A correspondent writes:
I was wondering if you could comment some time about some of these spiritual promises that allegedly attach to certain prayers or devotions. The 15 promises of the rosary seems to be the most common example, but of course there’s more.
There are more—and the reader goes on to name some—but for this post let’s look at the alleged 15 promises regarding the rosary.
First, here is a commonly given text of them.
Before we go further, I should comment about a phrase that occurs in the very first promise, because it is not in common use today and startles everybody who runs across it for the first time. According to the first promise, those who pray the rosary faithfully shall receive “signal graces.” What are “signal graces?” people ask.
The term “signal,” used as an adjective, is not common in contemporary English, but what it means is “notable,” “out of the ordinary,” “uncommon” (cf. its entry in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary).
So “signal graces” just means “notable graces” or “unusual graces.”
The 15 promises were, according to the common claim, “Given to St. Dominic and Blessed Alan.” St. Dominic is a familiar figure, but “Blessed Alan” is less well known. He is Alanus de Rupe—also known as Alain de la Roche, and variants. He lived in the 1400s, over 200 years after St. Dominic’s time. He reportedly received private revelation that showed him certain things about the life of St. Dominic, including the revelation of the 15 promises. This is why they are claimed to have been “given to St. Dominic and Blessed Alan.” We don’t have evidence—apart from Alan—that St. Dominic received these promises. The matter comes down to how much credibility one places in Alan’s reported private revelation.
So how reliable are they?
It does not appear that there are any significant magisterial documents dealing with the subject. At least, advocates of the 15 promises do not seem to have identified any papal or curial documents affirming them (and there are certainly none from ecumenical councils). There might be some that are not commonly available in English, but until such can be identified it does not appear that the promises have ecclesiastical approbation on the global level.
What about the local level?
Here advocates of the 15 promises have identified something: a commonly printed pamphlet of the promises (pictured) that carries the imprimatur of “Patrick J. Hayes DD Archbishop of New York.” (This pamphlet may possibly be excerpted from an earlier work carrying Hayes’ imprimatur.)
The imprimatur is not dated, but Hayes was archbishop of New York from 1919 to 1938, so it would presumably have been granted in this period.
What weight would such an imprimatur have?
Actually, not a great deal. Imprimaturs do not mean that something is correct, and they are not the same thing or the equivalent of an ecclesiastical affirmation that a private revelation is authentic. As an archbishop living almost 500 years after Bl. Alan, in a country that had not even been discovered in Alan’s time, Cardinal Hayes would not have jurisdiction to judge the authenticity of Alan’s private revelation. His granting of the imprimatur, then, must be understood in terms of what imprimaturs normally signified in his day.
So what was that?
The 1917 Code of Canon Law was in effect during Hayes’ time as the archbishop of New York, and under this code (as under the present, 1983 Code), there was a two-stage process in which a work would first be examined by a censor of books who would then make a recommendation to the ordinary (in this case, Cardinal Hayes) as to whether the book should be published. In issuing a favorable judgment, the censor would grant what is known as a nihil obstat, which is Latin for “nothing obstructs”—meaning that there is nothing int he book that would obstruct (prevent) its publication. In response to this, the ordinary would then (apart from unusual circumstances) issue the imprimatur which is Latin for “Let it be printed.”
Now, the 1917 Code is rather clear on the criteria according to which censors are to grant the nihil obstat (BTW, gotta love the gangster character in a couple of Tim Powers’ novels named “Neal Obstat”—nothing obstructs this gangster in pursuit of his ends! He’s ruthless.):
Canon 1393
§2. Examiners in undertaking their office, leaving off all consideration of persons, shall have before their eyes only the dogmas of the Church and the common Catholic doctrine that is contained in the general decrees of the Councils or constitutions of the Apostolic See or the prescriptions and the thinking of approved doctors.
§3. Censors shall be selected from both clergies [who are] commended by age, erudition, ad prudence, and who in approving and disapproving doctrines, will follow the careful median.
As you can see, the criteria by which a censor is to evaluate a work are rather narrow. His own opinion of the correctness does not come into the matter. If it does not contradict (1) the dogmas of the Church or (2) the common Catholic doctrine of the councils and documents of the Holy See or (3) the prescriptions and thinking of approved doctors then he is not to disapprove it. Instead, he is to “follow the careful median,” meaning that as long as the idea in question can claim a reasonable place in the spectrum of Catholic thought, it gets approved.
This understanding is reflected in John Abbo and Jerome Hannan’s classic commentary on the 1917 Code, The Sacred Canons. Their commentary on this canon (vol. 2, p. 627) notes:
Censors are to be guided, as to matters in which the Church has not spoken, by the unanimous or almost unanimous views of authors. In controverted questions, they shall not refuse a favorable opinion because the book adopts a position at variance with their own. Nor shall they refuse it because they think the publication of the book inopportune, though they may inform the local ordinary of their opinion in this respect.
We may infer from the granting of the imprimatur that the 15 promises got through the nihil obstat stage, but you can see that this does not indicate that the censor believed in the authenticity of Bl. Alan’s private revelation or that the promises are genuine—just that they aren’t contradicted by the dogmas and doctrines of the Church and approved authors. Not being contradicted by these is not remotely a guarantee of truth.
It could very well be that the validity of these promises was a disputed question and the censor was bound by his obligations to grant the nihil obstat even though he did not personally agree with them.
In fact, there are hints that this may have been the case.
First, the promises were disputed. There had been significant controversy concerning Bl. Alan’s purported revelations. According to the 1907 Catholic Encyclopedia,
His vision of the restoration of the devotion of the Rosary is assigned to the year 1460. Alanus published nothing during his lifetime, but immediately after his death the brethren of his province were commanded to collect his writings for publication. These were edited at different times and have occasioned much controversy among scholars. His relations of the visions and sermons of St. Dominic, supposed to have been revealed to Alanus, are not to be regarded as historical.
