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  

[pjr12345]

Why don't you do that any more?

Perhaps all those issues have been settled. Now our movement is swooping down upon the catholics - the last bastion of resistance to our sinister plan.

I'll get you, my pretty. And your little dog, too!!!

[GoLightly]

Why would we need to pray FOR the Saints?

For the same reason we were meant to pray for those still on earth, fellowship, expressing our love for one another.

The whole reason we feel confident in praying to them is because we’re confident they’re already in heaven, happy with Jesus.

Either they are fully part of the body or they are not. You think that getting *to* heaven is the end goal & once there it becomes all about getting more people there?

Has it ever occurred to you that when your pastor stands up there and prays HIS prayer and you sit there with your head bowed, that he’s interceding for you?

Yes, of course.

Why do you have your preacher intercede for you?

And the congregation intercedes for him.

Aren’t your own prayers good enough?

Yes, they are.

Or is it because you think he has the “right” words?

We don't do the high priest gig, sorry.

Yeah, I thought so.

You thought so what?

And why bother praying for others? Aren’t you interceding for them?

I am & I do.

Let them pray for themselves! If they are among God’s elect, He will know his own.

Or more like, if they've already made it they no longer need our prayers, right?

[pjr12345]

If you’ve got a doctrinal point, please raise it. These cloaked personal attacks are clumsy and uninspiring.

[tiki]

Did you read the article? I don't think so. It looks like you just jumped in with the usual ad-hominem words. I begin to think that there are people out there in FR land who just like to argue and be contentious. It seems that many people's own arrogance blinds them to their petulance. In their self-perceived superiority what they say or believe is surely true, after all their ego tells them.

If you really wanted to be honest with yourself, you'd go back and check some threads where certain posters jump in and make snide and "clever" remarks and then ping each other for approval and then seemingly pat themselves on the back. I really see a pack mentality, with a real frenzy to see who can be the most malicious. The one which really cemented my view of those posters was the very nice article about Beckwith.

What are people afraid of and why do they need to wound people who have different beliefs? As I have pointed out in the past, it is quite obvious that saving souls is not what it is all about because you don't get converts with smug, self-satisfied attacks on other faiths. Undoubtedly, there are differences in religion and people of any faith believe that they have found the right faith, especially here in America where we have religious freedom. Anyway, I'm tired of this, I can serve God better.

[tiki]

There is no such thing as a valid Catholic doctrinal point that isn’t already proven wrong by non-Catholics using their own interpretation of scripture. I know how to debate and it is impossible to debate anyone whose ego tells them that they are the only repository of knowledge. As I told x, I’m tired and I’m have better things to do. Bye

[tiki]

Yes, I think he’s visited FR often.

[xzins]

I think these type threads targeted at protestants are an effort at proselytizing. They are full of doctrinal error that needs to see the light of day.

[GoLightly]

It has already been proven that incorporating the rituals of pagan beliefs will readily convert the masses.

It's worked before, which is why I thought it might work again. If it's successful, buy stock in Christmas tree farming. I love, loved P-Marlowe's knee pads, but think we'd also need some kind of headgear to protect people's foreheads as they raised their tushes up to the Lord, erm, bowed down in His honor.

Is there someway we can incorporate jihad without producing a bunch of suicidals?

We could push hard with the internal struggle interpretation.

[tioga]

LOL........I woke up this morning to find a post slamming Mother Teresa.........I am done for awhile. You cannot reason with someone who slams her.

[Frank Sheed]

Proddy orcs

That one goes onto the Sheed all-time list along with "niceness nodules" from Mrs. Tax!

[tiki]

One more post (I couldn't resist)

Your assertion is not only false it is a prime example of the mindset of those who think they know all about Catholics and the Church. You assert that OBVIOUSLY you know better than Catholics what is taught in the Church. HOW DO YOU THINK YOU KNOW THAT?

[Tax-chick]

I liked “ferner,” too. We usually spell it “furrner” in these parts :-).

[pjr12345]

Great organization skills sandy!

You can be in charge of putting together the business plan.

[GoLightly]

Ridicule as an evangelization tool?

So you like the kneepad idea too? Alls fair in love and evangelization tools.

[Frank Sheed]

Bold font is easy. Bold blinking multi-colored font is much more interesting!

"...I am convinced (as Luther was convinced) that if we give up sola Scriptura, we will inevitably give up sola Gratia as well. Because the giving up of the Protestant authority (the principle of sola Scriptura) simply opens the door for other ways of pleasing God to enter in that are not based upon His own revelation. And it's a very short step from thinking that I can follow a religious tradition that cannot be verified objectively by the Word of God to the idea that I can please God by something that He has not provided. It is a very short step from the denial of sola Scriptura to the denial of sola Gratia when it comes to salvation.... ...the distinctive and the controversial doctrines or practices of the Roman Catholic Church (the distinctive and controversial doctrines, and practices of the Roman Church) are all founded solely upon alleged tradition! Purgatory, the mass, transubstantiation, indulgences, the treasury of merit, penance, the rosary, prayers to Mary, holy water, the papacy, and on and on. Those things which are distinctive to the Roman Catholic Church, you will find, that when you get into debates with Roman Catholics, they appeal not to biblical exegesis to support, but they appeal to this alleged Apostolic Oral Tradition that supposed to still be alive in the Church. And I think that's just asking a bit too much of anybody to expect that those heavy and controversial points could be founded not upon an objective Word from God (in the way that we've seen at the beginning of tonight's lecture), but to be founded upon an unverifiable, subjectively adduced tradition that is said to be Apostolic..."

[P-Marlowe]

but think we'd also need some kind of headgear to protect people's foreheads