Protestants and the rosary

Paternosters Blogspot ^ | February 26, 2007 | Chris Laning

[Frank Sheed]

I grew up Protestant in the Northeastern U.S., in an area with many Irish and Italian families, so most of my playmates when I was in elementary school were Catholic. This was somewhat (ahem!) before Vatican II, and both Protestant and Catholic kids were taught by their parents (and sometimes even in Sunday School) to regard the other with suspicion, if not downright hostility. My Catholic playmates, for instance, said they were told they would spend eternity in Hell if they (literally!) so much as set foot inside a Protestant church building.

Boy, have things changed. While there are still plenty of Protestants who believe the Roman church is the Scarlet Woman of Babylon, for the most part Catholics and Protestants now acknowledge each other as fellow Christians, are often fairly relaxed about attending each other's worship services, and I suspect that informal, unofficial sharing of Communion is more common than the authorities on both sides would like to think. There are still plenty of incompatibilities (women priests, to name one) but I don't see that degree of almost superstitious mistrust of the "other" any more.

The status of the Virgin Mary is a point of difference between Catholics and Protestants, of course, and that's one of the reasons Protestants tend to be rather wary of the rosary. Unfortunately, I think people brought up Catholic often demonstrate how little they understand about their "separated brethren" when they blithely suggest that Protestants can pray the rosary too.



There are four main points I can think of about the rosary that give many Protestants problems. Briefly they are (from the Protestant point of view):
(1) What about Jesus's prohibition of "vain repetitions" in prayer?
(2) Does the Rosary give Mary too much honor?
(3) Do saints actually hear the prayers of living people?
(4) Is it legitimate to ask saints for favor?

I should make it clear here that when I say "Protestants" in this discussion, I am not including modern Anglicans or Episcopalians. There are certainly Anglicans who do say the rosary, either in the same form common to Roman Catholics or some other form, such as the modern Anglican rosary (which I still want to write about sometime). But what Americans usually call "mainstream" Protestants (Presbyterians, Methodists, etc.), and essentially all of the more evangelical and conservative Protestants, are generally opposed to the rosary as a Roman practice, and that's who I'm referring to here.

As I've said, Catholics do sometimes cheerfully assert that Protestants, too, can "honor" the Virgin Mary and pray the rosary. But I've noticed that somehow, all the Catholic stories that circulate about Protestants praying the rosary tend to end with the story's Protestant becoming a Catholic. If those are the only stories you ever hear, the (inadvertent) message is "If you start praying the rosay, you'll become Catholic" -- as though the rosary were the first step down a slippery slope!

I noticed this on Rosary Workshop's "Why pray the rosary?" page and mentioned it to the website's owner, Margot Carter-Blair -- who shared my amusement, once I'd pointed it out. Margot is now looking for some good stories about Protestants praying the rosary who stay Protestant.

Hmmm. Looks like this is the start of another series of articles....



The first challenge Protestants frequently offer is Matthew chapter 6, verse 7, where Jesus says (in the original King James 1611 spelling): "But when yee pray, use not vaine repetitions, as the heathen doe. For they thinke that they shall be heard for their much speaking."

This verse has had various English translations. Wycliffe's version from around 1400 says: "But in preiyng nyle yee speke myche, as hethene men doon, for thei gessen that thei ben herd in her myche speche." ("But in praying, nil [do not] ye speak much, as heathen men do, for they think that they are heard in their much speech.")

The Bishop's Bible (1568) says, amusingly, "But when ye pray, babble not much, as the heathen do. For they thynke that they shalbe heard, for theyr much bablinges sake."

One modern version puts it: "And in praying do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do; for they think that they will be heard for their many words." In all the versions the next verse says "Therefore be not lyke them, for your father knoweth, what thynges ye haue nede of, before ye aske of hym."

The King James version, however, is so entrenched in the English language that "vain repetitions" is the actual phrase the debate tends to focus on. Protestants generally assert that any repetition of the same prayer over and over must be "vain" by definition, since God really only needs to be asked once, and repeating the same words doesn't add anything.

The usual (rather feeble) Catholic defense is to argue that Christ didn't mean to prohibit all repetition but only vain repetition -- which is a very incomplete answer, since it leaves open the question of how you tell whether it's vain or not.

