The Rosary - What is Not Understood?

[pablope]

As romantic as that is, how is it like the rosary at all? I really don’t see the correlation. Asking for prayer and jotting down the number of times such prayer is said in no way relates to giving gifts to loved ones.

I just don’t like world analogies for spiritual things. I don’t take issue with asking the Saints to pray for us if possible, but the way it’s done does not remind me of the way we do things here on Earth.

"Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.

Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen."

If this is how we are to ask Mary to pray for us, why must we say it over and over. I just don’t get it.

How many sinners do you think there are in the world? One Hail Mary for each sinner…everytime the Hail Mary is prayed…this would be endless.

 

[dronald]

How many sinners do you think there are in the world? One Hail Mary for each sinner…everytime the Hail Mary is prayed…this would be endless.

Again, if this is the reason then it’s superstition.

 

[Dorothy]

As romantic as that is, how is it like the rosary at all? I really don’t see the correlation. Asking for prayer and jotting down the number of times such prayer is said in no way relates to giving gifts to loved ones.

I just don’t like world analogies for spiritual things. I don’t take issue with asking the Saints to pray for us if possible, but the way it’s done does not remind me of the way we do things here on Earth.

“Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.”

If this is how we are to ask Mary to pray for us, why must we say it over and over. I just don’t get it.

I’ll attempt to explain. When I pray the Rosary I first put the picture of the particular mystery to be meditated on in my imagination. The first sorrowful mystery is the Agony in the Garden. I picture our Lord alone, after he asked a few apostles to watch and wait with Him. They fell asleep. I keep looking at Him in his agony in the garden. As I do this I am saying the Hail Mary ten times. I can and do experience distractions and can then think of her total attentiveness to Jesus. That can last about two seconds and then again I bring to mind the image of Jesus alone in the garden with the burden of what is coming up for him, and many who will be indifferent to his infinite love.

I then go back and forth, to the best of my ability, keeping the image of Jesus in the garden, desiring someone to watch and wait with Him. A worldly thought can pop into my mind such as what should I buy at the food market later? I then go back into the prayer and continue with the Hail Mary prayer as sort of background music to my attempts at thinking of Jesus’ sufferings. The chanting (in my head, unless I am praying the rosary communally) keeps me on track. I believe that no one knew Jesus better than the Blessed Virgin.

Over time this can get better. And people’s personalities differ, so some do not use their imagination as much as others in a “picture” way, but they show empathy to the Lord in their own way.

As I mentioned in a previous post a while back in this thread, when one is praying the Rosary alone there can be times when you just stop and need to be silent so that you can hear the Lord speaking to your spirit.

I hope this helped a bit.

Peace,

Dorothy

 

[dronald]

I’ll attempt to explain. When I pray the Rosary I first put the picture of the particular mystery to be meditated on in my imagination. The first sorrowful mystery is the Agony in the Garden. I picture our Lord alone, after he asked a few apostles to watch and wait with Him. They fell asleep. I keep looking at Him in his agony in the garden. As I do this I am saying the Hail Mary ten times. I can and do experience distractions and can then think of her total attentiveness to Jesus. That can last about two seconds and then again I bring to mind the image of Jesus alone in the garden with the burden of what is coming up for him, and many who will be indifferent to his infinite love.

I then go back and forth, to the best of my ability, keeping the image of Jesus in the garden, desiring someone to watch and wait with Him. A worldly thought can pop into my mind such as what should I buy at the food market later? I then go back into the prayer and continue with the Hail Mary prayer as sort of background music to my attempts at thinking of Jesus’ sufferings. The chanting (in my head, unless I am praying the rosary communally) keeps me on track. I believe that no one knew Jesus better than the Blessed Virgin.

Over time this can get better. And people’s personalities differ, so some do not use their imagination as much as others in a “picture” way, but they show empathy to the Lord in their own way.

As I mentioned in a previous post a while back in this thread, when one is praying the Rosary alone there can be times when you just stop and need to be silent so that you can hear the Lord speaking to your spirit.

I hope this helped a bit.

Peace,

Dorothy

I think you’ve given the best answer (imo) because you spoke of how it personally affects you. Oftentimes when I’m discussing why I believe in Christ to my peers I forget that the greatest proof of all is my own testimony. No one can argue with that.

