T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
If I may, as a long-standing ‘older’ Catholic who has (gasp) read the Bible through several times, the difficulty many of these “I am a Catholic who has just read the Bible and now I’m not sure of Catholic teachings” 
face is that most often they do not read the Bible in context. The books of the Bible are not 73 ‘separate’ books set up to be read like individual novels and reflecting the cultural and linguistic aspects of current society.
If you carefully examine Scripture you will find that Jesus Himself in the garden of Gethsemane prayed to His Father to remove the cup–and He repeated these same prayers in the three separate examples where He kept praying and trying to keep the apostles awake to pray with Him.
If Jesus Christ Himself can use the ‘same words in prayer over and over’ (a definition of ‘repetition’), then obviously what is written in Scripture does not mean that one cannot repeat, ever. (Again, try reading Psalm 136 which is in couplets with the second line “For his mercy endures forever.” This is repetition. . .repetition for effect, and certainly not 'vain.")
So often our Protestant brothers and sisters engage in cherry picking of this type. . .finding a word or a phrase and saying, “See, no repetition is allowed”. They then gleefully point to “Catholic junk” that supposedly shows the Catholics ‘disregarding the Bible’. . .but first, their premise is flawed (repetition which is not ‘vain’ is permitted and indeed by Christ’s example encouraged), and second, they ignore the ‘genesis’ and the intent of the practice, preferring instead to paint it as a ‘pagan’ gesture.
Many cultures use beads as an adjunct to prayer, including Muslims and Jews, throughout their history, as well as some of the Eastern religions. Those of use who remember using an abacus back in grade school can easily see that ‘number beads’ or ‘counting beads’ are no more ‘pagan’ when applied to counting anything, be it coins, abstract numbers, or prayers, than any other calculating tool.
So, ‘counting’ is a religiously neutral practice, I think we can agree.
Now, we have 150 psalms, yes? Amazingly enough, the old practice of reciting 3 complete rosaries of 50 beads each equaled. . .gasp–150 psalms. The ‘psalter’ (see the word, root same as psalms) was again a clerical practice of saying those 150 psalms daily. This again goes back to early Jewish roots whereby Jews prayed at 7 specified ‘hours’ of the day, and to early Christian exhortations to ‘pray unceasingly’.
Priests and some nuns could read the Psalms, but many lay people could not. But most of them could say an Ave (yes, they spoke the Latin words then), and in fact, the earliest Hail Mary was only the first part, directly found in Luke 2, “Ave Maria, gratia plena, dominus tecum. Benedicta tu in mulieribus, and benedictus fructus ventris tui.”
They could also pray the Pater (Our Father) but this prayer is somewhat longer. It is used at the start of each decade (group of 10).
The rosary thus is rooted in the Scriptural and cultural practices of Christianity. Though people may claim it is 'Mary oriented" as opposed to Christ-oriented, this is simply an unfortunate effect of Protestantism which in addition to misunderstanding Scriptural context in addition continually sets up false dicotomies where said Protestant will constantly claim that X is opposed to Y, and therefore must be stopped, although X and Y are NOT opposed, indeed, Y directly contributes to and supports X, and therefore is perfectly correct Christian teaching. The rosary is not “to Mary and NOT Jesus” as though prayer to or even THINKING of Mary ‘takes away’ from Jesus, as though they were put in opposition to each other. They most certainly are not.
What exactly do we meditate on in the rosary? Let me tell you.
The Joyful mysteries: The annunciation. The visitation. The Nativity. The Presentation. The Finding of the Child Jesus in the temple.
anything there that is NOT directly related to the story of JESUS?
k
The Sorrowful mysteries: The agony in the garden. The Scourging at the Pillar. The Crowning of Thorns. The Carrying of the Cross. The Crucifixion.
Can anybody tell me that these are not the absolutely CENTRAL elements of Christ’s salvific actions? How are these not all Christocentric?
The Glorious Mysteries: The Resurrection. The Ascension. The descent of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles. (Every one related to Christ). The last two of these are indeed on first view Mary related and indeed anathema to protestants, but seen in the light of Revelation and as a prefiguring of our own eternal lives in Christ, the final two: The assumption of Mary (and may I remind you that our Orthodox brothers and sisters in the Dormition share this belief–something you might consider before jumping down OUR throats alone), and the crowning of Mary as Queen (and again, for those who know Jewish history, this Queenship does not reflect Mary as reigning ‘queen’ on her own but instead reflects her Queen status as ‘MOTHER OF THE KING’, seen particularly in the Old Testament.
Finally, from Pope John Paul 2 we have new 'luminous mysteries. They are: The Baptism in the Jordan, The marriage feast at Cana, the Proclamation of the Kingdom, the Transfiguration, and the Institution of the Eucharist.
Of the entire 20 mysteries, only 2 could be considered as ‘more’ Mary, and again, they are only related to Mary by virtue of her being the mother of Jesus, not to Mary doing anything ‘on her own.’ She was ‘assumed’ into heaven; she did not ‘ascend’ under her own power. She was CROWNED in heaven, she did not ‘take’ the crown herself, she did not ‘do’ the actual reigning, etc. etc. She was simply given the status in the kingdom (mother of the King) that she had on earth (mother of the Lord). Simple as that.
