Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

Just last Sunday, a local newspaper paper released an article teaching that the praying of the Holy Rosary is Bible-based. In the first two paragraphs, the writer admittedly says that there is no passage in the Bible teaching nor mentioned about the praying of Rosary.

However, in the following paragraphs, the writer justified the praying of the Rosary basing it on the repetition of historical events of some Bible characters (like Gideon as he mentioned) about Israel’s history.

I don’t know if the writer of this article did some research about the origin of rosary and how it was deeply encouraged for Roman Catholics.

Praying of Rosary was encouraged when Lucia Dos Santos and her cousins Francisco and Jacinta Marto c

laimed to have an apparation from an angel teaching them to pray in the spring of 1916. They were asked to pray repeatedly by the angel who appeared to them. This is why the Catholics were convinced that they have to pray repeatedly.

The flaw however in the story was that, the angel gave two sets of completely different prayers. The angel appeared to the three children three times.

Then after a year, 1917, it was said that Our Lady of Rosary had an apparitions for 7 times. In her second apparition the Our Lady said:

Now here are the flaws of this apparition. First, the Our Lady is telling the children to teach the people to make her known and be loved. Note that the apparition was initiated not by Jesus, nor an angel, but the very person who wants to be made known. It is like, someone came to you and asked you using the name of your friend to introduce her to other people that you know.

The second flaw, Our Lady promises salvation to those who embrace this command. A completely heretical claim, and totally in contrast to what the Bible is saying. The Bible is very clear in saying that “…whosoever believes in Him (Jesus) will not perish but have everlasting life (John 3:16).” Only God can give salvation. This is the Biblical truth that cannot be altered, deducted nor added.

Third flaw, Our Lady claims that her immaculate heart will be our refuge and through it will conduct you to God. This is another contradiction to what the Bible is saying. “Come to me all you labor and are heavily burdened and I will give you rest (Matt.11:28)”, “I am the way the truth and the life, NO ONE comes to the Father except through me (John 14:6)”.

The truth is, there is only one mediator between God and man, it is only Jesus Christ (Hebrews chapters 6,7,8,9, and 10)

The flaw of the third apparition is the claiming of honor which belongs to Jesus Christ, and the idea of co-equality with Jesus. Though she did not claim co-equality, but the fact of showing that people committed sins against her proposes the idea of deity that people needs to be so sorry for not recognizing her. The Bible tells us that there are three persona where we committed sins, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. And now, here comes the Mary, an addition to the Holy Trinity.

Now let’s look at this additional quotations from the third apparition. This is more like “Our Lady” centered command rather than “Jesus” centered command. Russia will be consecreted to Our Lady of Rosary than instead of Jesus. Notice the number of recitation of the Rosary. At the end of each decade (10), there is only one calling for Jesus help.

The flaw of the 6^th apparition is that the Lady of the Rosary is asking for a chapel in “HER” honor, and not Jesus’ nor the Father’s honor. We have to note that taking glory which supposed to be for God is a serious sin, this is idolatry.

The apparition is completely directing people in a wrong path. It is completely in contradiction with what the Bible is saying. The Bible warn us about these kinds of apparitions in Galatians 1:8 “But even though we (referring to Paul and his companions) or an angel from heaven, which should preach to you any gospel other than that which we preached to you, let him be cursed.” This is a strong warning that we should be careful in believing apparitions especially if it gives another teachings that what the Bible already have taught us.

Just some additional observations concerning the apparition of Our Lady of Rosary. Our Lady appeared “6” times. In Hebrew culture (the Israelite culture), 6 is the imperfect number. A number usually associated with evil things. Thus, the number of the Beast in the Book of Revelations tells us that it is 666.

Another observation is the dates of the apparition. The apparition dates are significantly on the 13^th of every month of that year. Even until, Roman Catholics believe that 13^th is always associated with evil things like Friday the 13^{t h} bad luck and not placing 13^th floor on buildings. Not to mention all the horror movies that happens on Friday the 13^th.

Now let me ask you, do you really believe that these apparitions comes from God? These apparition and commands are completely in contrast to what the Bible teaches us. They are “Our Lady of Rosary” centered rather than “God” centered. The apparitions promotes glory and honor for “Our Lady of Rosary” rather than the glory of God. And finally, even culture related things are in contradiction to the apparitions. Not to mention its lack of Apostolicity and Biblical support.