I think there's a point here, though: saying the same thing over and over doesn't necessarily mean it's less sincere. Parents and children, husbands and wives tell each other "I love you" over and over, and it doesn't seem to mean any less to them for being repeated.

Protestants generally don't see that their own argument isn't completely consistent. There may be no particular virtue in repeating the same prayer over again, but Protestants will cheerfully pray the "Our Father..." weekly and daily throughout their lives anyway. Many Protestants are taught that "true" prayer is spontaneous and from the heart, expressed in one's own words or wordless desires -- but if that were literally followed at all times, we'd all be praying like Quakers, who only pray as they feel "inspired" to do so. But in fact, most Protestant worship services do include standard, pre-written prayers in which everyone is expected to join. I was brought up, for instance, saying one that begins "Almighty and merciful Father, we have erred and strayed from thy ways like lost sheep...." every Sunday without fail.

I think both sides would admit that the idea of saying a prayer 10 or 100 or some other "round number" of times is something humans have dreamed up for our own satisfaction, not something God particularly cares about. (100 is only a round number if you're using a base-10 number system, anyway!) So perhaps the question that needs to be addressed is whether or not it's a good thing to allow our human preferences for certain numbers to affect our prayers this way. I can certainly see that reasonable adults could have different opinions on this.

to be continued

posted by Chris at 11:04 AM  

[P-Marlowe]

In fact, it's ancestor worship, a pagan concept.

That's gonna leave a mark.

[ears_to_hear]

Jesus gave Mary to us as His Mother on the Cross.

Show me that in scripture. If He was giving her to the church, he would have given her to the Pope right ?:)

He placed His mothers physically in the care of His beloved John. Jesus was the oldest son and therefore the one responsible for a widowed mother, He passed on that responsibility.

Show me where and how that can be read as she was "given to us"

Entire households baptized included in

Please post the scripture that tells us that infants were baptized ? Peter said REPENT and be baptized, was He in ERROR on a doctrine?

Apostolic succession began even with the replacement of Judas, and certainly upon the death of Peter.

Please show us the scripture where Christ told His apostles that they could or SHOULD pass on the gifts given for the evangelization and the founding of the church. Remember that after His resurrection God Himself picked the replacement for Judas .So please show us from where the church derives the right to make new apostles. Jesus said make disciples, not apostles.

Purgatory as process rather than place is entirely justified.

So there is no LITERAL purgatory? When did the church start teaching that ? What is the process? Where is that process found in scripture?

Nice that you speak for God, and of what He approves and of what He disapproves. Since you’re so close, can you tell us what He’s having for lunch today?

I have asked the biblical roots or confirmation of these practices and all I get is a reaffirmation of of the beliefs without any biblical substance to affirm that these are not simply the traditions of men

I look for conformation from the KNOWN truth ,and I do not see any confirmation there.

So if you could just show us where Jesus told the apostles they had the right, ability and approval to pass on the foundational gifts please share it with me.

If you have a scripture that confirms the presence of purgatory please share it with us

If you have a scripture that tells us that mary is also a mediator between God and man please share it with us. Because if you can not it places in serious doubt all those kinds of catholic practices.

Thanks

[ears_to_hear]

Hit a nerve huh? Some of us think it is a prideful claim ( also untrue, but mostly prideful)

[ears_to_hear]

Amen

[tioga]

You attack and attack. Slamming Mother Teresa just showed me that I am wasting my time.

[pjr12345]

Religion forum, on a thread titled Protestants and the rosary, ears_to_hear wrote: Our Lady’s revealed that the soul that prays the rosary shall not perish.””

That is blasphemy

Maybe not. While the soul in question may not perish, it may very well rest in eternal torment.

[pjr12345]

Ease up ears! You forget that anything not in the Bible comes directly from the unbiased, reliable source of the Magicanus.

[OLD REGGIE]

Maybe Mary knows what wishes are worthy and which aren’t.

The wine business at Cana, for example.

Luke 8:
[20] And he was told, "Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, desiring to see you."

And her wish to see Jesus was unworthy?

[Enosh]

"In fact, it's ancestor worship, a pagan concept."

