The Luminous Debate

I am forcing the debate over the Luminous Mysteries over here.

Two rules:

Be nice

Be reasonable.

Be focused.

Okay… that’s Three rules.   You get my idea.

Violate them, I will turn off comments.

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA. Bookmark the permalink.

35 Responses to The Luminous Debate

  1. Rob says:

    I think that the Luminous Mysteries are a great meditation, and I have prayed them myself on occasion.

    However, I think that to push them as now part of the rosary itself (meaning “Our Lady’s Psalter”, 150 Hail
    Marys reflecting the 150 Psalms) is wrong. The Rosary should be left as it is, and the Luminous Mysteries
    should be prayed as supplementary to the rosary, like a chaplet.

  2. Guy Power says:

    I agree with Rob 100%. The allusion to the 150 Psalms is not by accident.

  3. GCC Catholic says:

    As others have hinted at in the other thread… since the Rosary is a private devotion, isn’t this a case where we could do either?

  4. Joshua says:

    I think the way to look at it is this:

    The Rosary is itself Our Lady’s Psalter, it consists of 150 Hail Mary’s. But the mysteries meditated on are not of the essence of the Rosary. If I remember correctly, the standard set of 15 mysteries grouped into three subsets was from the 16th century. I know I have seen a version of the Rosary that had a mystery for every Hail Mary.

    I also think it no accident that the suggestion is to pray the luminous on Thursday in the stead of the Joyful. For we see that traditionally one prays the Joyful (Mon, Thurs), Sorrowful (Tues Fri) and Glorious (Weds, Sat) in that order so that two full rosaries are said a week (plus a third on Sunday, varying as the seasons). Instead of Joyful, Sorrowful, and Glorious forming the 2nd rosary, we get Luminious, then Sorrowful, etc.

    This is also supported from the fact that the Rosary Confraternity still only has the 15 decade rule, and the indulgences are still attached to that rather than 20 of them.

  5. Robert says:

    I tend to agree with Rob, not just because of his name. The mystery of the proclamation of the Kingdom and call to conversion still seems to me to be difficult to meditate upon.

    With all respect to the Servant of God John Paul II of blessed memory, the addition of these mysteries seems to have been possible because of a very exalted, ultramontane view of the papacy that I don’t think is shared by our current pontiff, who has been critical (with respect to the liturgy at least) of the view that “the Pope can do anything”

    A comparison might be made with St. Pius X’s allowance of early first communion, which disrupted the traditional order of the sacraments (something that came up in the recent synod and is addressed in Sacramentum Caritatis) or the same pope’s reform of the breviary that abolished the traditional fixed psalms at Lauds. In all these cases, a pope makes a change for an immediate pastoral reason with (some would say) insufficient consideration being paid to the importance of what has been handed down.

  6. Henry Edwards says:

    Then, of course, there’s this, which speaks for itself,;^)

    Indeed it does, Jon. As does the mysterious mixture of apples and oranges you offer for our contemplation. As you know, in the flush of his victory in changing the Mass almost beyond recognition — “the Mass as we once knew it no longer exists” (obviously said exultantly) — Annibale Bugnini attempted to mutilate the Rosary beyond recognition. Truly, if he’d have succeeded in sneaking his contemptible scheme past the Paul VI – who by then was in a position to say “Fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice …..” – the Rosary as we knew it would no longer exist.

    For in the “Rosary” a la Bugnini, the Pater Noster would be recited only once at the beginning, with each Ave gutted to include only “Hail Mary, ….., the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.” The “Holy Mary, Mother of God …. pray for us” would be said only at the end of each tenth Ave. The publicly recited “official” version of the Rosary would be further gutted to consist mainly of readings, songs, homilies, and only one decade of these gutted Aves.

    So it really makes no historical sense to associate (even by weak implication) the name of John Paul II with any such scheme. For the basic form of the Rosary — consisting decades of (complete) Aves each preceded by a Pater Noster and followed by a Gloria Patria — was not touched by John Paul II. Rather, it was enhanced, indeed luminously, one might say (to coin an apt term), by the suggestion of additional mysteries for personal contemplation of the plan of redemption.

    Of course, any one who wants to regard (and pray) the Rosary as Our Lady’s Psalter is free to do so, even if Our Lady’s Psalter originally consisted of 150 Pater Nosters, and no Hail Mary’s at all, so the not-quite-fly-in-amber rigidity of the connection may seem a bit tenuous to some.