The praying of Rosary is another heretical belief of the Roman Catholic church to which Catholics are willing fight for.

What really bothers me is that no attempt is made to address our concerns. We are insulted, told that we are dancing the same dance, moving the goalposts, extrapolating, blaspheming, not answering their questions, etc. It’s as if they have been taught that when they cannot refute a statement, that the best response is to do anything rather than give a direct response to the specific statement.

I tried to engage you on this topic ... post #656 ... but was ignored.

But I do see the 3 of you talking circles around each other.

Here's my historical/Biblical take on this matter...I'll even quote a Catholic to kick things off:

"In the fourth century a bishop of Constantinople named Nestorious...wanted to call Mary only 'Mother of Christ'; he feared that the title 'Mother of God' would confuse the divine and human aspects of Jesus. The church in the East rose up to reject Nestorius' view. To deny that Mary was the mother of God was to deny either that Jesus is God or that Mary was truly his mother. A general council of bishops at Ephesus in 431 A.D. declared, 'If anyone does not confess that God is truly Emmanuel, and that on this account the holy virgin is the mother of God (for according to the flesh she gave birth to the Word of God become flesh by birth), let him be anathema (condemned)." (Alan Schreck, Catholic and Christian, pp. 175 - 176)

"Nestorious, patriarch of Constantinople, championed the term 'Mother of Christ,' while Cyril of Alexandria favored 'Mother of God. The Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431) decided in favor of Cyril." (Geisler & MacKenzie, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, p. 299)

So...resettozero...a key historical part of all this was to fend off the Nestorian heresy...and to rightly NOT divide Jesus as to being only human, or being only divine...but that He is both human and divine...in, fact, eternally so.

I'm a Protestant. I've notice how Protestants, especially NOT having carefully reviewed church history, tend to "knee jerk" response to the phrase "Mother of God" primarily (IMO) because we know God the Father and God the Holy Spirit had no mother, and the Son of God, none from eternity past.

The historical church has pointed to the Greek word Theotokos as the original descriptive phrase -- "Mother of God":

"Harold O.J. Brown comments concerning theotokos: 'The term, which means 'God-bearing one' (not precisely 'Mother of God,' as it is frequently translated), originally was descriptive of the man Jesus, born of Mary' (Heresies: The Image of Christ, p. 172). Theotokos, therefore, was designed to say more about Jesus than to glorify Mary." (Geisler & MacKenzie, ibid)

IoW, Christmas is really more about Christ...than any characters in the Nativity. And Who is glorified by Who we focus upon in things like Christmas is really one of the points I was making (especially toward the end) of my post #656 which...btw... was ignored by all the Catholics on this thread.

So while church fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries referenced Mary as the "Mother of God," a more precise meaning of the Greek word has ALWAYS been "God-bearing one" (which may be a difference of no account, but probably at least sounds less provocative to the average Protestant).

And the main point of Post #656 is that guess, what?

We as the church across the board are "god bearing ones!"

For the Holy Spirit indwells us as his flesh-and-blood temple. Yet does that make us the "mother of the Holy Spirit?"

But is this post -- and #656 -- really meant to play down our role (or Mary's role)? I don't think so ... for to be "god bearers" is something of great honor. Of great privilege. Of great esteem.

And yet it's overwhelmingly humbling.

So, yes, Mary is the "god-bearing one" (Theotokos). Why argue that historical reality? 'Cause really it's frankly a settled point.

Let's instead discuss if Mary is overglorified by that reality by some segments of those who call Jesus their Lord.

'Cause, let's face it: We, too, are a collective theotokos. Roman Catholics, I challenge you to your face: Is the Holy Spirit any LESS divine than our Lord Jesus Christ who indwelled Mary?

And, yes I understand "why" when a Catholic book says "The springtime month of May is popularly devoted to Mary" due to it being the month of "Mothers Day" (Greg Dues, Catholic Customs & Traditions, p. 128).