Catholics do not worship ancestors or angels. When they pray to them, they are asking them relay the issue to God.

Finer point, but there it is.

[MarkBsnr]

I assume that you have been on the recent threads about Mary and have not been convinced. The Biblical quotations have been produced. If you will not be convinced from the Bible or the Church that produced it, what will?

Like everything else in the Catholic Church, its authority derives from Christ. Christ taught with the authority of the Father (Jn 5:22, Mt 28:18-20). Christ gave that authority to the Apostles (Lk 10:16). And the Apostles passed it on to those whom they selected and ordained as their successors, the bishops. This is summed up in Christ’s own words, “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me” (Lk 10:16).

Those who claim that Christ did not establish a Church with the authority to teach in His name are forced to find some alternate explanation for these and many passages of Scripture.

“I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it” (Mt 16:18).

“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo I am with you always, to the close of the age” (Mt 28:18-20).

“If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again, I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am in the midst of them” (Mt 18:17-19).
The Book of Acts and the Epistles all illustrate a Church in action, a living Church with a hierarchy already established. In the New Testament, we read of a new bishop being ordained to replace Judas (Acts 1), of the first Church council (Acts 15), of bishops ordaining priests (Tit 1:5), a hierarchy of bishops, priests, and deacons (Eph 4:11, 1 Tim 3:1, 3:8, 5:17), all being led by a single shepherd, the successor of Peter (Jn 10:16).

Apostolic Succession

All of these things mean nothing, of course, if the Apostles did not have the power to pass on their commission (and charisms) to their successors. We see above how the New Testament illustrates the selection of successors with Mathias being selected to replace Judas. We know this is valid because Christ intended His Church to go on for all time, not just the lifespan of the Apostles (Mt 16:18, 28:20).

When we speak of the Catholic Church as being an Apostolic church, we mean that she has preserved Apostolic Succession – an unbroken line from bishop to bishop from the Apostles to the present day. We also mean that she maintains the Apostolic teaching, the Divine Deposit of Faith, as well as the Apostolic authority given to her by Christ.

Everyone on earth is in some form of sin. The Bible tells us that nothing unclean gets into Heaven. Purgatory is just the name we give to the process of getting cleansed of our sin. The Bible doesn’t say exactly what that is. So, The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ doesn’t say exactly what it is either. Just that it exists.

The Bible doesn’t say that the Trinity as most Christians understand it exists; neither does it say to attend church on Sunday. If you believe in the Trinity and you attend church on Sunday, then you are following the edicts of the True Church and not the Bible. How do you reconcile this seemingly contradictory behaviour? I see your claims and I find a gaping hole in them.

This is important. Your claim is that if things of God are not found in the Bible, then they must be rejected. If you practice what is not found in the Bible, then your claims that others’ practices are wrong because they are not found in the Bible would also invalidate your claims.

[MarkBsnr]

Unworthy?

I think this misdirection unworthy. His comment wsa for the multitude, not for them.

Back to the point. Even though Jesus said to Mary that his time was not yet come, he still did as she asked and changed water to wine.

[Running On Empty]

And not only that—the head steward who did as Mary asked of him was the very first person to witness the very first public miracle of Jesus.

[MarkBsnr]

I have a finger rosary and say a decade in the morning in my way to work. The coffee sits in the holder and the radio is off. I use it for meditation and prayer to start off my day before I get into the battles of the day.

Now, virtualrosary.com has an electronic rosary that is in Latin and several other languages, beautiful imagery, and several complete sets of meditations that can be called up.

I have the one for the Palm Pilot. I’d recommend this site to anyone interested in an electronic Rosary.

[xzins]

:>)

[Binghamton_native]

Why do so many Catholics on these threads center on their Catholicism instead of rejoicing in their Christian faith?

[1000 silverlings]

Well you assume that they went to heaven, but you don’t know that, and if they didn’t, not only is praying to them a complete waste of time, but now you’re praying to a lost soul. What exactly do you have against praying directly to God in Jesus’ name as the bible instructs? God answers prayers before you even pray them, He knows what you need. If you could get your Aunt Mimi to go over and beg, it would probably make her look addle-pated

[ears_to_hear]

I assume that you have been on the recent threads about Mary and have not been convinced. The Biblical quotations have been produced. If you will not be convinced from the Bible or the Church that produced it, what will?

