pieces of a puzzle pertaining to the essentials of the tradition as handed down. For example:


given the fact that the members of the Militia of Jesus Christ founded by St. Dominic, or by a Dominican of his day, prayed the 150 Hail Marys daily. . . .
given the fact of St. Dominic’s devotion to Mary and his ardent prayer in combatting the great heresy of his day… along with the testimony of ALAN DE RUPE that St. Dominic did receive some communication from the Mother of God as to how to combat the errors of his time. . . . (If Our Lady at Fatima gave us a remedy in this century for overcoming Communism and attaining peace – which remedy included the Rosary – does it not seem probable that she would have intervened in the 13th century offering a means of combatting the devastating heresy of Albigensianism – as tradition assures us she did.)
given the fact that, as some of his biographers explain, a common manner of preaching of Dominic was the frequent alternating of his instruction on the mysteries of our faith with prayer. . . .
given the fact that the first beginning of this devotion in the time of Dominic was vastly different from its present structure, that then there was no set sequence of the mysteries, and that even the name (Rosary) had not yet been established. . . .
given the fact that many convents with their libraries were destroyed in the religious persecutions that followed the 13th century. . . .
In the light of the above, it seems to me that the negative argument (the absence of documents) is outweighed by the presence of the essential components that constitute the heart of what the Rosary is. It seems to me, not merely possible, but very probable, that the Mother of God (as Alan de Rupe testified) did use St. Dominic in some way to give this devotion to the Church. One source of misconception in this regard is religious art, which portrays St. Dominic receiving from Our Lady the Rosary such as we use today. This would not have been. But then, if artists are to portray this tradition, how else would they do it?

And a booklet:
https://digitalcommons.providence.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=catholic_documents
Wie dein Sonntag, so dein Sterbetag.

I am not altogether on anybody's side, because nobody is altogether on my side.  ~Treebeard, LOTR

Jesus son of David, have mercy on me.
 
The following users thanked this post: Heinrich, mikemac, Lynne, Wenceslav, Acolyte, Michael Wilson, Miriam_M, Blue Violet

Offline Michael Wilson

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 8320
  • Thanked: 6736 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
« Reply #40 on: November 22, 2020, 09:40:36 PM »
https://www.tektonministries.org/st-dominic-and-the-origins-of-the-rosary/
While some dispute the historical account of the presentation of the Rosary by Our Lady to St. Dominic, many theologians and Popes have upheld this understanding. History reveals that St. Dominic was the first to preach and teach the Rosary as a form of meditative prayer, and the first to see the benefits reaped from meditation upon its mysteries.

In the 11th through 13th centuries, a heretical doctrine developed in Europe. This teaching, called Albigensianism, taught that only the spiritual is good, and that everything material is bad. Therefore, the body in and of itself is evil, and every person’s soul is imprisoned in that evil body. The only way in which a person could experience salvation was to be freed from the imprisonment of their flesh.

Dominic Guzman, a Spanish priest, traveled into France preaching against the Albigensian heresy, but his efforts gained few conversions and even fewer followers. In 1208, he went into a forest near Toulouse, France to pray, asking God to provide what he needed in order to overcome the Albigensian heresy. Ancient accounts tell us that, after three days of prayer and fasting, three angels appeared in the sky along with a ball of fire. When they disappeared, the Virgin Mary spoke, telling the priest that he must preach her Psalter in order to succeed in his struggle to overcome the Albigensians.
The Marian Psalter was a prayer developed by the Cistercians, which involved praying 150 Hail Mary’s divided into groups of 10 by Our Fathers. Prayer beads were used to keep track of the Hail Mary’s. It was not a meditative prayer, though, nor one that would have been “preached.” Mary revealed to St. Dominic which mysteries should be preached to correspond to the Psalter prayers: stories of Christ’s life which directly contradicted the heresy of the Albigensians by focusing on the incarnation, death, and triumphant resurrection of Jesus Christ.

As Fr. Reginald Garrigou-LaGrange, great Dominican theologian of the 20th century said, “What the word of the preacher was unable to do, the sweet prayer of the Hail Mary did for hearts.” Ultimately, that “sweet prayer” would come to be called the Rosary – a “wreath of roses” that would lead to countless conversions and miracles, not the least of which was overcoming the Albigensian heresy.

Pope Leo XIII said, “Thanks to this new method of prayer… piety, faith, and union began to return [to France]; and the project and devices of the heretics to fall to pieces.”