But the rest of the overemphasize upon Mary is frankly bizarre:
* "Just as Sunday had always been devoted to Jesus Christ, Saturday eventually became Mary's Day. This tradition was promoted in Carolingian times by Alcuin (d. 804). A votive Mass in Mary's honor has commonly been offered on Saturday throughout modern times." (ibid)
* "The month of October is dedicated to Mary under the theme of the rosary because of the feast of Our Lady of the Rosary on October 7." (Dues, p. 129)
* And even with the history of the rosary, Dues mentions how "by the early 12th century, Hail Marys were substituted for the Our Fathers..." (p. 128)

5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, NO ONE can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. (John 3)

My take is that whenever one giving birth is emphasized to the total exclusion of a rebirth -- recognizing that Mary herself was "born of the spirit" (lest not being able to enter our Lord's kingdom) -- imbalance sets in.

IF we are speaking ONLY about Mary, and not her son, then her rebirth is of vital emphasis! Seems clear from Scripture to me, that she confessed being a sinner (Luke 1:46), and she offered a sacrifice for her sinful condition (Luke 2:22). So her rebirth in our Lord is a great celebration!

Otherwise, we, too, as "god-bearers" (of the Holy Spirit) --
--were we to stress His indwelling
to the expense of failing to recognize the necessity of our own rebirth
-- would likewise be as what's deemed imbalanced re: the Roman Catholic approach to Mary.

Anyone who goes beyond what the Holy Spirit had written which is “the mother of Jesus” is purporting to speak in the stead of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit did NOT use the words “mother of God” and we can be assured it was for a reason. Change the words of the Holy Spirit at your own peril.

But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
Deuteronomy, Catholic chapter eighteen, Protestant verses twenty to twenty two,
Isaiah, Catholic chapter seven, Protestant verse fourteen,
Matthew, Catholic chapter one, Protestant verses twenty two to twenty three,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James

There was no beginning.

I put that in to help with your understanding.

But you pretty much ignored the next phrase I posted, Jesus, God the Father and the Holy Spirit have always "been". Forever. <^_______ (see it now?)

This is where you get the concept of "Personal Savior" but still maintain the mythos of "uncreated", "unseeable", "unknowable", "everywhere and no where", "unreachable", etc...

Personal savior, yep it's in the Bible.

The rest of your "words" have nothing to do with me, I never posted anything like that.

And the notion that angels are like winged fairies floating around heaven.

Those must be Mormon fairies/angels (Maroni?) my concept of angels is from the scriptures in the Bible.

Jesus said that His Father is also our Father. That makes us brother and sisters with Christ.

Yes, true for Christians. Not for Mormons. Joseph Smith REJECTED all of Christianity as he was creating the religion of the LDS.

So Mormons can be brothers with Lucifer, but not with Christians. LDS followers have a different father. Called affectionately Heavenly Father, described as a "god" that worked his way to that position. Completely un-Biblical.

The "god" of this world is satan, affectionately called "Heavenly Father" by Mormons.

Jesus taught that our Father in Heaven is both reachable and approachable.

Hay, pretty good that is true! Through Jesus who created all things. (Gospel of John---the translated correctly version)

And is literally His and our "Father".

Not "our" Father, the Father of Christians. Mormons have a "father" that is a "god" that was once a man. The God of the Bible doesn't fit that description.

The Angels are people that have either passed through this life or are waiting to come into mortality.

Not Biblical, must be in the BOM.

People NEVER become angels.

The belief that we have nothing in common with those that dwell with God is a tool of the devil.

Very true. And the tool that the devil used was Joseph Smith.

Remember he separated Mormonism from Christianity (my, the things he said about Christians was horrible, he HATED them) when he started the cult and it remains that way to this day.

If you want to dwell with God and be a brother of Christians instead of Lucifer, let me know. It's real easy. A free gift that costs you everything. But promises you eternal life with God.

PS The irony is that Mormons started calling themselves Christians for the first time a few decades ago. (Before that your leaders would NOT allow it. Wanted to fit in...didn't work!)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Praying The Rosary Is Not Biblical, And Is A Form Of Idolatry

The praying of Rosary is another heretical belief of the Roman Catholic church to which Catholics are willing fight for.

We as the church across the board are "god bearing ones!"

For the Holy Spirit indwells us as his flesh-and-blood temple. Yet does that make us the "mother of the Holy Spirit?"

'Cause, let's face it: We, too, are a collective theotokos. Roman Catholics, I challenge you to your face: Is the Holy Spirit any LESS divine than our Lord Jesus Christ who indwelled Mary?

5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, NO ONE can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. (John 3)