The Traditional Rosary: Promises of Grace from Our Lady
The traditional Rosary was first called Mary’s Psalter by not only various Popes and true Saints, but also Our Lady herself when she appeared to St. Dominic in the 13th century, “preach My Psalter.”
The Psalter is comprised of 150 prayers as seen in the book of Psalms. Traditionally the 150 Psalms were prayed by priests and other religious, and to a certain extent they still do this today. The laity developed their own various forms of a Psalter, such as praying 150 Our Fathers. The traditional Rosary, or Our Lady’s Psalter, is thus logically comprised of 150 Hail Marys which in turn are divided into three parts: the Joyful mysteries, the Sorrowful mysteries, and the Glorious mysteries.
Later in the 15th century, Blessed Alan de la Roche had a vision of Our lady who gave 15 promises to those to recite Her Rosary. This is the same Rosary that was given to St. Dominic that is comprised of 150 Halil Harys. The 15 promises reflect the 15 mysteries. Once again, heaven itself confirms the Psalter form of the Rosary and attached special graces to those who devoutly recite it.
Finally at Fatima Our Lady gave a further promise of special grace in addition to confirming the Rosary as 15 decades:
“I promise to assist at the hour of death with all the graces necessary for salvation, all those who on the First Saturdays of five consecutive months, confess, receive Holy Communion, and keep me company for fifteen minutes, meditating on the fifteen mysteries of the Rosary.”
This short exposition is to drive home a particular point that the traditional Rosary must have a Psalter structure to be referred to as “The Rosary” (the Dominican Rosary). Other types of Rosaries exist, but when we speak of *the* Rosary we are referring to the prayer that Our Lady Herself gave us that persisted for 800 years in its Psalter form. Otherwise, it cannot be called Our Lady’s Psalter or “The Rosary” in our present context.
Hence, the Luminous Mysteries are not a part of Our Lady’s Psalter and they do not carry with them these special promises. In other words, praying the Luminous Mysteries by themselves (e.g. on Thursdays) does not constitute praying Our Lady’s Psalter and will not yield any special graces via the promises.
However, please note: If one prays the 15 mysteries of the Rosary along with Pope John Paul II’s Luminous mysteries, then they are effectively praying the traditional Rosary in addition to the novelty. Hence, they would clearly be eligible for the special graces in the promises.
Furthermore, since there are other “Rosaries” that exist, and have existed for centuries, one could call John Paul II’s 20-decade prayer a type of Rosary. However, collectively they are not the traditional Rosary (the Dominican Rosary/Our Lady’s Psalter) because it is no longer reflective of 150 prayer structure. The 20-decade cycle also disrupts the weekly flow of the traditional Rosary where the mysteries are said chronologically starting on Monday and then repeat (Joyful, Sorrowful, and then Glorious). The exception would be Sunday. This is because Sunday is the New Day or Eighth Day, and it usually receives the Glorious mysteries because it is the day Our Lord was Resurrected. Although the Sunday mysteries can change depending on the liturgical season.
If one is devoted to the Rosary, then the logical path to take would be to never pray the Luminous Mysteries by themselves. Again, this is because you are not praying something that has been confirmed by Our Lady multiple times and, most importantly, they do not carry the special graces from the 15 promises.
In the next section, we will examine additional reasons to avoid the Luminous mysteries which revolves around the attitude of “improving” upon what Our Lady has confirmed for us and how it abets the endless novelty that plagues the Church
John Paul II’s Rosarium Virginis Mariae
In this section we will examine the rationale behind John Paul II’s opinion that the Rosary could be “improved.” We will discover that the reasons he gives stem from a misconception of the traditional Rosary. The desire to alter the Rosary may also be due to the post-conciliar reform-mania which sought to change liturgical and devotional dimensions of the Church for the sake of revitalizing the so-called active participation of the lay faithful and also for ecumenism. Such reckless change disregards the traditional foundations and expresses an attitude of “we can do better than the past.”
Again, we are not claiming that the Luminous Mysteries are intrinsically bad as a form of devotion. Rather, they should be secondary and not interrupt the traditional weekly cycle of the Rosary as explained above.
In justifying his optional change to the traditional Rosary, John Paul II writes:
I believe, however, that to bring out fully the Christological depth of the Rosary it would be suitable to make an addition to the traditional pattern which, while left to the freedom of individuals and communities, could broaden it to include the mysteries of Christ's public ministry between his Baptism and his Passion...
