The Rosary - What is Not Understood?

[sousley]

Perhaps. But we must not forget what Romans 14 says about such things like this.

Remember that all of us must look out for each other when it comes to debates like the statues and the rosary. Even Paul says in 1 Corinthians 8:

13 Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.

Paul would give up eating meat if only to help his brother’s conscience, even with full knowledge that nothing is unclean. As soon as it becomes an, “us vs them” mentality we must then look to passages like Romans 14.

I completely agree with the premise of building up that you are outlining, but I exercise some caution with a direct correlation of these passage into this situation. The passages you quote reflect a singular Christian faith. The “us vs. them” is between those that accept Jesus as Messiah and those that reject Him. The situation that we are referring to now may be closer in circumstance to the 7 local churches in Revelation; they started out in a singular faith but some began to entertain heresy (rejection of truth) in lieu of alternative practices of their own design. So while I think the general message you illustrate is profitable, we need to stay aware of problems with anachronism.

 

[dronald]

I completely agree with the premise of building up that you are outlining, but I exercise some caution with a direct correlation of these passage into this situation. The passages you quote reflect a singular Christian faith. The “us vs. them” is between those that accept Jesus as Messiah and those that reject Him. The situation that we are referring to now may be closer in circumstance to the 7 local churches in Revelation; they started out in a singular faith but some began to entertain heresy (rejection of truth) in lieu of alternative practices of their own design. So while I think the general message you illustrate is profitable, we need to stay aware of problems with anachronism.

What are your views on Romans 14? It speaks of some days being special to some, some foods being wrong to some, and others the contrary and yet we are not to judge on such things.

 

[sousley]

What are your views on Romans 14? It speaks of some days being special to some, some foods being wrong to some, and others the contrary and yet we are not to judge on such things.

Seriously, you are going to make me get my bible out? I don’t know how I feel about that!
OK. we are talking about building up our weaker members. Correct me if I’m putting words in your mouth but, your view is that the Christian community must be charitable in respect to those weaker (in this case, Jewish converts) with their keeping some of the old covenant practices. If this be the case, I agree with the charity and building up, however, I disagree that the situations mirror one another.

My contention is that the former followers of the law, which at that time represented truth joined with the truth of Christian virtue of the Gentiles. As time passed, this truth of law would ultimately be unified with Christian truth and charity would foster this unity.

However, the situation we’re discussing begins at that unity, and, at different points in time and in different ways, has fractured. The questions now are would increased charity foster unity or subjective truth? Do we have an obligation to stand for objective truth? Would tolerance or agree to disagree foster unity or division? Lastly, are we like Paul, whose charity desired unity or are we actively pursuing such levels of personal truth that we are content to divide the Body of Christ further in the name of a personally authored sense of moral certitude?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

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

1 Peter 3:21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him.

 

[dronald]

Seriously, you are going to make me get my bible out? I don’t know how I feel about that!
OK. we are talking about building up our weaker members. Correct me if I’m putting words in your mouth but, your view is that the Christian community must be charitable in respect to those weaker (in this case, Jewish converts) with their keeping some of the old covenant practices. If this be the case, I agree with the charity and building up, however, I disagree that the situations mirror one another.

My contention is that the former followers of the law, which at that time represented truth joined with the truth of Christian virtue of the Gentiles. As time passed, this truth of law would ultimately be unified with Christian truth and charity would foster this unity.

However, the situation we’re discussing begins at that unity, and, at different points in time and in different ways, has fractured. The questions now are would increased charity foster unity or subjective truth? Do we have an obligation to stand for objective truth? Would tolerance or agree to disagree foster unity or division? Lastly, are we like Paul, whose charity desired unity or are we actively pursuing such levels of personal truth that we are content to divide the Body of Christ further in the name of a personally authored sense of moral certitude?

So with regards to the statues (or lack thereof) in different Church’s I believe Romans 14 applies. It’s something that we’re divided on; my Church has members who fear statues out of fear of idolization, where Catholics know they don’t idolize and are not worried.