But I don’t see this as beneficial to me personally, I would rather say the Lord’s prayer and if I were to say it a certain amount of times it would be based on instinct, not on a set number. I notice all you think of is Christ during your plead to Mary, which is commendable because when I’m asking anyone for help, my greatest hope remains on God.

 

[Nicea325]

Do you know what sola Scriptura is?

Whose version or understanding of it?

 

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by dronald
I’ve seen the example of **altar calls **come up a few times and I’m wondering what exactly it is and how it’s unbiblical? Just based on wiki alone it sounds like people go up and accept Christ; isn’t that what was happening in Acts 2?

37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do? "

The rest of the chapter has them (3000) being Baptized, giving up everything and being Christian. This is not anything like the process of the RCIA and closer to altar calls I would think?

Not for the entire chapter. You cannot isolate a verse here and there to prove a point. Second, I find it odd it is called altar calls when most Protestant churches have no altar.

 

[pablope]

Again, if this is the reason then it’s superstition.

Praying for sinners is superstition?

You are a sinner…correct? Do you pray for yourself? Then is that superstition?

Check this thread out:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=11012687#post11012687

]In hierarchical terms, Mary (human) is higher than us, but infinitely lower than Christ (God and man).

Since the ancients understood their lowlinness in relation to God much better than we do, they naturally were attracted to the 100% human mother, whereby Christ could be accessed through her compassion and lowliness. Men knew they were lowly and unworthy. Mary was a human being, sharing in our lowliness. Yet she was also the Mother of God, and she had her son’s ear! Thus, many were instinctively drawn to approach God through His mother.

Today, man is arrogant. We don’t understand our own unworthiness in relation to God. Thus, for many, praying through Mary to Christ is not intuitive. But to men of the 1st and 2nd centuries, and later, it was just common sense. This Tradition has been handed on for 2000 years. But that is why Protestants don’t don’t “get it”, because their theology and spiritual practices have their roots in the 15th century, rather than in the ancient Traditions of The Church

 

[Peter_J]

Many protestants are hesitant to concede this, for there is not really evidence of this in scripture. Praying to Mary isn’t literally the same because she has indeed passed over, she isn’t currently living on this earth in physical form. Even if the bodily assumption is granted from our perspective, that wouldn’t really change anything.

So, I truly do respect the idea of asking a saint in Heaven to pray for you,** I don’t really accept that it is exactly the same as asking someone standing beside you to pray**

I don’t think we claim that it is exactly the same. (Well, I guess some individual Catholics might do at times, especially when they’re in the midst of an argument that they are eager to win.)

 

[Dorothy]

I think you’ve given the best answer (imo) because you spoke of how it personally affects you. Oftentimes when I’m discussing why I believe in Christ to my peers I forget that the greatest proof of all is my own testimony. No one can argue with that.

But I don’t see this as beneficial to me personally, I would rather say the Lord’s prayer and if I were to say it a certain amount of times it would be based on instinct, not on a set number. I notice all you think of is Christ during your plead to Mary, which is commendable because when I’m asking anyone for help, my greatest hope remains on God.

Thank you for your response.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Praying for sinners is superstition?

You are a sinner…correct? Do you pray for yourself? Then is that superstition?

Check this thread out:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=11012687#post11012687

]In hierarchical terms, Mary (human) is higher than us, but infinitely lower than Christ (God and man).

Since the ancients understood their lowlinness in relation to God much better than we do, they naturally were attracted to the 100% human mother, whereby Christ could be accessed through her compassion and lowliness. Men knew they were lowly and unworthy. Mary was a human being, sharing in our lowliness. Yet she was also the Mother of God, and she had her son’s ear! Thus, many were instinctively drawn to approach God through His mother.

Today, man is arrogant. We don’t understand our own unworthiness in relation to God. Thus, for many, praying through Mary to Christ is not intuitive. But to men of the 1st and 2nd centuries, and later, it was just common sense. This Tradition has been handed on for 2000 years. But that is why Protestants don’t don’t “get it”, because their theology and spiritual practices have their roots in the 15th century, rather than in the ancient Traditions of The Church

Martin Luther referred to Mary as second only to Christ since she is the Mother of God, Queen of Heaven.

 

[Kliska]

I don’t think we claim that it is exactly the same. (Well, I guess some individual Catholics might do at times, especially when they’re in the midst of an argument that they are eager to win.)

