Mary – Page 4 – Jimmy Akin

What’s the Best Way to Say the Rosary?

People say the Rosary in a variety of ways. Some say a simple version without any “add-ons.” Others use the Fatima Prayer. Many add the Hail, Holy Queen or other prayers at the end. Some add Scripture verses for meditation.

This raises some questions: Is there one right way to say the Rosary? Are some ways better than others?

A reader from the Philippines writes:

Sir Jimmy, a vital question. I somehow made an initiative to put “add-ons” to my rosary. For example, I put Bible verses before every decade, in order to capture the essence and the focus in every mystery.

I get distracted and drift away when my focus is lost, especially in the repetition of the Hail Mary’s without this.

I knew this is unhealthy, but maybe I have not arrived at the point yet that I can really meditate through the repetitions.

I am a young and adjusting Catholic. Is what I’m doing permissible?

Adding Scripture Verses

First of all, I would not say that it is unhealthy to add Bible verses before each decade. This practice is extremely common, there are many texts that have been published to help people do exactly this, and many people find it helpful to deepen their meditation.

You know who specifically endorsed this practice? Bl. John Paul II. In his apostolic letter Rosarium Virginis Mariae, he wrote:

30. In order to supply a Biblical foundation and greater depth to our meditation, it is helpful to follow the announcement of the mystery with the proclamation of a related Biblical passage, long or short, depending on the circumstances. No other words can ever match the efficacy of the inspired word. As we listen, we are certain that this is the word of God, spoken for today and spoken “for me”.

If received in this way, the word of God can become part of the Rosary’s methodology of repetition without giving rise to the ennui derived from the simple recollection of something already well known. It is not a matter of recalling information but of allowing God to speak.In certain solemn communal celebrations, this word can be appropriately illustrated by a brief commentary.

Got that? Not only is reading Bible passages–even longer ones–okay, but adding a brief commentary to them is okay, too!

So if the reader from the Philippines finds that adding biblical verses between the decades helps his own meditation, that’s great.

But the flexibility in how the Rosary can be said goes beyond this . . .

Different Openings

In the same apostolic letter, John Paul II noted:

37.At present, in different parts of the Church, there are many ways to introduce the Rosary. In some places, it is customary to begin with the opening words of Psalm 70: “O God, come to my aid; O Lord, make haste to help me”, as if to nourish in those who are praying a humble awareness of their own insufficiency. In other places, the Rosary begins with the recitation of the Creed, as if to make the profession of faith the basis of the contemplative journey about to be undertaken. These and similar customs, to the extent that they prepare the mind for contemplation, are all equally legitimate.

Different Ways of Announcing the Mysteries

There are also different ways of announcing and preparing for the mysteries. According to John Paul II:

29. Announcing each mystery, and perhaps even using a suitable icon to portray it, is as it were to open up a scenario on which to focus our attention. The words direct the imagination and the mind towards a particular episode or moment in the life of Christ. In the Church’s traditional spirituality, the veneration of icons and the many devotions appealing to the senses, as well as the method of prayer proposed by Saint Ignatius of Loyola in the Spiritual Exercises, make use of visual and imaginative elements (the compositio loci), judged to be of great help in concentrating the mind on the particular mystery.

Taking a Moment for Silence

One may also take a moment for silence after the mystery has been announced and any Scripture readings done. John Paul II indicates that this is fitting (though he does not say it is required):

31. Listening and meditation are nourished by silence. After the announcement of the mystery and the proclamation of the word, it is fitting to pause and focus one’s attention for a suitable period of time on the mystery concerned, before moving into vocal prayer. A discovery of the importance of silence is one of the secrets of practicing contemplation and meditation. One drawback of a society dominated by technology and the mass media is the fact that silence becomes increasingly difficult to achieve. Just as moments of silence are recommended in the Liturgy, so too in the recitation of the Rosary it is fitting to pause briefly after listening to the word of God, while the mind focuses on the content of a particular mystery.

**Differences in the Gloria (“Glory Be”)**

The Glory Be that concludes each decade can also be done in more than one way. John Paul II indicates that it may be said or sung:

34. . . . It is important that the Gloria, the high-point of contemplation, be given due prominence in the Rosary. In public recitation it could be sung, as a way of giving proper emphasis to the essentially Trinitarian structure of all Christian prayer.

Prayers at the End of Each Decade

There is also variability in the prayer (if any) said at the end of each decade, after the Glory Be:

35. In current practice, the Trinitarian doxology is followed by a brief concluding prayer which varies according to local custom. Without in any way diminishing the value of such invocations, it is worthwhile to note that the contemplation of the mysteries could better express their full spiritual fruitfulness if an effort were made to conclude each mystery with a prayer for the fruits specific to that particular mystery. In this way the Rosary would better express its connection with the Christian life. One fine liturgical prayer suggests as much, inviting us to pray that, by meditation on the mysteries of the Rosary, we may come to “imitate what they contain and obtain what they promise”.