  7. Andrew says:

    I was not happy when the pope added some mysteries. But I think he was trying to get people more involved in praying the Rosary (and it happened around 1998 I think).

    I’ve warmed up a bit to the Luminous Mysteries, but I still don’t know quite what to make of them. Besides, some people don’t like the Sorrowful Mysteries, so they don’t pray them. If one doesn’t like the Luminous Mysteries, then one doesn’t have to pray them either.

    By the way, my favorite mysteries are the Sorrowful Mysteries.

  8. AveMaria says:

    I love the Luminous Mysteries. Now I had promised Our Lady a complete rosary on teh day I lefr for my first pilgrimage to a well known apparition site in eastern Europe in March of 1998. So when the 5 new Mysteries were added, it took me a while to incorporate them into my daily routine but I did. I pray the 20 Mysteries daily. My favorite decade is the 5th decade of the Mysteries of Light: the Institution of the Holy Eucharist and the Priesthood.

    Ave Maria!

  9. woodyjones says:

    Having been to the Holy Land last year, I find it very pleasing to meditate on the Luminous Mysteries, as it is now much easier to achieve composition of place for them.

    I believe that versions of the rosary with additional mysteries have been around for some time (I remember praying one version with five sets of mysteries, one for each weekday, at the local Dominican parish here–they are thought to be conservative, I might add, for those who might wonder), as well as the other methods, such as adding the descriptive phrase after “the fruit of thy womb, Jesus…[e.g.,conceived by the Holy Spirit].”

    To the extent that the Luminous Mysteries reflect the mind of the Holy Father in this matter, praying them is also a nice way to keep close to him. And to remember Pope John Paul.

  10. Andrew says:

    What’s wrong with the Luminous mysteries? You have all the freedom to pray them or not pray them or pray them only sometimes and not at other times, no one is there to impose anything that you don’t like. There is no comparison to the public worship of the Church. One can meditate on different things right?

  11. Patrick says:

    I have a leaf from a Book of Hours writte in 1460 which has the 15 Joys of the Virgin Mary. So it seems the mysteries hve been evolvng. The Luminous mysteries are very bautiful and vry much the gospel. nd, as others have noted no one has to meditate upon these mysteries.

  12. Edmund Campion says:

    I LOVE the Luminous Mysteries! The second, the Wedding Feast at Cana, reminds me of Mary’s words to the stewards, “Do whatever He tells you.” As a member of the Militia of the Immaculata, I try to live that advice from Our Mother each day! It is also the only time in the Gospel of St. John that Mary is referred to as “Woman” by Jesus. The other time is at His Crucifixion indicating, as the Navarre Commentaries state, her participation from the beginning to the end of His earthly ministry.

    The fourth, the Transfiguration, is the revelation of the Glorified Christ before His Resurrection. There is much here to meditate upon!

    Finally, the fifth, the Institution of the Eucharist is so natural to the Rosary that it provides an enormous complement to any Thursday.

    I think Pope John Paul Magnus, whose Papal motto was “Totus Tuus” was inspired by the addition of these particular meditations. And, as others have stated, the rosary itself was not touched. The only thing added was a new group of Mysteries to be pondered!

    Oremus!
    Edmund

  13. geneseejoe says:

    The rosary underwent a long development and, to the best of my knowledge, its structure was never written in stone. Some forms of the rosary have for centuries contained seven (as opposed to five) joyful mysteries. I believe this is in the Franciscan tradition.

  14. barb says:

    To me, praying the Rosary is, in a way, asking Our Lady to help me understand the sacred mysteries of Our Lord’s and her life. She must be very pleased to help people grow in the love of Christ by meditation on the Luminous mysteries. Whatever makes my Mother happy makes me happy.

  15. “Luminous Mysteries” or “The Mysteries of Light” has an extremely unfortunate New Age ring to it. There are those who chase after the “Light” and those who claim to be “embraced by the Light” and none of that has anything to do with Jesus Christ, the Light of the World.

    Better would it have been to name these the “Evangelical Mysteries” because they center in a special way on the three years of Christ’s preaching of His Evangelium. For my own part, I would rather have these called “The Evangelical Chaplet of John Paul II” or in time, God willing, “The Evangelical Chaplet of St. John Paul the Great”.

