Strong and Steadfast
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
@123jussi I had deleted my account, but re-created it to find out what you're talking about. Doing some googling, I can't find anything related to any kind of admonition against this devotion. It's a devotion from the 14 century. Pope Urban VI recommended it in the same century. It received papal approval in the 16th. It received papal approval again in 1863. It was given an imprimatur in 1903, and …More
@123jussi I had deleted my account, but re-created it to find out what you're talking about. Doing some googling, I can't find anything related to any kind of admonition against this devotion. It's a devotion from the 14 century. Pope Urban VI recommended it in the same century. It received papal approval in the 16th. It received papal approval again in 1863. It was given an imprimatur in 1903, and apparently again in 1940.
Can you please provide a source for your claim about a papal admonition?
I do see a brief note that from one published source that says "Are published under sanction of the Decree of November 18,
1966, published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, Vol. 58, No. 16
of December 29, 1966."
But I can't read the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, because it appears to be only published in one language, so I have no idea what the sanction is. Whatever it is, it doesn't appear to limit the publication or application of this devotion.
I also see a Fisheaters article which is critical of the attached promises, but not of the prayers. They also cited nothing to back up their negative claims.
Can you please provide a source for your claim about a papal admonition?
I do see a brief note that from one published source that says "Are published under sanction of the Decree of November 18,
1966, published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, Vol. 58, No. 16
of December 29, 1966."
But I can't read the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, because it appears to be only published in one language, so I have no idea what the sanction is. Whatever it is, it doesn't appear to limit the publication or application of this devotion.
I also see a Fisheaters article which is critical of the attached promises, but not of the prayers. They also cited nothing to back up their negative claims.
I said these prayers every day for years and did what I could to promote the devotion until a good traditional priest showed me a copy of the monitum and I looked into it and found it was true. The prayers are beautiful but the promises can not be relied upon although God will probably do it for you anyway. I just started saying extra rosaries and have developed a deep love and trust in the promises …More
I said these prayers every day for years and did what I could to promote the devotion until a good traditional priest showed me a copy of the monitum and I looked into it and found it was true. The prayers are beautiful but the promises can not be relied upon although God will probably do it for you anyway. I just started saying extra rosaries and have developed a deep love and trust in the promises of the BVB.
Strong and Steadfast
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Thank you for the link. I am myself able to verify, with Google translate, the contents of the "Monitum" cited there, through the Acta Apostolicae Sedis for 1954.
It's interesting, then, that there's another papal decision on the matter in 1966. However, I am unable to find that one - probably because I do not understand yet how the AAS is organized. If anyone else wants to give it a try, it should …More
Thank you for the link. I am myself able to verify, with Google translate, the contents of the "Monitum" cited there, through the Acta Apostolicae Sedis for 1954.
It's interesting, then, that there's another papal decision on the matter in 1966. However, I am unable to find that one - probably because I do not understand yet how the AAS is organized. If anyone else wants to give it a try, it should prove interesting.
Nevertheless, in the link, the author of the critique is simply not credible on the matter for several reasons. Namely (and certainly not a complete list):
1. He says, "some of them definitely are not [consistent with Church teaching]", and then what follows doesn't show any inconsistency.
2. He says, "here is a sampling of 6 of those that are not" - and only gives 5. That itself is an inconsistency on his part.
3. He says, "How is it possible for anyone to be 'confirmed in grace'?" He seems to be implying that he simply doesn't understand what the promise even is - that's not showing how it's not consistent with Church teaching, but rather simply that the author doesn't understand the language used (which is not surprising if indeed the promises are from the early 14th century).
4. He says, "What is the first degree of perfection? This is nebulous and ill-defined." So, by his own admission, this promise is not inconsistent with Church teaching, but is simply not defined well. It's pretty clear that throughout Church history private revelation from Our Lord, His Blessed Mother, and many saints has been very intentionally left nebulous, especially regarding prophecy. So this is neither evidence of inconsistency, nor is it unexpected.
5. He says, "Reciting these prayers daily for an entire year would imply some degree of perfection, but not necessarily the highest." When I read the promises, I read the "First degree of perfection" as meaning the very first possible to obtain - meaning the lowest degree of perfection. I see no reason we should assume otherwise.
6. He says, "It is true that when we receive the Sacred Host, we are at the same time receiving the Precious Blood of Jesus. Why is a distinction necessary here?" He may not be aware that in the 14th century, it was still the norm to receive under both species. While it is not possible to separate the substance of the Eucharist into separate body and blood of Christ, it is possible (and necessary) to separate the accidents of bread and wine. Scripture also refers to the Body of Christ separately from the Blood of Christ. I see no inconsistency here.
7. He says, "What is so significant about 30 in this context? If one were to be tragically living in mortal sin for, say, 29 or 31 years, would the promise suddenly be ineffective?" This seems to me to be reading far too much into the specific number. 30 years in this context might simply mean, "a long time".