In 1213, only five years after St. Dominic was given the Rosary, Catholic forces under the joint command of Count Simon de Montfort and St. Dominic were set to fight the Albigensians in Muret, a small town near Toulouse, France. The Albigensians were determined to take over France, further spreading their heretical beliefs. Catholics, of course, were determined to fight for Christ. Unfortunately, reinforcements had failed to arrive for the Catholic forces, and the numbers were bleak. The Catholics had only 1500 men, while their foe had 30,000.

Confident of their upcoming success, the Albigensians spent the night before the battle celebrating in drunkenness and debauchery. The Catholics, on the other hand, spent their night praying the Rosary; their celebration was focused on that of the Mass and the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Finally, St. Dominic went to the Church of Saint-Jacques in Muret to pray the Rosary for victory, while the Count went into battle. The Catholics were able to rush upon the hung-over Albigensians, routing the enemy army and declaring a victory for Christ and Our Lady. After the battle, every Catholic in the area attributed the victory to the Rosary.

While the Albigensian sect continued to exist, its territorial expansion ceased and it never again reached the massive numbers it enjoyed prior to the battle of Muret.

As we continue to fight against heretics of one sort or another in our current day and age, St. Dominic remains a hero to be remembered. Even more so the Rosary, a gift given by Our Lady all those years ago, remains a vital tool to winning the battle of good versus evil, and Truth versus falsehood.

For more information on this topic, we recommend Fr. Donald H. Calloway’s book, The Champions of the Rosary.

"The World Must Conform to Our Lord and not He to it." Rev. Dennis Fahey CSSP

"My brothers, all of you, if you are condemned to see the triumph of evil, never applaud it. Never say to evil: you are good; to decadence: you are progess; to death: you are life. Sanctify yourselves in the times wherein God has placed you; bewail the evils and the disorders which God tolerates; oppose them with the energy of your works and your efforts, your life uncontaminated by error, free from being led astray, in such a way that having lived here below, united with the Spirit of the Lord, you will be admitted to be made but one with Him forever and ever: But he who is joined to the Lord is one in spirit." Cardinal Pie of Potiers
 
The following users thanked this post: Heinrich, mikemac, Lynne, Wenceslav, Acolyte, Maximilian, queen.saints, Elizabeth.2

Offline mikemac

  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 8372
  • Thanked: 4603 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
« Reply #41 on: November 23, 2020, 12:17:31 AM »
In The Secret of the Rosary by Louis de Montfort it gives accounts of St. Dominic and Alan de la Roche preaching the Rosary.  It also mentions victories  that Count Simon de Montfort won against the Albigensians under the patronage of Our Lady of the Rosary.  I can very well see how some of these stories were past down from generation to generation within the de Montfort family.

http://www.montfort.org.uk/Writings/ASR.php
Like John Vennari (RIP) said "Why not just do it?  What would it hurt?"
Consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary (PETITION)
https://lifepetitions.com/petition/consecrate-russia-to-the-immaculate-heart-of-mary-petition

"We would be mistaken to think that Fatima’s prophetic mission is complete." Benedict XVI May 13, 2010

"Tell people that God gives graces through the Immaculate Heart of Mary.  Tell them also to pray to the Immaculate Heart of Mary for peace, since God has entrusted it to Her." Saint Jacinta Marto

The real nature of hope is “despair, overcome.”
Source
 
The following users thanked this post: Lynne, Michael Wilson, Blue Violet

Offline Vetus Ordo

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3635
  • Thanked: 3959 times
  • Hopeful Fatalist
Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
« Reply #42 on: November 23, 2020, 05:33:48 PM »
As most people use the word, there's an implication that, given enough changes, anything can evolve into pretty much anything else. We would then have to admit that the Rosary, in theory, could "evolve" into a full-blown liturgy, which is absurd. It can only grow within its nature, and, considering its connection with the Davidic psalter, the number of mysteries could very well be built into its nature, meaning that there must be exactly 15, no more and no less.

That's not what it is meant by the rosary evolving from an earlier tradition of knotted prayer ropes and other counting methods like beads. If you're interested, the article in the Catholic Encyclopedia that I made reference to in my previous post (#reply 36) delves into it more in depth. As for the 15 mysteries being an unchangeable part of the rosary, notice that "it is in any case certain that at the close of the fifteenth century the utmost possible variety of methods of meditating prevailed, and that the fifteen mysteries now generally accepted were not uniformly adhered to even by the Dominicans themselves." (Catholic Encyclopedia).

Quote
It is controversial, because knotted prayer ropes are not the same thing as rosaries. It raises the question of the causal link: did the later practice (the rosary) develop from the earlier practice (the knotted prayer rope), or were these merely two separate practices that developed independently of one another?

