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  

[Running On Empty]

:-)

[P-Marlowe]

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.

Holy cow, you're right! I never really looked carefully at that passage (shame on me).

By Golly, The gates of hell are not storming the Church. The church is storming the gates of hell, proclaiming the gospel tearing down strongholds. Just because the Roman Catholic Church fell into error does not mean that the gates of hell prevailed against the Church. No. The church (the body of true believers in Christ) rose up against the errors of the Roman Catholic Oligarchy and then began the attack on the gates of hell with a new found fervor. The gates of hell will not prevail.

(For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) (2 Corinthians 10:4 KJV)

Your post is awesome. You put a lot of time and effort into it.

[LordBridey]

God, however, chose not to inspire men to write every single thing that Christ did or said. So what? From everything we know He did and said we are sufficiently equipped to live a God-glorifying, obedient, joyful life.

You quoted 2 Tim. 3:16-17 and asked what more is there. I responded by providing John 21:25.

"And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen." -- John 21:25

I think that verse implies that there is a lot more. Coupled with Christ's apparent preference for an oral presentation of His gospel, and the promise of the Paraclete as a guide to truth, it is safe to assume that what was eventually recorded in a written form might not necessarily contain everything that Our Lord taught.

This fact also does not permit us to make things up which is what the church in Rome does. It makes things up.

Your alleged fact, "From everything we know He did and said we are sufficiently equipped to live a God-glorifying, obedient, joyful life", does not support the conjecture that the RCC makes things up.

"A great aid?" Why do you think Scripture is a "great aid?"

I am paraphrasing Paul. He calls scripture helpful, profitable, etc.

Scripture is God-breathed.

I agree.

Scripture is the primary means by which God ordained the Holy Spirit to reach His children.

Disagree. In that Christ told his apostles to go out and preach amongst the nations, it can be deduced that He preferred personal contact and personal witness over scripture. The same principle would apply to baptism. In fact, one could probably argue that the entire sacramental system was and is the primary means.

Christ spoke by Scripture. Christ was Scripture, the word of God made flesh.

I probably disagree, depending on exactly what you mean by "word".

[Enosh]

"Well you assume that they went to heaven"

I don't agree with the practice either, but implying that Mary - Jesus' Mom! - is in hell is a very, very bad idea.

[markomalley]

By Golly, The gates of hell are not storming the Church. The church is storming the gates of hell, proclaiming the gospel tearing down strongholds.

Interesting. I think that I could get used to that thought pattern. So, rather than being constantly on the defense, we Christians should be on the OFFENSE against heresy and apostasy, knowing that the lies from the devil will never be able to stand up against the truth. And just because you all fell into heresy and schism, your lies cannot stand up to the whole Gospel of Christ, as declared by His Church.

So we authentic Christians should be more evangelistic in our methods and not so defensive and passive...yeah, I like it!

You have to admit that my version was fun: no matter how many lies, no matter how much deception, how many half truths, how much perversion is thrown at it, you will never be able to destroy the Church...but, looking at it through my old military eyes, the best defense is a good offense.

I guess, in Free Republic terms, that means that all of us authentic Christians should then storm the threads oriented toward schismatic heretics and disrupt their heresy, storming them with the whole Gospel of Christ...in an effort to correct their errors and, perhaps, save their immortal souls!

Of course, we need to give credit where credit is due: we need to caveat our first post on these threads something as follows: "Following the advice of ears-to-hear and P-Marlowe, I am compelled to come onto this thread and correct your error."

And, of course, once they get sick of it and try to apply a caucus designation for a little peace, we need to find the flimsiest rationale and then whine to mommy/daddy (religion moderator) to let us play, as well...

BTW, please note (in case there is any confusion...) in the above post, Christian or "authentic Christian" = Catholic, and "the Church" = "Catholic (universal) Church" (i.e., the Church founded by Jesus Christ, the Church in communion with the See of Peter)

Note to religion mod: I hope you can detect a slight amount of facetiousness in the above. It merely applies the words and concepts expressed by the person to whom I am responding back at him/her. If you feel it to be overly abusive to do so, please feel free to pull the post. Frankly, the only reason for writing it was to (probably in vain) try to get the poster to see what he/she sounds like.

[Tax-chick]

Thank you for your prayers ... we all need it!

[trisham]

Thank you, Salvation.

[MarkBsnr]

Because Catholicism IS Christianity. Anything else is either added to it or deleted from it.

[MarkBsnr]

I’d like to set things in the proper perspective, first. The Church is the product of Jesus. The Bible is the product of the Church. It is a document produced by her; it is not the only one.

With that said, http://www.catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp has a pretty good article about Mary and how the understanding of the Church came about. There are no succint sentences that spell it out in plain words. But there are many things that Protestants believe that are not either.

Scripture indicates that the apostles endowed bishops and elders with their special authority to teach. We see the earliest evidence of the apostles conferring authority in the account of the appointing of Judas’s replacement:
“For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it’; and ‘His office let another take.’ So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.” And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed and said, “Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside, to go to his own place.” And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles. (Acts 1:20–26)
In his first letter to Timothy, a bishop—in which Paul calls the Church “the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15)—he instructs him, “Till I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching. Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophetic utterance when the council of elders laid their hands upon you. Practice these duties, devote yourself to them, so that all may see your progress. Take heed to yourself and to your teaching; hold to that, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers” (1 Tim. 4:13–16).

