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  

[Frank Sheed]

Beautiful! How could lifting you mind to God ever “not be approved?” God told us to pray without ceasing.

I love this discussion going on about “such and such” is not a proper prayer for God!

God IS.. HE IS BEING...His Will keeps us in existence! HE LIVES IN THE ETERNAL PRESENT! There is no past or future for Him! God is outside of time; it is a meaningless concept for an Eternal Being!!!! That is why Jesus said that Abraham, Isaac and Moses are all present to God—that He is a God of the living! He told Moses from the burning bush, “I AM WHO AM! Tell them I AM sent you!”

So how can something in the Eternal Present be hearing repetition? Let God BE God!

[tioga]

Were we not talking about a Monk and Satan, not a live human here on FR? I respect other’s religious fervor and their relationship with the Lord. I do not suggest in any way that they are lacking, only that they are judgmental in their posts. It makes it difficult to chat on line. And it is offensive to NEVER have them post a friendly word or two. I would never condemn another. Best to pray for them.

[tiki]

Actually, no. Did you not see the part I wrote about the Bible? I feel very sad that you feel you didn't have the Bible as a guide growing up but did you not listen to it at Mass? Why do you think that we sing the Allelluia when the priest is about to read the Gospel. Why do you think we cross ourselves on the forehead, lips and heart, we are asking that the Word is in our minds, on our lips and in our hearts. Or that we ponder the Word, speak the Word and accept it into our hearts.

I also know and knew lots of Baptists, Methodists and kids from every faith who never felt the need to read the Bible. It doesn't mean it wasn't there and present through their church services and the lives of the faithful if they cared to listen. I know a lot of Catholics who say what you say, but they obviously didn't feel called to do the hard work it took to find about what their faith really taught. I believe that if my Catholic friends had been more informed about their faith that I would have become Catholic sooner but I can't whine about that, I believe I became a Catholic in God's own time. Completely oblivious of what I was doing, I believe that God used me to put lapsed Catholic friends back into the church and to ask questions so that they could answer my questions. And some of those same friends ended up Catechizing me when I joined the Church, I just find it amazing!

Anyway it wasn't the fault of the Church that those Catholics didn't know the faith it was the fault of that Catholic who didn't ask the questions.

I have seen 2 citations in the last day of the scripture about mother's milk and eating meat but do they even consider that there comes a time when we have to find our own meal or die, that along with no longer needing mother's milk that we grow and provide our own food? That the mother who sustained us expects us to do something for ourselves.

I've read your posts and you seem to want me and others to listen to your interpretation of the Bible and believe the faith that you are in now. Then you say that you were a Catholic and didn't hold a Bible until you were 30. If not why not? If someone informed you wrongly why didn't you ask questions until you found the truth? Why do you believe that you didn't read the Bible, even if it wasn't in a compiled Bible. I remember scripture from church services before I knew how to read. Why didn't you ponder the Word every week or read it in the missal?

When I became Catholic I didn't ask why God made me a Methodist and wasted my time because I had already asked what the Methodist church believed and while not rejecting most of what it believed, I longed for more. More truth, more meat. Yes, I came to regret what so many Methodist churches had become but not most of their tenets of faith. I didn't curse the faith of my youth, I embrace it gladly to this day, I am just glad He gave me a map and set me on the journey to wholeness.

I would challenge you to take an RCIA course. There are some on the internet, one that I found very simple and informative is the free one from Fr. Lukefahr. They send you a book and then you can answer questions on the net and then they tell you if you understand. I'm not saying this to change your belief but so you can understand what the church teaches and not live with the misconceptions and anger for believing that the church failed you. I see the those misconceptions in your posts and wonder that you could believe some of the things about Catholicism that you seem to believe.

Now, I'm going to shock you. I don't think that I NEED the Bible, personally to be saved. I believe that it contains all the information I need to be saved, I believe that it is the inspired Word of God, I believe that it is infallible, I believe that it is an incredible gift, I believe I can draw unbelievable wisdom from it, I believe I can draw closer to God by reading it but I also believe that God could save me if I had never heard of the Bible, if I couldn't see, or hear or think or if it had never been. If I believed that one had to have the Bible to be saved, I would have to believe that Peter and Paul aren't in heaven because they never saw the Bible and Paul didn't see Christ when he walked this earth. I would have to believe that all those early Christians are lost in some limbo and they will never see the face of God (because surely they wouldn't be in hell) because they didn't read a Bible. If it wasn't written it would still be true. If I couldn't avail myself of the Bible, it would still be true, God alone saves, the Bible is a gift to his people in written form. It is an aid to our salvation and it teaches us, but it does not save, God does.