Counting prayers in beads, pebbles or knotted ropes is as old as human religiosity itself. Buddhists and Muslims do it too. The Dominican rosary is a natural development of a longstanding tradition that, in Christianity, goes back to the Desert Fathers. In the High Middle Ages, we already saw a similar tradition in full display with the paternosters:

Thus we read in the "Ancient Customs of Cluny", collected by Udalrio in 1096, that when the death of any brother at a distance was announced, every priest was to offer Mass, and every non-priest was either to say fifty psalms or to repeat fifty times the Paternoster ("quicunque sacerdos est cantet missam pro eo, et qui non est sacerdos quinquaginta psalmos aut toties orationem dominicam", P.L., CXLIX, 776). Similarly among the Knights Templar, whose rule dates from about 1128, the knights who could not attend choir were required to say the Lord's Prayer 57 times in all and on the death of any of the brethren they had to say the Paternoster a hundred times a day for a week. To count these accurately there is every reason to believe that already in the eleventh and twelfth centuries a practice had come in of using pebbles, berries, or discs of bone threaded on a string. It is in any case certain that the Countess Godiva of Coventry (c. 1075) left by will to the statue of Our Lady in a certain monastery "the circlet of precious stones which she had threaded on a cord in order that by fingering them one after another she might count her prayers exactly" (Malmesbury, "Gesta Pont.", Rolls Series 311). Another example seems to occur in the case of St. Rosalia (A.D. 1160), in whose tomb similar strings of beads were discovered. Even more important is the fact that such strings of beads were known throughout the Middle Ages — and in some Continental tongues are known to this day — as "Paternosters". The evidence for this is overwhelming and comes from every part of Europe. (Catholic Encylcopedia)

Quote
Considering the fact that there exists a tradition which ascribes the Rosary's origin to an apparition of our Lady to St. Dominic, it isn't clear that the rosary wasn't revealed.

The tradition exists but it has no sound historical support. It's a later interpolation. Once again:

These positive reasons for distrusting the current tradition might in a measure be ignored as archaeological refinements, if there were any satisfactory evidence to show that St. Dominic had identified himself with the pre-existing Rosary and become its apostle. But here we are met with absolute silence. Of the eight or nine early Lives of the saint, not one makes the faintest allusion to the Rosary. The witnesses who gave evidence in the cause of his canonization are equally reticent. In the great collection of documents accumulated by Fathers Balme and Lelaidier, O.P., in their "Cartulaire de St. Dominique" the question is studiously ignored. The early constitutions of the different provinces of the order have been examined, and many of them printed, but no one has found any reference to this devotion. We possess hundreds, even thousands, of manuscripts containing devotional treatises, sermons, chronicles, Saints' lives, etc., written by the Friars Preachers between 1220 and 1450; but no single verifiable passage has yet been produced which speaks of the Rosary as instituted by St. Dominic or which even makes much of the devotion as one specially dear to his children. The charters and other deeds of the Dominican convents for men and women, as M. Jean Guiraud points out with emphasis in his edition of the Cartulaire of La Prouille (I, cccxxviii), are equally silent. Neither do we find any suggestion of a connection between St. Dominic and the Rosary in the paintings and sculptures of these two and a half centuries. Even the tomb of St. Dominic at Bologna and the numberless frescoes by Fra Angelico representing the brethren of his order ignore the Rosary completely. (Catholic Encyclopedia)

Quote
I'd personally rather believe it was revealed, as many saints and Catholics have piously believed since at least the time of Alan de La Roche and perhaps earlier.

That's not how history works, though.

Alan de La Roche (or de Lupe) was the one "who first suggested the idea that the devotion of "Our Lady's Psalter" (a hundred and fifty Hail Marys) was instituted or revived by St. Dominic. Alan was a very earnest and devout man, but, as the highest authorities admit, he was full of delusions, and based his revelations on the imaginary testimony of writers that never existed (see Quétif and Echard, "Scriptores O.P.", 1, 849)." (Catholic Encyclopedia). His works have no historical value. One cannot ascertain the historical basis of anything through writings that are either forgeries, delusions or pious fables written 300 years after the fact.

Quote
Public revelation ceased, but there is still such a thing as private revelation. If the rosary did in fact come through private revelation, I'd think it would take another private revelation before it could be significantly altered.

You are free to believe that the rosary has been confirmed by private revelation. That is not in dispute. It's a tradition that has brought many spiritual benefits to the Church. But what we're discussing here is its historical origin and the authority of the Church to change it. As Catholic authorities admit, the rosary is a natural development (or evolution) of earlier traditions and the Church definitely has the legitimate authority to alter it.
DISPOSE OUR DAYS IN THY PEACE, AND COMMAND US TO BE DELIVERED FROM ETERNAL DAMNATION, AND TO BE NUMBERED IN THE FLOCK OF THINE ELECT.
 