This volume of the encyclopedia, incidentally, also carries the imprimatur. In fact, it carries the imprimatur of Cardinal Hayes’s predecessor, John Cardinal Farley, who was Archbishop of New York from 1902 to 1918. The nihil obstat that preceded this imprimatur would have been similarly granted whether the censor believed in the promises or not. It was a controverted question, and within a few years of each other the same archdiocese issued nihil obstats (and imprimaturs) on publications coming down on both sides of the issue—the pamphlet (obviously) approving of them and the Catholic Encyclopedia disapproving of them.
There is also another hint that the censor of the booklet may not have personally agreed with the promises, which is this: His name doesn’t appear. The 1917 Code contains a provision which states:
Canon 1393
§4. A censor must give the decision in writing. If it is favorable, the Ordinary shall supply the power of publishing, to which, however, shall be attached the judgment of the censor signed in his name. Only in extraordinary cases and hence rarely in the prudent judgment of the Ordinary can mention of the censor be omitted.
The meaning of the statement regarding the omission of the censor’s name was unclear to commentators of the day. Some took it to mean that the censor’s name and the nihil obstat need to appear in the published work, along with the imprimatur, unless “only in extraordinary cases and hence rarely” the bishop deemed it prudent for this to be omitted.
“I don’t agree with these promises, and I don’t want my name on them lest people think that I do” would be such a circumstance, and Archbishop Hayes may have withheld the censor’s name for that reason, leading to it and the nihil obstat not appearing on the pamphlet.
In fact, for all we know, the censor who approved the pamphlet may have been the same one who reviewed the Catholic Encyclopedia piece disapproving of the promises. We do know that man’s name: Remy Lafort, S.T.D. (i.e., “doctor of sacred theology”).
That’s just speculation, and we can’t even ultimately know why the censor’s name was withheld, since publishing practice regarding this was inconsistent.
Thus far we’ve been considering the granting of the nihil obstat by the unknown censor, but what of the imprimatur granted by Cardinal Hayes?
As section 4 of the canon (quoted above) indicates, the granting of the imprimatur by the ordinary is treated as almost automatic: “A censor must give the decision in writing. If it is favorable, the Ordinary shall supply the power of publishing.”
While imprimaturs were, and still are, routinely granted based on the recommendation of the censor, there are signal cases (remember that word?) where this isn’t the case. Abbo and Hannan note:
The appointment of censors does not prohibit the bishop of the vicar general from inspecting books themselves; and even after they have received the opinion of the censor, they may refuse permission for publication, if motivated by a serious justifying reason (ibid.).
What’s more, if permission to published was refused, they had to say why it was refused:
Canon 1394
§2. But if it seems that permission is to be denied, the reason shall be indicated to the requesting author, unless for a grave cause something else is indicated.
So put yourself in Cardinal Hayes’s position: The validity of these promises is a controverted question among Catholic authors, but censors aren’t supposed to base the nihil obstat on their own opinions and the nihil obstat has been granted. The Code expects that the imprimatur will follow the nihil obstat unless there is a serious reason why not, and you have to be prepared to tell the publisher what that reason is unless there is a grave reason why not.
“I personally don’t think these promises are authentic” is not particular serious reason when the promises have been in circulation, in no doubt numerous publications in different languages, for about 450 years. The publisher could easily respond, “But what about all these other publications they have appeared in? Doesn’t that show that these are mainstream enough that the imprimatur should be granted?”
We thus can’t infer much about Cardinal Hayes’ view of the promises (and, unlike the censor, he could not keep his name off them if he granted an imprimatur). He may have been a big supporter of them—or not. All we can conclude is that he didn’t think them so problematic that he would refuse the imprimatur, given the circumstances.
In view of all this, it does not appear that we have sign off on the authenticity of the private revelation or the promises. Unless other documents—with something more than an imprimatur—can be produced, all we can say is that in the view of the Archdiocese of New York sometime in the tenure of Cardinal Hayes it was judged that the promises are not contradicted by (1) the dogmas of the Church or (2) the common Catholic doctrine of the councils and documents of the Holy See or (3) the prescriptions and thinking of approved doctors and that the promises were of a controversial nature, with some (like the publishers of the pamphlet) affirming them and others (like the Catholic Encyclopedia) rejecting them.
What are your thoughts?
Comments
Post a Comment
Very interesting! I’m a bit saddened that the promises authenticity is not as solid as I thought, but I’m glad to know more about it. Thanks for the article Jimmy!
Likewise the so-called “revelations” of the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary found in “The Secret of the Rosary” by Saint Montfort. They have never been approved yet some Catholics (like I) have used them to spread devotion to Mary. Thanks be to God I no longer follow such foolishness! Devotion to Mary, and so spreading devotion to Mary, must be healthy, not foolish. I pray that more Catholics be more discerning and less emotionist.
Well, it’s not as if the promises are that far outside mainstream Catholic thought, if by mainstream you mean normal people. For centuries, the body of Marian legendry harped on all the same points—that God would reward devotion to Mary with extraordinary graces and favors, especially at the hour of death—even if you were ignorant or not particularly nice most of the time. Same thing with De Montfort’s promises.
The difference is that Blessed Alan and the sainted De Montfort both lived in times when people were very insecure and tended to have scruple attacks. Prayers from their time tend to be written a lot like legal contracts. You can’t just say, “God, please bring me to Heaven.” You get, “And if I should become sinful or unfaithful, please take my prayer as it is said today. And if I’m saying this prayer without total sincerity and attention, please take it as if I were saying it perfectly. And if I get hit over the head and can’t go to Confession before I die, please accept my attempt at total contrition today as stretching over my entire life until its very last second.” They go on and on like that.
Visions of promises counteracted this kind of insecurity and doubt. That’s what they’re for - encouragement. If they make you more insecure rather than less, ignore them.