Such a final prayer could take on a legitimate variety of forms, as indeed it already does. In this way the Rosary can be better adapted to different spiritual traditions and different Christian communities. It is to be hoped, then, that appropriate formulas will be widely circulated, after due pastoral discernment and possibly after experimental use in centres and shrines particularly devoted to the Rosary, so that the People of God may benefit from an abundance of authentic spiritual riches and find nourishment for their personal contemplation.

Different Closings

If there are different ways to begin the Rosary, there are also different ways to close it:

37. . . .Is it any wonder, then, that the soul feels the need, after saying this prayer and experiencing so profoundly the motherhood of Mary, to burst forth in praise of the Blessed Virgin, either in that splendid prayer the Salve Regina or in the Litany of Loreto? This is the crowning moment of an inner journey which has brought the faithful into living contact with the mystery of Christ and his Blessed Mother.

Different Mysteries

Of course, John Paul II would be the first person to agree that different mysteries can be used in the Rosary. He was the pope who, in the same apostolic letter we’ve been quoting, proposed the Luminous Mysteries, but these are optional. He wrote:

19. . . . 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.

The Best Way to Say the Rosary

From what we’ve seen, there is not one “right” way to say the Rosary. There are many legitimate options. But is there a best way?

For a given individual or group . . . perhaps.

The underlying principle by which “bestness” should be judged is the degree to which it helps with devotion, with meditation, with growing closer to God.

For an individual, there might be one particular way that does that better than other ways. Or a person might find different ways equally helpful. If so then for that person there is no “best” way.

When the Rosary is said in groups, it can certainly help for there to be a predictable format, so that everyone in the group knows what to expect and is not caught off guard in a way that disturbs their meditation.

The “best” way for that group, then, is likely to be the format every is expecting. That might change over time. The group might decide to include new things, omit some things that were there before, or substitute one option for another. That is okay. The key is not jarring people with the unexpected. (Which, incidentally, can also include the speed at which the prayers are said. Some people race through them, which isn’t good. Others can take a really slow, contemplative pace that might suit them personally but may not be suited for the group. In general, a not-rushed but not-glacial pace is good for groups, without dramatic speed ups or slow downs.)

Expecting the Unexpected

In some cases, when a group recites the Rosary together on a regular basis, over a long period of time, with the same people there, a common format may emerge by consensus. When that’s the situation, individuals should generally try to conform to the group’s way of doing things so as not to disturb the meditation of others by proposing–or even defiantly imposing–what they find privately preferable.

But since many groups are less stable and include different people passing in an out of them, some variability is to be expected with some groups.

When that happens, people should treat it as an opportunity to experience the Rosary in a different way. It may not be the way that they personally would have done it, were they leading the whole thing, but they should “go with the flow” and not get bent out of shape internally (or externally).

In particular, they should recognize that different people have different spiritualities and not look down on the different spirituality of someone else. If another person adds a prayer that you wouldn’t have added, fine. If they omit a prayer that you would have included, fine. If they substitute a different prayer, fine.

What we should not do is look down our noses at others for their differences in these matters. Nobody is “a better Catholic” because they maximize the number of prayers . . . or minimize it . . . or use different ones.

We’re all just different . . . which is the will of God.

What do you think?

By the Way . . .

popebenedict — He has interesting things to say on the Book of Revelation

I’ve gone into this kind of information before with the Secret Information Club.

If you haven’t already joined, you might want to check out my Secret Information Club. In fact, if you join then the very first think you’ll get is an “interview” with Pope Benedict about the book of Revelation. (I composed questions and then took the answers from his writings.) It’s fascinating reading, so I hope you’ll check it out.

You should click here to learn more or sign up using this form:

If you have any difficulty, just email me at jimmy@secretinfoclub.com.

Thanks, and I hope you like the club!

Why Is the Immaculate Conception Important?

A reader writes:

Can you point me in the direction of why the Immaculate Conception is important in regards to salvation?

A follow up or clarification might be how does Mary’s Immaculate Conception point to Christ’s redeeming act on the cross?

First of all, let’s deal with a common misunderstanding: The Immaculate Conception does not refer to the conception of Christ by the Virgin Mary. Instead, it refers to the conception of Mary in such a way that she was preserved free from all stain of original sin.

I gather that the first question may be based on a common Protestant objection to the Immaculate Conception.

This objection is based on the fact that the Immaculate Conception has been infallibly defined by the Church and so is required belief for Catholics. To know that it is infallibly defined, to know that beliefs that are infallibly defined must be accepted, and to deliberately reject such belief would fulfill the conditions for mortal sin.

So what makes the Immaculate Conception so important that our salvation should hinge on it?

At First Glance

The concern expressed in the objection is understandable. At first glance, the Immaculate Conception does not seem like something that our salvation ought to hinge upon.

After all, it’s not a truth directly connected with how to achieve salvation. It’s not like accepting belief in God, repenting of sin, having faith in Christ’s atonement, and being baptized. It’s not one of what theologians would call soteriological beliefs (from “soteriology”–the doctrine of salvation).