Consequently, for the Rosary to become more fully a “compendium of the Gospel,” it is fitting to add... a meditation on certain particularly significant moments in his public ministry (the mysteries of light). This addition of these new mysteries, without prejudice to any essential aspect of the prayer's traditional format, is meant to give it fresh life and to enkindle renewed interest in the Rosary's place within Christian spirituality as a true doorway to the depths of the Heart of Christ, ocean of joy and of light, of suffering and of glory.
(Rosarium Virginis Mariae, 19: https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters/2002/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_20021016_rosarium-virginis-mariae.html)
The claim that Rosary should be invigorated with more Christological depth is a bold one. John Paul II is effectively stating that there can be an improvement of a prayer that is 800 years old, given to us by Our Lady, and reconfirmed by Her numerous times. He further pushes this claim by stating his new mysteries would make the Rosary more fully a “compendium” of the Gospel.
Herein lies the overzealous and misguided assumption about the traditional Holy Rosary by John Paul II: That its application and usage should necessarily result in an evolution where additional meditations on the life of Christ must be added. This conviction is so strong that it literally alters the foundational structure of a prayer that has persisted 800 years, dares to claim improvement upon what Our Lady herself gave us, and harms the 15 promises if one prays the Luminous mysteries solely on Thursdays. Why did not any Pope or true saint ever consider such improvements until the 21st century? Why did Our Lady not do this Herself?
The answer to these questions is simple; the Rosary reflects the Psalter and that it simply does not need to have more “Christological depth.” Or in other words, it need not to be an exhaustive demonstration of the life of Christ, and certainly if not exhaustive, it does not need to be expanded to destroy its traditional structure. This is further reinforced by the fact that heaven itself gave us the prayer. Who dares think they can come along and “improve” a prayer from Our Lady that has persisted in the same structure for centuries?
The traditional Rosary is sufficient. Not every single prayer, devotion, and liturgy needs to be filled up with options so that the faithful, who are apparently so bored with everything, can be reinvigorated.
If there is a disinterest in the Rosary, then why take aim at the Rosary itself? This implies that the Rosary is at fault, unable to gain interest of those in the present time. It certainly was sufficient for various times periods over 800 years. Change for the sake of disinterest will yield endless change and novelty, instead of focusing on praying and doing penance for the conversion of souls. Novelty begets novelty, and the accumulation of novelty weakens the faith.
Furthermore, using the logic of expansion for the sake of “Christological depth,” the Rosary might as well have 350 Hail Marys, or 35 individual mysteries, one 5-decade Rosary for each day of the week. It can be expanded to cover even more events in the Gospel because more is better. Never mind the novelty. Never mind destroying the traditional prayer structure that goes back to Old Testament times from inspired scripture. Never mind that only the traditional 15 mysteries have the promises attached to them. None of that matters because we sit atop history and can judge what things need to be improved, even if that thing came to us from the Mother of God Herself.
Risk of Magic or Superstition?
The third chapter of Rosarium Virginis Mariae John Paul II makes another bold assertion about his Luminous Mysteries and additional enrichments that he will subsequently list:
This is not to say, however, that the method cannot be improved. Such is the intent of the addition of the new series of mysteria lucis to the overall cycle of mysteries and of the few suggestions which I am proposing in this Letter regarding its manner of recitation. These suggestions, while respecting the well-established structure of this prayer, are intended to help the faithful to understand it in the richness of its symbolism and in harmony with the demands of daily life. Otherwise, there is a risk that the Rosary would not only fail to produce the intended spiritual effects, but even that the beads, with which it is usually said, could come to be regarded as some kind of amulet or magic object, thereby radically distorting their meaning and function.
(Rosarium Virginis Mariae, 28)
In the succeeding paragraphs of chapter three, John Paul II goes on to list his suggestions to enrich the recitation of the Rosary. However, in the above quote he states that without these suggestions (or undertaking those like them) there is a “risk” that a person will not receive grace from the Rosary and a “risk” that it will degrade into a superstition, like a “magic object.” This is a violation of the first commandment.
The suggestions he gives are not problematic, but to claim that without using them or some other “enrichment” method runs a risk of not receiving grace and falling into superstition is both astonishing as it is asinine.
Here are some of the suggestions John Paul II says we need lest you are denied grace and think of the Rosary as a magical device:
1. Announce each mystery and use an icon.
2. Recite a relative scriptural passage after said announcement.
3. After the announcement and scripture passage have a period of silence before you pray the Our Father.
4. Slow down and emphasize the name of Jesus in each Hail Mary as a focal point.
5. Sing the Glory Be.
6. After the Glory Be, make a short prayer that pertains to the fruits specific to the particular mystery that was just prayed.
7. Have the beads remind you of how you are bound (chained/linked) to Christ.
Again, these suggestions are fine. But if you do not do them, or anything like them, are you at risk of losing grace and treating the Rosary as a magic object? Hardly.