I think that it is a simplification to get protestants to shut up! lolol That’s just me joking folks. I think it is used to demonstrate that they aren’t worshiping the Saint by praying to them.

Along those lines, I have a question though; if praying to a Saint is asking them to pray to God for you, then why do we fine prayers to saints that do ask for something like protection. “St. Michael defend us” for example. Protestants fully believe in Angels, but most wouldn’t make a request of them directly, but rather go to God to ask for angelic help. Is it different for angels vs. human saints?

 

[JonNC]

What’s your take on the Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel? Just curious.

The feast day for St. Michael is on the Lutheran calendar, Sept. 29. Typically, we do not invoke (pray to) angels, anymore than we would the saints in Heaven.
On the other hand, we do have a hymn for all angels:
1st verse
Lord God, we all to Thee give praise,
Thanksgivings meet to Thee we raise,
That angel hosts Thou didst create
Around Thy glorious throne to wait.

cyberhymnal.org/htm/l/g/w/lgwa2tgp.htm

Jon

 

[Kliska]

Precisely why Protestanism is all over the place and with the belief it is all “biblical”-right? Scripture is all over the rosary…I do not see anything about altar calls,etc,etc,etc.

You seem to want to argue about something that there’s nothing to argue about. I’d note that not all Roman Catholics believe what the RCC teaches. I don’t hold you responsible for them, why do you insist on holding me responsible for all protestants?

I call it an appeal to historical evidence. And I see no compelling madate about or specifics about your standard about baptism either. Have faith in Jesus? Yes! However, tell me when a mentally retarded child will make such a decision? Tell me when they are commanded to have faith in Jesus in order to be baptized? According to your standard they are instantly outside the norm-no? What happens to them? An infant cannot have faith? And can infant feed themselves? Nope! But mom and dad sure can and God easily know the intentions of mom and dad for a child’s baptism. Did eight day old male boys have a clue about circumcision? I disagree with the Protestant belief one must make an intelligent decision or acceptance in order to be baptized. Such a norm automatically eliminates scores of people.

God holds us to the level of our understanding. Many people facing mental challenges can understand God and Jesus better than any of us, and many can’t. You’re talking to a protestant who doesn’t believe scripture teaches that water baptism is necessary for salvation, but rather an outflow of it. I don’t think it is needed for an infant below the age of accountability nor for those who literally are unable to understand. I believe, however, that most children come to an age of faith fairly early on, the gospel is so simple even an adult can understand it…

Which scripture did they recognize? Can you answer such a question? Did Paul accept Tobit? Judith? Sirach? You seem to ignore many other writings were in circulation and where considered scripture by various communities.

I don’t ignore them but the Apostles surely did know Truth from fiction. Do you not believe the Apostles knew which scripture was valid and which are not?

The protestant who believes or practices them would disagree with you…and even say it is biblical and you are wrong to disagree with them…so who is right-you or the one who does altar calls?

Altar calls are non-salvational issues, many of us tend to use charity in non-essentials.

And what or where is your authority to tell them they are wrong?

God and scripture. As I’ve said elsewhere, the RCC moves the dilemma back a notch, but it’s still there. Where is the authority of the humans that make up the magisterium? God, right? We protestants believe that we can be lead just like you believe the magisterium can be lead. You trust they will interpret correctly because of the Holy Spirit. I believe I will because of the Holy Spirit. I believe, just as with them, that it takes study, prayer, humbleness and the Holy Spirit. That we all can’t agree (even amongst Catholics and Orthodox) shows that humans are fallible, not God.

But the difference is…the first christians has priests appointed via apostolic authority

No they didn’t. There was no separate priesthood as defined by the RCC in the earliest churches. Believers are all priests.

How about what Peter and Paul wrote…they did not think it would become Scripture…so why do you say it is scripture?

Peter calls Paul’s writings scripture.

Who told you that what Paul or Peter wrote is Scripture?

Peter did for one.

On another note…there were no protestants at the time of Peter and paul…so should all protestants be ditched? shown the door out?

You can try, but my Father probably wouldn’t approve you trying to usurp His prerogative. We are Christian, were their Christians at the time of Peter and Paul? There were no Roman Catholics at Pentecost, yet I’d never argue that they should all be ditched.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Precisely why Protestanism is all over the place and with the belief it is all “biblical”-right? Scripture is all over the rosary…I do not see anything about altar calls,etc,etc,etc.