Compared to the the Trinity, the central mystery of the Christian faith, the Immaculate Conception is lower down on what the Second Vatican Council referred to as the “hierarchy of truths.”

This is illustrated, among other ways, by the fact that the Immaculate Conception was not infallibly defined until 1854

So what makes it important enough that our salvation should hinge on accepting it?

Another Way of Looking at the Issue

Consider this fact: The Bible discusses angels and the fact that they are rational, non-physical beings created by God.

We are obliged to believe in the existence of angels because the Bible is the inspired, written expression of God’s word, and as such it has the Holy Spirit as its primary author. Consequently, whatever Scripture asserts (in the proper sense) is something asserted by the Holy Spirit.

You might look at the doctrine of angels (angelology) and say, “This isn’t directly related to our salvation. It might be helpful to us in some way to know about the existence of angels, but they are clearly far down the hierarchy of truths.”

In fact, knowing about the existence of angels is not dissimilar to knowing about the existence of aliens. If God has created other rational physical beings in the universe, it might be of some use to know about them, but that knowledge isn’t essential to our salvation.

One might object that angels have, in fact, interacted with our race, which is true, but that doesn’t make their existence a truth of soteriology. (Just as if it turned out that aliens had interacted with our race, that wouldn’t make their existence a truth of soteriology, either.)

The point is this . . .

It’s a Question of What God Reveals

The reason that we are obliged to believe in the existence of angels but not aliens is that God has revealed the existence of the former to us but not the latter.

For us to reject the existence of angels would be to reject the authority of God as our teacher, and to do that knowingly and deliberately would be a mortal sin.

For those who have been exposed to God’s revelation such that they know he has revealed the existence of angels, their salvation does hinge on their believing in angels–not because the doctrine of angels is high up in the hierarchy of truths, and not because it is a truth directly connected with salvation, but because it is a truth God has revealed.

We are obliged to accept whatever God has revealed. We may have questions at times about what the meaning is of something he has revealed, but if we know for a fact that a particular proposition has been declared to us by God, we must accept it in order to be in union with him.

This is what the Church refers to as having divine faith, which includes belief in God and in whatever he reveals–because of the authority of him who reveals it.

There is another mode of faith, though . . .

Catholic Faith

Catholic faith refers to the faith that we are called to exercise when the Church has definitively proposed something. It also ultimately rests on divine faith, because the Church has no teaching authority apart from God.

However, God has given the Church the authority to teach us and even to infallibly proclaim things to us in certain situations. He also has revealed that this is the case, and so divine faith entails Catholic faith.

One of the key functions of the Church’s teaching authority, or Magisterium, is to help us understand what God has revealed, to make sure that we don’t ignore or misinterpret it, and it has done so in a variety of ways down the centuries.

Early in Church history, the truths that are at the top of the hierarchy of truths were infallibly defined–the existence of one and only one God, the divinity of the Son, the divinity of the Holy Spirit, etc. And over time, once the most important issues were taken care of, the Church has deemed it appropriate to define truths that are lower in the hierarchy.

The Immaculate Conception

By 1854, the Magisterium determined that the time had come to define the Immaculate Conception of Mary, and so Pope Pius IX defined it in that year.

It had already been divinely revealed and thus called for divine faith, but not that it had been infallibly proclaimed by the Church, it came to call for catholic faith as well.

As such, it is obligatory for us, not because it is a truth at the top of the hierarchy of truths, not because it is directly connected with how to be saved, but because it has been infallibly proposed by the Church using the authority given to her by God. To know all this and to deliberately reject it would thus be to reject the teaching authority of God, and thus commit a mortal sin.

That’s true of anything that must be believed by divine faith or by catholic faith, for both are backed by the authority of God.

God, for reasons known to him, deemed it useful for us to know about the existence of angels, and so he revealed that truth. He also deemed it useful for us to know about the Immaculate Conception of his Son’s mother, and so he revealed that as well.

To promote knowledge and ensure belief in the latter revelation, the Church deemed it useful to exercise the authority God gave it to infallibly define it.

The reason why has to do with the reader’s section question . . .

The Immaculate Conception & the Cross

The Immaculate Conception can be related to Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross in various ways. Some of these go beyond Church doctrine and into the realm of theological elaboration. But here are two ways that seem certain. . . .

The Immaculate Conception Prepares for the Cross

First, the Immaculate Conception prepares for the Cross by making Mary a fitting mother for the Son of God, who came to die on the Cross. It isn’t that God had to make Mary immaculate in order to send his Son into the world. He didn’t. God is omnipotent, and his power is not limited. He could send his Son into the world without an immaculate mother if he chose.

But it was fitting that the mother of Christ be a holy woman, and in fact a woman who was a perfect example of holiness. Thus he prepared her for this role from the moment of her conception by giving her a special grace to preserve her from all stain of original sin.

This is why in the apostolic constitution Ineffabilis Deus, in which he defined the Immaculate Conception, Pius IX spoke of it being “fitting” that Christ’s mother would be so prepared, not that it would be “necessary” that she be so prepared.