The following users thanked this post: Daniel, Fleur-de-Lys

Offline Daniel

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3171
  • Thanked: 841 times
Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
« Reply #43 on: November 28, 2020, 09:06:09 AM »
Ok, thank you for your response.

Well I don't know. I'm always a bit skeptical of Catholic Encyclopedia because it oftentimes seems to be compromised by deceptive and anti-Catholic modern scholarship (the stuff you've cited is just one example). I'm not saying that this particular article is wrong (I'm sure it's an accurate summary of the latest historical research at least as of 1912) but, unfortunately, no non-expert such as myself is in the position to be trusting it at face value. And even granting its accuracy as far as the historical evidence goes, (and no offense to you or to others who study history,) there's still the fact that "history" is itself a very unreliable science.

But anyway, if the article is in fact correct, and if the rosary has no essence of its own but is little more than prayers on a prayer rope, then yes, the Church could change it. (Though we are then faced with the question of whether or not John Paul II, in adding the luminous mysteries, acted on behalf of the Church.)

But if the rosary is not revealed then I would question why we should even be praying it to begin with. I think many people would agree with me that the rosary doesn't seem to be a very good prayer. (I could raise all sorts of objections to the rosary.) If the rosary developed, then either it developed under the inspiration of God, or it developed under the inspiration of the devil, or it developed under no inspiration at all--but it's kind of hard to believe that it developed under the inspiration of God, seeing as it does not seem to be a very good prayer. The rosary is then, at best, just some prayer on more or less the same level as any other prayer, and, at worst, a tool of the devil probably designed to lead us away from God. Only if the rosary--and the luminous mysteries--comes from God is it worth praying, but this does not seem to be the case.
 

Offline mikemac

  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 8372
  • Thanked: 4603 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: The importance of teaching children that the Novus Ordo is bad.
« Reply #44 on: November 28, 2020, 03:05:25 PM »
...

But if the rosary is not revealed then I would question why we should even be praying it to begin with. I think many people would agree with me that the rosary doesn't seem to be a very good prayer. (I could raise all sorts of objections to the rosary.) If the rosary developed, then either it developed under the inspiration of God, or it developed under the inspiration of the devil, or it developed under no inspiration at all--but it's kind of hard to believe that it developed under the inspiration of God, seeing as it does not seem to be a very good prayer. The rosary is then, at best, just some prayer on more or less the same level as any other prayer, and, at worst, a tool of the devil probably designed to lead us away from God. Only if the rosary--and the luminous mysteries--comes from God is it worth praying, but this does not seem to be the case.

https://fatima.org/about/fatima-the-requests/sister-lucy-of-fatima-speaks-on-the-rosary/

Quote
In 1970, following a campaign in Portugal led by some progressive theologians against the Rosary, Sister Lucy wrote to a friend, Mother Maria Jose Martins, the following lines:

    “As for what you are telling me concerning the recitation of the Rosary, it is a great pity! Because the prayers of the Rosary (15 decades) and “The Beads” (5 decades) are, after the Sacred Liturgy of the Eucharist, what unites us the most to God through the richness of the prayers which compose it, all coming from Heaven, dictated by the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.

    The Gloria which we recite with all the mysteries, was dictated by the Father to the Angels when He sent them to sing near His Word Who had just been born, and it is a hymn to the Most Holy Trinity.

    The ‘Our Father’ was dictated to us by the Son, and it is a prayer directed towards the Father.

    The ‘Hail Mary’ in its entirety is impregnated with a Trinitarian and Eucharistic meaning: the first words were dictated by the Father to the Angel when He sent him to announce the mystery of the Incarnation of the Word: ‘Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with Thee.’ Thou art full of grace because in Thee resides the Fountain of that same grace. It is through Thy union with the Most Holy Trinity that Thou art full of grace.

    Moved by the Holy Ghost, St. Elizabeth said: ‘Blessed art Thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of Thy Womb.’ If Thou art blessed, it is because Jesus, the fruit of Thy Womb, is blessed.

    Moved by the Holy Ghost, the Church also has added: ‘Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death:'”
Like John Vennari (RIP) said "Why not just do it?  What would it hurt?"
Consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary (PETITION)
https://lifepetitions.com/petition/consecrate-russia-to-the-immaculate-heart-of-mary-petition

"We would be mistaken to think that Fatima’s prophetic mission is complete." Benedict XVI May 13, 2010

"Tell people that God gives graces through the Immaculate Heart of Mary.  Tell them also to pray to the Immaculate Heart of Mary for peace, since God has entrusted it to Her." Saint Jacinta Marto

The real nature of hope is “despair, overcome.”
Source