I have not been an a lot of threads about Mary here, could you post the pertinent scriptures. (That probably would have been a lot faster than this long post :)

Where in the bible is the Immaculate Conception or a sinless life lived by Mary? Where is the Assumption ? Where is Mary taught as a mediator between God and men?

If Jesus wants His mother to be elevated and revered why did He not see that all those wonderful miracles were placed in His scriptures, where the assumption of OT saints is recorded for us. If He wanted His mother seen as his sinless equal then He could have mentioned it in His words or teachings so there was a record of His words.

Like everything else in the Catholic Church, its authority derives from Christ. Christ taught with the authority of the Father (Jn 5:22, Mt 28:18-20). Christ gave that authority to the Apostles (Lk 10:16). And the Apostles passed it on to those whom they selected and ordained as their successors, the bishops.

Could I have the scripture where He gave them that permission to pass it on ( especially the gifts and the "keys ") etc, because without some confirmation it is simply a tradition of men.

This is summed up in Christ’s own words, “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me” (Lk 10:16).

That was said to the apostles. If He never gave them the right or ability to pass on the gifts to others then that verse is to them not a successor

Those who claim that Christ did not establish a Church with the authority to teach in His name are forced to find some alternate explanation for these and many passages of Scripture.

Scripture?

The word church is called out ones not an ecclesiastical body . The elect present the gospel In His name

“I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it” (Mt 16:18).

gates are DEFENSIVE not offensive. That quote tells us that the believers, the called out ones ( the church) can storm hell with the gospel and succeed, Hell can not stop the gospel of Christ.

“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo I am with you always, to the close of the age” (Mt 28:18-20).

That is a call to ALL the elect believers, no where does it say to make new apostles?

“If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Those 2 scriptures go together, that is the right of the body of believers, the called out ones, the church, to discipline those that refuse correction and will not repent.
That does not confirm that the church then was the Catholic church as you know it today

Again, I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am in the midst of them” (Mt 18:17-19).

That is a promise to all believers

The Book of Acts and the Epistles all illustrate a Church in action, a living Church with a hierarchy already established.

A tri part leadership, their James, John and Cephas ( Peter )as the 'leaders' There was order in the new church, but no mass, no vestments, no statues, no rosaries, no holy water ,no prayer to saints, in short it looked more like what we would call Protestant churches today

In the New Testament, we read of a new bishop being ordained to replace Judas (Acts 1),

And you never hear of him again. That is because only God can pick HIS apostles and He chose Paul who He has foreordained to fill the spot left by Judas.

of the first Church council (Acts 15),

Led by James to deal with an error of Peter's

of bishops ordaining priests (Tit 1:5), a hierarchy of bishops, priests, and deacons (Eph 4:11, 1 Tim 3:1, 3:8, 5:17), all being led by a single shepherd, the successor of Peter (Jn 10:16).

Coul I have the scripture that tells us that was all under Peter? Where do we read of Peter being in charge of the new church?

Did Peter see himself as the Pope?

1Pe 5:1 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:

Apostolic Succession

All of these things mean nothing, of course, if the Apostles did not have the power to pass on their commission (and charisms) to their successors. We see above how the New Testament illustrates the selection of successors with Mathias being selected to replace Judas. We know this is valid because Christ intended His Church to go on for all time, not just the lifespan of the Apostles (Mt 16:18, 28:20).

Those were gifts given to the apostles and NO WHERE does Christ tell them they have the right OR ABILITY to pass on those gifts. If he does please show us that scripture

Can the pope today heal like Peter did? Or preform miracles? Or did only some of those gifts pass on ?

Those are hard proofs you know, no one can say that ANYTHING is passed on because it is all invisible. If God wanted to verify that ability he would have given us a visible sign, like popes that shadows heal

They in their pride selected Mathias , never to hear from him again in scripture. God then selects the teacher for the new church as an apostle (paul) and He he writes the majority of the NT epistles. That shows that God is the one that appoints not men

When we speak of the Catholic Church as being an Apostolic church, we mean that she has preserved Apostolic Succession – an unbroken line from bishop to bishop from the Apostles to the present day. We also mean that she maintains the Apostolic teaching, the Divine Deposit of Faith, as well as the Apostolic authority given to her by Christ.