The Immaculate Conception Reflects the Cross

Second, the Immaculate Conception reflects the cross in that it is what Jesus did on the Cross that made the Immaculate Conception possible.

By preserving Mary from all stain of original sin, God thus redeemed her. He redeemed her in an even more spectacular way that he does us, for he preserved her from falling into sin rather than pulling her out of it after she had fallen into it.

This is why the Catechism of the Catholic Church, quoting in part the Second Vatican Council, explains the Immaculate Conception by saying:

508 From among the descendants of Eve, God chose the Virgin Mary to be the mother of his Son. “Full of grace”, Mary is “the most excellent fruit of redemption” (Sacrosanctum Concilium 103): from the first instant of her conception, she was totally preserved from the stain of original sin and she remained pure from all personal sin throughout her life.

But since all redemption comes to mankind through the Cross, it was the Cross itself that made the Immaculate Conception possible.

There is also another way in which the Immaculate Conception reflects the Cross . . .

An Icon of Our Destiny

Although God does not redeem us the same way he redeemed Mary, at the beginning of our lives, he will eventually free us of all stain of original sin as well. We will all one day be “stainless” (immaculate) if we persevere in his grace.

Thus, by redeeming Mary in such a way that she was given this gift while still in this life–and at the very beginning of her life–he made her an icon of what he will one day do for all of us.

Mary thus shows us what we an be–and will become–as a result of Christ’s death on the Cross, if we only persevere in the Christian life. She shows us the fruit of the Cross in one who is a mere human being, like us.

Christ also show us what we will become, for as Scripture says, when he appears again we will be like him, for we will see him as he is.

He, of course, is not just human but also the divine Son of God. Mary, however, is just human, and thus she serves as a direct example of what it is like for a human to be fully conformed to the image of her Son.

All these may offered as reasons why God–and the Church–deemed it important for us to know about the Immaculate Conception.

By the Way . . .

I’m currently preparing a mailing for the Secret Information Club in which I talk about Pope Benedict’s book recommendations for summer reading.

I had to delay the mailing a few days while I’m waiting on eye surgery. (I was able to get the piece composed, but not loaded into the highly graphical interface to send it.)

As a result, there’s still time to sign up!

thoughtful-benedict — Would you like a book recommendation from the pope?

Assuming all goes well with the eye surgery (prayers appreciated!), I should be sending out the special mailing with Pope Benedict’s summer reading recommendations later this week.

You’ll also get additional fascinating things. In fact, the very first thing you’ll get when you sign up is an “interview” I did with Pope Benedict on the Book of Revelation (I composed the questions and took the answers from his writings). Its fascinating stuff, so be sure not to miss out!

To find out what Pope Benedict recommends for summer reading (and it’s not big heavy theological works but stuff anybody can read–sometimes in an hour or less), sign up at www.SecretInfoClub.com or use this handy form:

Just email me if you have any difficulty.

VIDEO: Is the Rosary Just “Vain Repetitions”?

We’re coming up on May–a month associated with the Virgin Mary–so here’s a new video on one of the most common objections to the rosary: the charge that it amounts to “vain repetitions,” in violation of Jesus’ command (Matt. 6:7).

By the way, I’m also preparing an “interview” with John Paul II on the rosary, so if you’d like to get his wisdom on this special devotion, sign up for the Secret Information Club and on May 1st you’ll get it by email.

You should sign up for the Secret Information Club using the form on the right (top) or by clicking here to go to SecretInfoClub.com.

Has the Consecration Requested by Our Lady of Fatima Been Made or Not?

In 1929, Our Lady of Fatima appeared to Sr. Lucia and asked that a special consecration be performed by the pope. Much hinged on this.

Multiple popes have performed acts similar to the one requested, but has any of them fulfilled what was requested in 1929?

If any have, how do we know?

What did John Paul II think? What about others at the Holy See? What about Sr. Lucia herself?

And–for non-Catholics and others not familiar with Fatima–what is all of this about, anyway?

These are among the questions we explore in this week’s episode of the Jimmy Akin Podcast!

Click Play to listen . . .

or you can . . .

CLICK HERE!

. . . or subscribe another way (one of many ways!) at JimmyAkinPodcast.Com.
SHOW NOTES:

JIMMY AKIN PODCAST EPISODE 030 (02/19/12)

In this episode Deacon Tom Fox of Catholic Vitamins asks how to respond to claims that the papal consecration requested by Our Lady of Fatima has not been made.

THE MESSAGE OF FATIMA: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000626_message-fatima_en.html

THE LAST SECRET OF FATIMA: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00378L4T8?ie=UTF8&tag=jimmyakincom-20&creativeASIN=B00378L4T8

CROSSING THE THRESHOLD OF HOPE: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0679765611/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=jimmyakincom-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0679765611

TWO LETTERS FROM SR. LUCIA: http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/Fatima1984.htm

Today’s Music: Ave Maria (JewelBeat.Com)

WHAT’S YOUR QUESTION? WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO ASK?