Praying the rosary does bring a person closer to Mary. . .but not at the expense of taking them ‘away’ from Jesus. The closer you get to Mary, the closer you will get to Jesus. . .guaranteed.
face is that most often they do not read the Bible in context. The books of the Bible are not 73 ‘separate’ books set up to be read like individual novels and reflecting the cultural and linguistic aspects of current society.If you carefully examine Scripture you will find that Jesus Himself in the garden of Gethsemane prayed to His Father to remove the cup–and He repeated these same prayers in the three separate examples where He kept praying and trying to keep the apostles awake to pray with Him.
If Jesus Christ Himself can use the ‘same words in prayer over and over’ (a definition of ‘repetition’), then obviously what is written in Scripture does not mean that one cannot repeat, ever. (Again, try reading Psalm 136 which is in couplets with the second line “For his mercy endures forever.” This is repetition. . .repetition for effect, and certainly not 'vain.")
So often our Protestant brothers and sisters engage in cherry picking of this type. . .finding a word or a phrase and saying, “See, no repetition is allowed”. They then gleefully point to “Catholic junk” that supposedly shows the Catholics ‘disregarding the Bible’. . .but first, their premise is flawed (repetition which is not ‘vain’ is permitted and indeed by Christ’s example encouraged), and second, they ignore the ‘genesis’ and the intent of the practice, preferring instead to paint it as a ‘pagan’ gesture.
Many cultures use beads as an adjunct to prayer, including Muslims and Jews, throughout their history, as well as some of the Eastern religions. Those of use who remember using an abacus back in grade school can easily see that ‘number beads’ or ‘counting beads’ are no more ‘pagan’ when applied to counting anything, be it coins, abstract numbers, or prayers, than any other calculating tool.
So, ‘counting’ is a religiously neutral practice, I think we can agree.
Now, we have 150 psalms, yes? Amazingly enough, the old practice of reciting 3 complete rosaries of 50 beads each equaled. . .gasp–150 psalms. The ‘psalter’ (see the word, root same as psalms) was again a clerical practice of saying those 150 psalms daily. This again goes back to early Jewish roots whereby Jews prayed at 7 specified ‘hours’ of the day, and to early Christian exhortations to ‘pray unceasingly’.
Priests and some nuns could read the Psalms, but many lay people could not. But most of them could say an Ave (yes, they spoke the Latin words then), and in fact, the earliest Hail Mary was only the first part, directly found in Luke 2, “Ave Maria, gratia plena, dominus tecum. Benedicta tu in mulieribus, and benedictus fructus ventris tui.”
They could also pray the Pater (Our Father) but this prayer is somewhat longer. It is used at the start of each decade (group of 10).
The rosary thus is rooted in the Scriptural and cultural practices of Christianity. Though people may claim it is 'Mary oriented" as opposed to Christ-oriented, this is simply an unfortunate effect of Protestantism which in addition to misunderstanding Scriptural context in addition continually sets up false dicotomies where said Protestant will constantly claim that X is opposed to Y, and therefore must be stopped, although X and Y are NOT opposed, indeed, Y directly contributes to and supports X, and therefore is perfectly correct Christian teaching. The rosary is not “to Mary and NOT Jesus” as though prayer to or even THINKING of Mary ‘takes away’ from Jesus, as though they were put in opposition to each other. They most certainly are not.
What exactly do we meditate on in the rosary? Let me tell you.
The Joyful mysteries: The annunciation. The visitation. The Nativity. The Presentation. The Finding of the Child Jesus in the temple.
anything there that is NOT directly related to the story of JESUS?
k
The Sorrowful mysteries: The agony in the garden. The Scourging at the Pillar. The Crowning of Thorns. The Carrying of the Cross. The Crucifixion.
Can anybody tell me that these are not the absolutely CENTRAL elements of Christ’s salvific actions? How are these not all Christocentric?
The Glorious Mysteries: The Resurrection. The Ascension. The descent of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles. (Every one related to Christ). The last two of these are indeed on first view Mary related and indeed anathema to protestants, but seen in the light of Revelation and as a prefiguring of our own eternal lives in Christ, the final two: The assumption of Mary (and may I remind you that our Orthodox brothers and sisters in the Dormition share this belief–something you might consider before jumping down OUR throats alone), and the crowning of Mary as Queen (and again, for those who know Jewish history, this Queenship does not reflect Mary as reigning ‘queen’ on her own but instead reflects her Queen status as ‘MOTHER OF THE KING’, seen particularly in the Old Testament.
Finally, from Pope John Paul 2 we have new 'luminous mysteries. They are: The Baptism in the Jordan, The marriage feast at Cana, the Proclamation of the Kingdom, the Transfiguration, and the Institution of the Eucharist.
Of the entire 20 mysteries, only 2 could be considered as ‘more’ Mary, and again, they are only related to Mary by virtue of her being the mother of Jesus, not to Mary doing anything ‘on her own.’ She was ‘assumed’ into heaven; she did not ‘ascend’ under her own power. She was CROWNED in heaven, she did not ‘take’ the crown herself, she did not ‘do’ the actual reigning, etc. etc. She was simply given the status in the kingdom (mother of the King) that she had on earth (mother of the Lord). Simple as that.
Praying the rosary does bring a person closer to Mary. . .but not at the expense of taking them ‘away’ from Jesus. The closer you get to Mary, the closer you will get to Jesus. . .guaranteed.