It is obvious to Catholics that Paul was speaking of Timothy’s ordination, through which he received the sacrament of holy orders. The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains:
No one can give himself the mandate and the mission to proclaim the gospel. The one sent by the Lord does not speak and act on his own authority but by virtue of Christ’s authority; not as a member of the community but speaking to it in the name of Christ. No one can bestow grace on himself; it must be given and offered. This fact presupposes ministers of grace, authorized and empowered by Christ. From him, bishops and priests receive the mission and faculty (”the sacred power”) to act in persona Christi Capitis; deacons receive the strength to serve the people of God in the diaconia of liturgy, word, and charity, in communion with the bishop and his presbyterate. The ministry in which Christ’s emissaries do and give by God’s grace what they cannot do and give by their own powers is called a “sacrament” by the Church’s tradition. Indeed, the ministry of the Church is conferred by a special sacrament. (CCC 875)
After this the apostles went on to appoint others: “And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they believed” (Acts 14:23).

Paul’s writings provide early evidence that at least some of those appointed by the apostles had authority to go on and appoint still others. To Timothy he wrote, “What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). And to Titus, “This is why I left you in Crete, that you might amend what was defective, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you” (Ti. 1:5).

History confirms that the Church is the one spoken about in the Bible. There is no other.

Just because Matthias is not heard from again does not mean that he is irrelevant. That is a silly conclusion.

Show me where the Trinitarian concept is taught. And where going to Church on Sunday is taught. I’m not saying that these beliefs are wrong - they are right - but I’m saying that the authority to teach these comes from the institute that Christ left on Earth. Not the New Testament, which was assembled hundreds of years later. The Church.

Actually, I haven’t run across the idea of a tribunal running the Church before. Nice one. As we have said many times - there seems to be a competition to come up with new nuances and scintillating spins on Christianity. I’m not going to answer the other points in your post now - they’ve all been answered many times. And if you really wanted to know what the Catholic Church’s position is on things - how and why - you might go right to the online Catechism and find out. Or Catholic.com. Or the Vatican.

When I have the time, I’ll reply more in depth.

Thank you for a very in depth post.

[GoLightly]

Responses?—well, if that’s the case, it could be the proverbial pot-kettle scenario.

Not really, unless you want to say that all satire is folly. The underlying purpose behind satire is to create discomfort about the target.

Certainly not the high road.

I'm sure you'd prefer we joined you in using "holy" objects to aid in worship rituals or at the least, remain silent about the practice. To us, that would hardly be the high road.

The particular “responses” I was referring to do not reflect Christ-like attitudes. They seem a lot more like 8th grade level taunting.

I think Christ would be more blunt.

[GoLightly]

Are you going to offer up holy spam on this thread every day until it dies?

[P-Marlowe]

Interesting. I think that I could get used to that thought pattern. So, rather than being constantly on the defense, we Christians should be on the OFFENSE against heresy and apostasy

Indeed we should. And indeed we are.

That is why these threads are so valuable. We can show from scripture where other Christians have drifted into error by the judicious use of the final authority on issues of faith, doctrine and morals, the SCRIPTURES!. We can also, use the scriptures to bring people to faith in Christ, which, of course is the primary goal in storming the gates of hell.

And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (2 Timothy 3:15-16 KJV)

So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. (Romans 10:17 KJV)

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thessalonians 5:21 KJV)

Maybe WE (as true believers in Christ) can work together on this project, eh?

And just because you all fell into heresy and schism, your lies cannot stand up to the whole Gospel of Christ, as declared by His Church.

Who are you speaking to there?

Of course, we need to give credit where credit is due: we need to caveat our first post on these threads something as follows: "Following the advice of ears-to-hear and P-Marlowe, I am compelled to come onto this thread and correct your error."

Feel free. We can all use a little correction now and again. I certainly make no claim to perfection, either for myself or for my Church. You correct me, I'll return the favor.

I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. (Psalms 138:2 KJV)

May God use his precious word to bring us all into communion with Him!

[GoLightly]

So we authentic Christians should be more evangelistic in our methods and not so defensive and passive...

That's it! You got it.

I hope you can detect a slight amount of facetiousness in the above.

Do not be shy. We are meant to share the good news!

[Running On Empty]

You can’t be at all “sure” of what I would wish. Whatever gave you the idea that you can?

And, of course, you are free to think whatever you wish about what Jesus would have said. We can never be sure of that either.

[GoLightly]

You can’t be at all “sure” of what I would wish. Whatever gave you the idea that you can?

Correct me then. What would you wish?

And, of course, you are free to think whatever you wish about what Jesus would have said. We can never be sure of that either.

True.

[pjr12345]

Read the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Well now, there's a trustworthy source.

NOT

[Jaded]

This is witness?

[Frank Sheed]

[Jaded]

I’m always amazed by the Christian charity displayed on these types of threads. I shouldn’t be... but I still am.

[Frank Sheed]