I think you know that line has been broken many times..but that aside please just show us the scripture where Jesus says this is His plan for His called out ones

Everyone on earth is in some form of sin. The Bible tells us that nothing unclean gets into Heaven

That is true, but for men to clean themselves is a work a self work, I am cleaned by the blood of Christ that was the propitiation for all my sin. I am cleaned and washed

Jhn 15:3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.

Act 15:9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

1Cr 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

1Jo 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

Rev 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, [who is] the faithful witness, [and] the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

Purgatory is just the name we give to the process of getting cleansed of our sin. The Bible doesn’t say exactly what that is. So, The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ doesn’t say exactly what it is either. Just that it exists.

Where does the scripture say it exists? Purgatory makes the cross of Christ of no effect. Men must pay for their own sin, Christ died in vain. You except that "procerss" on faith alone , admitting no one knows anything instead of taking God at His word.

Gal 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

Rom 10:3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
Rom 10:4 For Christ [is] the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

The Bible doesn’t say that the Trinity as most Christians understand it exists; neither does it say to attend church on Sunday.

The principle of the trinity is clearly taught in scripture, it just is not given a name.

Indeed neither is the mortal necessity to attend church on Sundays..( because it is not a law of God :)

If you believe in the Trinity and you attend church on Sunday, then you are following the edicts of the True Church and not the Bible. How do you reconcile this seemingly contradictory behaviour? I see your claims and I find a gaping hole in them.

I believe the trinity because it is taught in scripture, I go to church to be obedient to the scriptures not because it is a sin not to, but it is His desire we do so

Hbr 10:25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some [is]; but exhorting [one another]: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

This is important. Your claim is that if things of God are not found in the Bible, then they must be rejected. If you practice what is not found in the Bible, then your claims that others’ practices are wrong because they are not found in the Bible would also invalidate your claims.

The word of God is known as inspired truth. We know it contains all men need for salvation and for growth and discipline . We also know it does not contradict itself and when teaching important truths and doctrines they are reinforced or examples given in other scripture.

Catholics are asked to accept on FAITH ALONE that the Pope or magistrum is speaking infallibly, no checks for truth or the deception of satan. The check point should be does the scripture teach this principle or give us examples of this as truth, as God does not change the principle should be found in His history with men .

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Wow. What a terrific post -- an entire Sunday School lesson.

There was order in the new church, but no mass, no vestments, no statues, no rosaries, no holy water ,no prayer to saints, in short it looked more like what we would call Protestant churches today

AMEN!

Those were gifts given to the apostles and NO WHERE does Christ tell them they have the right OR ABILITY to pass on those gifts...Can the pope today heal like Peter did? Or preform miracles? Or did only some of those gifts pass on ?

AMEN!

for men to clean themselves is a work a self work, I am cleaned by the blood of Christ that was the propitiation for all my sin. I am cleaned and washed

AMEN!

Purgatory makes the cross of Christ of no effect. Men must pay for their own sin, Christ died in vain.

The principle of the trinity is clearly taught in scripture, it just is not given a name...I believe the trinity because it is taught in scripture, I go to church to be obedient to the scriptures not because it is a sin not to, but it is His desire we do so

AMEN!

The word of God is known as inspired truth. We know it contains all men need for salvation and for growth and discipline . We also know it does not contradict itself and when teaching important truths and doctrines they are reinforced or examples given in other scripture.

Catholics are asked to accept on FAITH ALONE that the Pope or magistrum is speaking infallibly, no checks for truth or the deception of satan. The check point should be does the scripture teach this principle or give us examples of this as truth, as God does not change the principle should be found in His history with men.

AMEN and AMEN!

"How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace; that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation; that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth!" -- Isaiah 52:7

[Dr. Eckleburg]

you assume that they went to heaven, but you don't know that, and if they didn't, not only is praying to them a complete waste of time, but now you're praying to a lost soul.

Great point. I never thought of it that way before (my husband's favorite sentence.)