If not, why?

the smart sheep

What parentsfortruth said. JPII had no place to add a mystery. That's not the way Our Lady wanted it. So no, Traditional Catholics do not say the Luminous mysteries.

The Rosary is a gift from God, straight from heaven, that God chose Mary to give to us. God did not give us the "Luminous" mysteries, even if there is nothing wrong in contemplating them. They are a John Paul novelty. They were given to us by the Blessed Pope John Paul II and have no place being said as part of the Rosary. If you wish to say it as an individual chaplet, there's not a problem with that, but the Rosary should remain unchanged, as all Holy things should.

I'm sure that BPJPII's intentions weren't malicious, but the mere imprudence on his part (especially given that it is recurring) here is inexcusable. To suggest that the Rosary should have something added to it as if it weren't already perfect (given that it came from Heaven) is only one of the many symptoms of the second Vatican Council's apostasy.

Daegus, you're a smart guy, don't fall into superstition.  If you think JPII is a real Pope, mistakenly, then you still don't have to go out of your way to call him Blessed.  You can also criticize him, as you have done.

One of the main reasons so few are sedes is because of superstition, people are afraid that in case someone is the Pope, they don't want to go against him...  You can tell it's superstition when you read AngelQueen and they rapidly toggle between angry tirades against JPII and Ratzinger and cringing obsequious flattery of the "Holy Father," treating him as if he's traditional after all and is just afraid to act on it... You know they don't believe what they're writing but they think they have to say it, because they're superstitious.  

In the 20th century, the Pope ceased to be a man and became sort of a numinous rock star that people blindly worship as if he were the Wizard of Oz.  That is not the right spirit.  You can criticize even a real Pope.  For instance, I routinely criticize Pius XII, I think he was maybe a terrible Pope -- a valid one, but terrible.  There is nothing wrong with having that opinion, even if God sees it differently, because He sees more...  That is just how I see it from my limited perspective.  Urban VI doesn't seem to be winning any popularity contests.  

You can disagree with the Pope about politics, about his style and approach, whom he favors and disfavors, about any number of things.  What you can't disagree with him about is his teaching on faith and morals.  Yet lots of trads routinely disagree with JPII about that and still think he was Pope!  This is what happens when you let fear and superstition take over.  Everything turned on its head.  

 

Maybe they are not fearful or superstitious. Maybe they just don't know. There are a lot of hidden facts and it takes a lot of reading, asking questions, etc. They are so busy trying to put food on the table for 11+ children. All they can do is go to Church and if they don't here about these hidden truths in the homily  then they wouldn't  know.

the smart sheep

No.

If not, why?

There are several reasons, but...

I cannot even remember all of the Illuminati Mysteries, but the first time I heard the list, it struck me that, as far the Gospel accounts relate, the BVM was not even present at some/all of them.  HeL-Lo-O!!!

What kind of a man, acting entirely on his own without even pretending God told him to do it, ADDS to what God revealed?  :scratchchin:

The Luminous Mysteries brought me to traditional Catholicism.

I had bought a short biography of St. Dominic for my children to read for school.  After buying it, the book didn't make it into the school boxes and sat around the house for a few months.  One cold day, my wife was bored and picked it up to read.

Very soon afterwards, the announcement was made of the Luminous Mysteries.  I was estatic and told my wife that we would have to incorporate these new, and wonderful (they were, after all, wonderful because John Paul the Great had given them to us) mysteries into our (largely non-existent) prayer life.  My wife asked one question:  "Who gave them to him?"

I re-read the article in the diocesan paper and told her I didn't know and I guessed that he came up with them himself.  My wife replied, "Why should we pray new mysteries invented by a man when the Blessed Virgin herself gave the ones we already have to St. Dominic?  If what we have is good enough for Mary, why do we need to add more?"

Well, I began to research this question and I was convinced I would find a very good explanation as to the historical issues surrounding the Rosary and why this change would be perfectly acceptable in an historical setting of development.  I began the search on a medium that was pretty new to me at the time:  the internet.

I read dozens of articles about why the Luminous Mysteries were great and wonderful and how they were a great gift to the Catholic Church, but the only reason any of the articles gave for this was because they were given to us by the great and wonderful Pope John Paul II.  I then stumbled upon an article from The Remnant newspaper that went in a whole new direction.  The article started off saying that the author hated to be criticle of yet another action by the pope, but went on to be very critical of the Luminous Mysteries from an historical and theological point of view.  I suddenly had no answer for my wife and was beginning to doubt my initial enthusiasm.

When I finally did find websites that loved the new mysteries and defended them from an historical point of view, they essentially explained that the reception of the Rosary by St. Dominic was nothing more than a pious myth.  They explained how the Rosary had changed over the centuries and how its original creation was based on Muslim prayer beads and its original purpose was to provide a devotion for illiterate peasants who didn't know the bible.

The more I researched, the more I discovered that many of the recommended changes in the Rosary were changes originally proposed by Bugnini, the creator of the New Mass.  I also saw how the Luminous Mysteries completely upset the historical flow of the Rosary and, once again, change for the sake of change was being foisted upon the faithful from on high.  

The Luminous Mysteries are not evil, per se.  They are simply not part of the Rosary.  If one wants to pray the Chaplet of John Paul 2, that's fine, but no traditional Catholic should be saying them in place of the Rosary.  However, I would no more say the Luminous Mysteries than I would sing Martin Luther's hymns at Mass (which, by the way, is common in the Novus Ordo).

I don't like the word "luminous" . . . reminds me of Lucifer.

In private I always only pray the sorrowful, in public I pray what the public is praying.  

I don't like the word "luminous" . . . reminds me of Lucifer.

In private I always only pray the sorrowful, in public I pray what the public is praying.  

Lucifer is Latin for light bearer - "lux, lucis" means light and "fero" means bear or carry.  It is used as a title for Christ too and appears in the Vulgate in II Peter 1:19 , although the Douay Rheims translates it as morning star. Christ is the true Light while Satan deceptively appears as a creature of light.  Lucifer is also the Latin name for the Morning Star, i.e. Venus.  

The word "luminous" comes from the Latin "lumen, luminis" which also means light.  Both "lumen" and "lux" are related to each other, going back to the same Proto Indo-European root that our word "light" comes from.

I used to pray the Luminous Mysteries before I became more traditional.  The mysteries themselves are edifying because they are events from the life of Christ.  Like Myrna, I still will pray them when with others doing so.  For example, I have prayed the Luminous Mysteries at pro-life demonstrations.