Thanks for writing this analysis of this devotion. I wish more of these analyses were done because we need to be mature about our faith and not given to superficial acceptance of anything that comes along. It seems a terrible sin to concoct these sorts of things in the name of Mary and the saints leading people down an erroneous path.
Jimmy Akin vs. Blessed Alan de la Roche..
The so-called ‘historical-critical’ method that has done so much destructive work vs. the method of the saints..
It’s a major error Jimmy, very saddening to see.. to see speaking against the Promises of Our Lady in regards to the Rosary. They are loved by the devout everywhere, and love of them is a special sign too. The love of the devout is a sign of the sacred that should say, ‘halt’ to an attempt like this.
So many gifts are given to the simple.. not to the worldly wise..
A single encyclopedia article by an individual author.. is just that. Speculation about hidden motivations that in no way is there any real evidence exist to bolster this article.. what kind of bolstering is that? Nothing really.. hot air. That can be said about anything by anyone, who would actually do it.
It’s a very Protestant reaction to be averse to them, actually. These promises are very properly understood in the context of all promises of God..
‘Because I go to the Father: and whatsoever you shall ask the Father in my name, that will I do: that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you shall ask me any thing in my name, that I will do.’
John 14:13-14
He repeats himself there, so it gets through.
Catholic history is full of such promises. People should get used to them. More than that, they should embrace them. Promises can be the keys to Heaven. Prayers with promises benefit souls.. more greatly than many others.
If you want to go to Heaven, have simple faith.
@Maureen, as someone with the kind of temperament that tends to scrupulosity, I just want to tell you your comment was VERY HELPFUL to me, and given me much to think about. You’ve done a work of mercy today.
@Jimmy, My understanding is that belief in private revelation, if not condemned by the church (e.g. Bayside in New York), is left to the conscience of the individual. The Church knows that it does not have all or even most of the answers, leaving them to God, who does. How close am I to your understanding?
@Shin, I believe the Church to be very careful about such things. I note that insisting something is correct unless proven wrong is the method of conspiracy theorists.
To all those who are saddened by the fact that the promises might not be authentic: THIS IS NO REASON TO DOUBT THE INCREDIBLE POWER OF THE ROSARY!
For proof, listen to Fr. Corapi’s talk on the Rosary. It is the prayer of the Gospel, and that alone makes it TRULY powerful!
Just a thought…
... Also, read Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical on the rosary here: http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13adiut.htm
The 15 promises are nice, but let’s be honest: If that’s the only (or primary) reason one is praying the rosary then there is probably some spiritual maturity that still needs to develop. If one is praying the rosary regularly for reasons not related to accumulation of some metaphysical gains but simply out of love and devotion then many if not all of the graces reflected in the promises would probably follow anyway. So if they were really made, why would the promises exist then? My only guess is that sometimes a carrot is needed to draw people deeper into the spiritual life. Someone might start to pray the rosary having been drawn in by the promises but through prayer and meditation involved in praying the rosary grow to a deeper, less “transactional” love. It might not be the ideal way, but consider the parable of the unjust steward and the unexpected comment our Lord makes at Luke 16:8: “the children of this world are more prudent in dealing with their own generation then are the children of light.” There are all sorts of “deals” we make to get ahead in this world-some of the commentaries on this passage and several homilies I have heard on it suggest our Lord is saying we would do well sometimes to be as aggressive, calculating, and demanding in our spiritual growth as we are when dealing with our material well-being. So maybe its possible that a transactional approach to this is acceptable at first, provided it leads us to a more real love.
@ Maureen - thanks for the chuckle and the wonderful clarity in defining scrupulosity.
@all others critical of the article - I do not read/see Jimmy making any disparaging remarks towards the Rosary as some seem to infer. He certainly does not say it shouldn’t be said or even, truly, dismiss the promises themselves. All he did was give a great historical assessment of the situation - NOT an historical-critical assessment as claimed. All I read in his assessment is what he stated in the last paragraph - some have dismissed them, some have agreed to them. Nothing more, nothing less.
Saying the Rosary is powerful and we all certainly gain graces when we do so as the Church (and Jimmy) attest.
All we can sure of is this - the full truth, knowledge and understanding awaits us in heaven. Saying the Rosary towards that end is a good idea - promises or not. I say my Rosary not because of a list of promises made to me if I do, but out of love of Mary and Christ. How they chose to ‘reward’ me for my love is up to them.
We should have such great faith in devotedly saying the rosary that what we’re REALLY going to get in the end, and OTHERS too, because we sacrificed to pray- will go far beyond the 15 promises, valid or invalid.
God loves me, and Mary loves me too. That’s good enough assurance.
Private revelations are not binding on the faithful and therefore it is not “a major error” to speak against them as such.
The carrot is certainly needed sometimes. Not to mention the stick—Jesus did not harp on the worm and the fire that can not be quench because such things are not needed to rouse them.
As a convert to catholicism I find the number of devotions, promises, visions, etc. a bit overwhelming. Some of which border on superstition. I am thankful that the church, in its wisdom, has allowed for the faithful individual discernment for devotion.
Are there any “promises” like these that DO have the full approval of the Church?
Jimmy,
I think there were promises to those who recited the chaplet of Divine Mercy. This is a more modern example and certainly one that the church could verify based on the private revelations of St. Faustina. The Church even declared Divine Mercy Sunday based on these revelations. I think there are also promises to those who are devout to the Miraculous Medal, to the brown scapular, to the picture of the Sacred Heart, to to First Firday devotions, and so on. My point would be that there have certainly been a lot of promises made for a lot of different devotions. The church has also granted indulgences based on some. Wouldn’t it stand to reason that the promises of the Rosary were probably legitimate?
For me the only important question is whether Blessed Alan did or did not claim that these were promises given by the Blessed Virgin. If he did, I’m with him; if not then they may be inventions by someone. In any case, none of them are surprising or implausible, or impossible, and they accord with what we know about the power of the rosary from other sources; e.g. Fatima.