Kliska:
You seem to want to argue about something that there’s nothing to argue about. I’d note that not all Roman Catholics believe what the RCC teaches. I don’t hold you responsible for them, why do you insist on holding me responsible for all protestants?

The issue at hand pertains to practices,not accountability to teachings.

Quote:
I call it an appeal to historical evidence. And I see no compelling madate about or specifics about your standard about baptism either. Have faith in Jesus? Yes! However, tell me when a mentally retarded child will make such a decision? Tell me when they are commanded to have faith in Jesus in order to be baptized? According to your standard they are instantly outside the norm-no? What happens to them? An infant cannot have faith? And can infant feed themselves? Nope! But mom and dad sure can and God easily know the intentions of mom and dad for a child’s baptism. Did eight day old male boys have a clue about circumcision? I disagree with the Protestant belief one must make an intelligent decision or acceptance in order to be baptized. Such a norm automatically eliminates scores of people.

Kliska:
God holds us to the level of our understanding. Many people facing mental challenges can understand God and Jesus better than any of us, and many can’t. You’re talking to a protestant who doesn’t believe scripture teaches that water baptism is necessary for salvation, but rather an outflow of it. I don’t think it is needed for an infant below the age of accountability nor for those who literally are unable to understand. I believe, however, that **most children **come to an age of faith fairly early on, the gospel is so simple even an adult can understand it…

Key words:Most children? Again…what about the ones who cannot adhere to your standard of baptism?

Quote:
Which scripture did they recognize? Can you answer such a question? Did Paul accept Tobit? Judith? Sirach? You seem to ignore many other writings were in circulation and where considered scripture by various communities.

Kliska:
I don’t ignore them but the Apostles surely did know Truth from fiction. Do you not believe the Apostles knew which scripture was valid and which are not?

Yes which is why the early Christians used the Septuagint which is quoted in the NT which even my NIV Study Bible confirms. :tiphat:

Quote:
But the difference is…the first christians has priests appointed via apostolic authority

Kliska:
No they didn’t. There was no separate priesthood as defined by the RCC in the earliest churches. Believers are all priests

.

The NT mentions bishops who are priests. The distinction between bishop and priest developed over time. Who was at the Last Supper? Only the twelve who were ordained priests. Jesus would had scores of people, if the ordained priesthood didn’t many anything to him.The CC teaches we are all prophet,king and priest. But we are not ordained ministerial priests-big difference. No mention of just ordinary folks performing the Lord’s Supper in the NT or in early church history. Reformers rejected the ministerial priesthood.

Quote:
How about what Peter and Paul wrote…they did not think it would become Scripture…so why do you say it is scripture?

Kliska:
Peter calls Paul’s writings scripture

.

Yeah…and Clements Letter to the Corinthians was called Scripture. Why isn’t in our NT?

Quote:
Who told you that what Paul or Peter wrote is Scripture?

Kliska:
Peter did for one.

And yet every letter in the NT still had to meet a criteria.

Quote:
On another note…there were no protestants at the time of Peter and paul…so should all protestants be ditched? shown the door out?

Kliska:
You can try, but my Father probably wouldn’t approve you trying to usurp His prerogative. We are Christian, were their Christians at the time of Peter and Paul? There were no Roman Catholics at Pentecost, yet I’d never argue that they should all be ditched.

The term “Roman” Catholic was not in use. But guess what? Christians already existed in Rome and were not some at Pentecost? Acts 2 sure says many were from Rome,Pamphylia,etc. Sounds very Catholic to me.

 

[Kliska]

The issue at hand pertains to practices,not accountability to teachings.

Yes, and I answer for my practices not anyone else’s.

Key words:Most children? Again…what about the ones who cannot adhere to your standard of baptism?

I don’t believe scripture teaches that baptism brings salvation, so there’s no worries on that score.

Yes which is why the early Christians used the Septuagint which is quoted in the NT which even my NIV Study Bible confirms. :tiphat:

Perhaps…

The NT mentions bishops who are priests.

No, the NT mentions bishops/overseers.

The distinction between bishop and priest developed over time.

Yep, as did the idea of a priesthood other than the priesthood of all believers.