So, if we are to apply Romans 14 in either case we both need to not bring each other down for a difference in practice, because both of us are “doing it for the Lord” as Paul says in his chapter. Certainly the importance of Baptism, and the Eucharist should not be overlooked as a Romans 14 issue because of how sure some Church’s are on it’s necessity for salvation. Prayer to saints, having statues in the Church or having a guitar during worship is a different thing all together. I think if we would read Paul’s letters more often we’d come closer to unity than ever.

 

[JonNC]

1 Peter 3:21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him.

Seems beyond question, doesn’t it.

Jon

 

[Peter_J]

Perhaps. But we must not forget what Romans 14 says about such things like this.

Remember that all of us must look out for each other when it comes to debates like the statues and the rosary. Even Paul says in 1 Corinthians 8:

13 Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.

Paul would give up eating meat if only to help his brother’s conscience, even with full knowledge that nothing is unclean. As soon as it becomes an, “us vs them” mentality we must then look to passages like Romans 14.

Yes, I was thinking of that too. (I went to bed last night before you replied.)

I like what C.S. Lewis said about it. For example, at one point the devil Screwtape remarks:

We have quite removed from men’s minds what that pestilent fellow Paul used to teach about food and other unessentials – namely, that the human without scruples should always give in to the human with scruples. You would think they could not fail to see the application. You would expect to find the “low” churchman genuflecting and crossing himself lest the weak conscience of his “high” brother should be moved to irreverence, and the “high” one refraining from these exercises lest he should betray his “low” brother into idolatry. And so it would have been but for our ceaseless labour. Without that, the variety of usage within the Church of England might have become a positive hotbed of charity and humility.

I strikes me, however, that you seem to be taking it as a one-way street, so to speak – i.e. supporting the Evangelical protestant position and opposing the catholic (and Catholic) position. Is that accurate?

P.S. This is not to suggest that I want in on your conversation with sousley. I’ll leave that to you guys.

 

[Nicea325]

Nicea’ we could go back and forth for years on all these things. There is a reason I’m a protestant, there is a reason you are a Roman Catholic. I have no wish, nor do I have endless time to debate every single point of theology. I have no wish to come to a Roman Catholic forum and try to argue my case.

You may call Arians believers, I do not.

Exactly! Now we know why the Arians were excluded;they were not part of the orthodox flock for obvious reasons. Hence, it is silly to believe everyone is part of the Catholic church just they claim so.

 

[Nicea325]

1 Peter 3:21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him.

Odd how so many Protestants believe baptism does not save?

 

[Kliska]

1 Peter 3:21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him.

NASB: 1 Peter3:20 who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. 21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.

Context is key; what saved Noah, the rain or the ark? Peter is making a corresponding statement here, and is quick to point out that it isn’t the water washing the dirt away, but rather the appeal to God. Remember we are baptized into Him, hence His death. Faith results in taping into grace which results in salvation as well as water baptism.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I see a difference even in everyday life between persistence and vain repetition.

Me, too.

But have you ever been to a Pentecostal or Charismatic prayer meeting? I have - LOTS of them (several times a week for 15 years).

When a Pentecostal shouts, “Praise you, Lord. Praise you, Lord. Praise you, Lord.” for 50-60 minutes (or more) with only an occasional break for a praise song, would that qualify as “vain repetition”?

Just curious.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I don’t see any Apostle calling out to those who have gone before them to be with the Lord.

Um…how many Christians HAD gone to be with the Lord during the period of the writing of the New Testament? Stephen? James? Mary and John were still alive when the last NT book was written, so, just exactly who would they have been calling out to?

And the Apostles were personally infallible with a powerful infilling of the Holy Spirit. They raised the dead and healed the sick. What exactly would they have been calling out for?

 

[Peter_J]

Yes, I was thinking of that too. (I went to bed last night before you replied.)

I like what C.S. Lewis said about it. For example, at one point the devil Screwtape remarks:

We have quite removed from men’s minds what that pestilent fellow Paul used to teach about food and other unessentials – namely, that the human without scruples should always give in to the human with scruples. You would think they could not fail to see the application. You would expect to find the “low” churchman genuflecting and crossing himself lest the weak conscience of his “high” brother should be moved to irreverence, and the “high” one refraining from these exercises lest he should betray his “low” brother into idolatry. And so it would have been but for our ceaseless labour. Without that, the variety of usage within the Church of England might have become a positive hotbed of charity and humility.