8. He says, "Also, how does the mere intent of saying the prayers for a year constitute an act of perfect contrition?" Why does he assume that it does constitute an act of perfect contrition? There are plenty of examples throughout approved private revelation in which the Church has understood this same kind of claim without making the logical leap that the author does here. There is no indication that the promise is meant to mean that any sins will be forgiven outside of confession. And since this involves a teaching of the Church on faith or morals, any Catholic can and should assume that it means precisely that Our Lord would have mercy on the sinner and provide him the grace to go to confession (which is not always guaranteed).
9. He says, "This sounds nice, but one would have to have the fervor and sanctity of a saint such as St. Francis to receive the reward of the Seraphim or Cherubim." This statement completely misses the point. All of these kinds of promises, whether they be for the 9 First Fridays, or the 5 First Saturdays, or the Total Consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, entail special graces for those who fulfill the obligations of the promise. This statement seems to imply that God is unable to grant special graces outside of strict merit, which to me implies unbelief, rather than belief, in the power of God.
Nevertheless, I agree that Catholics should not pay too much attention to the promises associated with this devotion, if for the only reason that the pope did ban the promises in 1954. But also for other reasons, too. It seems there is no evidence that these promises were given to St. Bridget, so there can be no certainty that they were. The little knowledge of the prayers themselves that we have is from a booklet printed in the 1700's. Also there could easily be translation issues (as appears in the misunderstanding of language above), when the original was from the early 1300's.
It's interesting, then, that there's another papal decision on the matter in 1966. However, I am unable to find that one - probably because I do not understand yet how the AAS is organized. If anyone else wants to give it a try, it should prove interesting.
Nevertheless, in the link, the author of the critique is simply not credible on the matter for several reasons. Namely (and certainly not a complete list):
1. He says, "some of them definitely are not [consistent with Church teaching]", and then what follows doesn't show any inconsistency.
2. He says, "here is a sampling of 6 of those that are not" - and only gives 5. That itself is an inconsistency on his part.
3. He says, "How is it possible for anyone to be 'confirmed in grace'?" He seems to be implying that he simply doesn't understand what the promise even is - that's not showing how it's not consistent with Church teaching, but rather simply that the author doesn't understand the language used (which is not surprising if indeed the promises are from the early 14th century).
4. He says, "What is the first degree of perfection? This is nebulous and ill-defined." So, by his own admission, this promise is not inconsistent with Church teaching, but is simply not defined well. It's pretty clear that throughout Church history private revelation from Our Lord, His Blessed Mother, and many saints has been very intentionally left nebulous, especially regarding prophecy. So this is neither evidence of inconsistency, nor is it unexpected.
5. He says, "Reciting these prayers daily for an entire year would imply some degree of perfection, but not necessarily the highest." When I read the promises, I read the "First degree of perfection" as meaning the very first possible to obtain - meaning the lowest degree of perfection. I see no reason we should assume otherwise.
6. He says, "It is true that when we receive the Sacred Host, we are at the same time receiving the Precious Blood of Jesus. Why is a distinction necessary here?" He may not be aware that in the 14th century, it was still the norm to receive under both species. While it is not possible to separate the substance of the Eucharist into separate body and blood of Christ, it is possible (and necessary) to separate the accidents of bread and wine. Scripture also refers to the Body of Christ separately from the Blood of Christ. I see no inconsistency here.
7. He says, "What is so significant about 30 in this context? If one were to be tragically living in mortal sin for, say, 29 or 31 years, would the promise suddenly be ineffective?" This seems to me to be reading far too much into the specific number. 30 years in this context might simply mean, "a long time".
8. He says, "Also, how does the mere intent of saying the prayers for a year constitute an act of perfect contrition?" Why does he assume that it does constitute an act of perfect contrition? There are plenty of examples throughout approved private revelation in which the Church has understood this same kind of claim without making the logical leap that the author does here. There is no indication that the promise is meant to mean that any sins will be forgiven outside of confession. And since this involves a teaching of the Church on faith or morals, any Catholic can and should assume that it means precisely that Our Lord would have mercy on the sinner and provide him the grace to go to confession (which is not always guaranteed).
9. He says, "This sounds nice, but one would have to have the fervor and sanctity of a saint such as St. Francis to receive the reward of the Seraphim or Cherubim." This statement completely misses the point. All of these kinds of promises, whether they be for the 9 First Fridays, or the 5 First Saturdays, or the Total Consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, entail special graces for those who fulfill the obligations of the promise. This statement seems to imply that God is unable to grant special graces outside of strict merit, which to me implies unbelief, rather than belief, in the power of God.
Nevertheless, I agree that Catholics should not pay too much attention to the promises associated with this devotion, if for the only reason that the pope did ban the promises in 1954. But also for other reasons, too. It seems there is no evidence that these promises were given to St. Bridget, so there can be no certainty that they were. The little knowledge of the prayers themselves that we have is from a booklet printed in the 1700's. Also there could easily be translation issues (as appears in the misunderstanding of language above), when the original was from the early 1300's.