  16. Geoffrey says:

    I love the Luminous Mysteries. I think there is every reason to believe that John Paul the Great was inspired by above to propose these mysteries… and that is what he did, propose… he said so himself… no one is required to use them, etc. I don’t see what upsets people. I particularly like the argument that the Luminous Mysteries are “protestant”… ha! The story of the Wedding at Cana has always been seen as an example of the Holy Virgin’s intercessory power, and the Institution of the Eucharist… well, enough said! I don’t really care for the term “luminous” or “of light,” but oh well!

  17. At first, I didn’t like the idea of “changing” the rosary, however, I do seem to recall the Pope did introduce them humbly as a suggestion, not by some motu proprio saying “This Is Now How the Rosary Has To Be Said.” But having included the Luminous Mysteries in my personal devotions on Thursdays since their introduction, they grew on me, and I find them to be excellent events in the life of Christ on which to meditate. I find them very much like the Gospel of John in a “signs” theme sort of way. Each one “reveals” the Divinity of Christ.

    I mean, this set of Mysteries has three Sacraments in it: Baptism, Marriage, and Communion! How could people complain about that?

    I don’t find the “150” reasoning to be a very convincing reason to look down on the new Mysteries, since there is the very popular (and traditional) devotion of the Franciscan Crown rosary which doesn’t equal 150 Hail Marys, and I haven’t heard people using the same reaon with that.

    I do regret that often the 3rd Luminous mystery is truncated from “The proclaimation of the Kingdom AND the call to conversion” into just the proclaimation of the Kingdom. But that is not a failing on the part of the new Mysteries as much as it is the fault of individuals. I think that is my favorite Luminous Mystery since it is a good gut punch to remind me how much I need to strive for further conversion.

    “Luminous Mysteries” doesn’t really remind me of New Age, but I do agree that saying “Mysteries of Light” does smack of a New Agey connotation.

  18. terry nelson says:

    I love the added mystries, I consider them as an alternative if desired…the Madonna’s psalter is not disturbed by the additional mysteries. I think we have a tendency to limit devotional practices – we cannot stifle the Holy Spirit. Having said that, no one is obliged to pray the myteries of Light.

    However, the mysteries of Light will be better understood as time goes on, just as the pontificate of JPII will be…after some illumination perhaps…later generations will understand it better than we do.

  19. Seumas says:

    I have nothing against the Luminous Mysteries per se. How could I? They are very important parts of the Gospel and our Lord’s life.

    But adding a fourth set of Mysteries destroys the traditional symbolisms and it’s connection to its roots in the Psalter. The rosary comes from the Psalter, as most know (it is probable that it started as a devotion for laity who could not access or memorize the psalms, as an alternative to the Divine Office), and this association is gone by adding a new set of Mysteries. Plus, the three 3 sets of Mysteries represents the Trinity, as well as the three primary Mysteries of Christ, that is, His Life, Death and Resurrection, which the three sets embody as well as symbolize. There are various other associations that I can’t recall (and some that remain unaffected by the Luminous Mysteries, such as the five decades of each set of Mysteries representing the five wounds of Christ).

    Also, adding a fourth set of Mysteries messes up the order and symmetry of my weekly rosary. It used to fit into the week perfectly. Beginning on Monday, each set of Mysteries is prayed in order, then repeated in order; then on Sundays the Mysteries are connected to the liturgical season. Perfect! It’s as though the traditional rosary was designed to fit into the week.

    Now, we have the Luminous Mysteries crammed into Thursday seemingly arbitrarily (though I have a feeling the Holy Father was thinking of the Institution of the Eucharist; in any case, they have to go somewhere, but actually fit nowhere), and the last half of the week is out of order. The Mysteries on Sundays are no longer connected to the season.

    Further, they are unnecessary. While these are certainly important events in the life of Christ (and which events are not important? On that basis, we could soon have about 100 decades), the 15 traditional Mysteries embody the whole of His Life, Death and Resurrection, and a person could never plumb their entire depths in a lifetime. The entire Gospel can be found within them. Everything that is in the Luminous Mysteries is already contained within the 15 traditional Mysteries, either explicitly or by implication.

    Though the story of the Blessed Virgin giving the traditional rosary whole and entire to Saint Dominic may be legendary, nevertheless I am of the firm belief that the legend embodies a truth; that the Virgin did inspire it’s development and promotion. Did she then inspire this development? I personally don’t believe so. If she wanted the Luminous Mysteries, she could have given them to us at Fatima or Lourdes, or she could have inspired them from the beginning. I don’t think our Lady had anything to do with these; they are all John Paul II. That doesn’t make them bad, necessarily. But if I am right (and tradition backs me up), I think we should leave the “official” rosary alone, and any additions or changes should be strictly for personal meditation and devotion.