‘Ask, and it shall be given you: seek, and you shall find: knock, and it shall be opened to you. For every one that asketh, receiveth: and he that seeketh, findeth: and to him that knocketh, it shall be opened.’
Matthew 7:7-8
Another promise..
The number of imprimaturs on the 15 Promises of the Rosary are countless. It’s not ‘just one.’ They have been approved for distribution on more occasions than one can possibly note.
The Rosary Confraternity itself promotes the 15 Promises.
The 15 promises of the Rosary are not the only imprimatured, traditional, saints supported and long lived promises we have received through the saints from Heaven.
There are also the Twelve Promises of the Sacred Heart of Jesus…
The Promises of Our Lady’s of Sorrows…
The promises of the Shoulder Wound of Christ..
The promises of the Brown Scapular of Mount Carmel..
The promises of the Green Scapular of Our Lady..
The promises of Our Lady of Fatima…
The promises of St. Gertrude the Great. . .
The promises of Divine Mercy. . .
Bl. Alan de la Roche has been knocked for his history by some following the historical-critical method—they knock Our Lady giving the Rosary to St. Dominic—but who has supported his version of history? Leo X (1521), Pius V (1572), Gregory XIII (1585), Sixtus V (1590), Clement VIII (1605), Alexander VII (1667), Bl. Innocent XI (1689), Clement XI (1721), Innocent XIII (1724). . .
Bl. Alan de la Roche, St. Louis Marie de Montfort, St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori, Doctor of the Church, the Popes, the Providential approval of God Himself in making use of Bl. Alan to revive the Rosary throughout the world.. and St. Louis Marie de Montfort who followed him..
I find the witnesses of the holy when other historical witnesses are simply ‘silent’ a great testimony to faith and a hidden secret of special spiritual treasure given only to those who have the simplicity to seek it. In other words they are a special treasure given to those who have the grace of simple faith. In a time in the distant future from the event which does not have all the sources, we do not have all the superior judgement, in fact, we often have the exact opposite which is the spirit of this age.
If we are to discount as ahistorical anything there is widespread silence except for the testimony of the holy about - we have a serious problem. Interiorly.
The Rosary and the Scapular.. These are the two weapons. And St. Dominic, Our Lady’s Promises cannot be separated from the former any more than St. Simon Stock and Our Lady’s Promises from the latter.
‘Dear reader, if you practice and preach this devotion, you will learn more, by your own experience, than from spiritual books, and you will have the happiness of being rewarded by our Lady in accordance with the promises she made to St. Dominic, to Blessed Alan de la Roche, and to those who encourage this devotion which is so dear to her. For the Rosary teaches people about the virtues of Jesus and Mary, and leads them to mental prayer, to the imitation of Jesus Christ, to the frequentation of the sacraments, the practice of genuine virtue and of all kinds of good works.’
St. Louis Marie de Montfort
Nice research, Shin. Who’s to argue with a saint?
are you going to go after the Fatima First saturday promises,or the Divine Mercy promises in St. Faustinas book,or the First Friday promises next?????????...you should believe as a little child believes and stop investigating under rocks..
I have experienced the promises of the rosary and I believe the rosary brought me back to the Church after 25 years of being away. I took care of 2 elderly aunts who prayed the rosary faithfully every day. Even though I had strayed from the Catholic faith, at the time of their deaths, I had the presence of mind to call a priest so they would receive the last sacraments. Neither of them had children or other family members to take care of this. After they died, within 6 months of each other, someone gave me a pamphlet with the promises of the rosary. When I read about receiving the last sacraments before death, I was filled with amazement. Not only was the promise fulfilled with each of my aunts, but I was the instrument! I know I have received many signal graces. The rosary leads to truth, peace, sanctity. It is one of the most powerful prayers we can pray.
Faith need not be mindless or childish, only child like, in that we cannot comprehend the mind of God anymore than a child can the thinking of an adult. The Rosary is not dennegrated by this piece. The Rosary is a series of prayers that bring us closer to God through His Mother, that make us mindful of the nature of our reality and Christ’s willingness to endure it. Discussing the nature of what is meant in this context by the “Imprimature.” We are called to be as gentle as doves and as wise as serpents are we not? The Rosary loses none of its vitality for our souls, none of it’s truth, none it’s beauty,none of it’s capacity to bring us to grace for the lack of an official listing of promises granted that can be verified and authenticated in a scholarly manner. Spiritual Truth is not lessened by historical truth; and I think it behooves all Catholics to become educated about the nature of devotions and to be mindful of their prayer lives that they not become superstitions and ritual, mere words, rather than suplications and devotionals. Thank You Jimmy
Good thing cyberspace is unlimited, otherwise I’d acuse you of wasting some of it on a rather nonsensical subject.
It has been perhaps better that *official* recognition has not been given to these promises, lest some of the faithful, misunderstanding the Church’s official approbation, had felt *compelled* to undertake the recitation of the Holy Rosary in the interest of their salvation.
It is plausible that such a state of affairs would have led to all sorts of errors and misuses surrounding Our Lady’s Most Holy Rosary.
It is perhaps healthier that the Rosary’s entirely voluntary status be maintained in the minds of the faithful by the hierarchy encouraging its use, but not signing off on specific promises associated with it.
I don’t necessarily disbelieve Blessed Alan’s visions if I don’t think they’re historical. Visions of stuff are often symbolic, just as paintings are; that doesn’t mean they’re not true. If I see a picture of George Washington holding a little map of the US in his hands at Yorktown, that doesn’t mean that the painter’s trying to say that the US already stretched from sea to shining sea before the Revolution was even done. We’d be missing the point. Same thing with visions. We know Rosaries were said before St. Dominic. We know that the Dominicans spread the Rosary and took it as one of their special devotions. Of course Mary gave it the Dominicans, and Dominic in Heaven can stand for the Dominican Order on earth, too. If Blessed Alan didn’t totally understand his own vision, that’s perfectly common. He obeyed and spread the Rosary, which was the point; everything else is an academic paper for somebody else to write.