Call me at 512-222-3389!

jimmyakinpodcast@gmail.com

www.JimmyAkinPodcast.com

Join Jimmy’s Secret Information Club!

www.SecretInfoClub.com

Click here to get the Jimmy Akin Cast app for Android at Amazon.com

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

What Does the Church Teach About the Brown Scapular?

A member of the Secret Information Club who I will codename Agent Mount Carmel writes:

Can you sometime share more on scapulars–the little brown ones for regular people to use?

I am an RCIA Candidate.

Happy to oblige!

I like to start by covering what the Church’s official teaching is regarding things, and despite the rich devotional tradition connected with scapulars, there isn’t as much official teaching as you might think, at least not in recent documents. One of the fullest recent statements came from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments a few years ago in their Directory on Popular Piety and the Liturgy, which states:

The Brown Scapular and other Scapulars

205. The history of Marian piety also includes “devotion” to various scapulars, the most common of which is devotion to the Scapular of Our Lady of Mount Carmel. Its use is truly universal and, undoubtedly, its is one of those pious practices which the Council described as “recommended by the Magisterium throughout the centuries”.

The Scapular of Mount Carmel is a reduced form of the religious habit of the Order of the Friars of the Blessed Virgin of Mount Carmel. Its use is very diffuse and often independent of the life and spirituality of the Carmelite family.

The Scapular is an external sign of the filial relationship established between the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother and Queen of Mount Carmel, and the faithful who entrust themselves totally to her protection, who have recourse to her maternal intercession, who are mindful of the primacy of the spiritual life and the need for prayer.

The Scapular is imposed by a special rite of the Church which describes it as ” a reminder that in Baptism we have been clothed in Christ, with the assistance of the Blessed Virgin Mary, solicitous for our conformation to the Word Incarnate, to the praise of the Trinity, we may come to our heavenly home wearing our nuptial garb”.

The imposition of the Scapular should be celebrated with “the seriousness of its origins. It should not be improvised. The Scapular should be imposed following a period of preparation during which the faithful are made aware of the nature and ends of the association they are about to join and of the obligations they assume”.

Also on the Vatican level is this note from Pope Paul VI’s apostolic constitution on indulgences, Indulgentiarum Doctrina:

n.17—The faithful who use with devotion an object of piety (crucifix, cross, rosary, scapular or medal) properly blessed by any priest, can acquire a partial indulgence.

But if this object of piety is blessed by the Supreme Pontiff or any bishop, the faithful who use it devoutly can also acquire a plenary indulgence on the feast of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, provided they also make a profession of faith using any legitimate formula.

The plenary indulgence is, of course, on the usual conditions that apply to plenary indulgences in general (see n. 6-11 in Indulgentiarum Doctrina).

Concerning the brown scapular more particularly, I would recommend this message by Bl. John Paul II to the Carmelite community back in 2001, in which he deals with the subject in a profound but simple way. Among other things, he said:

Over time this rich Marian heritage of Carmel has become, through the spread of the Holy Scapular devotion, a treasure for the whole Church. By its simplicity, its anthropological value and its relationship to Mary’s role in regard to the Church and humanity, this devotion was so deeply and widely accepted by the People of God that it came to be expressed in the memorial of 16 July on the liturgical calendar of the universal Church.

5. The sign of the Scapular points to an effective synthesis of Marian spirituality, which nourishes the devotion of believers and makes them sensitive to the Virgin Mother’s loving presence in their lives. The Scapular is essentially a “habit”. Those who receive it are associated more or less closely with the Order of Carmel and dedicate themselves to the service of Our Lady for the good of the whole Church (cf. “Formula of Enrolment in the Scapular”, in the Rite of Blessing of and Enrolment in the Scapular, approved by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, 5 January 1996). Those who wear the Scapular are thus brought into the land of Carmel, so that they may “eat its fruits and its good things” (cf. Jer 2: 7), and experience the loving and motherly presence of Mary in their daily commitment to be clothed in Jesus Christ and to manifest him in their life for the good of the Church and the whole of humanity (cf. “Formula of Enrolment in the Scapular”, cit.).

Therefore two truths are evoked by the sign of the Scapular: on the one hand, the constant protection of the Blessed Virgin, not only on life’s journey, but also at the moment of passing into the fullness of eternal glory; on the other, the awareness that devotion to her cannot be limited to prayers and tributes in her honour on certain occasions, but must become a “habit”, that is, a permanent orientation of one’s own Christian conduct, woven of prayer and interior life, through frequent reception of the sacraments and the concrete practice of the spiritual and corporal works of mercy. In this way the Scapular becomes a sign of the “covenant” and reciprocal communion between Mary and the faithful: indeed, it concretely translates the gift of his Mother, which Jesus gave on the Cross to John and, through him, to all of us, and the entrustment of the beloved Apostle and of us to her, who became our spiritual Mother.