    Fortunately, John Paul II was wise enough to offer them as a suggestion only. Unfortunately, because of who he is, they have now become quasi-official. I say unfortunately, because now it is almost impossible to find materials without them, and worse, those of us who pray the traditional rosary are excluded from public rosary recitation, at least on certain days.

    Since the Luminous Mysteries are optional, and the “official” rosary is still the traditional 15 mysteries, why can’t we use the traditional rosary for public recitation, so that everyone is… cough… included (it’s hard to say that word, even when legitimate), and save the Luminous Mysteries for private use?

    That’s my take on it, anyway. Sorry it was such a long take, but there are several important issues involved.

  20. Bernard says:

    I don’t see really how the Luminous Mysteries could be anything but good, if they give us the opportunity to meditate on more events in Christ’s life. And they are optional after all and the rosary is a private devotion.

    I don’t think the argument about the rosary’s 15 mysteries being based on the 150 psalms is a very convincing argument against the new Mysteries. Yes, the rosary developed from the recitation of the psalter, but that’s really just a historical consideration. As the rosary has evolved, that link with the psalter has effectively already been broken. The rosary is now quite distinct from the psalter and therefore does not need to be bound by its pattern.

  21. Brian Kopp says:

    The biggest error trads make is elevating to doctrinal that which is only disciplinary or customary.

    The debate over the Luminous Mysteries is a perfect example. Its a private devotion. Its a form of prayer. It is not a matter of faith and morals per se. A pope may add Luminous Mysteries to the Rosary if, in his prudential judgment, it will assist the Faithful in their ultimate salvation.

    The ONLY argument is whether adding these mysteries was prudent on the part of Pope JPII. Some will say yes, some will say no, but these are subjective opinions.

    Objectively, the Pope has the power to loose and bind. This includes pious prayer practices and forms.

    If you don’t “like” the Luminous Mysteries, don’t pray them.

    But to try to elevate this into a doctrinal discussion, or to condemn Pope JPII for “adding to a Perfect Prayer given by Our Lady and thus inviolate” just makes trads look like kooks.

    IMHO.

  22. Brian Kopp says:

    One more point…to argue from the standpoint that the Rosary MUST be 150 prayers sounds more like superstitious numerology than a reasoned argument from tradition.

  23. Patrick says:

     1 John 1:5
    [ Walking in the light ] This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all.
    1 John 1:4-6

  24. Tom says:

    When Pope John Paul II first issued the Luminous Mysteries, I thought that they were “not enough”–i.e., that they did not “cover” enough of His public life.

    Many years before I had read some thing by a Jesuit (whose name I forget) lamenting that the mysteries of the Rosary jump over most of the public life of our Lord from the Presentation in the Temple of the last Joyful Mystery to the Agony in the Garden of the first Sorrowful Mystery. The Jesuit proposed three series of fives mysteries each of various events from the public life of Jesus to be used on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday between the Joyful Mysteries on Monday and the Sorrowful Mysteries on Friday.

    Now that the Luminous Mysteries exist, I regard them as a “chaplet” or equivalent to the prayer form of the “ode” or “canon” used in the Eastern Churches, especially because most people regard the Rosary as consisting of five decades (and most rosaries have only that number of beads rather than the “grand” rosary of fifteen decades of beads). Thus, there could be more sets of five mysteries devoted to other aspects of our Lord’s life and work–for private devotion rather than public recitation. Ironically, one harsh critic of the Luminous Mysteries cynically made that same remark and suggested a series of five “Miraculous” Mysteries, which I found to be a very good suggestion (shades of Balaam’s ass).

  25. Tom says:

    Henry Edwards describes the proposed “Bugninization” of the Rosary, which providentially did not happen.

    The late Romano Guardini proposed changing the last two Glorious Mysteries to the Second Coming of Christ and the Last Judgment to make all of the fifteen “traditional” Mysteries either “scripturally” based or more “ecumenical.” Ironically two Protestants (not “high church”) have written separate books of meditations on the fifteen Mysteries including the Assumption and the Coronation of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

  26. Alphonsus says:

    I have regarded the Luminous Mysteries as an adjunt of a sort that one may use while praying the Rosary if one so desires along with other sets of mysteries. For indeed, one is free to meditate as one wishes. I have never prayed them privately nor led them publicly, although I did start Rosary devotions in the last parish to which I was assigned. I have no spiritual or theological reason for this. Its just that I love the Rosary as I learned it as a young child and it is firmly implanted in my brain. I don’t need to look-up the mysteries or learn any new prayers (not that it would be overly taxing). But I can pray the beads anytime, anywhere, without worrying about remembering anything… which does happen all too often at the young age of 44!