Jimmy, You were asked to comment about some of the spiritual promises that attach to the rosary, like the 15 promises. And you went into the meaning of imprimaturs. It was informative, thank you, but I was disappointed you didn’t use this as a chance to evangelize the person who wrote to you. Do you meditate on the rosary? It can’t help but bring grace. I have been told at Mass on several occasions that it is the second most powerful prayer in the Church. (The Mass is the most powerful prayer.) Hope you will do a follow up article on the blessings of the Rosary! God bless.
Jimmy,
When will you get a clue that the Catholic Church is just ‘the false tradition of men’ and not the church founded on Christ. You are an apologist for a counterfeit Christian church that is sending millions to Hell. God will judge you very severely for being a false teacher. I would not want to be in your shoes on the Day of Judgment. Repent and know that Jesus is not pleased with you teaching the mystical superstitions of Medieval men. Repent and God will forgive you for your past dabbling in the occult and mysticism. This dabbling opened you up to evil spirits that have lead you from Evangelical truth to Catholic falsehoods. Satan tried to sift you by craftily yoking with a woman who was oppressed with evil spirits. The Bible says, the two become one and her soul-ties transferred to you and her evil spirits duped you into converting to Catholicism.
Um, Freddy, you need to do some serious reading of church history and lay off your Jack Chick tracts. I have loved the Lord Jesus all of my life and it is because of that love for Him that I entered the Holy Catholic Church a few years ago. I’m sure that was the primary reason for Jimmy’s conversion as well. I appreciate your zeal, but it is aimed in the wrong direction. I pray that you find the fullness of the truth that is contained in the bosom of the Catholic Church.
Re: “It was informative, thank you, but I was disappointed you didn’t use this as a chance to evangelize the person who wrote to you. Do you meditate on the rosary? It can’t help but bring grace.”
Here we go again with the typical emotionalist argument. Look, the whole fact of a devotion giving graces has nothing to do with promises attached to the devotion, because promises merely outline the graces God gives - they do not regulate those graces, as if you wouldn’t get any other graces not listed in the promises. Furthermore, the graces promised in promises is irrelevant if the promises are not approved by the Church; this is why Jimmy is tackling the approval of the promises first.
This is also why the Church looks first to the moral credibility of an apparition before she looks to the spiritual fruits. The spiritual fruit is irrelevant to the credibility of an apparition if the apparition never took place. Why? Because God is behind grace, not an apparition: It is He Who gives us graces, it is not the apparition that gives us anything. Is Mary, as the Mediatrix, the source of her graces? By no means! The same goes for apparitions and for devotions, and God gives us graces when we pray: Thus, those who pray even in an illicit Mass, a false apparition, a pagan temple, the street corner, the field, or in the bedroom will receive the answers to their prayers - that is, grace from God - because all the Earth belongs to the Creator, and because all souls belong to the Redeemer, and because all the graces of salvation come from the Sanctifier: In other words, because God is God, so He can answer our prayers anywhere and at any time, and simply because He does so does not mean that something purported to be good or real is so.
This is why it is necessary to believe in Public Revelation and why it is necessary to obey Jesus Christ, because we know by faith that the Mass is good, that prayer is good, that love is good, and that anyone who disobeys Christ cannot say, “God approves of my sin because I have this sign from Heaven!” or “God approves of my sin because I am well!” Such nonsensical statements are founded on emotionalism, the same emotionalism that perverts arguments on the authenticity of a false apparition or like matter. God does not approve of emotionalism, for emotion is not a pillar of moral credibility or of divine guidance - it is not on emotion that the saints believed but on the proofs of Public Revelation, such as creation, the reality of sin, and Mary’s virginity.
Finally, the Rosary is very good, and is recommended by Mother Church, yet it is not the only form, nor the essence, of contemplation on Jesus, for contemplation on Jesus is a prayer and there are different ways of contemplating on Jesus, such as the Divine Mercy Chaplet and the Rosary. One must not have an exaggerated devotion to either devotion, for one must be prudent, and prudence knows the difference between love - which is good - and obsession - which is bad. Some false apparitions rely on and create obsessions for devotion, for they often rely on emotionalism, and as they rely on, so some souls start to rely upon emotions as well.
Peace of Christ Nick. Sounds like you have an axe to grind. The statements were facts not emotionalism. Not sure why you feel the need to label them otherwise. The 15 promises can be explained through this grace. It is not saying they are true because it makes you feel good. It is saying grace is real and meditating on the rosary will bring you to the point where you experience the promises and the question will be answered. And you are mistaken about the devotion to the rosary. The Church calls it the second greatest prayer - not the third or fourth etc. And you make some strange statements about sin and God’s approval. Not what I was saying at ALL.
Re: “And you are mistaken about the devotion to the rosary. The Church calls it the second greatest prayer - not the third or fourth etc.”
I was unaware of this doctrine on the Rosary. Please provide the document where it says such.
Whatever the case is it doesn’t stop the rosary from being an excellent means to internalize the gospel and honor Mary.
Jimmy,
You have a lot of things to teach us. Why can’t you write something more positive rather than trying to show off intellectual skills by demeaning this wonderful tradition. You’ve solved nothing with this post but you’ve managed to pooh-pooh this long tradition with little more than an overabundance of skepticism. Shin at 4:29 is spot on.
Shin should write for ncr. He’s a true believer. Bravo!
The catechism of the Catholic Church #2679 Mary is the perfect Orans(pray-er), a figure of the Church. When we pray to her, we are adhering with her to the plan of the Father, who sends his Son to save all men. Like the beloved disciple we welcome Jesus’ mother into our homes( Jn19:27), for she has become the mother of all the living. We can pray with her and to her. The prayer of the Church is sustained by the prayer of Mary and united with it in hope. (Lumen gentium 68-69)
This is disgraceful. With ecumenism promiscuously running around these days business must be slow at the Catholic Answers apologetics department. I guess attacking pious devotions of the faithful are better than twiddiling one’s thumbs.