I should point out that there are several points connected with the brown scapular that are sources of some controversy, including:

Whether the scapular was proposed in a private revelation to St. Simon Stock.
What is meant by the claim (allegedly made by the Blessed Virgin to St. Simon Stock) that anyone who dies wearing the brown scapular will be saved.
Whether, later on, Pope John XXII received a revelation from Mary that those who wore the scapular during life will be delivered from purgatory on the Saturday after their deaths, should certain conditions be fulfilled (this is called the “Sabbatine privilege”).

For further reading on these points, you might try the following resources:

I hope these help, and good luck, Agent Mount Carmel!

(Not a member of Jimmy’s Secret Information Club? You should sign up now at www.SecretInfoClub.org or use the form in the right hand margin.)

PODCAST 018 Medjugorje Special

Here’s an episode of the Jimmy Akin podcast in which I cover the subject of Medjugorje.

You can use the player and download link at the bottom of this post to listen.

This post also contains links to useful resources on the Medjugorje question.

To subscribe to the podcast, you can . . .

CLICK HERE!

. . . or subscribe another way (one of many ways!) at JimmyAkinPodcast.Com.

SHOW NOTES:

JIMMY AKIN PODCAST EPISODE 018 (10/29/11)

* VINCE FROM ST. CHARLES, IL, ASKS ABOUT MEDJUGORJE.

1978 CDF Norms:
http://d-rium.blogspot.com/p/normae-s-congregationis.html

Diocese of Mostar statements:
http://www.cbismo.com/index.php?menuID=98

Međugorje: Secrets, Messages, Vocations, Prayers, Confessions, Commissions
http://www.cbismo.com/index.php?mod=vijest&vijest=101

2006 Homily:
http://www.cbismo.com/index.php?mod=vijest&vijest=71

Background on the “Herzegovinian Affair”:
http://medjugorjedocuments.blogspot.com/2010/11/1975-decree-romanis-pontificibus.html

2006 News Report:
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0604177.htm

2009 Homily:
http://www.cbismo.com/index.php?mod=vijest&vijest=366

2010 Summary of developments:
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/new_medjugorje_commission/

2010 Commission Announcement:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/holy_see_confirms_formation_of_medjugorje_commission/

English translation of interview with Archbishop Amato regarding the Norms:
http://catholiclight.stblogs.org/archives/2010/03/medjugorje-comm.html

WHAT’S YOUR QUESTION?
WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO ASK?
Call me at 512-222-3389!
jimmyakinpodcast@gmail.com

www.jimmyakinpodcast.com

Today’s Music: Ave Maria (JewelBeat.Com)
Copyright © 2011 by Jimmy Akin

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

VIDEO: How did the Church Fathers explain the perpetual virginity of Mary?

GET THE BOOK.

GET THE AUTOGRAPHED VERSION WITH EXCLUSIVE BONUS INTERVIEW ON CD.

America’s 1st Approved Apparition Was WHAT???

Yesterday’s news reports that Our Lady of Good Help had just become America’s first approved apparition caused many folks to do a doubletake.

Some wondered whether Our Lady of Guadalupe should count as such since Mexico is part of North America. If one wants to say that Guadalupe was North America’s first approved apparition, fine. However, one can’t say Guadalupe was “America’s” first approved apparition since, when used in the singular, “America” refers to the United States of America. The continent Mexico is part of is “North America,” and the overall landmass that includes “South America” is known as “the Americas” (plural, with the definite article).

But enough linguistic hairsplitting!

Others had the question, “What about Our Lady of America? Wasn’t that already approved?”

The short but understandably surprising answer is “no.” It’s not approved.

“But didn’t then-Archbishop/now-Cardinal Raymond Burke issue a letter in 2007 that said it was approved?”

Again, the short but understandably surprising answer is “no.” He didn’t.

The reason that the answer is understandably surprising is that he did in 2007 send a letter to the U.S. bishops explaining Our Lady of America, speaking highly of it, and noting that the devotion connected with it has been approved, but this is not the same as saying that apparition itself is approved.

Am I just linguistic hairsplitting again?

Not according to the Holy See—or, more specifically, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. I’m actually articulating a point that the CDF wants people to understand.

Lemme ‘splain.

Back in 1978 the CDF issued an instruction on apparitions which was privately (sub secreto) circulated to the bishops of the world. Because it was so widely circulated, it was leaked, which means that now you can read a copy of it in English here. These represent the norms currently in force to guide bishops in dealing with apparitions.

So what do the norms say?

A key passage describes a three-stage process that apparition approval is to follow (assuming the approval happens at all; the process can be aborted at any stage):

So that the ecclesiastical authority is able to acquire more certainty on such or such an apparition or revelation, it will proceed in the following way:

a) Initially, to judge the facts according to positive and negative criteria (cf. below, n.1).

b) Then, if this examination appears favorable, to allow certain public demonstrations of cult and devotion, while continuing to investigate the facts with extreme prudence (which is equivalent to the formula: “for the moment, nothing is opposed to it”).

c) Finally, after a certain time, and in the light of experience, (starting from a particular study of the spiritual fruits generated by the new devotion), to give a judgement on the authenticity of the supernatural character, if the case requires this.