[N3WBI3]

"God is "no respecter of persons", and the same sentence of death stands for all. Picking and choosing shows partiality"

Jacob I loved and Esau I hated, sounds pretty partial..

[Iscool]

She reigns in heaven with her Son!!!....

I'm late to this thread so this'll be redundant, I'm sure...

You just posted why we don't pray to Mary...We know Mary DOES NOT reign with Jesus...Mary's role was fulfilled while alive on earth...

Mary reigning in heaven is not biblical...So we just don't believe you...

[1000 silverlings]

I wonder where Mary’s throne is, in Heaven. I wonder how many times we can find reference to it by either the Lord of His Father

[pjr12345]

Do you not know that God’s hatred is not emotional, but comparative? God’s love for Esau is such that it appears as hatred when compared to His love for Jacob. All through the Bible this comparison is used. God “hates” the wicked; Jesus told us that we are to “hate” our families. What do you think these statements mean?

[GoLightly]

None of deserve to be saved. Being saved is a gift, not a right. Free will always leads us to sin, because sinning is in our natures. If you are one of His, you can learn the lesson the easy way or you can learn the lesson the hard way. I’m a lowly sinner & am in no position to question how He uses His power, who He elects & who He doesn’t elect.

[Frank Sheed]

YOPIOS!

[N3WBI3]

lets assume you are right and Gods love is comparative which I can not argue has backing in scripture. He is still favoring based on no perceivable merits one over the other other than its his preference.

[Frank Sheed]

I just had my teeth cleaned!

[tiki]

Way before I became Catholic, I went through a period when I could never finish the Lord’s prayer. Something happened to interrupt me or I fell asleep. I’ve always thought that there was an underlaying battle there.

[pjr12345]

So, God saying that He is no respecter of persons is of no importance? Is He a liar?

There is no dodging this issue. If God chooses one sinner over another, He is in fact a respecter of persons, and a liar to boot. He is arbitrary and not Supreme, and therefore unworthy of worship.

[GoLightly]

Much better to say "Bless us Oh Lord and these thy gifts we have received through thy bounty through Christ Our Lord" Amen

True, but I think that's a lot better than the one that usually pops into my mind first.

Good food, good meat, good God let's eat. (told y'all I'm way less than eloquent)

[pjr12345]

DING! DING! DING! DING!

Congratulations Mr. Sheed! You win the prize for being the first to grope for the YOPIOS defense.

Sadly, it just means that the argument is over and you lose.

[lastchance]

Our lives should be a prayer to God. Everything we do, say and think should be done as an offering to His glory. How much more careful would we be if we knew we were laying our daily lives on His altar?

[Frank Sheed]

No, the subject is that you believe that only the Bible defines the Church! I believe, as do all Catholics, in Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterial Teachings of the Church. YOU believe in only the Bible. Therefore, you have cut off two legs of the structure of the Church as Christ gave it to us!

That, then, makes my point very relevant. The Early Church relied on both written AND on oral tradition. I can prove it with Scripture as can Dave Armstrong or any apologist on this Board. So, why do you damn or strike down something from Tradition when you don’t believe it in the first place?

Plus, the book you base your soul on for all of your Faith cannot define itself! It was not meant to stand alone. It didn’t in Judaism either.

That is my point. YOPIOS.

[Gumdrop]

“Holy Mary” -— Can smoeone please explain to me, a cradle catholis, why the term “Holy Mary” is considered to be inappropriate for the the Mother of Lour Lord and Redeemer?

This is a serious question as it puzzles me. If one is a Christian, and one understands that God, the Father, selected Mary to become the mother of the Messiah, the Annointed one, then why would anyone think that God who is all Holy and Almighty, would allow his only-begotten
Son to become man in the womb of an unholy woman?

I really do not understand why there should be any question about the holiness of Mary. She was created and selected by God to fulfill this most important female role in the history of mankind.

[N3WBI3]

“Holy Mary”

Holy implies without Sin there is no one who is Holy save God.

[pjr12345]

lets assume you are right and Gods love is comparative which I can not argue has backing in scripture.

No backing in Scripture? What did Jesus mean when He instructed us to love Him but hate our families? There's plenty of backing, and I recommend a study of God's love and hate.

He is still favoring based on no perceivable merits one over the other other than its his preference.

If the love/hate of God is comparative, then there is no vindictive action associated with His hate. Yes, he selected Jacob over Esau to continue the birthright originated in Abraham. Does that mean that Esau is "lost"? God most certainly makes choices, but within the bounds of His unchanging Word, and with perfect justice.

God also shows preferential treatment to His own. He will give eternal life to all those in Christ.