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]

Then this will make you ecstatically happy:

(i) A social religion

Almost the first thing we see when we look at a man is that he is not an isolated unit independent of others, but a social being bound to others both by needs that cannot be satisfied and by powers that must remain unused save in relation to other men. It would be strange if God, having made man social, should ignore the fact in His own personal dealings with man. To treat man as an isolated independent unit would be as monstrous in religion as in any other department of human life. It would be to treat man as what he is not. But the one being who is not likely to do that is God, who made man what he is, and made him so because that is what He wanted him to be. A religion which should consist in an individual relation of each person directly to God would be no religion for man. A social being requires a social religion. Within that social religion, the individual will have his own religious needs and experiences, but they will be within and not external to, or a substitute for, his approach to God and God’s approach to him in union with other men.

Individualist religious theories there have always been, even among Christians. They have never been able to carry out the full logic of their individualist theory because their nature as human beings stood too solidly in the way. Something in religion they have had to get from other men. So the Bible-Christian despising priesthood and minimizing Church has yet had to fall back upon the Bible; and the Bible, although it is given to us by God, is given through men, the men who under His inspiration wrote it. A religion wherein the soul finds and maintains a relation with God with no dependence upon men is impossible, and what makes it impossible is the nature God gave man. The only question, then, is whether religion shall do its very uttermost to elude the social element in man’s nature, accepting only so much as it can by no possibility avoid; or whether it shall wholly accept and glory in the social element as something given by God, something therefore to be used to the uttermost in religion as in the rest of man’s life. In giving man the religion of the Kingdom, God showed what His own answer is .

Christ did not leave His followers free at their discretion to form their own groups if it seemed good to them, or to remain isolated if it seemed good to them. He banded them into a flock, a society, a Church. “He gave Himself for us, to ransom us from all our guilt, a people set apart for Himself. What the Jews had been, the Church now is. We remember Moses’ words” “This is the blood of the covenant.” But now, we have Christ’s word: “This is my blood of the new covenant.” There is a new covenant and a new people: not just millions of redeemed individuals: a people. The brotherhood of every Christian with Christ involved the brotherhood of every Christian with one another. His normal way of giving them His gifts of truth and life was to be through the society: in other words, the whole Christian life was not to be a solitary relation of each soul to Christ but to each to all in Christ: this is what the Apostle’s Creed means by the “Communion of Saints. In solidarity with other men, we fell in Adam and rose again with Christ; in the same solidarity, we live the new life...

Theology and Sanity, Frank J. Sheed, ISBN 0-89870-470-7, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1993, Part III. Dispensing the Gifts. 21. The Kingdom, (i) A social religion, pp. 289-291 296-297.

[pjr12345]

I’m just asking your opinion, friend. Must a person be baptized in order to gain salvation?

I realize and appreciate that.

However, Frank Sheed has established this thread so that Protestants can howl about the bead culture (kidding!), and I don't want to rain on his parade by diving into an entirely different topic.

[Frank Sheed]

Excellent points!

L’Chaim!
F

[Frank Sheed]

I actually posted it because the Spirit moved me to, and because NYer, sandyeggo, tax-chick, tiki and Trisham would probably find it because it is about “our Mother.”

[pjr12345]

I stand corrected!

[Frank Sheed]

;-o)

[Frank Sheed]

The inimitable Mr. Hillaire Belloc:

From his first entrance into the public arena, Belloc made it clear where his allegiance lay. Standing for election to Parliament in 1906, he opened his campaign by announcing to the mainly Protestant voters: “Gentlemen, I am a Catholic. As far as possible I go to Mass every day. This is a rosary. As far as possible I kneel down and tell these beads every day. If you reject me on account of my religion, I shall thank God that He has spared me the indignity of being your representative.”

Anticipating the conversion of Mrs. Tax:

Heretics all, whoever you be,
In Tarbes or Nimes, or over the sea,
You never shall have good words from me.
Caritas non conturbat me.
But Catholic (wo)men that live upon wine ;-o)
Are deep in the water, and frank, and fine.
Benedicamus Domino.

What sustained Belloc? He himself would be the last to make explicit broadcast of it, but we may well conclude that a soldierly love for Our Blessed Lady figured predominantly in all that he tried to do for the Faith. He once wrote of Our Lady to Gilbert Chesterton: “She never fails us. She has never failed me in any demand.” And in one of his poems addressed to Our Lady, he says:

Help of the half-defeated, House of Gold,
Shrine of the Sword, and Tower of Ivory;
Splendor apart, supreme and aureoled,
The Battler’s vision and the world’s reply.
You shall restore me, O my last Ally,
To vengeance and the glories of the bold.
This is the faith that I have held and hold,
And this is that in which I mean to die.

[Ping-Pong]

As I said, there is lots of personal variation in the vary large spectrum of Christian belief. I’ve come across Christians who are keeping Jewish dietary law, and saying that Jesus’s “nothing that goes into a man can render him unclean,” with St. John’s comment, “Thus He declared all foods clean,” somehow didn’t apply to them

My understanding of the food laws is that scavengers aren't for us to consume. They are considered unclean. Acts 10:11-16 tells us of God showing Peter unclean foods and saying, "Rise Peter; kill and eat."

This was to show Peter that gentiles were not unclean. He didn't mean for Peter to actually eat the unclean food. While Peter was questioning what the vision meant the "vessel was received up again into heaven." He wasn't meant to eat it.

It isn't a sin to eat those foods but God tells us not to eat them for our health. Scavengers are to clean the earth and if we consume them we consume the poisons they absorbed. For instance, swine - they don't sweat so all the toxins remain in their flesh, especially in the fat.

If you aren't Jewish it may just be a personal health decision. Either way, I believe it to be following His wishes.

[kenth]

Do you ask others to pray for you, such as on any of the various prayer threads right here on FR? Do you pray for others yourself?

How is it any different than asking Saints to pray for you? We’re not praying to the Saints or Mary, we’re asking them to pray for us.

“... pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death.”

[Tax-chick]

That was exactly what I meant about “personal variation.”

[Tax-chick]

I do NOT live upon wine! I live upon lentils, chickpeas and eggplant, and the wine is just to wash it down!

[pjr12345]

Food Laws for Christians:

Acts 15:28-29 — 28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.

[Suzy Quzy]

Do you now say the Rosary?

[pjr12345]

I live upon lentils, chickpeas and eggplant, and the wine is just to wash it down!

Yikes! With a diet like that only do you need the wine to wash it down, but to forget about your sorrows of having eaten.

[Tax-chick]

:-).

I have great cookbooks.

[Suzy Quzy]

You brought back memories of our nightly Rosaries during Lent...kneeling on the hard floor in a circle....sniff....it’s not the same now just walking around my house saying it.

[Suzy Quzy]

"Vain" repetitions....VAIN being the operative word...."I"

Jesus gave us the Our Father and God thru Elizabeth and the angel Gabriel gave us the Hail Mary....I think it's pretty clear that GOD wants us to pray those two prayers.

[Ransomed]

“Unless they want to admit Mary is near deity in the eyes of Catholicism, which I doubt any would be bold enough to say.”

Why wouldn’t they be bold enough to say?

Freegards

[Blogger]

Lack of honesty to themselves, I suppose.