Stage 1 is thus for the bishop to do an initial investigation. If that checks out then in Stage 2 he may provisionally authorize public demonstrations of cult and devotion in connection with the apparition while continuing a diligent examination. Then, after more time and investigation, should the circumstances warrant, he may in Stage 3 approve the apparition itself.

The final Stage 3 approval of the apparition is distinct from the provisionary Stage 2 authorization of public devotion. That is why the CDF norms gloss this authorization by saying it is equivalent to “for the moment, nothing is opposed to it.”

“For the moment, nothing is opposed to it” is not the same as what Bishop Ricken said yesterday concerning Our Lady of Good Help, which was:

It remains to me now, the Twelfth Bishop of the Diocese of Green Bay and the lowliest of the servants of Mary, to declare with moral certainty and in accord with the norms of the Church:

that the events, apparitions and locutions given to Adele Brise in October, 1859 do exhibit the substance of supernatural character, and I do hereby approve these apparitions as worthy of belief (although not obligatory) by the Christian faithful.

That’s a Stage 3 approval: The apparition itself, not just devotion connected with it, has been recommended to the faithful as worthy of (non-obligatory) belief.

So what is the status of Our Lady of America?

Basically, it’s at Stage 2—the same stage that Our Lady of Good Help was at until December 8th. Some years ago the local bishop (who was himself the seer’s former spiritual director) authorized devotion connected with Our Lady of America, and granted an imprimatur to a book connected with it (which is a totally separate issue, canonically), but neither previous local bishops nor the current local bishop has given Stage 3 authorization to the apparition itself.

If you read now-Cardinal Burke’s letter carefully (you can read it here), he is careful always to speak of the devotion having been approved. He never says that the apparition itself has been approved.

That’s because of its Stage 2 status. The local bishop (who was not Burke; this was when Burke was Archbishop of St. Louis, but the Our Lady of America phenomena were reported in the dioceses of Fort Wayne and Toledo) had not proceeded to Stage 3. Burke is thus giving an interesting and supportive treatment of the apparition and the devotion connected with it, but he only claims formal approval for the devotion.

This distinction is one that the CDF wants the public to understand because a little later on in the norms it has more to say about Stage 2 situations. Section II, 2 of the document states:

At the legitimate request of the faithful (when they are in communion with their pastors and are not driven by a sectarian spirit), the competent ecclesiastical Authority can intervene to authorize and promote various forms of worship and devotion if, assuming the criteria given above having been applied, nothing is opposed to it. But there must be vigilance nevertheless, to ensure that the faithful do not regard this way of acting as an approval by the Church of the supernatural character of the event in question. . . .

So the distinction between Stage 2 approval (of devotion related to the apparition) and Stage 3 approval (of the supernatural character of the apparition) is something that the CDF itself wants the public to understand.

Presumably, the CDF expects bishops granting Stage 2 approval to stress the difference between the two, so that the public understands.

It is evident from the confusion in this case, though, that more work needs to be done in alerting the public to this difference.

BTW, in his letter on Our Lady of America Cardinal Burke alludes to some question of the canonical status of a “community” (actually, it appears to be just one person) promoting Our Lady of America. He rightly notes that the status of this community is a separate canonical question from whether the devotion has been approved. But this passage in his letter is bound to raise curiosity about what the issues are connected with this community and what the current local bishops’ stand is. Therefore . . .

HERE’S A STATEMENT FROM THE DIOCESE OF TOLEDO ON THE SITUATION

What are your thoughts?

America Gets Its 1st Approved Apparition!

Yippie!

Approved apparitions are cool!

The apparition took place in 1859 in what is now the Diocese of Green Bay, Wisconsin. For the last two years a diocesan commission has been evaluating its authenticity, and on Wednesday (Dec. 8, the feast of the Immaculate Conception), Bishop David Ricken announced its approval.

Apparently, he was surprised to learn that this was the first such approval of an apparition in the United States. He also reportedly was surprised to learn that it hadn’t already been approved since his predecessor bishops had supported it (albeit without giving it formal approval—note well that this is something that can happen; just because a bishop says something nice about an apparition does not mean it has been formally approved).

As this is the first American approval of an apparition, it is instructive to see the kind of language that Bishop Ricken used (most other such approvals were done pre-Internet and/or in other languages and thus have not been seen by most).

THE COMPLETE TEXT OF HIS DECREE CAN BE READ HERE (.pdf)

After the bishop briefly reviews the history of the apparition and the investigation of it, he arrives at the money part:

It remains to me now, the Twelfth Bishop of the Diocese of Green Bay and the lowliest of the servants of Mary, to declare with moral certainty and in accord with the norms of the Church:

that the events, apparitions and locutions given to Adele Brise in October, 1859 do exhibit the substance of supernatural character, and I do hereby approve these apparitions as worthy of belief (although not obligatory) by the Christian faithful.

These Marian apparitions are now commemorated under the title “Our Lady of Good Help,” and there is a corresponding shrine in Champion, Wisconsin.

