“And you would be right since wearing Rosary beads is not only not proper but does nothing of any value since it’s not even a prayer.”
Except that’s exactly what King Alphonso did. He wore the Rosary, he did not say it, thus, by just wearing the Rosary in front of people, it saved him from death and damnation.
I guess you didn’t bother to read what your own religion teaches.
As for your other questions before this, instead of playing the Sophist, you should just read my original post and see for yourself.
“Is there merit is fasting? Yes. Is there merit in almsgiving? Yes. Christ expects us to be Christ-like. He expects us to be united with Him in charity and prayer.”
These conclusions are caused by your absolute confusion on what the scripture actually teaches. None of these things could possibly have any merit in the sight of God, as Paul himself argues that one is saved in uncircumcision through faith, without the working of the law (Romans 4:10-11). In fact, the circumcision came only as a result of the faith “he had yet being uncircumcized.”
In like manner we are to understand 1 Pe 3:21, which does not say “by water you are saved,” as you falsely claim, but says “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,)”. The baptism itself does not “put away... the filth of the flesh,” but the “answer of a good conscience toward God” does. The Syriac version of this scripture renders it “confessing God with a good conscience.” The Vulgate renders it “the interrogation of a good conscience.” This is referring to what Augustine called the “Sacrament of Exorcism,” or what John would have simply called “repentance,” as the person who is baptized customarily renounces their former deeds and officially becomes a member of the Christian religion. Baptism, itself, is the same as saying “being converted to Christianity.”
There is no magical power in the baptismal water itself to do any of these things, but is merely a public conversion to Christianity, a sign of a desire and a new nature that has already been given by God prior to the deed, which finds expression in an outward act. For the truth of this, the Thief on the Cross never touched water after his conversion, but was taken straight to paradise with Christ. Cornelius, in chapter 10 of Acts, was not baptized at at all, but was filled and baptized spiritually by the Holy Ghost.
Even that desire, faith itself, is given by God, and is not the result of any personal righteousness of the individual who is simply good enough, of himself, to desire God.
Joh 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
Joh_15:16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.
Note carefully this second verse. He has “ordained” you (appointed) “that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain.” We did not choose Him, and then go remain in Him by our own power and will, gathering merits and opening up channels of grace by our obedience through saying or wearing rosaries. God chooses us, not only that we should believe, but so that we should produce fruit in Him that should abide forever. And if a fruit is to “abide,” it certainly cannot be of us. It must be the work of God, effected by His own “working in us both to will and to do of His good pleasure” (Php 2:13). As Augustine observes,
“Although the apostle says that it was not because He foreknew that we should be such, but in order that we might be such by the same election of His grace, by which He showed us favour in His beloved Son. When, therefore, He predestinated us, He foreknew His own work by which He makes us holy and immaculate.”
And again,
“’You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you.’ Neither are we called because we believed, but that we may believe; and by that calling which is without repentance it is effected and carried through that we should believe.”
(Both quotes from Augustine’s Treatise On the Predestination of the Saints, Book 1.)
Thus you err in these fantasies of yours because you do not even comprehend what the origin of all merits in us are, which is not from ourselves, but by the working of God who effectually wrought them in us, according to His plan of election established before the world began. So then, would God setup another economy of salvation, along side the economy established on the cross, for to earn grace, when this grace is given to us without our asking or desiring on the day of our conversion? And if grace is given to us when we do not merit it, in a state of “uncircumcision” in the flesh, why would you expect to keep God’s favor through the repetition of rosaries, when it is written “if by grace, then it is no more of works”? (Romans 11:6).
Furthermore, all acts of righteousness are merely a fulfillment of duty, and not of works meriting reward.
Luk_17:10 So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.
Thus, the concept of being saved by your performance of rosaries, seen as a “merit” in our defense, is a blasphemy against God, as the only way to salvation is through Jesus Christ who died for His sheep, and conquered death for His sheep.
“Except that’s exactly what King Alphonso did.”
No. He wore it in his belt, not around his neck.
“He wore the Rosary, he did not say it, thus, by just wearing the Rosary in front of people, it saved him from death and damnation.”
No. As Protestant anti-Catholics are wont to do you are misrepresenting what the story actually said. I have never been able to figure out why anti-Catholics so brazenly lie -or why they are so stupid (whatever the case may be) - when the information age makes it possible for anyone to so easily learn the truth. Here is the actual part which you are misrepresenting:
“She called for a pair of scales and had his sins placed in one of the balances whereas she put the rosary that he had always worn on the other scale, together with all the Rosaries that had been said because of his example. It was found that the Rosaries weighed more than his sins.”
So, there is a set of scales. On one scale Mary put the Rosary that the King wore but never said (and in that way he was acting sinfully). And on the other scale Mary put the rosaries representing the many prayers of the King’s faithful servants who, of course, prayed for the King!
Then two things happened. First, Mary interceded with Jesus (”when Our Lady appeared to intercede for him”) and Jesus decided to allow the King to live because even though he himself sinned by not praying he had encouraged many others to pray: “As a reward for this little honor that you paid me in wearing my Rosary, I have obtained a great grace for you from my Son. Your life will be spared for a few more years. See that you spend these years wisely, and do penance.”
Through her Son (”when Our Lady appeared to intercede for him”) Mary was able to abundantly reward him in a way he could never truly deserve because what he did was so little but it had convinced so many to pray.
Then the “King regained consciousness he cried out: “Blessed be the Rosary of the Most Holy Virgin Mary, by which I have been delivered from eternal damnation!”
The fact is that Jesus saved the King.
1) The King was “before the judgement seat of Our Lord.”
2) He was interceded for by Mary: “Our Lord as Sovereign Judge was just about to condemn him to hell when Our Lady appeared to intercede for him.”
3) Mary showed the King the error of his ways: that he did something for show only when he should have been praying: “She called for a pair of scales and had his sins placed in one of the balances whereas she put the rosary that he had always worn on the other scale, together with all the Rosaries that had been said because of his example.”
4) The King’s example - hollow it might have been in his own practice - encouraged many people to pray: “together with all the Rosaries that had been said because of his example.”
“I guess you didn’t bother to read what your own religion teaches.”
I did read it. That’s why I didn’t misrepresent it like you did.
“As for your other questions before this, instead of playing the Sophist, you should just read my original post and see for yourself.”
Rather than being the evader, why don’t you just answer my questions?
“These conclusions are caused by your absolute confusion on what the scripture actually teaches...as Paul himself argues...”
So, Paul was against mortification of the flesh? No, he was not: 1 Corinthians 9:27.
Sadly, you don’t know the Bible. Many Protestants are now admitting that they’ve been wrong about St. Paul for centuries: Hence the whole New Perspective on St. Paul. So, even some other Protestants disagree with you on this.