God Answers prayer
This is a call to sincere prayer.
God will distribute graces as He wills
Our duty is to pray with all our hearts and minds and souls
and never doubt
He is always there and ALWAYS answers prayer
What better way to Jesus than through His mother
Jerry
Catholic Encyclopedia on the Internet (newadvent.org) states the fact that Alanus de Rupe a.k.a. Alan de la Roche, a Dominican theologian and preacher, successfully promoted The Rosary throughout northern France, Flanders and the Netherlands (article “Alanus de Rupe”). Which means not only that his promotion of The Rosary was pleasing to God and that God was with him in that but also that he was specially charged for that mission which is practically impossible without some most certain kind of private revelation from God. If the 15 promises of The Rosary found among his notes (and published soon after his death) were an invention of Alanus or of the devil Alanus would be a liar or a false prophet and certainly wouldn’t succeed in spreading The Rosary far and wide among the Catholic multitudes nor would those multitudes remain Catholic (as it was the case). Thus it is very unreasonable, very erroneous and consequently very sinful to attack historicity or veracity of Alanus’ notes regarding the visions of St. Dominic and the 15 promises of The Rosary. Hence it is most certain that the 15 promises of The Rosary are true and from God.
Hi Nick, Peace of Christ. I will get you the exact sight. This is a start:http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_12091897_augustissimae-virginis-mariae_en.html
Peace of Christ, Nick. This site says it outright. and lists sources at the end: http://www.unitypublishing.com/godskingdom/rosary.html I was raised by a devout mother and heard it from the pulpit and from her many times.
Here are two more quotes to help, Nick: “The Rosary is the glory of the Roman Church. As an exercise of Christian piety, it takes its place among the faithful after the Mass and the Sacraments.” -Pope John XXIII
” The Rosary is the most excellent form of prayer and the most efficacious means of attaining eternal life. It is the remedy for all our evils, the root of all our blessings. There is no more excellent way of praying.” -Pope Leo XIII Isn’t our faith so AWESOME!
To Pam, and all those who take the quotes and encyclical as Church doctrine:
One must not lightly brush aside the Pope’s words, for he is the Vicar of Jesus Christ, and most well studied in theology, and has the whole Roman Curia at his aid, yet, his personal opinion is not Christian doctrine, because it is not Christian doctrine that every word that comes forth from his mouth is infallible: The Church teaches that only when the Pope speaks to the whole Church, in light of his office, on matters of faith or morals does he speak infallible. Just as a sin is not mortal simply because it is grave, so the Pope does not speak infallibly simply because he speaks on matters of faith and morals.
Ergo, the quotes of previous Popes and the encyclical do not constitute infallible statements, and ergo, are not a part of Church teaching. However, if a Catechism stated something about the Rosary, one could reasonably trust such a statement to be Christian doctrine, because the purpose of Catechisms is catechesis and catechesis is instruction of Christian doctrine. However, one must be weary of those catechesis and catechetical instructions which deviate from Christian doctrine; yes, even if they say something about the Rosary, because they deviant from the Truth they must not be trusted.
In addition, one must weary of simply throwing quotes out and expecting people to accept them. Take note of condemned apparitions which do the same, attempting to draw the faithful into believing and following them by saying, “This Pope favors it!” or “This Bishop speaks highly of it!” No! We must judge all things not by personal opinion but by the Church’s opinion, for the Church is our Mother and Teacher in the faith. And so it is with those quotes you provided, Pam. I do not know their sources, and, what is more, they are mere opinion. So that’s two strikes against them.
As I said, be careful not to have an exaggerated devotion to the Rosary. Be prudent, O Christian, for Christ is prudent and you are called to be like Him.
In Conversation with God, Book 5, Section 36.2 “I want to recommend to you in a special way the Rosary, a source of profound Christian life. Try to pray it every day, alone or with your family, repeating with great faith those basic prayers of the Christian: Our Father, the Hail Mary and the Glory be to the Father. Meditate on those scenes of the life of Jesus and Mary of which the joyful, sorrowful and glorious mysteries remind us. Thus you will learn in the joyful mysteries to think of Jesus who became poor and lowly, a child, for our sake, to serve us; you will feel encouraged to serve your neighbor in his needs. In the sorrowful mysteries you will realize that accepting the sufferings of this life with docility and love, like Christ in his Passion, leads to happiness and joy which is expressed in the glorious mysteries of Christ and Mary in the hope of eternal life.” John Paul II, loc cit
Section 36.3 True devotion to the Blessed Virgin can never consist in sterile or transitory affection, nor in a certain vain credulity. Second Vatican Council, loc cit, 67. Devotion proceeds from true faith, by which we are led to recognize the excellence of the Mother of God, and we are moved to a filial love towards our Mother and to imitation of her virtues. ibid
The problem of Nick is that he still refuses to admit that neither he nor anyone else can give a reasonable reply to the fact of successful Alanus de Rupe’s preaching of The Rosary and the necessary consequences that follow from it, including the 15 promises of The Rosary, as I stated in the post above. It seems practically certain that Nick doesn’t pray The Rosary let alone daily so that his avoidance to give us a reasonable reply, that is, his inability to do that, his unreasonable, erroneous and sinful attack on the 15 promises of The Rosary and great devotion to The Rosary (that can never be too great as love (charity) can never be too great!) and thus his violation of the commandment of God (“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with ... thy whole mind” - Matthew 22:37), is the result of his grave omission of his Christian duty. For in Fatima, approved by The (Catholic) Church, The Blessed Virgin Mary in every(!) apparition commanded that The Rosary be prayed daily without excepting anyone as e.g. in the last apparition of Fatima on October 13th, 1917 when She did The Miracle of The Sun and said: “I am the Lady of the Rosary, I have come to warn the faithful to amend their lives and ask for pardon for their sins. They must not offend Our Lord any more, for He is already too grievously offended by the sins of men. People must say the Rosary (my note: the one third of The Rosary, as said in Portuguese by The Blessed Virgin Mary “um terço” (“one third”), since usually only 5 Mysteries of The Rosary are prayed at a time and then it is said that The Rosary is prayed!). Let them continue saying it everyday.” (http://www.loveandmercy.org/loveandmercy/fatima.htm).