    I have often wondered, though, does this mean I, as a religious priest who wears his habit, must add another five decades to my habit rosary?

    Ex amore Jesu et Mariae,
    Fr. S. Bailey, C.Ss.R.

  27. Andrew says:

    Something might also be said about light and light in Latin here.

    “Lux, lucis” is the clarity that comes from some object or body. The body that emits the “lux” is “lumen.” But the “lux” in not a corporate object. In English we translate both of these as “light” because we don’t have a separate word for each. For instance we have this sentence in St. John’s Gospel: “Ego sum LUX mundi: qui sequitur me, non ambulat in tenebris, sed habebit LUMEN vitae.” The English gives us “light” for both words: “I am the LIGHT of the world: he that followeth me, walketh not in darkness, but shall have the LIGHT of life.”

    Lumen is sort of like saying “lucimen.” (Something that is “lighting”). Lumen can also mean the ability to see and to understand, a famous person, the eye, a window and even life itself. The Sun and the Moon are also called “lumina”. Actually the word for Moon – “Luna” is also related to “lumen”.

    What’s the point? I don’t know, but “mysteria luminosa” are not exactly the same as “lucis mysteria”.

  28. Gilgamesh says:

    J.M.J.

    1.) St. Dominic, it is said, would have used different mysteries for the Rosary, adapting them as necessary to combat the species of heresy that he found in the places where he preached. The introduction of the mysteries of light seems consistent with this method as they do bring out Church teachings which are attacked in our day, such as teachings on marriage, the necessity of conversion, the divinity of Christ, and the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

    2.) I think that it was Pope St. Pius V who standardized the 15 decade Rosary as we now know it. Accordingly, it would seem that if the Pope can prescribe it, he could change it. One thing he certainly could change is what is indulgenced. Presumably, the indulgences for the Rosary apply for the Mysteries of Light, but I have never seen anything officialy stating such.

    3.) The fifteenth decade of the Rosary as the Coronation of Mary was not finally set until Pope St. Pius V prescribed it. Before that, it depended on local custom.

    4.) Perhaps, we could at least see the fifteen traditional decades as having pride of place. However, in reply to Bernard, I would point to St. Louis de Montfort’s pious assertion that the Rosary is the fulfillment of the 150 psalms, which suggests more than merely an historical consideration.

  29. wcy says:

    In Defense of Trads: A Reply to Mr. Kopp

    Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me and keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you. -1 Cor. 11:2

    I respectfully submit that common broad assertions against “Trads” are very misleading. As an illustration, there would be more empirical evidence showing that American Novus Ordo adherents hold the document “Environment and Art” sacrosanct and doctrinal, and espouse the wreckovations of our beautiful churches. We know that this is not always true. In the same vein, “Trads” are not as susceptible to the error Mr. Kopp asserts. The opposite is in fact true.

    Trads do NOT confuse doctrine and custom / practice. In fact, Trads understand this dichotomy most. For example, we do not jump to conclusions on the Divine and Apostolic character of the Novus Ordo. Cardinal Ratzinger, now our illustrious Holy Father, opened the issue of the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae to questioning. He states that Pope Paul VI’s actions were contrary to Vatican II, and that the Pope’s authority is not unlimited. His authority “is at the service of Sacred Tradition.” For more info, please see Msgr. Gamber’s book, especially the Preface written by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, usually printed on the back cover of said book. Also, please read http://www.latinmassmagazine.com/articles/articles_ratzinger_special.html in light of said preface. Trads today maintain the faith of the Fathers and Saints of Our Holy Church.

    Furthermore, arguing against a notion of disobedience of “Indult” “Trads,” one must remember that when the Novus Ordo Missae was promulgated in 1970, the Traditional Missal was not forbidden from use. Rather, unjust punishments were meted to any holy priest who continued to use the old Missal. Pope John Paul II’s commission of Cardinals concluded that the Traditional Missal was never revoked and therefore could be used by any priest. Why did Pope Paul VI not revoke the Traditional Missal? Perhaps it was fear of the words of the preeminent 16th century theologian, Francisco Suarez, who quoted St. Cajetan as saying that a pope would be Schismatic if he were to “change all the liturgical rites of the Church that have been upheld by apostolic tradition.” Perhaps the Holy Spirit prevented Pope Paul VI from taking away the Traditional Mass.