Who was at the Last Supper? Only the twelve who were ordained priests. Jesus would had scores of people, if the ordained priesthood didn’t many anything to him.The CC teaches we are all prophet,king and priest. But we are not ordained ministerial priests-big difference. No mention of just ordinary folks performing the Lord’s Supper in the NT or in early church history. Reformers rejected the ministerial priesthood.

Absolutely we rejected it because it isn’t taught in scripture. What good does it do you to be a priest if it has no meaning? Why is is such a big deal that now we are all priests, if not that we are all actual priests?

Yeah…and Clements Letter to the Corinthians was called Scripture. Why isn’t in our NT?

I can call a lot of things scripture, that’s not good enough to make it so. lol However, if Peter or Paul called something scripture, or Jesus, or the Spirit, then yeah, I’ll go with that.

And yet every letter in the NT still had to meet a criteria.

Can I not check the criteria and then check the letters?

The term “Roman” Catholic was not in use. But guess what? Christians already existed in Rome and were not some at Pentecost? Acts 2 sure says many were from Rome,Pamphylia,etc. Sounds very Catholic to me.

I believe the Apostle’s Creed; all believers are part of the Catholic church, but that’s not meaning the RCC. The universal church is alive and well and populated by all believers, RCC, Orthodox, Protestant, labels don’t keep you out or in.

 

[Dorothy]

Kliska:

Catholics believe that the ministerial priesthood began when Jesus said “Do this in memory of me”…(and He had clarified in John 6 that it was Himself that we are to eat, the Risen Christ in the Eucharist.).

Yes, all of us are priests in the sense that we offer our lives sacrificially, day by day, to the Lord in imitation of Him, with the aid of his grace.

 

[Kliska]

Kliska:

Catholics believe that the ministerial priesthood began when Jesus said “Do this in memory of me”…(and He had clarified in John 6 that it was Himself that we are to eat, the Risen Christ in the Eucharist.).

Thank you for your answers. I do understand that that is what the RCC teaches.

Yes, all of us are priests in the sense that we offer our lives sacrificially, day by day, to the Lord in imitation of Him, with the aid of his grace.

This part is really interesting to me, so I’m just kinda asking the thread in general as I think; How would this be seen as different from those in the old covenant who did similar things? Also, we are capable and able to offer up ourselves, but no other priestly duties? With the declaration of us being priests, wouldn’t that also connote something more profound in the Jewish frame of reference?

Grace and peace to you!

 

[pocohombre]

I’m sorry but in Jesus time pagans would say long drawn out jibberish (that is jibberish to everyone even themselves) prayer hoping to stumble on a word that some god understood. That is what Jesus was warning us not to do. And the rosary does not do that. And if you are going to hang your hat on that verse then why do protestant not only pray the our father?

Do you have any sources ? I just looked up about the Roman practices,since that is the closest culture within the Jewish nation that all Jews were familiar with, and their jibbereish was as I stated… But,I’M open to more info and my point may still stand. Why would Jesus tell them not to pray like them if Jews did not pray your type of “jibberish” anyway,and especially to differeing gods ?

 

[Peter_J]

You seem to want to argue about something that there’s nothing to argue about. I’d note that not all Roman Catholics believe what the RCC teaches. I don’t hold you responsible for them, **why do you insist on holding me responsible for all protestants?
**

This wasn’t addressed to me, by I’d point out that the fact that your profile says “Religion: Christian, Protestant” (as opposed to, say, Methodist or Baptist) probably doesn’t help. Kind of like if I told you “I’m apostolic” but didn’t say whether I’m Orthodox, Catholic, etc.

 

[Peter_J]

I don’t get it either - I pray the Palms. There’s 150 of them!

BUT frankly I don’t have to get it - it’s just that some people find the rosary an appropriate way to pray. When my family joined the HHS mandate protest with the local Catholics, they prayed the rosary in the middle of the protest - I found it charming that it brought so many people closer to God in Faith, and we joined in the best we could.

Good post. I would like to add that (obviously) the Catholic hierarchy should step in if/when Catholics go too far.

I’m reminded of an episode of “Web of Faith” I saw a dozen or so years ago. One women emailed in a complaint that a priest had held a scripture-reading service as part of a memorial, instead of saying the rosary as she thought he should have. She then said something like “Is it right for him to make us do this more protestant service?” I forget what Frs. Levis and Trigilio said in reply, but then did *not *agree with her that scripture reading is a protestant thing to do.