I strikes me, however, that you seem to be taking it as a one-way street, so to speak – i.e. supporting the Evangelical protestant position and opposing the catholic (and Catholic) position. Is that accurate?

P.S. This is not to suggest that I want in on your conversation with sousley. I’ll leave that to you guys.

P.P.S. While looking up that passage, I came across this “interesting” blog entry. I’m curious of your thoughts on it … anglicancontinuum.blogspot.com/2008/11/screwtapes-boast-shot-to-hell.html

 

[JonNC]

Odd how so many Protestants believe baptism does not save?

Not our fault. :hey_bud:

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

NASB: 1 Peter3:20 who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. 21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.

Context is key; what saved Noah, the rain or the ark? Peter is making a corresponding statement here, and is quick to point out that it isn’t the water washing the dirt away, but rather the appeal to God. Remember we are baptized into Him, hence His death. Faith results in taping into grace which results in salvation as well as water baptism.

Precisely why your position is a novelty. Again, St Paul disagrees with you and as you stated: Context everything.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

NASB: 1 Peter3:20 who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. 21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.

Context is key; what saved Noah, the rain or the ark? Peter is making a corresponding statement here, and is quick to point out that it isn’t the water washing the dirt away, but rather the appeal to God. Remember we are baptized into Him, hence His death. Faith results in taping into grace which results in salvation as well as water baptism.

The irony of bringing this up…

The context is that Baptism **now **saves you. Brings it to the present time of the letter and to the practice of the Church since then.

Like Nicea325 said, St. Paul also agrees with Peter and more importantly - Christ commands it.

Obeying Christ commandments will definitely lead to salvation.

 

[pocohombre]

The note is general exposition of the passage.

As a matter of my own opinion, I think there human potential (often unnoticed) that the longer we “prattle”, the greater the potential of wandering into irreverent ways. An example: Dad, can I do to the party? (ok to ask). All the kids are going (steering toward inspiring guilt). I will be ostracized if I don’t go (attempt at coercion). Adults will be there (that was a lie). Parent says no. Child responses: Your ways are unfair, etc. The child feels hurt, abandoned, anxious, oppressed. Although we would hate to admit it, do we ever treat God like this? So I view this passage as an act of mercy for us. Since God knows what we need, ask for sure, but don’t get yourself worked up and don’t try to coerce Him, and possibly end up anxious or worse. Again, this is only an opinion.

As far as the rosary, there is variety. One is a scriptural rosary that adds a line of scripture (pertinent to that mystery) before each Hail Mary. This style helps me with meditation sometimes, but basically I offer each prayer for an intention. So for me, it might sound like this: In the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit…Apostles Creed…For wisdom and guidance for the Holy Father (Pope)…Our Fther… for and increase in faith (could be for me or communally)…**Hail Mary…**for and increase in hope…**Hail Mary…**for and increase in Charity… Hail Mary… and so on.

Is that what you meant, or am I not in sync with your question?

Thanks. My question was do you think the commentary (Rheims) considers the rosary as “brief”, or in a good light?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Seems beyond question, doesn’t it.

Jon

You’d think…

 

[Randy_Carson]

NASB: 1 Peter3:20 who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. 21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.

Context is key; what saved Noah, the rain or the ark? Peter is making a corresponding statement here, and is quick to point out that it isn’t the water washing the dirt away, but rather the appeal to God. Remember we are baptized into Him, hence His death. Faith results in taping into grace which results in salvation as well as water baptism.

Noah and his family were brought “through the water”.

In corresponding fashion, we are brought “through the water” of baptism which saves.

 

[sousley]

Thanks. My question was do you think the commentary (Rheims) considers the rosary as “brief”, or in a good light?

Yep. It conforms to pray without ceasing and not using much words. “That by long rhetorical prayers think to persuade God” is the issue. The longest prayer in the body of the rosary is the Lord’s Prayer, made up of 7 petitions and Jesus gave us that one.