At face value it implies that St. Dominic and Our Lady gave us a prayer that had risks of superstition and loss of grace. Apparently for almost 800 years many of the faithful were at risk because they did not do anything like the enrichments listed above. Would not a person with basic Catholic faith find this claim astonishingly absurd?
 |
| John Paul II receives a pagan blessing in Phoenix AZ, 1987 |
Now compare this with the very real incidents of John Paul II inviting pagans to his Assisi prayer meetings where they were accommodated in breaking the first commandment. They were invited to these meetings to prayer for peace where they were given rooms on consecrated church ground to worship pagan gods. There are even a few incidents were John Paul II allowed pagan rituals to be performed on himself such as in Phoenix Arizona and Mexico City.
Take a moment a ponder this all. If you pray the Rosary in its standard form, without any special enrichments, you run the risk of violating the first commandment. Meanwhile, John Paul II accommodated pagans in breaking the first commandment at Assisi. John Paul II allowed Native American, non-Christian ritual to be preformed on himself. Who really is at risk of violating the first commandment here? Again, would not a person with basic Catholic faith find all of this supremely absurd?
Ecumania
John Paul II also suggests that proper revitalization of the Rosary will help ecumenism:
Perhaps too, there are some who fear that the Rosary is somehow unecumenical because of its distinctly Marian character. 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”. If properly revitalized, the Rosary is an aid and certainly not a hindrance to ecumenism!
(Rosarium Virginis Mariae, 4)
If undertaking a properly revitalized Rosary, which includes John Paul II’s recommendations as seen above, then the Rosary can become an aid to ecumenism. If that is true, then what is the Rosary without this revitalization? A hinderance?
This flies in the face of Mary’s Psalter being a weapon against the Albigensian heresy according to Pope Leo XIII in Supremi Apostolatus Officio paragraph 3. This same pope also taught the following:
For that reason We say that the Rosary is by far the best prayer by which to plead before her the cause of our separated brethren. To grant a favorable hearing belongs properly to her office of spiritual Mother. For Mary has not brought forth - nor could she - those who are of Christ except in the one same Faith and in the one same love; for "Can Christ be divided?"(17) All must live the life of Christ in an organic unity in order to "bring forth fruit to God"(18) in the one same body. Every one of the multitudes, therefore, whom the mischief of calamitous events has stolen away from that unity, must be born again to Christ of that same Mother whom God has endowed with a never failing fertility to bring forth a holy people. And this Mary, for her part, longs to do. Adorned by us with garlands of her favorite prayer, she will obtain by her entreaties help in abundance from the Spirit that quickeneth. God grant that they refuse not to comply with the burning desire of their merciful Mother but, on the contrary, give ear, like men of good will, with a proper regard for their eternal salvation...
(Adiutricem, 27: https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_05091895_adiutricem.html)
The Rosary was also recommended as a remedy against heresy by other popes as well, such as Pope Leo X and Pope St. Pius V. One wonders why the traditional Rosary that was used for centuries would suddenly become insufficient at so-called ecumenism. Does the traditional Rosary have a defect that prevents it from assisting in people’s conversion? Or is it that the traditional Rosary does not look appealing to Protestants who rely almost solely on Scripture and therefore, we need to add more Scripture references and meditations? Again, this is assuming we can do better than Our Lady by harming the traditional Psalter structure of the Rosary and the 15 promises - all to please men. It assumes that the Rosary is no longer effective at conversion, and numerous Popes and true Saints recommendations are simply outdated.
Conclusion
John Paul II claims he is improving the Rosary and trying to protect us from treating it like a magic object because its basic form is risky. The same risky and Christologically lacking prayer which was given to us by Our Lady and used by numerous true Saints for centuries. For Pope John Paul II, praying the traditional Rosary is a hindrance or at the very least a weak method by which to convert people, and at the same time you run the risk of breaking the first commandment.
Would any good Catholic think they can “improve” or change a prayer that is so venerable, given to us by Our Lady, and confirmed repeatedly throughout the centuries by heaven? Pious faith and the virtue of humility would not even let your mind entertain such thoughts.
If only heaven and Our Lady did not subject the faithful to centuries of a risky prayer and incomplete Christological experience. If only heaven gave us a prayer that would stand the test of time for bringing back wayward Christians to the Catholic faith. Thankfully, it only took a mere 800 years until Pope John Paul II was elected so he could remedy the situation with his “improvements.” Truly John Paul II is not just “the great,” but the greatest! His insight somehow surpassed Our Lady even while she enjoys the beatific vision. The wonders of the post-conciliar Church never cease.