So what happened in 1859?

A young woman named Adele Brise—28-year old Belgian immigrant to what was then the American frontier—was taking wheat to a local mill when she saw a lady in white standing between two trees (and, yes, she did report the lady as having golden hair in the vision, which would most likely be based on Adele’s ethnic background). The lady then vanished. She saw the same thing the next day. At first Adele thought the lady might be a soul in purgatory who needed prayers, and she was frightened. She communicated this to several people, one of whom, a local priest,

told her that if it were a heavenly messenger, she would see it again, and it would not harm her, but to ask in God’s name who it was and what it desired of her.

Note that these are a paraphrase of the two classic, basic questions, “Who are you?” and “What do you want?” (I once recommended the same questions to a child who called in to Catholic Answers Live reporting that he heard a voice from an unknown source—if the voice came back. Unfortunately, I never heard whether it did or what the voice answered. But I’m glad to see the advice I gave in modern times echoed in this case. They seem to me the best questions to ask of an unknown, possibly supernatural agency.)

Meanwhile, back in 1859, what happened next?

After that, Adele had more courage. She started home with her two companions, and a man who was clearing land for the Holy Cross Fathers at Bay Settlement accompanied them.

“As they approached the hallowed spot, Adele could see the beautiful lady, clothed in dazzling white, with a yellow sash around her waist. Her dress fell to her feet in graceful folds. She had a crown of stars around her head, and her long, golden, wavy hair fell loosely around her shoulders. Such a heavenly light shone around her that Adele could hardly look back at her sweet face. Overcome by this heavenly light and the beauty of her amiable visitor, Adele fell on her knees.

” ‘In God’s name, who are you and what do you want of me?’ asked Adele, as she had been directed.

“ ‘I am the Queen of Heaven, who prays for the conversion of sinners, and I wish you to do the same. You received Holy Communion this morning, and that is well. But you must do more. Make a general confession, and offer Communion for the conversion of sinners. If they do not convert and do penance, my Son will be obliged to punish them’

“ ‘Adele, who is it?’’ said one of the women. ‘O why can’t we see her as you do?’ said another weeping.

“ ‘Kneel,’ said Adele, ‘the Lady says she is the Queen of Heaven.’ Our Blessed Lady turned, looked kindly at them, and said, ‘Blessed are they that believe without seeing. What are you doing here in idleness…while your companions are working in the vineyard of my Son?’

“ ‘What more can I do, dear Lady?’ said Adele, weeping.

“ ‘Gather the children in this wild country and teach them what they should know for salvation’

“ ‘But how shall I teach them who know so little myself?’ replied Adele.

“ ‘Teach them,’ replied her radiant visitor, ‘their catechism, how to sign themselves with the sign of the Cross, and how to approach the sacraments; that is what I wish you to do. Go and fear nothing. I will help you.’”

The manifestation of Our Lady then lifted her hands, as though beseeching a blessing for those at her feet, and slowly vanished, leaving Adele overwhelmed and prostrate on the ground [SOURCE].

And that was all, in terms of the apparitions. They were short and straightforward.

Following this, Adele devoted herself wholeheartedly and despite obstacles to her mission of educating children. She became a Third Order Franciscan Sister. Many people began to hold pilgrimages to the site, where a shrine was built. Healings were reported, and twelve years later the site of the shrine was spared from a tremendous wildfire that scorched large swaths of forest around it.

And so, given the convergence of (1) the (obvious) compatibility of the message with the Christian faith, (2) the revolution in the life of Sr. Adele, and (3) the apparent fruit—including apparent answered prayer—that followed the apparition in the lives of others, Bishop Ricken approved the apparition, concluding with “moral certainty” (not absolute certainty) that it was of divine origin and could be recommended to the faithful as such, though this recommendation does not carry an obligation of belief. One is free to discount the idea that the apparition is of supernatural origin, and in doing so one does not sin.

While apparitions differ from one to another, it may be noted that this case corresponds fairly closely to the core paradigm for approved Marian apparitions, which may be phrased along these lines: On a limited number of occasions, the Virgin Mary appears to a young, uneducated person—usually female—and imparts a message of that proclaims no new doctrine but instead conveys both warning and consolation focusing on the salvation of souls and suggesting a way to promote this; the life of the visionary is revolutionized, and the visionary pursues some form of religious vocation (if not already undertaken); the visionary seeks the guidance of competent authorities in the evaluation of the manifestations and is obedient to ecclesiastical authority; some form of further evidence of answered prayer or the miraculous is forthcoming.

So.

America gets its first approved apparition. Kewl beans.

And, its a straightforward and uncomplicated one that should be uncontroversial and thus serve to highlight it as a useful spiritual signpost. Kewler still.

OFFICIAL SITE OF THE SHRINE.

BIO OF THE VISIONARY, ADELE BRISE.

ACCOUNT OF THE APPARITIONS.

Are the 15 Promises of the Rosary Reliable?

(Originally appeared on my blog at ncregister.com)

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?