I would appreciate imput on these two articles. What do you think?
It’s pretty clear the authors have an ax to grind with John Paul, and are using the issue of additional decades as a pretext to beat him up over a variety of issues. Despite his reputation as a conservative, a good argument can be made that the Holy Father was more liberal on many issues than other pontiffs, including his successor Pope Benedict. So I don’t suggest the authors are being dishonest in their attacks, I think they truly believe what they write. Unfortunately, like many partisans their vitriol prevents them from taking an even-handed approach.
I was never in favor of the addition of the five decades, simply because the rosary has always been a private devotion, not one regulated by the Church. However, it is unduly alarmist to say the change “disfigured” the rosary. In fact, now that it’s done, I think it could be useful for someone to suggest an additional five decades to meditate on - scripture has not been fully mined of rosary-worthy mysteries.
I pray the rosary of 15 decades because that’s how we got it from Our Lady, but if others pray 20 I’m sure she isn’t offended.
I think the correct response would be that John Paul II was in a God given position of authority and we should as good Catholics obey him up to the point of sin. Seeing how he’s not made the additional decade binding, that settles that.
Regarding the letter that gives all the glory to Her Son and Our Lord, I think She’s good with that. I feel your pain brother.
I pray the seven decade Franciscan Crown Rosary most often in private devotion, and the Dominican with the newest five on occasion. Sometimes I pray a rosary with additional mysteries that just happen to come to mind.
These actions might be offensive to some of my brothers and sisters, but what I do is for the glory of God and everyone else will just need to deal with it and hopefully get over it!
Blessed John Paul II’s reason for suggesting the additional mysteries was so that people would do just that.
Apples do not fall far from their trees and opinions do not fall far from their sources.:shrug:
The Seattle Catholic was an Internet-based publication that ran from 2001-2006. The site has now become a repository for articles and the News Archive. Though many of the articles are very interesting and well written,** there is a consistent pattern of rejecting the Church’s authority over the Liturgy by condemning Vatican II and the New Mass. **[LIST=1]
*]Fidelity: http://www.catholicculture.org/images/bugs/masters/red_bullet.gif Danger!
Consider the source, folks.This is one of the many cases where websites use the name Catholic to promote its unorthodox views to unsuspecting readers who think it is legit.
Thank you for your input!
I attended J.P. II’s first New Years Day Mass at St. Peters Basilica and entered into the Church under his pontificate. He has always been very near and dear to my heart. I have never heard or read such criticism of him and was surprised and a little disheartened after reading these articles.