    In regards to the Luminous Mystery, Trads maintain the traditional 15 Mysteries to the reservation of the Luminous Mysteries precisely because 1) the 15 are traditional and 2) the Luminous are OPTIONAL. We understand this difference, that is why we do not include it.

    The case for tradition is important. It is fully embodied in the phrase “Lex orandi, lex credendi.” When prayer changes, belief changes. The converse is also true: when belief changes, prayer changes. Any “change” should result in the prayerful reflection of the Church over a long time span (an organic change, as in Vatican II) or as a reply to a heresy. Changes that happen quickly, especially when the Church is at its weakest are usually weakening changes.

    We must remember that the former Holy Father was a prayerful man. However, the Church should not leap to fully incorporate a mere suggestion as binding. I am convinced that among the reasons, and perhaps the main reason, is that people are drawn to novelty. Novelty, according to the Saints, is antithetical to a spiritual life.

    P.S. I am a former staunch Latin Novus Ordo proponent until I made the intellectual and spiritual leap a year and a half ago.

    P.P.S. To understand the mind of our Holy Father, please read Msgr. Gamber. Msgr. Gamber was an unknown Bavarian priest until Cardinal Ratzinger promoted his book.

  30. wcy says:

    Errata: The fifth paragraph should state: “Any ‘change’ should result FROM the prayerful reflection of the Church…”

    One last comment: I realize that many people’s lives have been enhanced by the Luminous Mysteries. Kudos to them. However, it is not for all, and Trads like to keep things simple and take things known to work from past ages. Pray the Luminous if they help you, but they are MERELY SUGGESTIONS.

  31. thetimman says:

    I agree in substance with Seumas and Brian Kopp.

    Nothing against them as a devotion, but I don’t include them as part of my rosary rotation.

    It kind of strikes me as similar to JP2 adding Mother of the Church and Queen of the Family to the Litany of Loreto. Nothing objectionable to them, obviously, but why mess with such ancient prayers.

    “War Motu Proprio in my lifetime.”

  32. Brian Sudlow says:

    Am I alone in always having used the prayers of the Rosary to meditate on
    anything in the gospel, or parts of the Old Mass (e.g. decade for the Offertory) when I have no
    missal with me? Of course, I wish JPII had just left well alone. All modern leaders
    seem to want to justify their presence by ‘doing’ things. But as they stand, the
    Luminous Mysteries are so consonant with Catholic spirituality that I can see nothing but good in them. How wrong can it be to combine the powerful prayers of the Pater and Ave with
    material drawn from Sacred Scripture?

    In that sense, another set of mysteries – and ones so well chosen –
    is very welcome indeed. By making them an optional extra, JPII was
    probably trying to avoid the accusation that he was messing around
    with the Rosary.

  33. Athanasius says:

    Recently I made a post on my blog on this subject: Why the Luminious mysteries were bad I guess it more or less summs up many of the points made here, that the mysteries in and of themselves are not bad, but it would have been better for John Paul to release them in the form of a chaplet rather than change the rosary. It also contributes to the regime of novelty. It is better for Popes not to mess with private devotion or custom, as Papal intervention in liturgical change has shown historically (even long before Vatican II) it is a disaster when the Pope touches the liturgy. The papacy works far better in its role of confirming private devotions don’t deviate from faith and morals rather than changing and making additions.

  34. Kevin Koestner says:

    I find it hard to undertsand why changing things makes them better. St. Thomas Aquinas makes a very strong argument against change, unless the change brings great benefits that
    outweigh the insecurity they cause.

    In the last decades, we have a changed Mass, a changed Rosary, saints that are no longer saints, marriages that are no longer marriages, doctrines that are no longer doctrines, new translations and customs — yet the fervor of Catholics continues to decline.

    We see far less benefits from the changes then we see division, confusion and doubt spread among the faithful.

  35. And one more thing: will it help promote the Rosary if each future Pope adds another set of 5 mysteries?

    We could soon have 30 or 50 mysteries, all focusing on beautiful passages of
    Scripture. We could have the Mysteries of Justice, the Mysteries of Peace, the Mysteries of Temperance, the Mysteries of Charity, the Mysteries of Consolation, etc.

    Is more better?