The Rosary (look at the shape of The Rosary beads) is The Noose for tying and rifling of Satan foretold by The Bible, that is, by Jesus Christ Himself (Matthew 12:29) due to its connection with The Hour of Redemption (15 Mysteries of The Rosary for The 15th hour of Good Friday when Jesus Christ died and thus broke the power of sin and Satan) and all the other great and necessary Mysteries of The Holy Religion (Catholic only) e.g. 3 Divine Persons of One and Only God, 16 Hours of The Holy Passion of Jesus Christ, 153 big fishes in the net of St. Peter from The Gospel of St. John The Apostle and Evangelist, 150 Psalms of God etc. No connection to these Mysteries, no Rosary. Thus Luminous Mysteries are The Rosary-destructive since whoever prays them loses connection with the stated Mysteries and thus necessarily doesn’t pray The Rosary. The Rosary has only the 15 Mysteries and absolutely not the 20 Mysteries. It seems that this attack on the 15 promises of The Rosary is because people could reasonably connect the number 15 of the promises of The Rosary with the number 15 of the Mysteries of The Rosary and thus reasonably refuse to pray the new Mysteries. Which obviously Satan introduced through his agents to break connection with the holy Mysteries and thus The Rosary, The Noose that ties him tightly and makes him utterly inefficient and tormented. No wonder that all sons of the Light-bearer (Lucifer) are cold to The Rosary and attack The Rosary and/or anything connected with The Rosary under all kinds of false pretexts.
Nick, I think your real problem is a lack of faith and that is a true cross you bear. If Pope John XXIII and LeoXIII carry no weight with you, I would offer you a challenge. Pray the rosary, meditating on the mysteries and see what happens. When you honestly are seeking to love God and get close to Him, Mary will make sure you get there. You are really sounding like you are under the influence of the evil one if you think you can have an exaggerated devotion to the rosary. The rosary is meditation on the LORD!!
I should add, though late, that not all Christian doctrine is spoken or written infallibly: For example, not every word in the Catechism of the Catholic Church is infallible - yet that doesn’t mean not every word in the Catechism is Christian doctrine, for the Bishops do speak truth even if not spoke together and in union with the Pope, as is the condition necessary for them to speak infallibly.
Instead of castrated, watered-down, long and boring-to-death books about The Rosary that seem to be intentionally written that way to deter people from praying The Rosary you should read St. Louis Montfort’s “The Secret of The Rosary” on http://www.catholictradition.org/Classics/secret-rosary.htm. For example, read the 28th Rose from the book and see what you shall receive if you piously pray The Rosary daily as Our Lady commanded to all at Fatima. You shouldn’t be ignorant of the fact that St. Dominic was more pious than all of us together when he unsuccessfully(!!) fought against heretics Albigenses before revelation of The Rosary to him by The Blessed Virgin Mary. He was certainly praying countless Our Fathers and Hail Marys, was fasting, giving alms, preaching, leading virtuous life but the heretics didn’t listen to him and spread as if he did nothing at all. But after he was taught The Rosary, the terrible army of prayers set in array (Song of songs 6:9) to choke Satan and his army, by The Blessed Virgin Mary the heretics began to be routed both spiritually (by massive conversions to Christian (Catholic only) Faith) and militarily and not too long afterwards they vanished. Throwing Our Fathers and Hail Marys at Satan’s army will cause it some damages but will not defeat it but will only enrage it for further attacks. Pray The Rosary or you risk being overcome by Satan.
Nick, You are right to be aware that we live in a time when there are alot of false teachers. If you have doubts turn to the GREAT saints of the Church and read up about the TRUE faith. It hasn’t changed. I would recommend my own favorites: Mary, the mother of God, St. Francis of Assisi, St. Theresa of the Child Jesus, St. Anthony, Padre Pio of Pietrelcina - something about the Franciscans - the TRUE Franciscans, strikes a chord with me. You may find your own Saints of different orders - we are many parts of the same body, but down get bogged down in this infallibility trap. You have the Holy Spirit in you if you aren’t in mortal sin. Since you haven’t been going to Mass, you may need to go to confession for Him to be able to draw near to you. God bless!
Signal graces are signs that one is doing the will of God, or is on the right spiritual track. Whether they are unusual of not is unimportant.
You wrote:
“Actually, not a great deal. Imprimaturs do not mean that something is correct, and they are not the same thing or the equivalent of an ecclesiastical affirmation that a private revelation is authentic. As an archbishop living almost 500 years after Bl. Alan, in a country that had not even been discovered in Alan’s time, Cardinal Hayes would not have jurisdiction to judge the authenticity of Alan’s private revelation. His granting of the imprimatur, then, must be understood in terms of what imprimaturs normally signified in his day.”
You failed to mention the reason an imprimatur is given: to inform the Catholic faithful that something in not against faith and morals. What Cardinal Hayes was saying when he gave his imprimatur was that there was nothing against the teachings of the Catholic faith in believing the information given in the promises.
Hopefully you have not caused people to abandon the rosary-or you may
be in big trouble with Our Mother in Heaven. Our Lady of Fatima requested we say the rosary—and that is enough for me. The wise thing to do is to listen to a mother’s advise and heed her holy plea. Call me stupid, but that is what I intend to do.Fifteen promises are not the reason I pray the rosary…
It’s ironic, that people search for “proof”, when we are dealing with our “faith”. “If you had faith the size of a mustard seed..” as it says in the Gospel. The 15 promises are real. They were given to us by our Blessed Mother, and they are her promises. The reason a “promise” is so important in this instance, is that when God makes a promise,.... He keeps it. (This is in the Bible. I’m sure the scholars can find numerous instances of this) When the Holy Mother of God makes a promise, She also keeps it! She has obtained these promises from Her Son, Jesus. She is trying to tell us, through these 15 promises, how imporant, (and powerful) the recitation of the Holy Rosary is. The 15 mysteries of the Rosary, describe the life, death, and resurrection of her Son, Jesus Christ. The recitation of this Rosary, is “the weapon” said St. Padre Pio. He was almost never seen without a Rosary on his person, or in his hand. For those who look for “proof”, I offer you this simple test. Pray the Rosary for 9 days, five mysteries per day. On each day of these 9 days, ask a prayer request of our Blessed Mother. Per the 11th promise, “You shall obtain all you ask of me by recitation of the Rosary”. After the 9th day, wait 9 more days and see if your prayer request has been granted. Bear in mind your request better be in line with the type of prayer request you would ask of the Father, and not something silly. Per Padre Pio, “the Rosary is the weapon.” As Pat said before me, the 15 promises are not the reason we pray the Rosary, but nonetheless, they are a consoling grace, and for those who are devoted to our Blessed Mother, we know where they came from. I understand your curiosity. Yet whenever we find ourselves in doubt, we should think of the doubting Thomas, As Jesus said “Blessed are those who believe, and who have not seen”. May God bless and watch over you.
“Since you haven’t been going to Mass, you may need to go to confession for Him to be able to draw near to you.”
Oh really Pam? Well since you seem to know EVERYTHING, why don’t you tell me why you cannot form any logical arguments for the Rosary based on the teachings of the Church? All you’ve come up with are emotional, personal, and fallacious arguments.
Wow, Nick. I really touched a nerve! Who said I know EVERYTHING! I am not saying anything the Church doesn’t teach. Sin separates us from God. That is a basic teaching. I wasn’t insulting you, I was counseling you lovingly that since you seem so sincere in seeking Him and you are raised Catholic, you may want to take the steps to assure you are close to Him and doing what you can to find the real truth. You are speaking from hurt. As to my “arguments for the rosary” I cited papal documents and websites with other cites listed as well. Your inflammatory statement is just false. God bless.
I was also taken for a loop when I read the article. The question Mr. Akin answered did not seem to be “are the promises reliable” but “are they authentic.” The article is a nice examination of the history of the promises and an instance of their “approval” but is not an examination of the text of the promises. I find the promises to be rather benign and, in a sense, self-evident. I could not, and would not, argue with any of them or say that any of them are false, inauthentic, etc… Maybe Mr. Akin is in the same boat so he went down the road of canonical approval.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church on Revelation: http://blogsofasoul.blogspot.com/2010/10/catechism-of-catholic-church-on.html
Verbum Domini and Private Revelation: http://blogsofasoul.blogspot.com/2010/11/verbum-domini-and-private-revelation.html
Bad Arguments: http://blogsofasoul.blogspot.com/2010/10/illogical-arguments.html
The fifteenn promises, like all promises outside Public Revelation, are private revelation, and thus subject to what private revelation is subject to: Skepticism, discernment, judgment.
Nick, I will look at your sites asap, but why fight sacramental grace? If you want the truth, why not make a good confession and be as open to
God’s grace as humanly possible? Your defensiveness is not from God and you will not find the truth through strictly human means. You do not need to believe in the promises of the Rosary, but miracles happen through them. I received them myself. Many thousands of Catholics have witnessed to the graces they receive from the rosary. They become members of the World Apostolate of Fatima or the Legion of Mary or have, like JPII, made the DeMontfort consecration or they just faithfully say the rosary on their own. As St. Louis De Montfort said, Jesus came to us through Mary. The shortest way for us to go to Him is through her also.
God bless.
Pam, I will not argue with you over the doctrines you do not understand, such as the difference between devotion and grace. Rather I ask you to write to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on all the points you have thus made - the greatness of the Rosary, the character of private revelation, sacramental grace, etc. - and wait two weeks (the standard length of reply) for a reply from the CDF. Then, if you wish, you may share this letter with me, and I will be happy to read what it says. At the same time, I recommend you to read Church documents and the writings of the Church Fathers to better know the Christian Faith, lest even by reading the letter from the CDF you misunderstand what Rome is telling you, as happened to other Catholic Christians.
Nick, What is wrong? I understand very well the difference between devotion and grace. And I understand grace can come through devotions such as the rosary and through sacraments like confession. The Church herself highly esteems the Rosary. Many Popes and Saints have encouraged devotion to it and have spoken of the miracles of grace that have come from lovingly reciting it. You can certainly be Catholic and never say a rosary, but once you start to say the rosary you will recognize the blessings that come to you. Hope some day you are willing to try. I’m not interested in pedagogic battles. I’m interested in growing closer to God and growing in grace and I know from personal experience the rosary will help you accomplish both! God bless, brother.
Please pray for Deacon Luca and all the priests - deacons, priests, and bishops - who have died, along with all the departed faithful and every late soul, especially poor sinners. The Mass is the best prayer and veneration of the Scriptures, a decade of the Rosary, Holy Hour of Reparation, adoration of the Blessed Eucharist, a pilgrimage, or other popular piety is also good.
Gosh, how people like to believe a single journalist, with one tiny piece of information, over years and years of analysis and revelations by the scholars, the religious, and saints. LOL.
Wow this must be the internet!
Can’t even have a civil discussion about the Rosary without coming to blows.
Private revelations are just that . . . private and I can be a devout, believing, going to daily Mass, good Catholic and never say a Rosary. I don’t have to believe in any apparitions at all.
And whether I do or not is really no one’s business. Yikes.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.